1939-05-10

[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. E. BOTHWELL (Swift Current) presented the fourth report of the special committee on electoral matters, as follows:
Your committee was instructed by order of reference dated March 13, 1939, to study and report on "Methods used to effect a redistribution of electoral districts in Canada and in other countries, and to make suggestions to the house in connection therewith," but regrets that it has been unable to give this order of reference the consideration it merits, owing to the number of meetings necessarily devoted to consideration of suggested amendments to the Dominion Elections Act, 1938, the last of which meetings was held on the second instant.
Your committee gave consideration to the methods in use in Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa and in the United States, together with suggestions made by the counsel as to how redistribution could be effected in Canada.
Your committee, however, concluded that there are many important questions, including that of the relation of urban to rural population, as it may be affected by the next decennial census, that should receive detailed study before a definite decision is made.
Your committee therefore submits, without further comment, a statement of the methods employed in other countries, and the suggestions made, for the consideration of the house.
All of which is respectfully submitted.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. E. BOTHWELL (Swift Current) presented the fifth and final report of the special committee on electoral matters, as follows:
[The Chairman.]
Your committee was instructed to consider and report on methods whereby lumbermen, fishermen, seamen and miners in the province of British Columbia may be enabled to exercise their franchise under the Dominion Elections Act, 1938, and, having considered this order of reference, has come to the conclusion that the act as now drafted amply ensures the right of all electors to exercise their franchise.
Your committee also recommends that the following amendments be made to the Dominion Elections Act, 1938:
That subsection (1) of section six be amended by deleting the words " two stenographers and three clerks " from the third line of the said subsection, and substituting the following therefor:
"one secretary to executive and four clerks."
That rule (3) of schedule A to section seventeen be repealed and the following substituted therefor:
" Candidates and political organizations may nominate to the returning officer an enumerator for each urban polling division as aforesaid. The returning officer shall, except as hereinafter provided, appoint from among the number so nominated, one enumerator to represent the political interest that at the last preceding election was elected to office, and one to represent the different and opposed political interest that received in the last preceding election the highest or the next highest number of votes, as the ease may be."
That rule 23 of schedule A to section seventeen be amended by deleting the word " six " in the twelfth line thereof and substituting the word " two " therefor.
That subsection (4) of section forty-five be amended by inserting the words:
" forthwith examine it to ascertain if it is the ballot paper given by him to the elector " after the word " shall " in the fourth line thereof,
and by adding the words:
" It shall be an illegal offence for an elector to wilfully tear up or otherwise destroy any ballot paper supplied to him, by the deputy returning officer."
after the word " elector " in the last line thereof.
By inserting the word " Cobourg " between the words " Chapleau " and " Cornwall " in the paragraph entitled " Ontario " in schedule II.
A copy of the minutes of proceedings and evidence is attached hereto.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. L. BEALTBIEN (Provencher) presented the fourth and final report of the select committee on radio broadcasting, as follows:
The select committee appointed to consider the annual report of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and to review the policies and aims of the corporation and its regulations, revenues, expenditures and development, begs leave to present the following as its fourth and final report.
1.	Your committee was impressed by the increasing scope and importance to Canada of the corporation's work. It feels that more

Radio Broadcasting
effective steps should be taken, through broadcasting itself and other appropriate methods of disseminating information, to familiarize the public with its varied activities.
2.	Your committee is satisfied that the financial policies of the corporation are sound. The corporation has consistently achieved a prudent surplus. Your committee believes that increased revenue should result from improved coverage and service.
3.	Your committee notes with satisfaction the development of the plan of national coverage especially in the prairie and maritime provinces, where 50,000 watt regional transmitters are being added to the national network. In the further development of the plan, the committee approves in particular of the corporations intention to proceed at an early date with much needed improvements in coverage and service in southwestern Ontario and British Columbia.
4.	In regard to programs, Canada is in the happv position of having at her disposal a wide variety of material both from outside and -inside the country. The corporation's policy and practice appear to take advantage of this situation, while giving the maximum encouragement to Canadian talent. The plans for the king's visit are noted with approval. The committee especially endorses the corporation's proposals for a larger number of programs for rural listeners. It is felt that broadcasting can be an imoortant agency of practical service to farmers, fishermen and other primary producers, and of bringing the riches of music, drama and other forms of entertainment and culture into their homes. Your committee also feels that the corporation can do much to instil an appreciation of the value and advantages of the rural way of life.
5.	Recognizing the necessity of planning and balance in public service broadcasting, your committee notes with approval the corporation's determination that the present ratio of commercial to sustaining network programs should not be increased.
6.	The committee of last year emphasized the importance of establishing, at as early a date as possible, a high power short wave broadcasting station, financed as a national undertaking, but operated and controlled by the corporation as an integral part of its system. Such a project would facilitate the exchange of programs with otlier countries, would serve to advertise and interpret Canada abroad, and supplement the domestic program service.
Canada is the only leading trading nation without such facilities. We desire to draw the attention of the government to the imminent possibility that further delay in proceeding with the undertaking may result in Canada losing altogether the short wave channels registered in her name, and as a consequence, being shut out of the field entirely.
7.	Your committee approves, as in the widest interests of the nation, the corporation s policies regarding short wave, television and facsimile broadcasting. The corporation hopes shortly to occupy the field of high power short wave transmission. As regards television and facsimile, the policy is to alienate no part of the public domain to private interests. The corporation intends, as soon as possible, to undertake experiments in facsimile broadcasting.
8.	Your committee recognizes that the responsibility of controlling and coordinating all broadcasting in the public interest rests upon
the corporation. In this connection your committee wishes to express its gratification of a better understanding between private stations and the corporation, recently attained.
9.	Your committee is seized of the difficulties of working out the principles of freedom of speech in relation to the peculiar characteristics inherent in the medium of broadcasting. In view of the limitations, both of time and of the number of channels available for broadcasting, as well as the exigencies of program planning, your committee is convinced that fairness in the presentation of controversial material can best be assured by means of any system of network broadcasting on a sustaining
10.	Your committee shares the view of the corporation that network broadcasting of programs of opinion on current affairs should not be available for commercial sponsorship, more adequate time to be provided for commercial sponsorship, more adequate time to be provided free for this purpose. The committee believes that the corporation's policies respecting broadcasts of opinion are designed to ensure the largest possible measure of fairness and equality of opportunity. We wish to emphasize the importance of placing before listeners the widest variety of points of view. It is desired to stress the importance of flexibility and experiment in forms of presentation.
11.	Certain of the corporation's policies affecting the public generally have not been sufficiently made known resulting in misunderstanding and inconvenience. Your committee approves of the corporation's intention to make such policies known more fully and widely in the future. While recognizing the rapidly changing and developing character of the enterprise, the committee wishes to stress the need of duly publicizing policy decisions of this kind.
12.	On the matter of prfitical network broadcasting, your committee is of the opinion that serious consideration be given to placing such broadcasting during federal and provincial election campaigns, on a sustaining basis exclusively, with the understanding that the time so provided will be divided equitably among the political parties. Your committee is also of the opinion that network party political broadcasting between elections should remain open to purchase, subject always to consideration of fair distribution and program planning.
13.	Your committee recommends that the licence fee for privately owned broadcasting stations be revised in relation to power and population served, and that the new scale be effective for the current fiscal year.
14.	Your committee believes that the existing regulation which imposes on the vendor of a radio set the obligation, before making a sale, of ascertaining that the purchaser possesses a licence, should be rescinded. It recommends that the vendors of receiving sets be in future required to report monthly to the Department of Transport the names and addresses of all purchasers of sets, including the date of each sale. [DOT]
15.	Your committee wishes to record its warm appreciation of the public spirited manner in which the board of governors and the management are discharging their duties as trustees of the national interest in broadcasting. The corporation is developing a broadcasting system of increasing service to the people of Canada.
A copy of the minutes of proceedings and evidence is annexed hereto.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Questions


Mr. G. W. McPHEE (Yorkton) moved:: That the standing committee on miscellaneous
rivate bills be granted leave to sit while the
ouse is sitting.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. FLEMING:: 1.	Has the dominion archivist been appointed historian for the royal tour?
2.	If so, who will act as dominion archivist in case the dominion archivist is absent during the royal tour?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The senior official of the department as recognized by the civil service commission.


CHEESE PRODUCTION
Mr. STEWART:: 1.	What quantity of cheese was produced in the county of Leeds in the year 1935?
2.	What was the total amount of bonus paid on cheese produced in the county of Leeds in the year 1935?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	The production of cheese in the county of Leeds in the year 1935 amounted to 7,173,366 pounds.
2.	Bonus paid on cheese manufactured between July 1 and December 31, 1935, 375,392.34.


EXPENDITURES UPON MILITIA, AVIATION AND NAVY
Mr. DUBOIS:: What sums have been expended by the dominion since 1936 upon the following services: (a) militia; (b) aviation; (c) navy?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1936-37	1937-38	* *1938-39Militia services	
111,345,751	$17,222,804	$14,780,591Air services	
5,821,824	10,018,104	9,521,501Naval services	
4,763,294	4,371,981	6,420,101	[DOT]
* Final financial statements not yet completed.


MILITARY TRAINING-NATIONAL REGISTER FOR DEFENCE PURPOSES
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Will the government allow its own employees who work in the militia to attend the July camp of the militia with pay?
2.	Are any steps being taken to request industrialists or others to urge their men to join the militia and allow them pay, to attend a week's camp?
3.	Has anything been done with reference to a national register for Canada for defence purposes ?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	Yes. Order in council, P.C. 1276, dated 20th June, 1922, provides that civil servants ordered to attend annual training be granted leave of absence for that purposes; but that such civil servants be entitled to only one rate of pay, either civil or military, while so attending, unless the leave so granted is part of the annual leave of the employee concerned.
2. Yes. On March 25, 1939, a letter was addressed to boards of trade, chambers of commerce, and other organizations through which could be reached those who employ members of the non-permanent defence forces,

requesting that they again extend their cooperation by bringing the request to facilitate the attendance at military training camps to the notice of all their members.
3.	Yes. A number of industrial firms have been surveyed and a voluntary registration of the personnel of the scientific professions is under way.


CHEESE PURCHASED FOR DROUGHT AREAS
Mr. THOMPSON:: 1.	What quantity of cheese was purchased by the government and shipped to the drought areas in the western provinces during the year 1938?
2.	From whom or from what organizations was this cheese purchased?
3.	What price per pound was paid for the cheese ?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	670,415 pounds.
2.	Ontario Cheese Producers' Association, Belleville, Ontario; Kraft-Phoenix Company, Montreal, Quebec; Olive & Dorion Limited, Montreal, Quebec; Swift Canadian Company

Questions
Limited, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Ingersoll Cream Cheese Company Limited, Ingersoll, Ontario; Burns & Company, Calgary, Alberta; Canada Packers Limited, Ottawa, Ontario; Lovell & Christmas (Canada) Limited, Montreal, Quebec; A. A. Ayer Company Limited, Montreal, Quebec; Hodgson, Rowson & Company Limited, Montreal, Quebec.
3.	14|c, 14fe, 15c, 15Jc.


GREN VILLE-DUNDAS PROPERTIES UNDER MORTGAGE
Mr. CASSELMAN:: 1.	How many properties, (a) farm, (b) residential, make up the electoral district of Grenville-Dundas ?
2.	How many of said properties, in the classes above, respectively, are under mortgage?
3.	Of the said mortgages, how many are held by, (a) individuals, (b) companies?


Mr. EULER:: la. Total number of farms subdivided as owner, tenant and part owner and part tenant,
in Grenville-Dundas, census	1931	FarmsFarms	Farms	occupiedFarms	occupied	occupied	by partby	by	owner andowner (1)	tenants	part tenantGrenville-Dundas.. ..	
4.568	3,756	499	313Dundas	
2.350	-1.871	324	155Grenville.. [DOT]	
2.218	1,885	< 175	158
(1) Includes managers.
lb. Buildings (containing dwellings), dwellings and households, in Grenville-Diundas,
census 1931
Buildings
(contain-
Popula- ing	Housetion	dwellings) Dwellings	holds
(1) (2) (2) (2)
Dundas county	
16,098	3,814	3,943	3,955Grenville county	
16,327	4,142	4,247	4,270(1)	Includes population in hotels, rooming houses, institutions, camps, tents, etc.(2)	Excludes hotels, rooming houses, institutions, camps, tents, etc.
2. Farms reporting mortgages, in Grenville-Dundas, census 1931. (Only farms occupied by owner report mortgages).
Farms
reporting
mortgages
Grenville-Dundas	 1,467
Dundas	 792
Grenville		675
3.	No information.



ROYAL COMMISSION ON BREN GUN CONTRACT

Mr. CLARKE (Rosedale):: 1.	What is the total cost to date of the royal commission on the Bren gun contract?
2.	What is the total amount of fees and expenses paid to date to each government counsel?
3.	Has the account of Mr. L. A. Forsyth. K.C., been paid in full? If not, in what amount was the account rendered?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	$29,123.62-from National Defence appropriation.
2.	Hon. J. L. Ralston, K.C.: Fees, nil; expenses, $2,756.93.
Mr. L. A. Forsyth, K.C.: Fees and expenses, $8,644.68.
Mr. J. Dumoulin K.C.: Fees and expenses, $5,715.10.
3.	Mr. Forsyth's account as rendered amounted to $11,144.68. It was taxed and paid as $8,644.68.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-RESIGNATION OP JAMES Y. MURDOCK FROM BOARD OP DIRECTORS

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	On what date did Mr. James Y. Murdock resign as a director of the Canadian National Railways ?
2.	Did he give any reasons for his resignation, and if so, what were they?
Questions

3.	Will a copy of the text of his resignation be tabled?
4.	What action did the government take in the matter, and has the vacancy on the board been filled?


Mr. HOWE:: All correspondence relating to this question was tabled on Tuesday, February 21, when a statement was made which will be found on page 1151 of Hansard. In reply to the last question asked by the hon. gentleman, I may say that the vacancy on the board has not been filled as yet.



PROPERTIES UNDER MORTGAGE IN CANADA

Mr. CASSELMAN:: 1.	How many properties, (a) farm, (b) residential, make up the Dominion of Canada, by provinces?
2.	How many of said properties in the classes above, respectively, are under mortgage?
3.	Of the said mortgages, how many are held by, (a) individuals, (b) companies?


William Daum Euler: la. Total number of farms subdivided as owner, tenant and part owner and part tenant, in Canada, by provinces, Census 1931.
Farms Farms Farms
Farms occupied occupied occupied by by	by part owner &
Canada	owner (1) 586,299	tenant 74,382	part tenant 67,942Prince Edward Island	12,091	234	540Nova Scotia	
39,444	37,176	1,055	1213New Brunswick	
34,025	31,933	928	1,164Quebec	
135,957	126,563	5,089	4,305Ontario	
192,174	157,427	21,514	13,233Manitoba	
54,199	37,973	9,857	6,369Saskatchewan	90,691	21,044	24,737Alberta	
97,408	71,060	11,808	14,540British Columbia	
26,079	21,385	2,853	1,841
(1) Includes managers.
lb. Buildings (containing dwellings), dwellings and households, Census 1931.
Population Buildings Dwellings Households
(1)	(containing dwellings) (2)	(2)	(2)Canada 	
10,362,833	1,893,266	2,205228	2252,729Prince Edward Island	
88,038	17,974	18,632	18,734Nova Scotia	
512,846	97,871	106223	108,674New Brunswick	70,328	79,337	80,292Quebec	367,754	530,070	535,472Ontario	
3,431,683	687,754	786,900	810,157Manitoba	
700,139	133,096	144,127	148,590Saskatchewan	
921,785	191,995	196,086	199,385Alberta	164,181	170.069	173,502British Columbia	162,836	173,784	177,923(1)	Includes population in hotels, rooming houses, institutions, camps, tents, etc.(2)	Excludes hotels, rooming houses, institutions, camps, tents, etc.
2. Farms reporting mortgages, in Canada, by provinces, Census 1931. (Only farms occupied by owner report mortgages).
Canada	 242,850
Prince Edward Island	 4,250
Nova Scotia	 4,049
New Brunswick	 5,912
Quebec	 41,923
Ontario	 70,818

Manitoba	 18,710
Saskatchewan	 55,955
Alberta	 35,003
British Columbia	 6230
3.	No information.

Business oj the House-Saturday Sitting



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	What are the rates of duty and taxes imposed on importations of coal and coke from Germany into Canada?
2.	How much coal has been imported into Canada from Germany in each of the last three fiscal years?
3.	How much coke has been imported into Canada from Germany in each of the last three fiscal years?
4.	How much of this coal was consigned to ports in the maritime provinces?
5.	How much of this coke was consigned to ports in the maritime provinces?
6.	How much German coal was imported into: (a) Prince Edward Island, (b) N >va Scotia, (c) New Brunswick, in each of the last three fiscal years?
7.	How much German coke was imported into: (a) Prince Edward Island, (b) Nova Scotia, (c) New Brunswick, in each of the last three fiscal years?


Mr. RINFRET:: Return tabled.


GREAT WAR REPARATIONS
Mr. KUHL:: 1.	What was the total amount of the great war reparations collected by Canada from Germany?
2.	On what dates were these reparations collected?
3.	How were these funds expended?
4.	What was the total amount of civil and military claims admitted by the dominion government?



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. ELLIOTT (Kindersley):: 1.	How many shipments of gold, stocks and bonds have been received in Canada since 1929 to date, for storage purposes, showing amounts, originating point, consignor, consignee, when withdrawn and balances on hand at the present time;
2.	What disposition is made of same, while in Canada;
3.	What is charged for handling;
4.	Whether any time limit is placed on its acceptance.


Mr. DUNNING:: I do not think this return can be produced. Certain information asked for in it, that with respect to stocks and bonds, obviously is not in the possession of the government, because it is quite competent for persons outside this country to arrange with persons inside the country to store stocks and bonds for them if they so desire. There is 71492-240
no machinery by which the government can secure information as to that point. With respect to shipments of gold, I question very much if it is in the public interest that the information asked for should be given.
Motion dropped.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That on Saturday, May 13, 1939, this house shall sit from 11 o'clock a.m., and that the order of business and procedure will be the same on Saturday as on Thursday.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, it has been customary as we approach the end of a session for the government to ask the house to sit on Saturdays as well as to have morning sittings. May I say at once that the purpose of the two motions which appear in my name, one to have the house sit on Saturday of this week, and the other to have the house sit in the mornings, beginning tomorrow, until the end of the session, is not in order so to hasten the business of the session that we may prorogue when his majesty is in the city. I have come to the conclusion that with the amount of business that still remains on the order paper it would be difficult for the house, without undue haste, to conclude its business in time for prorogation on Friday of next week. The purpose of the motions, however, is so to advance the business which remains to be done before their majesties arrive in Ottawa as to justify a short adjournment at that time and to render unnecessary a long adjournment over the entire period that their majesties may be in Canada. I believe it is the general wish that such adjournment as may be necessary should if possible be short rather than long.
As I announced some time ago it was the intention of the government that when the house adjourned on Friday of this week it should remain adjourned until June 19 by which time their majesties would have completed their visit to Canada. I still hold the view that for many reasons that might have been a preferable procedure, but I doubt very much if it accords with the wishes of the great majority of hon. members of the house. On the other hand, I do feel that there is a desire on the part of hon. members to bring the business of the house to a close as rapidly as it can be done without impairing in any way what may be necessary in the

3816	COMMONS
Business oj the House-Saturday Sitting
way of discussion. If we sit on Saturday and one or two days next week it should be possible for the house to conclude its business within a very few days after the time fixed for adjournment during their majesties' stay in the capital. The intention, therefore, is not to adjourn on Friday night until June 19, but to have the house sit on Saturday- we are not asking the house to sit in the evening just in the forenoon and afternoon as we did on Saturday last-and then to sit on Monday and Tuesday and adjourn to the time fixed for the royal assent on the following Friday. After the royal assent, it is intended to adjourn again until the following Monday. This means that there will be an adjournment over the time their majesties will be in the capital, but not any longer. I think with that arrangement, considering the progress made during the past few weeks, the house will be near enough to the end of its business to permit of prorogation very shortly thereafter.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I must confess that the government change their mind so often that one does not know from day to day exactly what a proposal is going to be when it gets before the house. When we discussed this matter some time ago I said that I thought it would be impossible to get through the business of the house in time to have prorogation by His Majesty the King. I am glad the government recognizes this, according to the statement to-day by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). I said that our party desired to cooperate in every way, because this is an historic occasion; but I pointed out before, and I repeat now, that the business of the house should be attended to without improper haste and without lack of care for the public interest. I should like to point out that the responsibility for the length of the sittings and for proposals of this kind must naturally be the government's. After all the Prime Minister is the leader of the house. It is he and his government that bring in the legislation and estimates and arrange for the appointment of committees. They are in full control of the whole business of the house. This is particularly so to-day when the government has such a large majority, roughly three times the number of the different opposition groups.
I think the government are largely to blame for the fact that we cannot complete our business in time to have the king conduct the ceremony of prorogation.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: I am going to deal with the reasons in a moment. The fact is that the important legislation has come down weeks too late. In the speech from the throne, the Prime Minister had his excellency refer to certain legislation that was to be brought down, but exactly two and one half months later, on March 27, the Prime Minister brought down a list of legislation twice as long as the list that had been suggested in the speech from the throne. Most of that legislation was not of any importance, but the most important bills were left too late in the session. Probably the most important bills to be considered this session are those of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) dealing with the western prairie regions. The bill with reference to the marketing of farm products other than wheat was dealt with only last Thursday although it was introduced long ago. The wheat cooperative marketing bill was dealt with last Thursday. The prairie farm assistance bill, referred to as the bonus for the western prairies, was not dealt with until Friday. The bill of the Minister of Trade and Commerce dealing with an initial payment of 60 cents a bushel on wheat has not been touched at all except in general discussion. None of these measures was dealt with until Thursday or Friday of last week. On top of all that, the government has made very many changes in this farm legislation as brought down. First there was to be a dropping of the wheat board and selling by futures. Then a change was made and we were going to have a wheat board and an initial payment of 60 cents. That was all changed and now the payment is to be 70 cents; and after the slating which the exMinister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) gave the Minister of Trade and Commerce last night-and I would advise him to look it up in Hansard-I would imagine that the advisory committee he recommended will be the next change to be accepted by the government.
Another very important piece of legislation, not brought down until the dying days of the session, was brought down only last Saturday, three days ago, by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning)-his bill to establish a central mortgage bank. To my mind this is a most important and intricate piece of legislation, involving government debentures amounting to $200,000,000. Even in these days, when we deal in astronomical figures of finance, $200,000,000 is not picayune by any means. While this bill, as I pointed out briefly the other day, in a few remarks lasting five minutes, deals

Business oj the House-Saturday Sitting
to some extent with financial institutions that lend money in this country, it does not cover borrowing and lending between individuals, as the Minister of Finance himself admitted; and he admitted also the importance of my suggestion in that regard. I want to make clear that I am not opposing the principle of this bill, but it is so extraordinarily important that I believe it should go to the banking and commerce committee. In these dying days of the session-because they are literally the dying days-a bill of such importance should not be introduced into the house at all. While I am not opposing the principle of the bill, I repeat, it must go to the banking and commerce committee, in my opinion, if it is to be properly dealt with. There the financial corporations, and individuals as well, would have the opportunity to be heard. I have already received protests from financial institutions against the legislation and protests as well from individuals. I do not know what the Minister of Finance has received, but I understand-I speak subject to correction- that a great deal of lending is done in Quebec, not by financial companies but by individuals to individuals. I do not know whether that is so or not, but that is what I was told by a lawyer from the province of Quebec, and if that is true, there is no relief provided by the bill for the people of the province of Quebec.


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend will permit me, he is now discussing the measure itself, and under circumstances which do not permit me to answer in any way. I can neither explain nor answer.


Robert James Manion: The minister can go ahead and answer; I have no objection. I am simply dealing with the legislation that has been brought down within the last few days and showing how important some of these measures are. I mentioned the bill of the Minister of Finance just to illustrate my point. That bill should go to the banking and commerce committee, where financial institutions could be heard and individuals as well, with a view to working out a plan for taking care of the individual borrower and lender. That is all I wish to say with respect to these important measures that have been brought down by the government too late in the session.
Then there is a huge amount of estimates to be voted, including defence. There has been great talk about the defence estimates, and certainly they will require full discussion. I hope that they will be dealt with at a time when the country is properly represented in the house, not when most of us are away.
There are reports from various committees to be dealt with. Only a moment ago we had 71492-240J
before us the report of the committee on elections. Then there is the radio committee and the Bren gun committee, neither of which has yet reported.
I want to facilitate the business of the house, and so does this party, and I am agreeable, as I think this party is, to the motions as they are at present-there has been a change made by the Prime Minister-to sit in the mornings. I would have objected to sitting in the evening on Saturday, but the Prime Minister says he is not going to suggest that now, although that is how the motion reads. As to next week, I think the majority of our members would be perfectly willing to sit in the mornings on Monday and Tuesday, but there is a great deal of opposition from my followers to sitting on Saturday at all. I do not know how the house generally feels. We are quite willing to abide by the decision of the majority, although we would object to sitting on Saturday evening. If we are to sit at all on Saturday we should not sit on Saturday night, no matter what else we do.
In view of the discussion that is going on throughout this country-perhaps some of it is not very responsible, but there is a body of opinion expressed in conversations to the effect that we are hurrying the business of parliament merely to prorogue. Therefore I think it is very important that we should see that business is carried on in an orderly manner in the interests of Canada.
Before sitting down may I make one further suggestion? If the government will come forward with something more of a constructive nature that is going to help this country, so far as this party is concerned we shall be glad to sit here indefinitely to put it through; but I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the government are out of touch with the people and not in a position to know their wishes. I suggest, finally, that the Prime Minister, when the visit of their majesties is over, dissolve parliament at the earliest possible moment so that we may get a government with a mandate from the people which will do something constructive for the country.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged to keep on protesting because in this matter the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has already almost completely reversed his position in that he has now virtually given up the idea of prorogation while the king is here. He has also changed his idea of a long adjournment to that of a short one. In these changes I heartily concur. But if this new suggestion of a short adjournment is to be adopted, there is no reason whatever
3818	COMMONS
Business oj the House-Saturday Sitting
for these special arrangements for morning and Saturday sittings. If we are going to come back after a few days' adjournment we can proceed in a more or less leisurely manner.
Some lion. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The second motion -the two were presented together-calls for the house meeting at eleven o'clock in the morning of each sitting day. That means that whether we are here for three or four days, or two or three weeks or a month-
Some hon. MEMBERS, Oh, oh.


James Shaver Woodsworth: -however long it may be before we conclude the business of the house, we are to be condemned to sit every morning at eleven o'clock. The uproar, Mr. Speaker, that can be occasioned by a protest such as I am now making is indicative of the kind of thing that we are going to have for the next few days. We cannot have a report read without the cry of "dispense" being raised, as was done to-day.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am going to speak now, and in the days to come. If we are to be bullied-


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Who is doing the bullying?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, we have been bullied in the past.


Ernest Lapointe: Who is doing the bullying?


Mr. SPEAKER:: The expression "bullied" is not parliamentary, and I ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to withdraw it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: When the time comes I will name the bully.


Walter Edward Foster: I think the hon. member should withdraw the word "bullied."


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, it
is not an unparliamentary expression.


Walter Edward Foster: I consider, whether or
not it is unparliamentary, that it is unbecoming to the dignity of the house.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then I withdraw
that expression, and say that we, who are members on this side, duly elected, do not intend without protest to let the government use its majority to force the issue and impose its will on this house.


Mr. MARTIN:: The minority should not
control the majority.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not say that
the minority should control the majority. The suggestion of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) is not according to my views.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said, the minority should not control the majority.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not suggest
that it should, but I submit that the minority has certain rights in this house. Somebody says that we should expect minority groups to respect the rights of the majority. I contend that we in the minority have certain rights, and I do not propose that during the next two weeks, as soon as we rise to say a few words, we shall be shouted at or put in the difficult position in which we have been put. In other words, we have taken the ground that personal convenience or party advantage should not be allowed to take precedence over the full carrying out of public business.
I am going to take about five minutes to enumerate some of the measures which are still before the house.


Ernest Lapointe: You did it last time.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would lay stress
upon the importance of the work of the committees. We must decide from day to day whether to remain in the house or to attend meetings of committees which will be sitting at the same time. The public accounts committee is dealing with the Bren gun and other government contracts. Is that to be passed over? Is its report, when it comes here, to be refused a hearing? Are we to be precluded from all discussion? The banking and commerce committee, of which I happen to be a member, sits to-day at four o'clock. Already it has been sitting at various times while the house has been in regular session. The report of the committee on electoral matters is not, in my judgment, satisfactory; it was presented to-day. Further consideration should be given to the safeguarding of what I regard as the fundamental right of citizens, that of voting at the next election. Under present arrangements a great many of them will be deprived of the franchise.
There is a fisheries committee, occupied with the extremely difficult matter of fish traps, and other questions. There are two civil service committees, one concerned with superannuation, as to which legislation is required; the other on the Civil Service Act, wherein the issue involved, as I see it, is an extension of patronage. We have to

Business oj the House-Saturday Sitting
consider the affairs of ex-service men, an important matter in that apparently the recommendations of the veterans' assistance commission are not to be implemented. We have measures before the house in the form of a number of agricultural bills. As the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) has said, we have this proposal for a central mortgage bank, constituting an altogether new type of legislation. We have the capital expenditures on the Canadian National Railways. We have the youth training project; and while I have no doubt that youth will be delighted to see the bunting hanging around, a great many of them are much more anxious to get training for life and to find jobs. We must not allow ourselves to be carried away by the enthusiasm of the moment and refuse to conclude in a perfectly regular way the business before us.


An hon. MEMBER:: Shame.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Somebody on the other side of the house says "shame." That is typical of the sort of intimations we are going to get during these next weeks. It is no shame for me to insist that adequate provision for the welfare of youth shall come before other matters, even before these ceremonial matters connected with the coming of the king.
I am not going to enumerate many more items. There is the measure to establish a salt fish board. There are the budget resolutions, consideration of which normally would require well on to a week. Are we to give them up? Take the estimates. As was pointed out the other day, out of some $550000,000 only $30,000,000 have been voted, and over 400 items remain. If each of them gets even a few words, the discussion will stretch out for a long time; and are we to be shouted at if we ask a question of the minister with regard to the conduct of an important matter which has not yet received the attention of this house? That would be an intolerable situation.
Take such an important matter as that of national defence. As everyone in this house knows, I am not a militarist, but if I were, it would be more important to me to safeguard the dominions of his majesty than simply to go through certain forms and ceremonies and scamp the work of this house. The supplementary estimates have not yet been even mentioned, but it will foe curious if they do not require some discussion.
We all-I as much as anybody else-want to get away. We are all tired. The Prime Minister says, "no railroading of the business."
I was glad to hear him say that. I should like to regard his statement as an assurance that we shall not have any railroading, but as I understand it, we shall have it, in effect, either so long as he urges early prorogation- though apparently he has now given that up- or so long as we are to have just a few days' sittings within which we must get through. In any case I am glad that we have come to the proposal for a shorter adjournment.


Walter Edward Foster: Order. I would ask hon. members to refrain from interjecting remarks. Hon. members should converse inauddbly. We can hardly hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodswortfo). I want order in the house.


James Shaver Woodsworth: A few days ago our position was ridiculed. I could not but recall that in 1935, when there was the silver jubilee, the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) had a few words to say when someone ventured to propose a long adjournment. Here is what he said:
I have related the work that has been done-


Ernest Lapointe: I was very happy.


James Shaver Woodsworth: -or rather the work that has not been done.


Ernest Lapointe: Unfortunately it was not.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I claim, sir, that it is an extraordinary presumption on the part of the government to ask for an adjournment of .this house under those conditions, and it would be extreme simplicity on our part to agree to an adjournment under these conditions. In the country there is anger and impatience; unemployment is raging. Is it fair to ask us to suspend the work of parliament for five weeks while there is such distress in Canada

Have conditions improved?


Ernest Lapointe: Undoubtedly.


Mr. MacNICOL:: They are far worse.


Walter Edward Foster: Order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The Minister of Justice pointed to the feck of interest which prevailed with regard to the debates in the house, and he said:
Hon. gentlemen opposite were not even staying to listen to their own friends. So much so that the leading newspaper in this city had an editorial entitled "Parliament is Through." Well, I agree with it. This parliament is suffering from senility, and the government which is in control seems to be afflicted with
aralysis. An adjournment of five weeks would
e only soporific,-
3S20

Business oj the House-Saturday Sitting


Ernest Lapointe: That was a pretty good speech.


James Shaver Woodsworth: -it would be only a sleeping dose given to a dying subject.
I quite admit that I cannot put the case nearly as well as did the Minister of Justice. I would say that this government, with its huge majority, has almost everything in its own hands. There is only one thing further to do-do away with an effective opposition, and the administration of this country will undoubtedly run more smoothly.
I should like also to ask this question: Should his majesty be asked to associate himself, however formally, with a disgraceful repudiation of parliament's responsibility to the people? Has the government-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member has not the right to interject the name of his majesty into this debate. It is against the rules of the house.


An hon. MEMBER:: And he knows it, too. Mr. WOODSWORTH: Mr. Speaker


Walter Edward Foster: Under the rules of the house the hon. member has no right to invoke the name of his majesty to win a point in debate.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not using the name of his majesty. I am asking whether the government has the right to use a visit of anyone to this country for a disgraceful repudiation of parliament's responsibility to the people. I ask whether the government has the right to place anyone in authority-if you will not permit me to say the monarch- in an objectionable and equivocal position, which the use of the prerogative under existing conditions would mean. These questions are not asked by me, supposedly a radical. These questions were asked the other day in an editorial in the Montreal Gazette. It seems to me that these questions are worth putting to this house.


Mr. DUPUIS:: Who wrote it?
Mr. W'OODSWORTH: I do not know who wrote it. It is true, whoever wrote it; and other newspapers are calling attention to this phase of the subject. I do not think it is fair, Mr. Speaker, that because we criticize the irregular conduct of the business of the country, we should be declared in any sense disloyal to his majesty.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who says that?


William Daum Euler: Nobody says it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, but that will be said hundreds of times in the next three weeks.


Vincent Dupuis: The one who is disloyal is the one who is speaking too much.


James Shaver Woodsworth: An hon. gentleman says that the one who is disloyal is the one who is doing too much talking.


Vincent Dupuis: Yes; why do you not sit down?


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is the kind of thing to which I object. It is not democratic. I contend, Mr. Speaker, that hon. gentlemen are not putting his majesty in a correct position-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Walter Edward Foster: Order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: -if they force
through the business of the house-


Walter Edward Foster: Again I must interrupt the hon. gentleman. He has not the right to use the name of His Majesty the King.


An hon. MEMBER:: Take it back.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister in this house has again and again stated that it is necessary to alter our regular program because of his majesty's visit.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I take strong exception to that statement. I have been most careful to say-


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker-


Walter Edward Foster: I must ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to resume his seat.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish to correct my hon. friend's statement. I am speaking in the presence of all hon. members of this house when I say that I have never, from the moment the session opened until the present hour, done anything in the way of seeking to force the business of the house because of his majesty's presence here in the coming week.
I made it abundantly clear at the outset that the government did not intend to do that. But I went further. I pointed out that I had felt there might be a desire on the part of the house to hurry its business in order to have prorogation at the time of his majesty's visit, and that there might be disappointment if prorogation did not then take place, and that for that very reason I had asked his excellency the governor general whether the consent of his majesty might not be obtained to the royal assent being given certain bills in the

Business oj the House-Saturday Sitting
event of parliament not being ready for prorogation, so that we should have the honour of meeting in parliament assembled with the king regardless of whether we had concluded the business of the session or not. May I say that the king, with evident desire to meet what his majesty had reason to believe would be the wish of members of parliament, graciously consented to give the royal assent to bills, notwithstanding that in so doing he was virtually establishing a precedent, a procedure which has not been followed since early in the reign of Queen Victoria. The last occasion on which a British Sovereign attended parliament especially for the purpose of giving assent to bills and not for the purpose of proroguing parliament, was in the year 1854.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The Prime Minister,
I presume, is privileged, because for the last minute or two he has been talking about what his majesty thinks of these matters.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not at all. I have not been introducing his majesty's name into the debate in order to win any point in the discussion, against the rules of the house.
I am simply stating certain facts for the information of the house.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The Prime Minister has done so much more than I have ever done, but I have not had the privilege of conversations with his majesty and I cannot say just what his majesty thinks with regard to the conduct of the present visit. I recognize that I am somewhat handicapped in that regard. But I suggest that it is hardly fair for members of this house to imply, because their majesties are coming to this country, that we are disloyal simply because we wish to have the business of the house conducted in a somewhat different way from that which pleases the government. I would just say to the Prime Minister that I had every sympathy with him in his difficulty in arranging the details of this visit and the conclusion of parliament under these special circumstances. But may I ask this question:	Since he states so emphatically that
he does not wish to rush the business of the house, since, with his vast majority, he so largely controls parliament, will he also, during these coming days, control his own party so that we in the opposition may not be subjected to any interference in the exercise of our rights as members of parliament or to any imputations or allegations of disloyalty simply because we have taken our stand as wishing to conduct the business of the house to its conclusion in a reasonable way.
I think it would not be too much to ask that the Prime Minister give us an assurance or that point.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me say
that far from desiring to control in any way either my own party or parliament as a whole I prefer to allow hon. members to control themselves. May I say further that it is in the hands of His Honour the Speaker to control order in the house whenever that necessity arises. I am not a dictator, but I am afraid my hon. friend is coming to be one.


Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: We
in this corner are in accord with the proposals now put forward by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), provided, as he has already stated, no attempt will be made to curtail discusion of any matters that may come before the house. As previously stated, we are	particularly	interested	in certainmeasures	regarding	agriculture,	unemployment and finance,	and we shall	expect to
be given every opportunity to discuss these matters freely during the rest of the session.


Ernest Lapointe: I desire to say just a word
or two, especially in answer to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth).	Obviously	his remarks	were prepared for quite a different proposal from the one the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has submitted to the house. However, I suppose it was good politics on his part with reference to this subject.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think, Mr. Speaker that such a remark is hardly called for.


Ernest Lapointe: I should not like to displease my hon. friend. The task of a government in circumstances similar to these is always difficult. We have to strike what would appear to be the happy medium between leadership and public opinion. And that is what we have been trying to do, even by changing somewhat the intentions first stated to the house.
There are changes in many other ways, not on the part of the government. For instance during the first weeks of the session this parliament was charged with talking too much. There were too many speeches in the house and not enough work, it was said. A certain newspaper even had a vacant space purporting to show what was being done in the house. To-day what is the change? The government is now accused of trying to force business and prevent hon. members from speaking. The same newspapers are saying that to-day. To my hon. friend the leader of the opposition

Business of the House-Saturday Sitting
(Mr. Manion), who complains that the legislation came too late, may I say that there was legislation ready to proceed with as soon as the debate on the address was concluded. As a matter of fact the House of Commons has devoted all its time to legislation during this session, after the long speeches on the Bren gun matter, which were absolutely useless-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: Useless to the government.


Ernest Lapointe: -because the matter was to be sent to a committee to be disposed of there-


Mr. STEWART:: That is useless also.


Ernest Lapointe: When those speeches were over and the speeches in the debate on the address, there was legislation ready to be proceeded with; so much so that another hon. member has complained that we have not proceeded with estimates in the same way as in other sessions. Why? Because there was legislation before the house all the time. We could not proceed with estimates while the legislation was being debated. They have been taken up since those debates have been concluded.
Oh yes, there is a great change. And what inconsistency on the part of hon. members who say that this government is a do-nothing government!-now there is too much business. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre took the pains to enumerate a long list of important legislation which this government is putting through the house. It will not look bad, for a "do-nothing" government, when the time comes for this election which my hon. friend the leader of the opposition seems so anxious to have proceed.


Robert James Manion: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: This long list of achievements on the part of the government will make good reading and good speaking material before the people.
Now, my friends in that corner over there- not those in the extreme comer, for whom I have some sympathy-say that the best way for us to show our appreciation of a great honour that is being done to Canada next week and next month is to work, to do more in parliament. That is what we heard last week and the week before. But to-day there seems to be a different song.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes; my friends seem to complain that instead of starting at three o'clock in the afternoon we 
shall start at eleven in the morning. Well, if we can show our appreciation by working in the afternoon and in the evening, we can show it equally by opening the sittings at eleven o'clock in the morning. Let my hon. friends know that we on the treasury benches would like to rest a little too at some time. Some of us are here-


Mr. MacINNIS:: You are only doing it for four years.


Ernest Lapointe: Apart from our parliamentary business there is the administrative and executive work to be done; and there are some departments in connection with which we have some very, very important business of which we have to defer consideration until the end of the session. It is true that we are anxious to see that the work of parliament is concluded. But we shall complete it in a proper way, in such a way that there can be no reflection of impropriety on parliament or on the manner in which the business is done. My hon. friend says, "We have to do the work which the government has condemned us to do"- he used the word "condemned." Well we are all "condemned" to do some work, and I believe the proposal that is made to-day will be acceptable to the house.
My hon. friend concluded by talking about democracy. On this I am on familiar ground with him; I am a lover of democracy. But may I recall to him that democracy means rule by the majority, that democracy does not mean being ruled, or coerced, by one man, or even by six men behind him.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: That on and after Thursday, May 11, 1939, until the end of the_ session, the house shall' meet at 11 o'clock in the morning of each sitting day and that in addition to the usual intermission at 6 o'clock, p.m., there shall also be an intermission every day from one to three o'clock.


Robert James Manion: I want to ask my right hon. friend one question, just to make sure of the meaning of this resolution. If I understand it rightly, the morning sittings begin to-morrow, and we sit until six o'clock on Saturday evening and then sit Monday and Tuesday. Is that correct?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is correct.


Robert James Manion: What about Saturday evening?

Prairie Farm Assistance


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In the motion six o'clock adjournment is not mentioned, but I shall see that when six o'clock comes on Saturday adjournment will be taken until the following Friday, the time for the royal assent-


Robert James Manion: Is my right hon. friend changing his mind again?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No; I beg my hon. friend's pardon, I should of course have said until Monday, and then, at the close of the sittings on Tuesday, adjournment will be taken until the following Friday.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
James Shaver Woodsworth: On division.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, May 9, consideration in committee of Bill No. 83, to assist agriculture in the prairie provinces-Mr. Gardiner-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 4-Crop failure assistance.
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: Mr. Chairman, it was suggested last night that a revision be made in subsection (1) of section 4. I will ask one of my colleagues to move, in amendment:
That section 4 be amended by deleting the whole of subsection 1 and substituting therefor the following:
"The governor in council may, whenever the minister finds that the average yield of wheat as a result of anything other than hail is five bushels per acre or less in each of not less than one hundred and thirty-five townships in any one province in the spring wheat area, declare such area to be a crop failure area."


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move accordingly.


James Garfield Gardiner: The reason for the change is to meet the suggestion made last night, without interfering with the intention of the original subsection. There are three causes for reduction of yield over a considerable area in the west which have resulted in crop failures-hail, drought, and grasshoppers.


An hon. MEMBER:: Rust.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are other causes over limited areas, for crop failures, but they could not be considered as of national scope. Hail is taken care of through hail insurance, over a considerable part of the west. Insurance against hail has been arranged by muni-71492-241
cipalities and by private companies. At this time I do not believe this legislation should interfere with activities in the west in connection with hail insurance, so I am suggesting that hail should not be covered by this particular section.


Mr. PELLETIER:: In introducing this
amendment the minister said he did not wish to detract from the principle as originally set out, but was rather trying to meet the views expressed yesterday by some hon. members. He said that in certain areas crop failures were due to hail, drought and grasshoppers, but that hail had been taken care of by municipal bodies, provincial governments or hail insurance companies. But the point hon. members in this corner of the house had in mind was not so much the amount of grain one may get; it was the question of the value the farmer received from his crop, no matter what the yield might be. We have stated over and over again that a farmer might have only five bushels to the acre of No. 1 wheat, and yet be much better off than a farmer who has ten bushels of poor grade wheat. The new amendment therefore does not in any way meet the suggestions we have made.
Subsection 3 of section 4 states:
The Peace River district of the province of British Columbia and the province of Alberta shall, for the purpose of this section, be deemed to be one province.
In order to qualify for crop failure assistance, it is necessary that in any province there shall be not less than 135 townships with a crop of five bushels to the acre or less. The minister knows very well that assistance of that kind is not possible in an area such as the Peace River district, either in Alberta or in British Columbia. Up to the present time drought has been known only to a very limited degree in the Peace River area. I believe last year there were certain areas-


Mr. MICHAUD:: The hon. member should be thankful for that.


René-Antoine Pelletier: We are thankful indeed. In the areas surrounding Wembley and Grande Prairie, which always produce good crops, last year there was some drought and the yield was low. Nevertheless over the whole Peace River district that condition does not recur year after year, as happens in various other parts of the prairie provinces. The whole area of the Peace River country in Alberta and British Columbia is going to be penalized because of its preferred position. Our trouble is not from drought or grasshoppers-at least it has not been up to the present time. We do not get the same return as people who

Prairie Farm Assistance

have the best grades of grain, because sometimes our grain is subjected to frost and the return is not as high as that of the man who harvests five bushels per acre of Manitoba No. 1 wheat, and who lives close to Winnipeg or to some other market in western Canada.
In addition, every hon. member knows that the Peace River district pays a higher freight rate on grain than any other district in Canada. The northern parts of Alberta and British Columbia are the heaviest contributors per hundred pounds, so far as freight rates on grain are concerned, of any group in the country. Simply because we happen to be a good part of Canada, and simply because we happen to have a good yield, we are now being compelled to pay a levy. This is not a tax; it is called a levy, and we are compelled to pay that levy and in addition must be discriminated against because of the high freight rate we have to pay.
This type of legislation is most unfair. It falls most heavily on individuals who have been able to keep on their own feet. After all, time and time again in the House of Commons we have been told that drought in the western provinces is a national calamity. We have been told that drought is a national problem; appeals have been made to eastern Canada on that ground, and support has been given in the light of that understanding. Now we no longer say it is a national problem, but we attempt to penalize a good portion of the people of western Canada, people who have produced continuously.
I repeat that the Peace River district in Alberta and British Columbia can never fall within the conditions outlined in the bill. There never have been 135 townships in the Peace River district of Alberta and British Columbia which have had less than five bushels to the acre. But if this measure passes, year after year we will pay the percentage levy in addition to the discrimination in freight charges.
I hope the minister will reconsider this part of the bill. We do not oppose the principle of crop insurance, provided we too can benefit from it. There are certain portions of the Peace River country which might be affected, but we have had good crops and we hope they will always continue. I repeat, there might come a time when certain portions of the district might not be able to grow crops as good as the ones grown at the present time. We should like to share to a certain degree the wealth and the better growing conditions that we have in the Peace River country, but I submit that we have been penalized by freight rates and tariffs and other things and it is most unfair to put the additional burden 
of this type of crop insurance legislation upon these people. After all they are pioneers and were supposed to be given every possible encouragement.
We have here legislation dealing with conditions which cannot possibly prevail in the type of country such as the northern part of British Columbia and the northern part of Alberta. Section 4 states definitely that the Peace River district is taken away from Alberta and, along with the northern part of British Columbia, is to be called a province for the purposes of this legislation. What does that mean? It means that the Peace River area is entirely precluded from qualifying under this legislation. As I say, from time to time certain portions of the Peace River country may suffer, but I cannot conceive that 135 townships in that country will ever have crops of less than five bushels to the acre. The present freight rates are discriminatory against the Peace River country and we shall have to continue to pay for something from which we will receive no benefit whatever. Drought on the prairies is not a sectional problem; it is national in scope. I think the minister should reconsider this part of his proposed legislation.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understood the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Pelletier) to suggest that the adding of the Peace River district would exclude that district from the benefits of this particular section. The very opposite is the case. The Peace River district is being added to Alberta, so it will be possible for the district to come under the operation of this section as though it were a part of Alberta.


René-Antoine Pelletier: That is not what the
subsection says. It reads:
The Peace River district of the province of British Columbia and the province of Alberta shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be one province.


James Garfield Gardiner: The whole province of Alberta and the Peace River district of British Columbia.


René-Antoine Pelletier: That is not clear at all. If the minister is willing to state definitely that that part of British Columbia shall become part of the province of Alberta for the purposes of this section, it puts a different angle on the matter.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is what it means for the purposes of this legislation. That is the only reason for putting it there.


Mr. CHURCH:: I believe that the farmers living in these drought damaged depressed areas and who have been suffering all these

Prairie Farm Assistance
years should be given adequate protection, but I do not think this bill is going about it in the right way. Section 4 sets out the conditions for declaring an area a crop failure area, and deals with matters of acreage and geography. In my opinion, no minister should have the responsibility of administering the provisions of this section. They are judicial in character and relate to public policy as well as to finance. This section provides for the award which will be made to a farmer suffering from drought or damage by grasshoppers. In my opinion the wheat board should administer not only this bill but all the others, and not the governor in council or the minister. It would be an impartial board, and the minister would be well advised to put a man like Mr. John McFarland at its head in respect of this and all other bills of the kind. This year seems to be the annus mirabilis so far as the minister is concerned, or year of wonders.
The minister is to be given a blank cheque to cover awards to be paid to the farmers. No minister of the crown should be charged with the duty of deciding the area or the conditions. The minister may say whether a particular district shall come under this legislation, or whether or not a particular municipality or group of municipalities shall benefit. Section 4 deals directly with the municipalities. and the minister may deal with the townships or many of them making up a municipality. One principle, that of direct dealing with municipalities, is being carried out in this section, while other principles are beng carried out in other relief bills of the Labour department. Last session I raised the question of these drought areas and asked that an inquiry be held to see if some longterm policy could not be adopted in respect to them. I pointed out in the house and in the committee that the United States had adopted the use of machinery to a greater extent than any other country in the world. The United States farmer turned his machines on the timber, and he now finds himself confronted with rising waters in the shape of floods and falling waters in the shape of drought. Instead of having a lot of college professors on the prairies who argue not from facts but from opinions deal with this problem, further investigation should be made by actual experts as to its causes and some longterm policjr should be adopted to remedy it. There has been some criticism of hon. members from Ontario who sit on this side of the house. Let me say we here have been the pioneers of legislation to aid the west by protection all along the line when those opposite were for free trade-we were all pioneers in
71492-241J
direct relief when needed. To use Disraeli's words, the Liberal government found the Conservatives in bathing and have appropriated their clothes. That is what has happened in connection with this and other bills of the former free traders-the Liberals on the prairies. We advocated crop failure assistance as far back as May 5, 1924. We asked for protection for the farmer along these lines, and hon. gentlemen opposite, yes and hon. members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, or the Progressives, when their leader was the present Minister of Mines and Resources, were all for free trade in this particular trade. They did not want to protect the farmer. I said the best friend of the western wheat grower was the policy of protection. At that time I said:
I am here to argue for protection because of my conviction that the only hope of profitable wheat growing in western Canada or any part of Canada is in a system of protection that will give the Canadian wheat grower a quality price for his quality crop.
And again:
Leave the wheat growing industry of the west to the workings of the law of supply and demand and that law would not fill the west with wheat growers. If that law did fill the west with wheat growers, wheat would not be worth 50 cents a bushel.
I argued then for an extension of that protection policy for the grain grower in all its forms. A long discussion took place at that time as to what form this protection should take. I am glad to see the minister and those who sit with him come to our views and our policies, as we were the pioneers in it. I am glad to see the members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation now contending that protection should be given to the grain industry. They did not then believe in the policy of protection for grain advocated by the Conservative party consistently ever since confederation.
The last line of subsection 1 states that the governor in council may declare an area to be a crop failure area. Why is it that the government has changed the system? Why should the governor in council, a political agency, do this instead of a permanent board like the wheat board? Why give the minister a blank cheque to make these awards? The second subsection reads:
Provided that no award under this section shall be made to a farmer in any township in which the average yield of wheat has been found by the minister to be eight bushels or more per acre.
This is an omnibus bill and an omnibus method of making these awards. I ask the hon. member for Weyburn to look up the words that I used on May 5, 1924 as to the
Prairie Farm Assistance

policy of his party for free trade all along the line for grain, when the Minister of Mines and Resources was leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in this house- then the Progressive Liberals. Hon. gentlemen opposite have for many years been wearing a coat of many colours in connection with the grain industry and its protection, and I am glad that at last they realize that this industry needs protection all along the line as I proposed on May 5, 1924.


Mr. MITCHELL:: I have no wish to be unfair, but I must point out that while the amendment changes the factors to be considered in arriving at the causes for the reduced yield-it helps in that way and may help the minister to win an argument-it does not completely meet the real needs of the situation. The one province, the one large section of the country that can ordinarily qualify at any time on a bushel basis, is Saskatchewan. Alberta and Manitoba only once in a long time can come within the qualifications, and that would be in an extreme drought year such as 1937. But in a year when frost, rust and other conditions which considerably reduce yield are present, and would affect us seriously in northern and central Alberta, the hardship is just as great to the farmers as if they had only five bushels to the acre, because their cash yield might be less than five bushels at 80 cents, which would be $4. Neither Manitoba nor Alberta can meet these qualifications. I doubt whether in any year, except one in which there is a complete disaster, there would be 135 townships in Alberta with five bushels to the acre or less. History does not show anything of the kind.


James Garfield Gardiner: The year before last.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: Just one time.


James Garfield Gardiner: And many other times.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: If the government really believes in the principle of crop insurance, and is genuine in its belief, why not apply it equitably? Why not make it a matter of the value of five bushels to the acre? You cannot have it both ways. If you are going to have the 135 townships, you must give us the other qualification. On the other hand, if you are going to have the five bushels to the acre, you must reduce the number of townships. Otherwise it is not fair to Alberta or Manitoba.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think there is only one ground upon which that argument might be partly correct. It is not on the ground that Saskatchewan is not more afflicted by rust than Alberta. As a matter of fact, Saskatche-

wan has been more seriously afflicted by both grasshoppers and rust than either of the other two provinces-and particularly by rust. Rust takes the southwestern part of Manitoba; only in one year did it take Manitoba without taking a much larger area in Saskatchewan, and that was the first year that we had rust, many years ago. As all of us in western Canada know, every year that we have rust it extends a little further northward and westward, and it has gone all the way across Saskatchewan in the last three periods of rust and has touched Alberta slightly on the last two occasions. Saskatchewan is very much more afflicted by rust than Alberta. So there is no real point in the argument that by eliminating rust, as we did in the first draft of the legislation, we were assisting Saskatchewan. In addition, it is very seldom, except in years like last year when rust accompanied by grasshoppers takes certain areas, that rust has taken the entire crop. Usually a rusted crop is not reduced to five bushels. Rust comes usually when you have a very heavy stand of grain. It seldom comes to a light crop. When you have a heavy crop and rust comes in July, it seldom reduces the crop to five bushels; it is more likely to be fifteen or twelve bushels.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: Would it be worth four dollars to the acre?


James Garfield Gardiner: It might easily be worth much more than that. So far as the records show, Alberta would have benefited by this legislation on quite a number of occasions in the last eighteen years.


René-Antoine Pelletier: With the 135 townships?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


René-Antoine Pelletier: In what years were there 135 townships in Alberta with less than five bushels to the acre?


James Garfield Gardiner: The year before last was the last one. I have not the records here, but I presume the same would apply to 1931. In two out of the three years that I have had charge of the department Alberta has been in; it could not be in unless they had twenty-five municipalities to come in the first place, and this is only fifteen. Manitoba had fourteen during part of the time, and, during the remainder of the year nineteen only three years ago. The records I have here are the records on the map, eighteen-year records. If you go up to sixteen bushels, Manitoba has come under that almost as often as any other part of western Canada during that time. The only section that probably would not be dealt with as we are dealing

Prairie Farm Assistance
with the remainder of the areas would be the Peace River country, for which the hon. member for the district was speaking; but they have only 300,000 acres of wheat in that country. As I said last evening, after one year's experience with this legislation, when we have the records from all over that area, it may be advisable to consider eliminating certain of these well-defined areas such as the Peace River country. I do not think anyone will seriously object to our making a small levy this year while we are gathering the information, in view of the fact that a special price was paid by the government last year and the payment possibly will be repeated this year for areas that have these crops. Of course if the levy under the legislation were removed from any area in the future the benefits would also be removed.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Do I understand the minister to state that he no longer believes that drought in western Canada is a national problem, but that it must be provided for out of the funds of the western farmer? Is that what he is contending for?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, Mr. Chairman, that does not follow. The provision that is being made for the raising of funds from wheat would not provide for more than one-eighth of what would have been necessary to meet the situation existing last year had this legislation been in effect. In other words, it would have taken eight to ten years without any money being paid out of the fund to accumulate sufficient to take care of the year 1937-38. I do not think anyone supposes that the condition is going to be difficult in the future. In other words, part of the money will be collected from the farmers themselves, and all the farmers of western Canada with whom I have discussed the matter are prepared to pay the amount necessary to assist to take care of them in the difficult years.


Victor Quelch: Where will the rest come from?


James Garfield Gardiner: Out of the treasury.


Victor Quelch: In the form of a loan?


James Garfield Gardiner: A loan without interest. It is only refunded by these payments, and if there are not sufficient payments, as there would not be according to this figuring, then of course it is never paid back by the farmer.


René-Antoine Pelletier: It becomes a debt.


James Garfield Gardiner: It becomes a debt
charge on the treasury of Canada.


Mr. NEEDHAM:: There is a phase of
the proposal which does not appeal to me
as very acceptable. Yesterday the Minister of Agriculture remarked several times that if, for instance, in a province only six or eight municipalities were affected, that province would be expected to take care of the situation. That is what I understood. It is just possible that a province may have up to fourteen municipalities in that position, so that many years might elapse before it would receive any revenue from this fund. But in the meanwhile the province takes care of anywhere from one to fourteen municipalities and gets no remuneration from this fund. It seems to me that there is an injustice in such a situation, in that while funds are taken from the province, the province is expected to take care of those municipalities.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, as was observed
last evening by an hon. member, investigations have been carried on in the provinces over a number of years, apparently with a view of having set up a crop insurance plan of some kind. These provinces have at no time thought that a province by itself could set up that insurance plan. They have been advocating that the federal government should come into the picture at some stage and pay a part of those costs, but none of the provinces has ever contended that the federal government should take care of all that kind of assistance; their view was that when it became too big a task for the province to undertake alone, the federal government should come in and assist. That has always been their contention with regard to crop failure, and under these circumstances we have always intervened and given assistance. Now they have advocated exactly the same thing in connection with crop insurance, and we are saying to them by this legislation that we are prepared to assume the national obligation, but we think at the same time the provinces should be prepared also to assume an obligation in connection with the matter. I have no doubt that when this legislation is placed on the statute book and is operating, we shall have proposals from the provinces making it possible for them to take care of that proportion of this assist ance which we think should bear upon the province.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: I have here some information which has a very direct bearing upon this matter and which has just arrived from the bureau of statistics; it was asked for since the discussion last night. It is a table defining the area from which no crop was harvested because of crop failure.


James Garfield Gardiner: In what year?
Prairie Farm Assistance


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: In the first table there are three years, 1915, 1920 and 1925, and it covers Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. The acreage of crop failures was as follows: Year	Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta
1915	
29,955	50,965	43,6781920	
107,595	990,236	664,2581925	
152,483	331,180	243,180
This table shows definitely that in Manitoba and Alberta the area affected was very much less than in Saskatchewan.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not in proportion to the wheat crop area.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: Probably not. But this act does not say anything at all about proportion of crop seeded; it states a definite number of townships.
Here is another most interesting table: it deals with two crop years, 1930 and 1935, and the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. The acreage of total failure was as follows:
Year	Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta
1930.. ..	247,109	3,562,844	1.883,5461935.. .. 1,216,841	3,597,181	2,016,467
These failures include the results of hail and excess rain, which are not included under the qualification conditions of this bill, as well as some " other causes not specified above," amounting to considerable totals. I have them here for drought, frost, insects, and rust, as well as hail and excess rain. As regards hail and excess rain, in 1930 Manitoba lost from these causes 92,680 acres out of the 247,000; Saskatchewan lost 914,118 acres out of the 3,562,000; Alberta lost 1,019,531 acres out of those 1,883,000. A pencil and piece of paper in a few moments will show that there are 3,120,400 acres in 135 townships.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not want an argument to be based on something which is not absolutely sound. There would be that many acres, but not that many acres of wheat. Only a percentage of the acreage in a township would be in wheat.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: That might be very true.


James Garfield Gardiner: It would be absolutely true.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: But certainly it does not affect at all my argument that if you base your qualification for relief under this measure on a five bushel to the acre yield of wheat, you are not carrying out the intention of the legislation.


James Garfield Gardiner: On the other hand, the figures which the hon. member is giving are of absolute crop failure; that is, no grain at all.

When you go up to five bushels to the acre you will add four or five times that area in some years.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: Well, no crop was
harvested, because of crop failure.


James Garfield Gardiner: No crop at all?


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: A crop of four bushels to the acre would not be worth harvesting.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: Certainly not. It bears out the argument I have been making all along, that if 3,110.400 acres of land in wheat crops must have less than five bushels to the acre to qualify under this bill, it represents an impossible position in a very large part of our wheat-growing country, except in a very few exceedingly calamitous years. If, of course, it is the intention of the bill to deal only with conditions in one or two very calamitous years in the course of a century, you are going to achieve that result. If you really want to deal with the problem the qualification for bonus under this act must be on a value per acre yield basis; otherwise the act will not be of any benefit to the farmers.


James Garfield Gardiner: On the point raised, in the original bill, the area set was twenty-five municipalities per province, and there was a further provision that if there were fifty in all three provinces combined, then those provinces that made up part of the fifty would come in. There was criticism of that on the ground that the twenty-five was too high for Alberta and Manitoba, in spite of the fact that we had taken twenty-five previously when discussing the question of bringing the provinces in, and on those occasions these provinces did get in. But we did not eliminate them until they got down to ten. The purpose of this draft which we have now is to meet the objection then raised, and after discussing it with at least some of those who are interested we decided that this was fair particularly to Alberta and Saskatchewan. However, there might be some question as regards Manitoba. But there is still another question in Manitoba. There is a very small percentage of farm lands in that province on which wheat is grown as compared with Alberta and Saskatchewan. There is not in Alberta as large a percentage of land which is growing wheat, and of course, we were dealing with wheat in the first instance when we started to discuss legislation of this kind. When you consider the possibility of a province meeting some of its own difficulties, that is a question that must be considered at the same time. For example, if you take the acreage

Prairie Farm Assistance
given, even in these figures of complete crop failure in a province like Manitoba, where the total acreage in the growing of wheat is very small, and compare it with the acreage in Alberta, you will find that this figure of fifteen municipalities or one hundred and thirty-five is not unreasonable.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: It would not be unreasonable if the basis were one of value per acre yield. As the minister says, a good deal of coarse grain is grown in Alberta and Manitoba, and yet the qualification under this act is five bushels to the acre, No. 1 northern hard wheat. Why should these people be asked to qualify with oats under a wheat classification? Why not say that a value of five bushels of No. 1 northern at 80 cents, which is $4, shall be the basis? That would be fair.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is provision in the bill for fixing a number of bushels of oats and barley as compared with wheat, which will be based upon experience that does meet the suggestion made so far as coarse grains are concerned. I forget for the moment what section it is, but there is a provision in the regulations for specifying the relationship between wheat and other grains. So far as wheat is concerned, I think it would involve too many complications to try to value the differences between grades of grain.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: I have not a copy of the minister's amendment or new section, but as I caught it I think it is a considerable improvement on what we had before. He is to be commended on the change. As the section stood it would have worked considerable hardship to specify two classes of crop failure. The minister referred to the conditions we are having on the prairies, rust and soil drifting, and some of the seed may be blown away. It is not too bad, but if you could not reseed it, you would have a considerable area that could not be attributed to grasshoppers or drought. The minister has made a good change in deciding upon a blanket failure except with regard to hail, which we cannot touch. I think his proposed change bears out what I said last night.	_
There are one or two other things I had in mind. I wonder if "may" could be changed to "shall."


James Garfield Gardiner: It means "shall" in this relationship according to the interpretation given by the Department of Justice. So long as the conditions are met the government does it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is automatic and not optional?


James Garfield Gardiner: Exactly.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Then I am quite satisfied. I think the members from Alberta are making a point that should be considered in connection with the question of value. It is conceivable that a man might have ten bushels to the acre of a value that would be so low as not to be equivalent to the value of a yield a few miles away in a township where the average was less than five bushels to the acre. On the other hand I can see the minister's difficulty in trying to cover all the exigencies. I wonder if the minister would look at subsection (d) of section 5 in the regulation. It is provided that the minister may, with the approval of the governor in council, make regulation:
(d) Providing the manner in which the average yields of wheat shall be ascertained by the minister.
Would it not be possible under these regulations to make a more equitable distribution by working it out on a basis of value? It would be impossible to do it in the act because I think it would be too cumbersome, but it should be possible under the regulations, with the powers given the minister in subsection (d) of section 5, to work out such a basis, so that if a man had eight bushels to the acre of a low grade it could be worked out on the equivalent value of No. 1.


James Garfield Gardiner: The only way in which that could be worked out would be in conjunction with the legislation that was before the agriculture committee last week, when some suggestions were made which eventually might be adopted in the grading of wheat; that is to say, where wheat of certain low grades is not allowed to be considered as commercial wheat. It is just feed in the same sense that other grains are feed. That could be taken care of provided that change were made in the grading. It could be done under the regulations, but until something of the kind is done it would be inadvisable to put it in the legislation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I agree with the minister on that point, but I suggest, not only with reference to feed wheat but oats, a man might have a crop failure in growing almost entirely coarse grain.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is provision for that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the minister could see to it that the class of person who would not qualify strictly by following the act would nevertheless qualify-
Prairie Farm Assistance



IOMMONS

The CHAIRMAN:: I do not like to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but he is discussing section 5 and we are on an amendment to section 4.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I beg your pardon, Mr. Chairman. I did not intend to discuss section 5. I was simply pointing out that section 4 need not be amended to meet
the objections of the members from Alberta if the minister would keep the point in mind in forming the regulations.
I wish to emphasize one matter that is of importance, and that is size. The point is well taken by those from Alberta and Manitoba, and it is not for me to stress it on the question of the 135 townships. The minister mentioned that proportionately the numbers of crop failures in Saskatchewan have not been greater than in the other provinces. Now if you say that the crop failure area shall be fifteen municipalities in Saskatchewan, then according to this argument it ought to be eight in Manitoba, or Alberta, because their proportion of land under crop is relatively smaller. I do not wish to see Saskatchewan faced with any greater difficulty with respect to qualification than the other two provinces, but I submit that there is a case for those provinces in this regard, and it might be that ten municipalities in the other two provinces would bear a reasonable relationship to the number fixed in Saskatchewan. Would the 135 townships have to be contiguous, a solid bloc?


James Garfield Gardiner: Anywhere at all in the province.


René-Antoine Pelletier: We are reluctant to leave this section because it is of such vast importance. I do not want the minister to get the impression that we are opposed to the scheme of crop insurance. We are trying to arrive at conditions that shall be fair over as wide a territory as possible. Frankly, so far as we from Alberta are concerned, I may say that we have already dealt with a similar scheme of crop insurance. The provincial government attempted to do something of the kind some time ago. In that province there was talk at one time of providing crop insurance to cover all kinds of crop failure, no matter from what cause it might arise, whether drought, hail, floods, rust or anything else. The fund was to be built up by a three per cent levy, but it was felt that the levy was too high, and I believe, although I am not sure, that the government of Alberta came to the conclusion that the matter should receive further consideration and therefore they did not 
proceed with the plan. The plan was very similar to the one which the minister now proposes, namely, that there should be a levy to take care of certain crop failures.
We are in sympathy with the minister in this measure and we intend to support it. We simply wish to amplify some of our views. We think that there are certain portions of the bill which bear unequally upon the population of western Canada and they should be rectified. We are willing to accept the contention that experience will indicate more than we know now and as the years pass we shall be in a better position to judge what amendments should be introduced. We simply say that at this time 135 townships in any one province is much too large an area, and the computation should be made on the basis of value, that is, the equivalent of five bushels in value instead of simply stipulating five bushels. We are not putting forward these views in any spirit of criticism. We support the principle of the bill, and we think that these ideas that we are putting forward should be incorporated in a bill of this type.


James Garfield Gardiner: If the committee will permit me I should like to withdraw the amendment that has been proposed, and to offer the following:
That section 4 be amended by deleting the whole of subsection (1) and substituting therefor the following:
"(1) The governor in council may, whenever the minister finds that the average yield of wheat, as a result of anything other than hail, is five bushels per acre or less in each of not less than one hundred and thirty-five townships in Saskatchewan, one hundred in each of the provinces of Alberta and Manitoba declare such provincial area to be a crop failure area."
In Alberta and in Manitoba 100 townships is 11% municipalities.


Mr. CRERAR:: I move that amendment.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: That amendment will tend to meet the point for the present, but we should like to see the computation made on the basis of value. Perhaps that would be expecting too much.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
James Garfield Gardiner: I suggest an amendment to subsection 2, not making any change, but to clarify it. A number of legal members of the house have called my attention to the possibility of misunderstanding in the subsection as drafted. The amendment is:
That section 4 be amended by deleting the whole of subsection 2 and substituting therefor the following:
"(2) The minister may, subject as in this act provided, with the approval of the governor in

Prairie Farm Assistance
council, award to each farmer in a crop failure area by way of assistance a sum of two hundred dollars or a sum not exceeding two dollars and fifty cents per acre with respect to half the cultivated acreage of the farmer not to exceed two hundred acres, whichever is the greater."
That makes it clear, I think. It means the same thing.


Mr. STEVENS:: The original drafting was certainly not clear.


James Garfield Gardiner: This is my drafting.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I so move.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. BLACKMORE:: I should like to make a comment before the clause is carried. May I hasten to express to the minister our deep appreciation of his consideration in making this modification for us. We believe that we are even now suffering an injustice in Alberta, but none the less we feel grateful for the adjustment which has been made. I want to make it clear that we have no objection to helping Saskatchewan. We in the west are struggling against fearful odds the magnitude of which I believe very few appreciate, perhaps even there. We want to help each other, but we must make it clear to the people that we must have assistance from the federal government on a rather generous scale if we are to survive the hardships by which we are faced. There seems to be an idea conveyed by the minister-I am not sure that I understood his intention aright-that the province should be prepared to bear a good deal of the hardship which comes from crop failures. It must be emphasized, and laboured to the point where we all realize it, that when moneys are paid from the federal treasury to an area in Alberta the province of Alberta is already contributing a share of those revenues which are being paid out. And the same is true for other provinces. It is not as though the money being given by the federal government were coming from six provinces only; it is coming from all nine provinces. I have observed too great a tendency on the part of hon. members to forget this. Through the sales tax we are contributing a tremendous sum of money. We are contributing through the tariff a tremendous sum; we are doing perhaps more than our share in supporting the railroads; we are contributing our full share of the one cent extra on the three cent stamp for postage, and we are contributing our share of excise tax and a great number of other taxes, the total of which I shall probably refer to by and by but not at the moment. But when the total is finally computed it will reach proportions which will astonish hon. members. So that
when we as a province ask that a share of that be returned to us in our time of need, we are asking only what we have a just right to ask.
Then another matter. There are many areas in my province which perhaps never or rarely have crop failures. To illustrate that may I give the yields which have been garnered at the Lethbridge experimental farm in my constituency, following summer-fallow, since 1912:
Yield
(bushels)
1912.
1913.
1914.
1915.
1916.
1917.
1918.
1919.
1920.
1921.
1923
1925
1927
1929
23-9
16-8
46-5
22-	4 13-2
19-9
23-	2 19-5 28-2
25-	4 28-2 38-4 52-1
26-	2 28-5


James Garfield Gardiner: Is that all dry land?


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, as I understand it, all summer-fallowed dry land. It must be obvious to any hon. member that the contribution of farmers who are producing crops of that kind year after year, throughout a long period of years, will amount to a tremendous sum.


James Garfield Gardiner: We do not like to get our barns burnt down any more than once in twenty years, either, in order to get insurance.


John Horne Blackmore: But it must be remembered that it is grossly unfair to require farmers in an area to be constantly contributing and never receiving anything in return, especially if in years when they do have a mishap their province may not qualify because of an insufficient number of townships.


James Garfield Gardiner: If it is insurance I would say they are lucky if they never get a return.


John Horne Blackmore: I would grant that, but at the same time these men must contribute one cent a bushel, and it would amount to a large sum in a year such as 1928 when the yield was 52-1 bushels, or in 1915 when it was 63-1 bushels. The amount being contributed by those farmers would be tremendous and out of all proportion to the amounts contributed by people in other areas. It would not be so bad if those farmers were not paying a high tariff levy regularly on every machine they buy, if they were not paying regularly an excise tax on every pound
3S32
Prairie Farm Assistance

of sugar they buy, or if they were not paying a high sales tax on other articles, or a tax on every cheque they have to write.


James Garfield Gardiner: So has everybody who is farming.


John Horne Blackmore: That may be true. But those people are contributing a tremendous amount of money towards funds which should be used to relieve them in time of need. I think that is a matter which ought to be taken into consideration. It would be altogether different if a man were voluntarily entering into an insurance scheme. If he fails to get results under those circumstances he at least has a sort of gambler's chance. But there is no alternative here. In my constituency, for example, it does not matter a particle whether or not the grain on which the one cent a bushel is being paid-


James Garfield Gardiner: We have not reached that section yet.


John Horne Blackmore: Just the same, it is all involved. It matters not a particle whether the grain on which one cent a bushel is being collected is being produced two miles or forty miles from the elevator; there is an unfairness here which ultimately I know the minister-


James Garfield Gardiner: On a point of order; we are now discussing whether or not payment should be made under section 4. If the hon. member for Lethbridge agrees with that section we might pass it, and proceed to a discussion of section 5.


Frederick George Sanderson: Shall section 4 as
amended carry?


René-Antoine Pelletier: No; I now go back to subsection 3. I am not expecting the minister to make a change, and I am very glad-


Frederick George Sanderson: What section is the hon. member discussing?


René-Antoine Pelletier: I am discussing subsection 3 of section 4. In any event, I am talking about the Peace River district of British Columbia. I am sure the minister knows to what I refer.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I was pleased to hear the distinction made a moment ago by the .minister. I would suggest, however, that he make use of his legal department once more in order to make this subsection clearer than it is at the present time. There must be some room for misunderstanding in view of the way it is now worded. I am not saying it should be changed, but I am making the 
suggestion it should be clarified so that there could be no difficulty of interpretation later on. I mention this matter-


Mr. ROBICHAUD:: It is clear now.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, it is not too clear. The section uses the words "Peace River district of the province of British Columbia and the province of Alberta." There is a Peace River district in Alberta, too. It is in one area, really. The section might be open to the interpretation placed upon it by the hon. member when he first spoke, and I would suggest the words "the Peace River district of the province of British Columbia shall for the purpose of this section be deemed to be part of the province of Alberta". That would cover the intended meaning.


René-Antoine Pelletier: That would be clear; as a matter of fact those are the words I had intended to suggest, and I believe they will meet the difficulty I have pointed out.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: British Columbia was anxious to take on the Yukon; why can they not take on the Peace River area?


James Garfield Gardiner: I believe the words
might be reversed in this way, to meet the approval of all:
The province of Alberta and the Peace River district of the province of British Columbia shall for the purposes of this section be deemed to be one province.


René-Antoine Pelletier: That is even better.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I so
move.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 5-Regulations by minister.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I would draw the attention of the minister to paragraph (g), containing these words:
(g) excluding from the operation of this act farmers who do not reside upon farms, within the meaning of the regulation.
Would a renter come within the benefit of that paragraph?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, he would not come under that. He would come under the section which makes it possible for us to define by regulation a resident farmer. That paragraph has to do more particularly with lands on which we are spending money for irrigation purposes, and which would not come under this particular section.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would the
minister state the condition with respect to a

Prairie Farm Assistance
renter? How would they get their income? Would it be divided up partly with the owner?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is in the bill a definition which states that a farmer means a person engaged in farming in the spring wheat area. Then paragraph (g) excludes from the operation of the act farmers who do not reside upon farms within the meaning of the regulation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What about
the renter?


James Garfield Gardiner: The renter would come under this.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would the
income go to him or to the man who owns the farm?


James Garfield Gardiner: The intention of the
bill is that it should go to the renter.


Mr. TUCKER:: In certain parts of Saskatchewan the people live in villages and farm the surrounding territory.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is exactly what
this is intended for. It would exclude from the operation of the bill a farmer who does not reside on his farm in the manner required, but the manner required would include the man living within the bounds of a village but farming outside the village. He would be considered a resident fanner.


Mr. DONNELLY:: He	would be?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Mr. PERLEY:: As the hon. member for
Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) rose in his place I was going to ask the minister how this would affect the tenant farmer. In many instances a hardship would be worked, especially if a landlord insisted on his share of the crop no matter how small the yield. There should be something to protect the tenant farmer, and I should like to know what that protection will be.


James Garfield Gardiner: A later section in the
bill states that the amount shall not be attachable by anyone. The only way in which an owner of land could obtain a right to this money would be through the lease he has with the individual. This money is not intended for the purpose of paying part of the value of the crop, it is for the purpose of assisting the man who is actually farming the land to stay on the land. He gets all the money, but if he pays it over to someone else it is his own affair.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He is protected under section S.


Ernest Edward Perley: This is the section that .
gives the minister power to set out regulations and rules, and I think it will involve some difficulty. The minister is to provide regulations providing the manner in which average yields of wheat shall be ascertained, as well as regulations in connection with the acreage cultivated in a municipality. There may be instances where a municipality would like to increase the land under cultivation, but on the other hand, if the average yield is kept as low as possible, it might help as far as relief was concerned. I think the minister would be well advised to watch that the municipalities do not overstep the mark, so to speak, in this respect. I understand that as far as possible he is going to use the municipality as the unit in arriving at the average yield and the number of acres under cultivation in a township. I suggest that he be very careful to see that the administration of this legislation is carried out in such a way that the municipalities will not be able to carry on as we know they did last winter in the northern part of Saskatchewan with respect to relief. It might easily happen that if they had no yield and a large acreage, the municipality would be helped in taking care of some of their ratepayers.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Under this
section the minister may make regulations requiring farmers to furnish information as specified in such regulations and providing the manner in which the average yields of wheat shall be ascertained by the minister.
I think most of us have been anxious to know just how the minister proposes to gather the information with reference to the average yields. Is this information going to be collected by the municipal secretary, or are questionnaires to be sent to the individual farmers? The value of this measure will depend upon how the average yield in any township is going to be declared, because if a township does not qualify, the farmers in that township receive no benefits.


James Garfield Gardiner: I cannot state what
the final regulations will be, but they will all be gone into carefully. In connection with the point raised by the hon, member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley), I do not assume that the department will depend upon the information received from the municipality in order to reach a decision. The suggestion I made yesterday was that the federal government will probably not be very much concerned about an area within a municipality unless the municipal council calls our attention to the fact that there is a low yield in

Prairie Farm Assistance
the municipality. That is where the first request would come from. They would say, "We have so many townships in our municipalities that have yields of five bushels or less to the acre." We would probably follow the practice which was followed in connection with relief and say, "You make an application to the province," and when the province tells us that there are 100 townships in Alberta, 100 in Manitoba, or 135 in Saskatchewan, with yields of less than five bushels to the acre, we would go and check those townships. But we would do the checking to find out whether the yield was under five bushels. We will not be very much concerned about going into a township unless either the municipality or the province draws our attention to the fact that the yield is low. As soon as they do draw our attention to that, we will have a check made.
With regard to the first paragraph which refers to regulations requiring farmers to furnish information as specified in such regulations, I imagine that the practice here will be the general practice which has been followed in connection with hail insurance. Everyone who lives in a municipality in the west having hail insurance receives in May or June a blue sheet of paper upon which is the design of a section of land. The farmer marks out his acreage and what he has on it and sends it back. Those are filed as a matter of record. If there is no reason for payment to be made, those records would simply be filed, but if it is necessary to make a check in the fall of the year, the information as to yield will be available. The provincial hail organizations have these records and there should be no difficulty about our getting the same records.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That covers the part of my question which had to do with crop failure assistance, but what about a national emergency?


James Garfield Gardiner: It would be the same
thing.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: You would
have a more complicated problem. There may be two townships side by side, and it would make all the difference in the world whether the average yield in a township was six or four bushels to the acre. There would be a difference in the bonus, and this would have to be computed very closely or there would be considerable dispute and difficulty.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is a margin of four bushel averages in the division. A suggestion has been made by some who have not had any experience in the matter, because

it has not been dealt with in this way, that in connection with crop yields the fairest division would be two bushel averages instead of four. I believe, however, that if we went out at this time without any information and tried to make a division of that kind it would be extremely complicated. The legislation is now drawn on the basis of four bushels, and probably we may find from experience that it would be better to make that division two. Some people say it ought to be made one, but I doubt that. I think two is about as far as we will ever go, and that may have to be done in future years.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: How are you going to get anything approximating the average return in a township where a large farm might be partly in one township and partly in another? Are you going to have individual returns from every farmer or from every elevator? I think that is where the cause of complaint will be. People will claim that a certain township has a higher average than it is given credit for, or it may be claimed that another township is being credited with a lower average than it really has.


James Garfield Gardiner: Legislation was introduced in the Saskatchewan legislature this year which would compel thresher-men to send in returns at the end of the threshing season. The bill was finally withdrawn after a great deal of discussion had taken place. But it was no doubt intended to be the forerunner of legislation which might be brought in to deal with this very matter. Whether that can be done in future sessions of the western legislatures is a question yet to be considered. In any event one can obtain the services of men who can drive through any township and, inside of forty-eight hours' driving, tell you just about as closely as you will figure it after you have threshed the grain what the average yield in that township will be. Every year men drive over the whole area from the gulf of Mexico to the far north and report back to the city of Chicago, giving estimates upon which we base all our discussions with regard to wheat. They can tell you closely what the yield is likely to be merely by driving through a district and examining the heads in a few fields.


Joseph Needham: Except for grasshoppers.


James Garfield Gardiner: They destroy the grain very quickly, and you do not need to do much figuring about that.

Prairie Farm Assistance


Joseph Needham: Last year a section or a quarter section that looked pretty good from the road would 'be found destroyed by grasshoppers when examined closely.


James Garfield Gardiner: These men examine all these things.


Victor Quelch: Some farmers may be on heavy clay soils, and others on light soils. Sixty per cent of the land may be heavy and forty per cent light; and on the sixty per cent heavy land the average yield would be, say, twenty bushels to the acre, while on the lighter soil it might be five bushels to the acre. Will any allowance be made for that?


James Garfield Gardiner: When we have the records for all three provinces as we have now for Saskatchewan, it is possible that the proper thing to do would be what they are attempting to do in certain parts of the United States, that is, instead of working on the basis of townships, work on the basis of soil-condition areas. When one flies over the west in a plane to-day, one can see the bounds of these areas underneath, if one knows the nature of the soil; and that whole country can be mapped, as it is being mapped to-day by photographers in aeroplanes. We can eventually do that, but we have not that information now. So the township is the best possible basis to work on to get our principles established.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: There have been soil surveys of a number of areas.


Walter Adam Tucker: I think it would be wise to provide that all orders in council and regulations made under this measure be published in the Canada Gazette. A provision could be inserted to read:
All orders in council and all regulations made under the provisions of this act or an abstract thereof disclosing their essential provisions shall be published in the next following issue of the Canada Gazette.


James Garfield Gardiner: That would come at the end.


Walter Adam Tucker: Yes.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Paragraph (f) of section 5 is not as clear as it should be. It reads:
(f) providing that in special circumstances another kind of grain may be taken in lieu of wheat as the basis of awards under this act, and in that event what number of bushels of such other kind of grain shall be deemed to be equivalent to a certain number of bushels of wheat for the purposes of such substitution.
It is necessary to get the equivalent to enable the minister to determine the conditions for declaring an area a crop failure area,
which conditions are fully set out in section 4. That is the minister's intention, but are the words in paragraph (f) of section 5, "a certain number of bushels of wheat" clear? Would it not be better to state a definite number of bushels of wheat, as is done in section 4? I think if you said something like "deemed to be equivalent to five bushels to the acre of wheat or less," the clause would be clearer.


James Garfield Gardiner: It would be very difficult to do that in advance because it might have to be changed from time to time. So it is better to leave it to regulation. There is no relationship, for instance, between prices of rye and wheat to-day, compared with those of fifteen or twenty years ago, when rye was selling sometimes higher than wheat. Then the price of rye gradually came down until it is selling now more in line with barley. All these matters would have to be taken into consideration. You cannot put all that in the bill.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If you put in the bill "five bushels," it would apply only to the crop failure assistance section, while it should apply to the national emergency clause as well.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is intended to apply to both.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: Paragraph (g) states:
(g) excluding from the operation of this act farmers who do not reside upon farms, within the meaning of the regulation.
Many farmers do not actually live on the land.


James Garfield Gardiner: Take market gardeners living near cities. There are quite a number of them who are enumerated in the census as being farmers farming land under fifty acres. Many of them are not growing grain, and if they put in ten acres of grain they could come under the legislation, unless prevented by regulation.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: I am wondering about several people in the minister's own neighbourhood at Balgonie, Pense and other places where farmers are not actually living on the lands they farm but in a nearby village. Would this clause exclude them?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, it makes it possible for them not to be excluded. If we had said in the definition of farmer that the man had to live on his farm, they would have been excluded. We deal with the matter by regulation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is being done by paragraph (g) is to place in the hands of
Prairie Farm Assistance

the minister the power to say who shall and who shall not be benefited by this legislation. It is a power about which it is difficult to express my opinion without giving offence-


James Garfield Gardiner: It is in the hands of council, not the minister.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister may make regulations-


James Garfield Gardiner: With the approval of the governor in council.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister may make regulations excluding from the operation of the legislation farmers who do not reside upon farms. There is no restriction upon what the minister may do in that regard, except, of course, that he has to carry the judgment of his colleagues. There is nothing in the statute that says who shall and who shall not be entitled to "benefit, and I object very much to the breadth of this power of regulation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What will be the position of a number of land companies farming land in and around Regina, for instance? Would they be excluded by paragraph (g)


James Garfield Gardiner: Some of them, I hope, would be. It is intended to assist those living on the land.


Walter Adam Tucker: I hope that in drawing up regulations the minister will not exclude farmers farming fifty acres if they are making their living by growing grain.


Ernest Edward Perley: Take the Indian Head district, which the minister knows very well. Many men live in Indian Head and drive out to their farms two or three miles away. They are really conducting all the farming operations and paying the men. The farms are not even rented. All the expenses are met by the land owner. He is really the farmer but is living in Indian Head. There are many such men in my home town of Wolseley. Would they be excluded? They should not be because they are making as good a contribution to the country as anybody.


James Garfield Gardiner: We had a definition of farmer in the bill as first drafted. But to define farmer would exclude the very men of whom the hon. member speaks. That is why the matter is left to regulations. The hon. member for Kootenay East speaks as though the minister might deal with individuals, but no minister would undertake, not even in the government of which he was a member, to go that far. It would cause so

much trouble that he would not get very far with it. But in regulations you deal with certain groups of people and see that this particular group or that are bona fide farmers. These officials will administer the measure accordingly. As to whether the group which the hon. member for Qu'Appelle has in mind would come directly under the terms of this, I am not in a position to say at the moment. Probably some of them would and some of them would not.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would it
mean that some official out there in the country who will be administering the legislation would help to determine to some extent whether a man would come under this?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; the regulations will determine what an official will do out in the country. The regulations will be passed by order in council.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: I am thinking of my own case. I farm three different farms. I do not live on any of them; I live three miles away, in the city.


Charles Avery Dunning: Well, are you a farmer?


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: I certainly am. I do not do anything except farming, and this.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the test. That is the real test.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: If that is the ruling. I am satisfied to leave it in the hands of the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-Levy of one per centum from purchase price of all grain purchased by licencees.
Ernest Edward Perley: This is another important clause. Under section 3 the change made by the minister really cuts by about one-half the benefits which may be given to the farmer as a relief measure, as compared with the original draft. I look upon this bill as more or less a relief measure. True enough, there is an element of insurance in it, but I regard it largely as a measure of relief. As I have said, I think it was yesterday, I am in favour of the principle. I am also in favour of the insurance principle. I do not believe, however, that the time is opportune to impose a one per cent levy on the producers. What many of them will get will be a mere pittance, and they will not have enough to carry on. I have made a rough estimate of the cost on the basis of last year's crop, and I think it would work out for the whole west at about 11-2 cents an acre and would bring in nearly

Prairie Farm Assistance
$2,800,000. I suggest that the minister would be well advised to reduce this levy, if not to cut it out altogether.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This levy will be made only against the man who markets his wheat. Yesterday the minister told us that in the last year or two he had fed his crop to hogs. The man who sells his wheat through hogs, as the minister put it yesterday, will get the benefit of this legislation in the event of crop failure, but he will not make any contribution because he does not sell his wheat through the elevator.


James Garfield Gardiner: He might sell his rye.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Well, let us deal now with this wheat question. How will the minister, if he continues to sell his wheat through hogs, make a contribution to the fund?


James J. Donnelly: The wheat which would be fed to hogs would not be No. 1 or No. 2 northern, it would only be feed wheat, No. 5 or No. 6, which should never be ground into flour at all. Those are grades which should be ground into hog feed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What the
minister's opinion is will not count unless the legislation provides for it. These people will draw the benefits of this bill by virtue of the fact that they are growing wheat, if they have a crop failure, but if they do not market the wheat through the usual channels, but feed it to stock, they will not pay their one per cent.


Louis-Prudent-Alexandre Robichaud: Are they all Scotsmen out there?


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: The hon. member for
Lethbridge showed how the levy would fall very heavily on people in certain districts. It would fall heavily on the district round Lethbridge which he mentioned, and on irrigated sections of the prairie-and those areas are increasing. I suggest to the minister that he adopt a system somewhat analogous to that which is applied in connection with income tax, and that there be an exemption of, say fifteen bushels to the acre before the levy is applied.


James Garfield Gardiner: It would be pretty
hard to keep track of that.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: Well, then, cut it out
altogether, as someone has suggested. If that is not possible, why levy it on the low grades, why not levy on the top grades only? The hon. member for Wood Mountain has already half-advanced that argument. I have stressed
many times that there is a very large amount of low-grade grain grown in all of the provinces. When a farmer has even a large yield of low-grade grain, his money return is small and he would feel rather severely a one per cent levy. Perhaps the top three grades should meet this levy, but I still believe there ought to be a ten or fifteen bushel to the acre exemption to make the plan fair and equitable and ensure that only those who can afford to pay will pay.


James Garfield Gardiner: I may say that all
the communications I have had from the west, particularly from farm organizations, are to the effect that this is one of the best features of the bill.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: It is, definitely.


James Garfield Gardiner: They say that in the
whole history of the organizations they have been advocating crop insurance and have insisted at all times that the farmer himself should make some payment toward it. I believe it would be a mistake to do away with this feature of the legislation. It establishes one of the main features of what will be in the future an insurance plan. I think all of those who have made a real study of the necessities of an insurance plan as applied to our farming in the west will agree we should at least assume that it is our responsibility as western farmers to pay one per cent to start off the scheme, at any rate in the first jrear, and as we go along we shall get experience in it and can adjust these matters to determine whether we want to pay on higher acreages more than we are paying here, or whether we want to go in the opposite direction and collect less and pay on lower acreages. These matters can be determined as we go along in the working of the legislation.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: I have no objection to
insurance premiums. That is what I meant.


Charles Edward Johnston: We are very much in favour of crop insurance, and we always have been. We advocate that there should be some form of equitable insurance applied to farming, not only that those in the drought areas should be cared for, but those in the other areas as well. I think it is generally conceded that the drought area of Saskatchewan, the southern part of Alberta, and a portion of Manitoba, is here to stay unless something is done in the form of irrigation, which possibly is impracticable in southern Saskatchewan, and I believe that the land which is commonly termed the drought area
3S3S
Prairie Farm Assistance

should be cut out entirely so far as this insurance scheme is concerned. So far as this levy goes, it should be applied only to those places which are reasonably assured of having a crop. But those portions in the south do not, so far as most of their area is concerned, have a crop at all, and this insurance plan is merely to take those people off relief. It is another form of relief; yet this is a national emergency, and it is something over which the people have no control. Drought is not a man-made affair. For that reason we contend that this drought area should be excluded from the insurance plan, and carried as a national responsibility.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is what is provided for in the resolution.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: You are making it carry itself.


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes, you are making it carry itself from this one per cent tax.


James Garfield Gardiner: No. The one per cent tax will carry only a percentage of the insurance end of it. That is a pure relief proposition provided for entirely out of the federal treasury.


Charles Edward Johnston: A portion is from this one per cent.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, because there will not be enough collected to contribute a portion from it. It is from five bushels an acre up to twelve bushels an 'acre, as it is in the legislation now. That is where the insurance feature comes in, the other being entirely a matter of assistance given to farmers.


Charles Edward Johnston: That portion which the dominion will contribute is a loan put into this fund.


James Garfield Gardiner: In effect, it is more than that.


Walter Adam Tucker: There is no obligation to repay it.


Charles Edward Johnston: There is an obligation to repay it if the dominion government asks them.


Walter Adam Tucker: Only if the money comes in.


James J. Donnelly: How much money do 3'ou think you will get this year?


Charles Edward Johnston: One per cent means a great deal to these people. That drought area is something permanent; it is there to stay.


James J. Donnelly: How do you know?


Charles Edward Johnston: We are talking not from the point of view of a single farmer but from the point of view of the whole drought area, and even the Minister of Agriculture considers this drought area a permanent condition.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not permanent in the sense that they will not have any crop any year but in the sense that you may have three or four bad crops in succession.


Charles Edward Johnston: They may get one crop in fifteen years as the farmers did in the southeastern part of Alberta.


An hon. MEMBER:: You do not know what you are talking about.


Charles Edward Johnston: I do, because I lived there, and I know that in the southeastern part of Alberta, round Youngstown, they have had one crop in fifteen years.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no one living there now.


James J. Donnelly: We had twenty good years before that. I know, because I am familiar with the southeastern part of Saskatchewan. I have harvested more wheat there than the hon. gentleman has done.


Charles Edward Johnston: As it happens, I was not talking about southeastern Saskatchewan; if the hon. member had been listening he would know that I was referring to the southeastern part of Alberta, round Youngstown. I intended to move an amendment, but I do not think I will at this time. However, I would ask the minister to consider putting this drought area outside the insurance scheme, and the rest of the people would have no objection to paying the one per cent and carrying their own insurance. The people in the western provinces have a legitimate objection to paying a levy for the purpose of raising a drought area out of relief, and that area should be excluded.


Charles Avery Dunning: This type of discussion carries my mind back thirty years to the very first efforts that were made in western Canada to get the farmers there to agree to cooperate in matters of crop damage and insurance. We have here exactly a repetition of the same arguments: "Because we live in the north we have one type of damage and because you live in the south you have another, and therefore no means can be found of providing mutual assistance." I suggest that this is the most generous offer ever made by the people of Canada along the

Prairie Farm Assistance
lines of crop insurance, and the western farmer is simply asked to contribute a moiety of the whole cost, and only when he has it.


James J. Donnelly: And then they kick.


Charles Avery Dunning: One per cent of the value of what he has when he has it. I still know the western farmers and get letters from many of them, and I know they regard this as a sound move in the right direction. It is not perfection; it is not something that will not have to be adjusted as the years go by, but it is a start on something which was begun thirty years ago in the west under great difficulties and subject to precisely the same arguments and disagreements that we are witnessing this afternoon. The people of Canada are standing behind this measure and asking the farmers of the west to contribute one per cent in value of the grain which they sell. If its value is low the contribution from the one per cent will be low; if it is high, as I hope it will be, then the contribution will be high; and very willing will the western farmers be to pay the one per cent out of a high price should they be fortunate enough to get a high price for their wheat. If we should be fortunate enough to have the returns that we have had in the past twenty years, then I can see the basis of a fund which will be standing there to help in days when calamity overtakes us.


Mr. McDONALD (Souris):: From the
letters that I receive from my constituency I can assure the committee that the people are certainly in favour of crop insurance, but they wish to contribute their fair share to it. How can members from western Canada reason that we should not contribute our share? How can we with any sense of fairness ask the government to advance the price from 60 cents to 70 cents and from 70 cents to 80 cents, and then expect to exempt ourselves from contributing a small portion by way of crop insurance? The people in the constituency which I represent do not want that kind of legislation. I think the Minister of Finance will find that this measure meets the feelings of all reasonable farmers of western Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: While I do not think any farmers object to contributing, I point out that there are people who will have to contribute if they have a crop and yet may not get any benefit if they have no crop.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is always so.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Take, for
instance, hail insurance; that is worked on an individual basis.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is not worked on an individual basis.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have to pay it everj year in my municipal taxes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But a man may not have a bushel of crop and yet not come under the benefit of this measure.


Charles Avery Dunning: He may not have a. bushel of crop and yet have to pay towards hail insurance for those who have. That is the law.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But here a man is bound to contribute but is not bound to get any return.


James Garfield Gardiner: If he comes under the conditions of the bill he will get a return.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But there are many conditions and it is very easy for a man not to come under them. That is the only unfair aspect. If a man could be assured that in the event of crop failure he would get benefit, there would be no objection to contributing; but it is possible that he would have to contribute if he has a crop and, if he happens to have no crop, may be unable to fulfil the conditions, because of the price element or the area qualification or the price being above 80 cents, and so cannot draw benefit.


William Daum Euler: A man who pays fire insurance is very glad if he never gets anything back, but he knows that if his property is destroyed he will draw his insurance.


Charles Avery Dunning: Under the conditions set out in the policy.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But under
this bill it is quite possible that a man who contributes may find the conditions such, except for 1939, that he will not be able to draw one cent although he may have contributed for years. He may have contributed for ten years and yet, because the price is over 80 cents or the area in which he lives is not large enough, although he has no crop he cannot qualify. I suppose it cannot be done now, but I hope the department will work towards the idea of dealing with these people on an individual basis rather than by townships, that if a man has no crop he will be sure of some return if he is regularly contributing to this fund.
How much does the department expect to raise as a result of this one per cent levy?


James Garfield Gardiner: It will depend entirely upon the price of grain and the amount for that year. Anyone can take the returns of
Prairie Farm Assistance

the years gone by and calculate what it would be in any particular year from the yield and value of our wheat. It is probably around S2.000.000 to $3,000,000. For the last year the payments from the fund would have been eight or nine times that amount.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is the reason for the provision in subsection 7:
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act.


Charles Avery Dunning: That provision of the audit act requires that sums which are paid out of the consolidated revenue fund must be paid on the basis of a specific instrument of parliament; that is either an estimate or a statute calling for that specific sum, or, failing that, a warrant. Here we have a fund, and it is impossible to vote specific amounts out of it; therefore the provision to pay moneys out would contravene that specific section of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I notice the licencee is responsible for making the reports and that sort of thing under subsections 4 and 5. Is any compensation or payment to be made for doing that?


James Garfield Gardiner: No. They asked for compensation, but we suggested they should do without. They made the request but did not press it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: For collecting the sales tax the province pays a small percentage. This means a great deal of work. I wondered if the government had given the matter consideration.


James Garfield Gardiner: It has been given consideration; they made a request but did not press it.


Joseph Needham: Do I understand this correctly, that in an area which qualifies under this clause, having less than five bushels to the acre, the money given is not taken from the revenue derived from the fund of one cent a bushel?


James Garfield Gardiner: As a matter of fact it is; that is, they all pay in one per cent of the value of the grain that is delivered. But as a matter of fact there will probably be collected sufficient to pay only one-eighth or one-ninth of what was paid out last year for relief and the other matter too. And over a term of years it would work out that the obligation as to the amount paid where yields are under 
five bushels, that is what might be termed the relief end or assistance to people who have nothing at all, would, under this legislation, be assumed almost in its entirety if not in its entirety by the federal government. The moneys paid in by individuals, no matter what the size of their crop, will all be required, and additional amounts will be required in order to pay what might be termed the insurance end for those who have not complete crop failures.


Victor Quelch: From 1920 to 1928 would it have been possible to pay the compensation from the fund?


James Garfield Gardiner: From 1922 to 1928, yes; 1920 and 1921 were not good years.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
On section 8-Award protected from attachment. Not assignable.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: How would this affect a man operating a farm on a crop-share basis?


James Garfield Gardiner: This section is intended to mean that every dollar of this money will go to the individual farmer and no one can take it from him. He can pay his grocery biil or other bills or buy groceries, but no one can garnishee or take this money from him.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If a mortgage company advanced seed they cannot collect it back out of this?


James Garfield Gardiner: Not out of this money.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 9 agreed to.
On section 10-Officers, clerks and employees.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will these
officers and employees who are to be appointed to carry on the administration of this measure come under the civil service commission?


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They will be temporary employees?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Selected by the minister?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, by the governor in council.

Canadian Wheat Board


René-Antoine Pelletier: Will their salaries or remuneration be paid out of the fund provided by the levy, or out of moneys voted by this parliament?


James Garfield Gardiner: Nothing is to be paid out of the amount collected, except the insurance.


René-Antoine Pelletier: So that the salary or wages of every officer or employee would have to be passed as an estimate by this house before it could be paid?


James Garfield Gardiner: Not necessarily.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Will these appointments be yearly or just temporary?


James Garfield Gardiner: Quite a number will have to be temporary; they would only cover a month or two in the fall. Checking the acreages would probably be done earlier in the season, but checking the crop yields would be done in the fall.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Will they be provincial or federal appointments?


James Garfield Gardiner: Federal.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 11-Offences.
Louis-Prudent-Alexandre Robichaud: I suppose one should not too closely scrutinize these bills to discover legal inaccuracies or ambiguities, because, I suppose, lawyers must live. It has even been suggested to me that there might have been method in the draftsman's madness. We all know what he had in his mind, but it is not expressed very clearly. It was Boileau, the great French literary critic, who wrote: Ce que Ton eongoit bien s'enonce clairement Et les mots pour le dire arrivent aisement.
Or, to translate roughly:
What you have in your mind clearly You can express clearly,
And the words to say it come easily.
I have drafted something which would perhaps cover the matter:
That section 11 be amended by striking out the word "who" in the third line thereof and all the words in paragraph (b) and substituting therefor the following words:
Whose information or return, furnished as required by regulation, is false;
And by adding the word "who" at the beginning of paragraph (c);
And by adding the word "such" before the word "false" and by striking out the words "required by regulation" in subsection 2 of said clause.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I so move.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 12 agreed to.
Frederick George Sanderson: Shall I report the bill.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What about the suggestion of the hon. member foi Rosthern?


Walter Adam Tucker: It would be unlucky to call it clause 13, but I suggest that a clause be added as No. 12 (b), providing for publication. I think in a matter as important as this it would be well to provide for publication.


James Garfield Gardiner: In the Canada Gazette?


Walter Adam Tucker: Yes. I suggest that the subsection read:
All orders in council and all regulations made under the provisions of the act, or an abstract thereof disclosing their essential provisions, shall be published in the next following issue of the Canada Gazette.


Ernest Lapointe: Let that be subsection 2 of section 12.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I so move.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILL

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 139 to incorporate Prescott and Ogdensburg Bridge Company.-Mr. Gray.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the second reading of Bill No. 63, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is customary upon second reading of a bill to have a pretty full discussion of the principle of it. I believe, however, it was pretty well understood when the complementary Bill No. 83, which was disposed of and passed this afternoon, was
Canadian Wheat Board
[Stage Direction]
under discussion, that members of the house should be permitted to discuss the principle of Bill No. 63 as well. I think that was done quite fully, and while I have no intention of suggesting that debate or discussion on second reading should in any way be curtailed, it does occur to me that possibly since the principle has been discussed pretty well, the clauses might be discussed more fully in committee. That, however, is merely by the way.
I shall content myself, therefore, with stating very briefly the provisions of the bill. It speaks for itself and is perfectly clear, whether hon. members agree with it or not. The most important part of the bill deals with the removal of the power of the government, upon the recommendation of the wheat board, to fix an advanced payment, usually at the beginning of the crop season. That clause is replaced with one by which the bill itself fixes the advance price definitely at 70 cents a bushel, basis No. 1 northern Fort William. In other respects the bill is practically as it was originally. That is to say, the provisions are practically the same as they were before, with, of course, the participation clause remaining.
There are, however, two other clauses, one of which might be said to limit the application of the present wheat board act, and the other to broaden or extend it. The first one limits to 5,000 the number of bushels which may be sold by any one producer to the wheat board. The other provides for the extension of the application of the provisions of the bill to what is known as the eastern provinces.
I would add, in regard to the last clause, that in reading it again and discussing it with some hon. members there appears to be the possibility that its intent is not quite clear. Of course the intention is that the bill shall apply to the eastern provinces. As it reads at the present time it might appear that it is optional with the wheat board or the government as to whether or not it shall apply to eastern Canada. At the proper time, when the clause is under discussion, one of my colleagues will introduce a small amendment, so as to clarify the situation.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the other day I pretty well outlined my point of view with reference to Bill No. 63 in the general discussion which took place on Bill No. 83. There are, however, one or two observations I should like to make with reference to Bill No. 63, because, after all, this and not Bill No. 83 is the bill which has aroused the ire of western Canada. While Bill No. 83 was brought in first, it was known

that most of us would agree with the general principle of crop insurance. Bill No. 63 is the bill to which we have really taken very strong exception. Speaking for the group with which I am associated, I would say that we are strenuously opposed to the clauses contained in Bill No. 63, with the exception of the new clause which provides that the benefits of the wheat board legislation shall be extended to the fanners of eastern Canada. Apart from that, we are opposed to the bill, in its entirety.
May I point out, first of all, that in its original form, prior to the bringing in of the bill now before us, the wheat board act would have permitted the wheat board, with the approval of the governor in council, to set a price. That was a much more satisfactory arrangement, by virtue of the fact that they could set a price the last week in July or some time in August, when crop possibilities could be gauged much more accurately than they can be gauged at this time of year.
In its original form, before being redrafted to the form in which it now stands, the bill proposed an initial price of 60 cents. Hon. members will realize that this was 27J cents less than the initial price paid by the wheat board in 1935, when the board first came into operation. Under pressure of public opinion throughout western Canada, which was exerted upon members of parliament and upon the government, this bill, along with Bill No. 83, was withdrawn. When it was reintroduced, we find the price was raised to 70 cents.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It was only reprinted.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, it was not withdrawn; it was only reprinted or reintroduced.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was not withdrawn.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It was taken off the order paper and another bill was brought in.


William Daum Euler: And it was not taken off the order paper, either.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The price was changed from 60 cents to 70 cents-which may or may not have been a gift, in view of the fact that in the meantime the market had been rising.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The hon. member is drawing heavily on his imagination.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: To what
extent?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is a surmise; the hon. member is drawing heavily on his imagination.

Canadian Wheat Board


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: How? Nobody knows more about imagination than does the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar). I will, however, pass that by. Let me go on to say that the price has been raised to 70 cents. But to offset this gift to the farmers the government has first of all inserted in Bill No. 63 a clause limiting to 5,000 bushels the amount that each individual producer may market. Further, it has reduced the amount of the bonus, and the number of farmers who could get the bonus, under Bill No. 83.
As the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) said last night, the estimated reduction would probably be in the neighbourhood of $5,000,000, or $6,000,000, so that actually when in the reprinted bill the price is raised from 60 cents to 70 cents-


James Garfield Gardiner: That was estimated on the basis of last year.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Actually,
while the reprinted bill has raised the price from 60 cents to 70 cents, it has taken back everything it has given, if not a little more, by reducing the bonus, by reducing the yield .on which one may get the bonus and by reducing the number of bushels a farmer can deliver to the wheat board. Now we are presented with Bill No. 63.


James Garfield Gardiner: Last night the hon.
member asked me a question with regard to this matter, and I answered his first question to the effect that the total was increased by 810,000,000. But he did not want that answer; he wanted another one.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: The answer to the
second question was that there was a reduction of 85,000,000 or $6,000,000, but that the total is increased by $10,000,000. It is easy to be seen now why the hon. member did not want the other answer.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: And it is
easy to see why the minister put both together.


James Garfield Gardiner: They should be put
together.


Walter Adam Tucker: It was in the interests of
truth.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon.
member need not be worried about truth.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am worried about it,
even if you are not.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There is a
difference between the farmer being allowed to deliver all his wheat to the wheat board and being allowed to deliver only 5,000 bushels.


James Garfield Gardiner: How many would that
affect?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I produced the figures last Saturday to show that there were 45,000 or more farmers in Saskatchewan with farms between 400 and 450 acres, and
44.000	farmers with farms above 450 acres.


William Daum Euler: So what?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: So what?-
so that there are many farmers in Saskatchewan on large farm units, efficient producers, who will produce much more than
5.000	bushels but who, under this legislation, will be compelled to sell some of their wheat on the open market in competition with the wheat board, which will be taking delivery of the wheat from other farmers. That is "so what." I therefore contend that any possible benefit which may have been given by this ten cent increase has been taken back by virtue of these changes under the bonus acreage scheme, and by the provision for
5.000	bushels.


Mr. EVANS:: What percentage of the
farmers about whom the hon. member spoke are ranchers?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have not
the statistics. I took the figures from the census. I am sure the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Evans) can quite easily figure it out. He will have plenty of time during the course of the discussion.
Therefore I say we object to this bill on these two grounds: first, on the basis of the limitation of 5.000 bushels. I pointed out the other day the whole tendency in western Canada, under strain of competition, owing to the fact that the price for primary commodities has been going down, and the price of commodities the farmers have to buy has been more or less stationary-with the exception that the price of farm machinery has been going up-is that farmers have been compelled to move into larger units of production. In a great many instances-I know many hon. members will have heard of such instances-a farmer has been forced out of business. Instead of a new man going on the farm, one neighbour will rent a quarter section, another neighbour will take another quarter section and the farm is more or less subdivided. Each farmer thus increases his own holdings. The result is they have more land to cultivate. They mechanize their
Canadian Wheat Board

equipment and the result is a more efficient farm unit. As Professor Hope pointed out, the two-section unit is the most efficient unit of production. With this 5,000 bushel provision, farmers will be compelled to sell part of their wheat in competition with the wheat board, and they will not get the benefit of this legislation.
The second feature in this bill to which I object is the fixed price. In the first place, it is too low and, in the second place, it ought not to be set by statute. The minister gave a few cursory remarks to-day when introducing this bill, but as yet he has given no adequate explanation why the wheat board act could not have been allowed to continue to operate as it did in the past and the price be set in the fall by order in council. No adequate explanation has been given for that. This bill was brought down in April to set a price for a crop which will not be harvested until next August. I should like to draw attention once more to the submission of the western committee on markets and agricultural readjustment which was presented to the government and which advocated a continuing of the wheat board and a guaranteed minimum price of at least 80 cents a bushel for the 1939 wheat crop.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Does my hon. friend support that view?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Most certainly.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The hon. member stated a moment ago that the price should not be fixed, that it should be left open until the fall. Does he support an 80 cent price?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I can quite appreciate how the Minister of Mines and Resources got from the Progressive party to the Liberal party when he can quibble like that. He knows perfectly well that this submission was presented to the government after the government had brought down a bill providing for a fixed price by statute.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That does not answer my question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If we must have a price fixed by statute, then we would certainly ask for at least 80 cents.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend, but will he tell the house whether he favours a fixed price of 80 cents or whether he favours leaving it open, as he stated a moment ago?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I think it would have been much better if the govern-
ment had left it open so that it could be set by order in council in the fall when conditions would be much more apparent.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: To that extent the hon. member does not support the western committee?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Oh, yes, I do.


Walter Adam Tucker: Is that the view of the party?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the market rises there is no reason why this price should not be set at 90 cents or $1. The setting of the price at 70 cents or 80 cents may be meaningless by the time next August comes round. That is why I say it would have been better to leave the matter of price open.


William Daum Euler: The committee advocated a decision of 80 cents now.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister says the committee advocated a decision of 80 cents, but he knows perfectly well why they did. It was known that the government were going to bring in legislation to fix the price by statute. Therefore they had to set a figure and they thought it ought to be 80 cents, which was the price the government fixed last year. If we must have a price, then we say we support an 80 cent price.


Mr. YOUNG:: On a point of order, the hon. gentleman keeps repeating that this is a fixed price when he knows perfectly well that in the bill there is no fixed price. It is simply an initial payment in advance.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon.
member for Saskatoon (Mr. Young) knows perfectly well that this is-


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I know perfectly well; that is why I am correcting the hon. member.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This is an amendment to the wheat board act, and it was called a fixed price in the original act. I need only read the section to the hon. member.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: This is not-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will the hon. member please remain seated? I do not propose to have him bobbing up and down like a jack-in-the-box.


Walter Edward Foster: I think the hon. member is a little out of order. It is not in order, on the motion for second reading, to discuss seriatim the various sections of the bill. On that motion the principle of the bill should be discussed, and then when the house is in committee the bill can be taken up section by section.

Canadian Wheat Board


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I was not dealing with the section. I was dealing with the principle of the bill until the hon. member for Saskatoon differentiated between the terms " fixed price " and " initial price." Apparently this is one of the guises the government is going to use to try to get round this problem. I was merely pointing out that in the wheat board act it is clearly stated that " 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 shall be paid." The original act refers to a fixed price, and in this amendment the government chooses to call it an initial price. It is really dealing with the same thing. This section refers to the amount of money which a farmer will get when he delivers his grain to the wheat board.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not a price.


William Daum Euler: He gets a participation
certificate besides.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He always got it.


James Garfield Gardiner: He never had it since this board was set up.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There is
provision for it in the wheat board act and it is still called a fixed price. To quibble as to whether it is a fixed price or an initial price is merely attempting to get round the issue. I want to refer to this submission by the western conference because it is representative of a wide section of western Canada. It represents the opinions of some men who are associated politically with hon. members opposite and, therefore, it ought to carry a great deal of weight with the government when considering this matter. It reads:
Mr. Prime Minister and honourable ministers:
This delegation appears before you on behalf of the western committee on markets and agricultural readjustment. In this delegation are included accredited representatives of:
The United Farmers of Alberta, the United Farmers of Manitoba, the United Farmers of Canada (Saskatchewan section), the boards of trade of Regina, Saskatoon, Edmonton and Calgary, the Alberta wheat pool, Manitoba pool elevators, the Saskatchewan wheat pool, the North West Grain Dealers' Association, the United Grain Growers, the Alberta municipal association and the Manitoba government.
It is thus representative of those who are entitled to speak on behalf of the farmers of western Canada as well as of western business.
The original conference of which the presence of this delegation is the outcome was held in the city of Winnipeg on December 12th to 15th, 1938, inclusive. It was called by the government of Manitoba to consider the question of markets for western farm products, to discuss the situation of western agriculture and the disabilities which presently beset it, to assemble
the essential facts and to take such action by way of representation to constituted authority, continued study, recommendation, and self-help as might eventually be evolved, not only with respect to western agriculture, but also with regard to the general economy of Canada of which agriculture forms such a dominant part.
The conference was very largely attended, not only by producers, but also by organizations primarily interested in western agriculture, including representatives of both industry and business, not only from western Canada, but also from eastern Canada.
Universities cooperated by sending their professors and scientists. The deliberations were assisted and advanced by the experience and knowledge of several outstanding members of the dominion civil service and prominent officers of the United States department of agriculture. Assistance from all of these sources was greatly appreciated.
The proceedings of that conference have now been published, and we desire to file with you copies of these proceedings as representing a first-hand analysis of the western problem as it exists at the present time.
The contributions to the conference and the discussion that followed thereon were designed to crystallize the problem of western agriculture in the terms of ascertained facts.
The following legitimate deductions from the facts presented to the conference seem to be of especial significance and cogency.
I.	The prosperity of western Canada and to a large extent the prosperity of Canada depend upon the production of wheat and its sale at a reasonable price.
Without continued production of wheat on the present scale or on a scale approximate thereto and without exports to make such production possible, the west cannot continue to support its present population. We have other agriculture, and we have other industries, but they form part of an economic fabric, the strength of which depends mainly upon what happens to wheat. There is no other corresponding area and no other corresponding population in the world so dependent upon export trade in wheat.
There can be no other people so firmly determined as those of western Canada to maintain such a trade, as a matter of sheer necessity. Nor, since a quarter of the country's population is affected, is there any other country in the world so vitally concerned with the export wheat trade as is Canada.
The economic argument is strengthened by the facts of history. Professor Mackintosh, in discussing this question at the Winnipeg Conference, said:
"Confederation from the point of view of national economic development meant two things, union and definite expansion. Union meant a coordinating policy directed by a single government and not by the governments of four separate colonies; it meant financial strength and ability to enter the London money market, which was the source of capital necessary for the development of any new country; it meant a credit-worthy government.


William Daum Euler: Would my hon. friend tell me what he is reading from?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, I have already done so. It is from the submission to the government by the western committee on markets and agricultural readjustment.
Canadian Wheat Board

They are here quoting from Professor Mackintosh's statement to the Winnipeg conference on wheat marketing problems. To continue with the brief:
We submit that the great national purposes to be served as a result of confederation and its immediate objective, namely, the development of western Canada, has not been disappointing to the dominion as a whole; that great results have been forthcoming, not only in terms of a period of well-being in the Canadian west, but in terms of a consequent expansion in other parts of Canada and the building up of the nation as we understand it to-day. We further submit that the national objective involved in the development of western Canada continued to be a great driving force in Canadian development up until 1930. Even during the depression period through Which we are passing the west has contributed substantially to federal revenues under a tariff which between 1930 and 1935 was the highest in Canadian history.
2.	The tariff, which was greatly increased in the early stages of the depression, while constituting emergency relief for eastern Canada, bore heavily upon western Canada. Eastern reciprocity in sharing the burden of an emergency western wheat crisis is only the fulfilment of an obligation that has been long outstanding.
3.	Western Canada's production of wheat is generally more than three times as much per year as Canada herself requires. We must therefore find an external market for two-thirds or more of our production.
4.	As a result of declining world prices the 1938 crop, which was more than twice as large as the 1937 crop, would bring at recent market prices some 30 million dollars less than the 1937 crop.
5.	During the seven years from 1931 to 1937 there was a decline of $2,540,000,000 in the gross value of agricultural production in the prairie provinces as compared with the corresponding value from 1924 to 1930, of which decline something more than half was accounted for by lower prices. Consequent reduction in income has_ not only brought depression in the west, but is also one of the most important causes of depression experienced in other parts of Canada preventing a return to full employment in recent years.
6.	The wheat industry of western Canada, which finds itself caught in the current of economic nationalism, subsidized export competition and strangling international political forces over which our producers have no control, is entitled as an industry to receive from the nation as a whole emergency price assistance.
7.	Assistance actually rendered to the wheat industry^ has been small, especially if it is considered in relation to the extent and duration of the depressed period through which the industry has passed, in relation to the assistance rendered to growers in other exporting countries and in importing countries during the comparable period, and in relation to the great wealth it has produced for Canada. Only for the 1938 crop are actions by the dominion government likely to involve a relatively large cost. Risks were assumed by the dominion government in previous years, but the ultimate liability was practically negligible. Considerable sums have been spent for relief to farmers who suffered total or partial crop failure. For

this the dominion government deserves the fullest commendation. While appreciating to the full the value of such assistance to those in need, we submit that it differs from protection to the wheat industry as such and that it would have been necessary even if prices had remained at remunerative levels throughout the whole of the period under review.
8.	Because the western wheat farmer has had to bear the heavy burden of low prices and poor yields during all the depression period, his financial reserves have been largely eliminated and the disparity between his debts and the income from which these debts can be carried greatly widened. Western debt can only be serviced and amortized in terms of the volume and price of wheat.
9.	The competitive position of the wheat exporting countries is not only determined by their efficiency in the production and marketing of wheat, but at the present time also bv the varying degree of state assistance which enables the industry in each country to maintain its relative position.
10.	While wheat importing countries have striven to increase their own production of wheat, this factor has been of minor importance compared with the effects of trade restrictions imposed largely as defence measures, military or financial. Thus while wheat prices at Liverpool have declined to levels approaching the lowest on record, and while our northern wheat is selling at 60 cents per bushel at Fort William, the consumers of wheat in some of the formerly large wheat importing countries of continental Europe are actually paying as high or higher than $2 per bushel for wheat used in their breadstuffs. Even in the United Kingdom, which is now a free market for imported wheat, the government has established a fixed price of about $1.30 per bushel for millable homegrown wheat. Consequently, through the intervention of governments, producers in importing countries are protected from the effects of low international prices and consumers are prevented from enjoying the benefits of cheap bread. Under prevailing conditions low international prices are largely ineffective in bringing about stimulation in world consumption of wheat or in bringing about an increase in world trade.
_ 11. With the wheat industry playing such an important part in the domestic economies of Canada, the United States, the Argentine and Australia, it was inevitable that an effort should be made to protect their wheat growers. The United States has, for many years, been extending direct assistance to wheat farmers under the Agricultural Adjustment Act and other legislation, assistance which involves many hundreds of millions of dollars. In the present crop year that country reinforced price supporting measures by paying an export subsidy in an effort to retain a share of world markets. The Australian government, after experimenting with various forms of assistance, involving, according to a tabulation in the royal grain inquiry commission, payments of 14 million pounds during the years 1931-32 to 1935-36, is this year imposing a special tax on domestically consumed flour in order to assist wheat growers. The Argentine government is this year following its established practice of paying a minimum price to growers, a price which is at present above the world market level. In addition, both the Argentine and Australia have adopted

Canadian Wheat Board
monetary policies which have facilitated exports and at the same time have improved the relative position of their producers within their domestic economies. It is apparent from what has been done in this direction that none of the large wheat exporting countries has been prepared to see its internal economy and its external position determined by whatever prices may prevail in world markets.
12.	The resultant forces of high production, low consumption and low prices combined in their impact upon western Canada in 1938. A major economic disaster was only averted by the prompt action of the dominion government, through the Canadian wheat board in fixing a guaranteed price of 80 cents basis One Northern in store Fort William. The same forces now threaten the outlook for 1939.
13.	The Canadian economy 'has, to a very large extent, been built around its export industries, chief among which has been the wheat industry. For many years now Canada's exports of wheat, wheat flour, and other milled products, have constituted from 20 to 38 per cent of Canadian export trade. The wheat industry has established very substantial foreign credits which have been an essential factor in the service of the country's external debt, and in the provision of new capital in the maintenance of a rapidly growing country. It is in the interests of the nation as a whole, with due consideration to Canada's obligations abroad, to make a major effort to retain the wheat industry which means the continuance of assistance during abnormal conditions and effective measures to regain lost markets and to establish new ones.
14.	An 80-cent price, which is equivalent this year to a farm price of about 57 cents for average grades, will not permit payment of debt on ,the average farm except in cases of better than average yields, or at the expense of a serious reduction in standards of living in western farm homes, but it will help to carry the wheat farmer and the wheat industry through a crisis.
15.	The development of the prairie provinces was accompanied by the investment of large sums of money. In the development of the west, capital was provided not only from eastern Canada, but from many countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Holland, Belgium and France. A breakdown in the financial structure o>f western Canada, which must inevitably follow another period of low prices for wheat, would have far-reaching effects upon the credit of the Canadian nation as a whole. If the nation wishes to maintain a satisfactory credit position it must do its courageous part in meeting the western emergency.
16.	The financial results of protection for
the western wheat industry in 1938 should not be considered only from the viewpoint of first cost to the dominion treasury. The money go provided is not lost to the people of Canada, but is distributed mainly:	(a) In additional
purchases of eastern goods and the increase of inwai-d freights.
(b)	In the payment of taxes and the reduction of federal assistance that would otherwise have inevitably been necessary for relief purposes.
(c)	In payment of debt.
I might point out here that a number of implement companies' representatives went out last fall and collected for farm machinery a great deal of money which they would not have been able to collect if the farmer had not received this guaranteed minimum price of 80 cents last year.
17.	The federal system of administration in Canada and the regional nature of the Canadian economy have involved transfers of income as between different economic groups and as between different regions.
As a consequence of the Canadian tariff structure the west for many years now has been transferring a portion of its income to the central provinces of Canada, a transfer of income which over a long period of time amounts to many hundreds of millions of dollars. The conditions now existing in respect to the wheat industry fully justify the recognition of the principle of compensation to agriculture as a partial offset for the bonuses agriculture pays to the secondary industries through the tariff.
Incidentally it may be pointed out that at the very inception of the depression an abnormal transfer of income was made to the secondary industries of this country through the revisions of the tariff in 1930 and amendments to the Customs Act. This action, taken at a time when the wheat industry was involved in a serious crisis, reduced competition in the domestic market by making importation into Canada exceedingly difficult, and resulted in the maintenance of a relatively high price structure for manufactured goods sold in the domestic market. This emergency action taken in 1930 was. in effect, an additional subsidy to the secondary industries of this country, a subsidy which was largely paid for by the primary industries even though they themselves were in economic difficulty.


John Ritchie MacNicol: May I ask the hon. member a question: Does he not know that, under the Bennett legislation, the agricultural implement manufacturers were not permitted to advance their prices because of the advance in the tariff?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not want to stop now to argue the matter, but I think the point the committee are here endeavouring to make is that, by virtue of this tariff protection, the element of competition had been removed, and that, while there may have been steps taken to keep prices from going up, that element of competition was not present which might have brought prices down when other prices were coming down. There are just three more reasons given by them:
18.	It is impossible for the wheat industry to bear the burden of high tariff costs and low wheat prices at the same time. . . .
19.	Special consideration has not infrequently been given to different groups in Canada. For example, monetary policy during the depression protected creditor interests, and fiscal policy has consistently protected secondary industries.

Canadian Wheat Board

20.	The wheat industry of the prairie provinces, measured on the basis of the numbers of people concerned, in terms of wealth produced, and in terms of its effect on internal and external trade in Canada, reveals itself as being of such importance that it is essential for the dominion to stand behind it.
21.	With due regard to the degree of diversification which has taken place in western agriculture, it is in the national interest to preserve the present balance in farm production as between the various regions^ in Canada. Agriculture in Canada reached its most prosperous stage when the west was fulfilling its primary function of producing wheat for export. As long as this situation continued the west gave the agricultural producers of other parts of Canada a fair opportunity to carry on their industry without undue competition from the prairie provinces. In fact it may be said that the interests of the prairie provinces in the export market rather than in the domestic market permitted producers in other parts of Canada to enjoy relatively prosperous markets internally.
Any substantial or violent change in western agriculture at this time will adversely affect the balance of agriculture in Canada and the prosperity of eastern agriculture.
We would like to refer to the 80 cents guaranteed price paid in respect to the 1938 crop. After allowing for transportation, handling costs, and grades lower than No. 1 Northern, the western farmer is receiving an average of about 57 cents per bushel on the farm. Were it not for the fixed price this year western farmers would be receiving about 37 cents a bushel for their wheat, farm basis.
It is interesting to note that Ontario farmers received about 58 cents a bushel for their wheat in the local markets, or about the same price that the western farmer is receiving under the 80 cent guarantee. We would like to call your attention to the fact that prices for other grains are much higher in Ontario than in the prairie provinces. For instance, oats are worth 29 cents per bushel in Ontario and 16 cents a bushel in Saskatchewan. Barley is worth 41 cents per bushel in Ontario and 22 cents per bushel in Saskatchewan. Fall rye is worth 44 cents per bushel in Ontario and 25 cents a bushel in Saskatchewan. Thus, under the 80 cent guaranteed price on wheat, the western farmer is receiving no more than the eastern farmer, and he receives only about one-half the price that the eastern farmer is receiving for oats, barley and rye. The foregoing farm prices are averages for the 1938-39 crop year as published by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.
The committee then go on to outline their resolutions, which I cannot take time to read now. They outline the meeting which they had in Regina on January 21, when they drew up a resolution which concludes in this way:
By way of general direction to its sub-committee, this committee offers for its guidance, its unanimous opinion that the dominion government should be requested to extend to the western wheat growers in respect of the wheat to be grown in the crop year 1939-40 at least the protection given in the crop year 1938-39.
[Mr. T. C. Douglas.1
Then they go on to tell of the meeting they had in Saskatoon on February 14, when again they passed a resolution asking for the continuation of the wheat board and for a fixed price of not less than 80 cents, and it was arranged to present this brief to the government-which they did. In their report they then proceed to draw to the attention of the government the value of the wheat board and the importance of retaining it as a permanent marketing agency, and they point out what they regard as an important fact, namely, that the marketing of wheat ought not to be confused with relief measures and that a relief measure such as passed through this house to-day, Bill No. 83, cannot possibly be accepted as a substitute for a guaranteed minimum price of 80 cents. They submit that you are dealing with two classes of people and that a relief measure such as the acreage bonus scheme has to do with people who have no crop, whereas the Canadian Wheat Board Act affects people who have a crop and who desire to market it at a reasonable price. They insist that these two points of view should be kept separate and distinct, should be dealt with separately and distinctly, and that we should not try to do what has been done and what, I am afraid, will continue to be done; that is, that you should not lump the two together and say we cannot have the one without the other.
There is nothing at all that would have made it impossible for the government to accept the suggestion of this committee and fix the initial price in the wheat board act at 80 cents and at the same time have the acreage bonus scheme. Since this house has passed the acreage bonus scheme, there is nothing to prevent the government from altering this bill or sending it to the committee on agriculture where it could be gone into thoroughly and, if it were thought wise, recommendation could be made to the house that the price be raised to 80 cents.
No member of the house in voting for this bill can escape his responsibility merely by saying that he had to accept it in order to get the acreage bonus scheme, because the two are separate and distinct bills. You can vote for the one without voting for the other. They are not interwoven. We in this comer were prepared to support the acreage bonus scheme although we thought that there should be changes in it, and we did support it in principle. We will not support this bill, because we are convinced first of all that the restriction of 5,000 bushels to each producer is a discrimination against the most efficient producers on the prairies.

Canadian Wheat Board
I am quite willing to concede that it would not be wise to let people sell all their wheat to the wheat board; it might be necessary to put it on a graduated scale. But certainly there should not be a fixed limit of 5,000 bushels which would penalize the people on the best farms round the Regina plains, Rose-town-Biggar, the Soo line, Kindersley and Elrose, which are among the most efficient producers in Saskatchewan. For that reason we object to the bill and we hope that the minister will seriously reconsider it. We object to the price of 70 cents, which is totally inadequate to meet the situation, and we do not feel that the government can escape the condemnation of the farmers of western Canada by trying to get this bill through the house by virtue of the good graces of the acreage bonus scheme.
Mr. CHARLES E. FERLAND (Joliette-
L'Assomption-Montcalm) (Translation): Mr. Chairman, the bill now before us is entitled "An Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935." Its purpose is to amend" the act whereby the Bennett government instituted that wheat board and granted special privileges to Canadian wheat growers.
I was very much surprised, during this debate and the discussion on bill 83, to hear a great number of hon. members from the west criticize this government's agricultural legislation and state their intention of voting against the relief measures introduced with a view to helping wheat growers. If we are to believe the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, the sole problem which must be solved in this country is the wheat problem, and it covers the entire field of agriculture. Problems that are far more important than wheat growing are involved in the agricultural industry and the wheat problem does not, by any means, constitute the whole agricultural problem. It is nevertheless considered as an all-important one by every great wheat producing country. The European nations, the United States, Argentina and Canada, all of which are growing wheat, recognize that wheat is essentially a basic commodity and a most important one. That is why those countries have enacted legislation granting special privileges to wheat growers.
It was under the Bennett administration that our country adopted a wheat policy. The Bennett government first paid a bonus on wheat after which they introduced, in 1935, that act whereby a price was set on wheat and a Canadian Wheat Board was instituted. A reference to what the Bennett government did for agriculture will show that they endeavoured to pass three acts of the utmost 71492-2421
importance. The first was the Marketing Act which was passed by this House notwithstanding the objections of the Liberals who were of the opinion that such an act could not be passed under our constitution; that act was declared by our courts to be ultra vires. The second important piece of legislation respecting the farmers of Canada was the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. Through it, approximately 42,000 farmers settled debts amounting to over $200,000,000. As a result, the farmers' indebtedness has been reduced by about $80,000,000, of which $5,500,000 alone represent interests to date. Statistics are not complete in that respect, but I have been able to secure that information from the officer who is administering the act. Consequently, under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act passed by the Bennett administration, the farmers' creditors, who were mostly small rural moneylenders, lost $80,000,000 or contributed this amount toward alleviating the distress of these farmers, and this, without any governmental assistance whatever. Lastly, the Bennett government adopted the Wheat Board Act. I might also mention the legislation fathered by the Liberal government, which is designed to assist all farmers in general, and not solely those who produce wheat, namely, the Canadian Farm Loan Act.
According to the latest figures, the government has loaned to dale, under this Act, approximately $39,000,000, of which almost $11,000,000 is in the province of Quebec alone. Why did the province of Quebec thus obtain $11,000,000, while the other provinces received much smaller amounts? It is due to the fact that a measure adopted by the Taschereau government enabled the farmers to obtain farm loans from the both governments at an interest rate of 3 per cent. However, there is one recommendation I would like to make in this regard. Experience has revealed during the last few years, that it was possible profitably to administer the Canadian Farm Loan Act in the province of Quebec-there is more difficulty to be encountered elsewhere, for it seems to me that the western farmers carry a much greater burden of debt than those in the east.
The Canadian Farm Loan Act allows farmers to borrow up to 50 per cent of the value of their land on a first mortgage, and an additional 10 per cent, that is up to 60 per cent on a second mortgage, the maximum loan obtainable being set at $6,000. In the province of Quebec, it would be much easier and much more practical to administer this Act in a broad-minded manner, in a freer and more generous way, if the officials who
Canadian Wheat Board

are charged with its administration paid more attention to the spirit rather than to the letter of the law. Notwithstanding the great difficulties with which prospective borrowers are faced, they have succeeded in obtaining, under the federal legislation, almost SI 1,000,000. I would ask the higher officials in Ottawa, those whose duty it is to give out the necessary instructions with regard to the interpretation of this Act, to see that it is administered according to the spirit that prompted its introduction, and effectively to grant loans equivalent to 50 per cent of the value of the land on a first mortgage, and to 10 per cent on a second mortgage.
In the report published for the year ending March 31, 1938, I notice that the federal government has granted, under the Canadian Farm Loan Act, advances in the amount of $34,000,000 approximately, and that these loans are secured by mortgages valued at $106,000,000, so that the security obtained is at least two thirds greater than the amount advanced. Were the Act administered in a more liberal and equitable manner, our farmers would be able to borrow an amount equal at least to 50 per cent of the value of their lands, whereas in reality they have only received about one third. We could loan at least four or five millions more every year in Quebec alone.
The administration of this Act has not been very expensive. Although the government was authorized to loan $90,000,000 only $39,000,000 has been advanced under the provisions of the Act. This sum of $90,000,000 consists of $40,000,000 worth of Farm Loan Board bonds which the hon. Minister of Finance may hold as security against advances, in addition to other debentures valued at $50,000,000 which the board may place on the market and which are guaranteed by the government. Since these bonds bear interest at the rate of 3i per cent, their purchase by the public would offer no difficulty, and the government could thus loan considerable amounts without its costing the federal treasury very much. I am not at all advocating the granting of advances to farmers without demanding repayment. We are all aware of the fact that whatever happens, repayment is always effected through taxation, but I am in favour of any practical legislation by means of which the federal government can accelerate the circulation of money, distribute it in every part of the country, and then recover this money without the aid of further taxation.
To my mind, the present measure with respect to wheat is a very liberal one for the Western farmers. The honourable member for Prescott (Mr. Bertrand) stated the other day

that the dairy industry remains more important than the wheat industry, and he urged, as he and a great many other hon. members from the eastern provinces have so often done during this session, that all possible assistance be granted to the butter and cheese industry.
The government is to be congratulated on having, while continuing the Conservative policy of assisting the wheat growers, listened to our representations and placed on the statute book of the country for the first time substantial measures intended to aid the dairy industry by bringing about a raise in the price of this product, which at present is below 25 cents a pound. Farmers and cooperative societies have written to us and forwarded resolutions asking that the price of butter be raised to 25 cents at least.
Some encouragement has been given to the production of cheese. Large quantities of cheese can easily be shipped to England, whereas it is practically impossible to export any butter to that market. This substantial encouragement to the production of cheese will serve to reduce the production of butter, as our farmers will go in more for cheesemaking. I have already received from my constituency applications for some of the assistance which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has placed at the disposal of the cheese industry. Western members who criticize the government in spite of the liberal, generous and very special legislation introduced On behalf of their people, do not seem to understand that the farmers of eastern Canada have problems of their own and indeed very serious ones. Operating in industrialized provinces where nearly one third of the population live in the cities and towns, they have to bear the burden to a certain extent of a protective tariff intended to make it possible for our manufacturing establishments to absorb the labour of the cities and create a sufficient market for the products of the eastern farms.
I have another suggestion to offer to the government in connection with this agricultural measure. The hon. member who has just taken his seat complained that the eastern farmers obtain a much higher price for their grain than the farmers of the prairies and he saw injustice in that situation. Therein lies an excellent opportunity for the government to help both the western grain grower and the eastern farmer interested in the dairy industry and in cattle, hog and chicken raising, by finding a way to distribute in the eastern provinces a certain amount of western grain at the prices prevailing in the west. The government would thus help the western

Canadian Wheat Board
grain growers to dispose of their crop while assisting the eastern farmers to purchase grain and grain products at reasonable prices instead of the exorbitant prices which they frequently have to pay now.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I appeal to hon. members from the west who so frequently make unreasonable demands, who show themselves so uncompromising, who seem to forget that the east has problems of its own, to show as much generosity towards the east as the east shows towards the west. I hope the government will give substantial assistance to the producers of the east, particularly the producers of butter and cheese, and in the near future, as I have just suggested and as it has been suggested by others outside the house, cause western grain to be distributed in the eastern provinces at the prices prevailing in the west.


Ernest Edward Perley: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose at this stage to speak at great length on the bill. When we are in committee I may ask a few questions. I think we realize that the government proposes to put this bill through, and I would not want to be accused of trying to block it.
I am unalterably opposed to it, and I think it is unnecessary for me to go into any very great detail, because every hon. member must know where I stand on this all important question of marketing the grain of western Canada. I might say, however, that this bill has caused more unrest and dissatisfaction in western Canada not only among producers but among business interests, merchants, boards of trade and others, than any other bill which has been introduced into parliament for many years. We know it has resulted in many protest meetings being held. It has resulted in two important committees coming from the west to interview the government, and we know generally that it has caused great dissatisfaction.
This is a marketing bill and, as I said when speaking on Bill No. 83, it should not be confused with relief or insurance. There was a general discussion of the wheat problem when Bill No. 83 was under consideration, and as I spoke at that time I do not propose on this occasion to rehash what has already been said. I migfht point out, however, that when speaking on Bill No. 83 the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) made reference to Bill No. 63, and to the wheat board. He made the statement that the difficulty in connection with the 1935 wheat board was that the price had been set over the world's price, at 87^ cents. I cannot see anything wrong in setting a price, if the wheat board was continuing at somewhere near the world
price. I do not think there would be anything wrong if the board itself made any effort to resist a price decline. That is one thing about which I complained in 1935 and 1938, namely, that there was never any effort by the board to resist a price decline.
With the experience the farmers have had in years when there were no wheat board operations-an average of SI .39 at Fort William in 1937, and SI .22 in 1936-they know full well if there had been a board, with the participation certificates they would have got somewhere near the average price. There was a great deal of wTheat sold in the early season, because it is always necessary to sell a large quantity of grain in the first two or three months of the crop year. The men who sold then did not get anywhere near the price to which the grain ultimately went in the spring of 1937.
As I have said, this problem is economic and must be dealt with from a long range viewpoint. Bill No. 83, which we have just disposed of, is purely a relief measure. In 1935 the Liberals more or less tried to take credit for the Canadian Wheat Board Act. I was just wondering if they will now give credit to those who opposed Bill No. 63 when it was first introduced, bearing a 60 cent price. I am wondering if they will give credit to the opposition for having the bill reprinted, and the price set at 70 cents. If they are consistent they must do that.


William Daum Euler: It was never debated in the house.


Ernest Edward Perley: We know about the protests and about the committees which came from the west. We know about the objections which were raised. We know the ante was raised to 70 cents. Surely the government will not take credit for that, because it rvould not have been raised had it not been for the protests from western Canada.
There is a change in the reprinted bill with respect to the 5,000 bushels a farmer may deliver to the board. I have already said this section is discriminatory against a certain class of producers, and will leave the balance over 5,000 bushels of those producers having
15,000	or 20.000 bushels to be delivered to the open market, so to speak, and permit it to come in competition with the operations of the board. Certainly there will not be any resistance to a price decline by those who have the surplus over 5,000 bushels.


William Daum Euler: It does not increase the
quantity of wheat on the market.


Ernest Edward Perley: No, but it will be there
in competition with the board. If a great
Canadian Wheat Board

deal of that wheat gets into the hands of the "Big Three," we know they like to see wheat going down at a certain season of the year, because they make just as much money out of it at a lower price as they do at higher prices. There has been no effort on their part to keep prices up.


William Daum Euler: They cannot.


Ernest Edward Perley: If this bill passes, it is
a straight betrayal of the confidence the people in western Canada have placed in the government. It is admitted by all that prosperity in western Canada depends upon the production of wheat, and its sale at a reasonable price. There is no other corresponding area or corresponding population in the world so dependent upon wheat as is western Canada. As a result of a decline in price the crop in 1938, which was twice as large as the crop in 1937, sold at $30,000,000 less. We realize what that means in trade in Canada. In fact, in the last seven years there was a decline in the money received from the sale of western Canada's grain in the neighbourhood of $2,540,000,000, as compared with the amount received in the period from 1924 to 1930, inclusive.
Hon. members will see what this decline means. The greater part of it is accounted for by lower prices. When we realize the importance of the wheat industry to all of Canada, I believe we must understand that it is entitled to receive from the government, and from the nation as a whole, proper and fair consideration, and whatever assistance may be necessary. It has been pointed out already that prior to 1938 western agriculture had received very little from the federal treasury by way of assistance. The position now is that our competitors in other wheat exporting countries have been subsidizing to a substantial degree. I shall not rehash the discussion on that matter, because the facts have been pointed out on many occasions. Y e know that other countries subsidize their producers, and that we are up against that sort of competition. We know what is being done in Australia and in the Argentine to help producers. Thirty per cent of Canada's export trade is made up of wheat, and I believe that is a point which should be considered. Measured in terms of wealth produced and in terms of its effect upon the external trade of Canada, the wheat industry of the prairie provinces is of such importance that it is essential that the dominion government stand behind it.
The hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) has mentioned this evening the commit-
Mr. Perley.J
tee which visited Ottawa in March, and he read from the brief they had prepared and presented to the government. I think they were very fair and reasonable in the attempt they made to have the government raise the price from 60 cents to 80 cents.


William Daum Euler: The hon. member referred to the fact that a price had been set in Australia. Does he know that the initial price set in that country is a good deal lower than the price we propose to set?


Ernest Edward Perley: 
Mr. WILLIAM HAYHURST (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to state the views of some of our group here, which have already been fairly well presented to the house in the last few days. Speakers from this group have emphasized that it is essential that a minimum price of 80 cents a bushel be fixed.


Mr. SLAGHT:: How do you reach that
figure ?


William Hayhurst: We wish the farmer to receive his costs of production as well as a profit. A price of 80 cents at Fort William means 40 cents on the farm in Alberta, depending upon the grade, the 80 cent price being for No. 1 northern.
It is our considered judgment that western Canada is facing the gravest crisis in its history. a fact which is not perhaps fully appreciated by many members of the house. Conditions in western Canada to-day exist probably nowhere else in the world. We are a long way from our markets; we have high freight rates and other problems to face, and the greatest problem facing the wheat grower of western Canada to-day is to get a sufficient price for his product to afford a decent livelihood for himself and those dependent upon him.
We are in favour of a 100 per cent wheat board to purchase wheat and coarse grain. We are also in favour of sections 9, 10, 11 14 and 16 of the wheat board act of 1935 being made effective.
For the sake of brevity I have put down five considerations which I think the government should ponder with a view to raising the price under this bill to 80 cents. In the west we want a fair measure of compensation. Among the artificial disabilities from which the west suffers are these: First, we find an overproduction of wheat in the world

Canadian Wheat Board
as a result of the subsidization of grain growers is that each producer can only deliver 5,000
in many other countries. This has resulted in a depression in the price of wheat.
Second, we have artificially maintained scales of salaries, fees and wages which enter into the price structure of every commodity or service which the agriculturist buys, so that in respect of practically every purchase he makes he has to pay a standard minimum, which works against him in trying to obtain a decent standard of living.
Third, there is the fixing of grain storage and handling charges at levels in excess of those which would prevail were unrestricted competition between grain handling corporations permitted.
Fourth, in connection with the railways we have a non-competitive freight rate system, and what do we find? We find that those rates are designed to maintain a standard of salaries and wages out of proportion to the returns accorded the primary producer.


Mr. GOLDING:: Would the hon. member
permit a question here: Does he know of any country except Japan where they have lower freight rates?


William Hayhurst: I realize that we have
on our hands a great railway problem, but I do not propose to discuss that problem now.


William Henry Golding: I am speaking about the rates.


William Hayhurst: I might suggest a means by which that burden could be more effectively carried.
The fifth point is the protective tariff. We are protecting the manufacturers of eastern Canada.


William Daum Euler: The hon. member has not
forgotten that, has he?


William Hayhurst: I realize we have heard of that before, but I am mentioning it as one of the five important points, the grievances from which we in the west are suffering and for which we need some compensation, and the only compensation we can get is through a standard price for wheat. I wish to emphasize that we should have a minimum price of at least 80 cents a bushel.
I have mentioned these points to show the necessity of sustaining western agriculture at this time if the Canadian economy is to be maintained upon a sound basis.


Mr. W. G. WEIR (Macdonald):: We are now considering Bill No. 63, which provides for an advanced price, fixed in the bill, of 70 cents a bushel for No. 1 northern wheat at Fort William. Another principle in this bill 71492-243
bushels at the advance price. A third principle of the bill extends the operation of the measure to eastern Canada. The inclusion of eastern Canada is entirely commendable. This bill should be considered with Bill No. 83, which the house passed this afternoon. I do not propose to discuss that feature at this time, except to point out that this bill provides for one thing in addition to what the other bill provided for. The two bills are complementary to each other.
I confess that there are in this bill some things which I should have liked to be a little different. I do not mind admitting that I regard the 5,000 bushel limitation as too low. It seems to me that a man who produces
5,000	bushels or more is penalized by having the one per cent deduction taken from his wheat for the benefit of less fortunate farmers. He is not likely to benefit much from the crop insurance scheme. Also the provision may be difficult to administer. I believe that if the amount were raised to a higher level the administrative difficulty would be materially lessened. In most communities nearly everyone knows the farmers who have more than eight or ten thousand bushels of wheat, so that the possibility of abuse, if a higher amount were allowed, would not be nearly so great as I fear it may be under the legislation as it stands.
I hope, too, that careful consideration will be given in this connection to what may be called the family farmer. We have in western Canada a situation where the father of the family is remaining on the farm with several sons. They have probably extended their farm operations to secure land which at some time will be available for each of these boys. Surely those people are entitled to be classed as farmers individually. I hope that these matters will be considered when the bill is before us in committee.
There are two or three things I should like to point out not so much with respect to the legislation as to the general picture of the wheat situation. Some of the figures I propose to mention have been quoted before, but for my purpose to-night I should like to quote them again because I think they will be found helpful in considering this all-important matter.
It is estimated that by next July we shall have a world cariy-over of 1,100,000,000 bushels of wheat. The world trade in wheat for the past two years has been between 540 and 560 million bushels. Consequently it will be seen that we have a world carry-over equal to almost two years' world trade in wheat without adding to it. That is based on the

3S56
Canadian Wheal Board

world trade of the last few years. In addition, to that, we are likely to have a Canadian carry-over of probably 100 to 125 million bushels. This year's wheat marketing policy is likely to cost the taxpayers of Canada anywhere from 30 million to 50 million dollars. Further, notwithstanding the payment of money to assist wheat producers, we have had to spend another 12 million dollars in actual farm relief in the wheat growing areas of western Canada. I do not wish to delay the house, but I should like to quote a comment which has been made in another country respecting this feature as it affects Canada. This quotation is taken from Foreign Agriculture, a publication of the United States department of agriculture. Referring to the wheat situation in Canada, it says this, in part:
If exports this season reach the usual level of about 200,000,000 bushels, the cost to the Canadian government-
That is, under the present wheat policy.
-for exports alone will be approximately $40,000,000.
It goes on to say:
The Canadian price scheme for wheat does not impose any immediate burden on domestic consumers, since no attempt is made by the board to keep prices to domestic millers at levels higher than the prices secured for export wheat. The fact is, however, that losses incurred by the board must some time be met out of
Fublic funds, unless the price of wheat in the uture goes so high as to offset the board's losses. The situation is focusing Canadian official and public attention upon proposals to end the fixed-price system, although at present no substitute plan for wheat has been approved. The costs incurred to date represent a considerable burden for the Canadian population of about 12,000,000 people.
This publication is dealing with the situation in different countries, and that is what it has to say with respect to the Canadian situation.
The system under which we operated in the past year, that of paying a guaranteed advance price of 80 cents a bushel worked to the advantage of those who had a good crop, and did little or nothing for those who were unfortunate enough to have a poor crop or a low-yielding crop or no crop at all. In that sense it acted exactly as did the application of the five cents a bushel bonus proposed by the previous government. So that, in spite of what we may say with regard to it, there are bound to be inequalities in the actual carrying out of the scheme. It is admitted that it is an easy scheme to administer, that it produces very few difficulties in operation, that the system for it to function under is already made; but inequalities are bound to develop within it.
For example, this year-there is no gainsaying it-the government stands to pay roughly about twenty cents a bushel on each fMr. Weir.]
bushel of wheat marketed. Thus it will be appreciated that the man with a good crop is getting from the government a considerable payment which he may not have required. The man with thirty bushels to the acre will secure this year from the government a contribution of about S6 an acre. Others, on the other hand, have secured little or nothing. The inequalities to which I refer have been met to a certain extent by the second piece of legislation introduced at this session providing for a crop insurance scheme. In addition to that, under this legislation we have continued the participation certificate, which means that the 70 cent price as announced in the wheat board act is an advance price, so that if the price of wheat should go higher than 70 cents then the farmer will have an opportunity to take advantage of that advance. Moreover, no restrictions were placed on the farmer with regard to his deliveries or the amount of wheat the board might accept from him, until this year when we introduced the 5.000 bushel limitation.
Throughout this whole discussion on the wheat marketing legislation references are being constantly made to the demands by way of petition and otherwise that have come from western Canada for an advance price of 80 cents. These demands represent naturally the feeling of those who are particularly interested. In some instances they have been urged; but in others, particularly in the letters received from private individuals, there is evidence of a sincere and full appreciation of the condition in western Canada. So far as these petitions are concerned, I am bound to say that if the government is going to be forced to direct its policy upon the basis of such petitions as it may receive, then I do not know why it should continue to carry on as a government. After all, other sections of Canada can make representations by way of petition or otherwise-


Ernest Lapointe: And they do.


William Gilbert Weir: -and that being so, we shall not be in any different position with respect to these representations or demands or pressure exerted upon members of parliament from that which we are in at the present time. We must remember that in this house, out of a total membership of 245, there are fifty-five members of parliament from the western wheat-growing provinces, and out of a total of sixteen cabinet ministers, there are three ministers from those provinces. I do not think, therefore, that anyone can successfully contradict me when I say that there is not a party in this house which, if it were the

3S57
Canadian Wheat Board
government, could secure at this time the enactment of a higher advance price than 70 cents. That goes without successful denial. I, myself, felt the tenor of the house among private members and others as well, and I do not believe that any political party, whatever it might be, could secure more than 70 cents advance price at this time.
These petitions, or demands, or whatever you choose to call them-I prefer to call them representations-have been based upon a principle which, I think, has been overlooked in most of the discussion. The principle of what I am about to say was contained in the brief presented by the western committee to the cabinet some time ago. It was to the effect that western Canadian economy cannot be maintained on its present basis at a lower price than 80 cents, that the general western set-up cannot be maintained on a lower price than 80 cents for No. 1 northern wheat at Fort William. I agree with the claim to a large extent, and to me it was a warning from those who have made representations with respect to this very matter. They have stated the position of western Canada, letting the rest of Canada know exactly what their circumstances are. They say, "We take the view that a lower price than 80 cents will not maintain the set-up we have in the west. That being so, if we are unable to secure 80 cents, then many other things may have to be adjusted accordingly."
I believe this government has recognized that fact, and realized the position of the western provinces, and accordingly it has moved in the direction of remedying these conditions. I refer to the Canada-United States-United Kingdom trade agreement as a long step in the right direction towards that alleviation, as is also the measure introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) last Saturday when he introduced the bill with regard to the mortgage discount bank. That measure will have a far-reaching effect on the debt structure of private individuals, farmers, and householders throughout Canada, particularly in the west. It fixes upon Canada as a whole a rate of interest, with regard to farm property and homes, of five per cent, at the same time reducing the principal to present day values. Other measures may be necessary if we are to be able to produce wheat in western Canada. We have to exert every effort to extend our trade with other countries, and find new markets and new uses for wheat.
Argentina has recently entered into an extensive barter arrangement with Germany whereby it exchanges wheat for a large quantity of railway equipment. I submit 71492-243J
that this government must not stop at this stage in its efforts to create increased marketing opportunities for Canadian wheat. But I wanted to refer more particularly to what I have been able to gather as to what is being done in other countries in the matter of wheat marketing. The information I am about to give to the house has been secured largely from the Department of Trade and Commer Monthly Review of the Wheat Situation and from the Foreign Exchange magazine of the United States department of agriculture as well as from our own bureau of statistics. I have compiled it in a way that will be more presentable to the house.
I will deal first with the Argentine. A minimum price for wheat was set in the Argentine on November 15, 1938, by presidential decree based upon legislation passed in September, 1938. The growers receive from the current crop seven pesos per quarts], equivalent to 59J cents a bushel for 62i pound wheat, delivered at Buenos Aires. Minimum prices for lower grades were set at appropriate spreads. The national grain board purchase wheat from growers on this basis and in turn resell it to exporters at competitive market prices. Losses incurred will be met by revenues from the operations of the exchange control board. It costs approximately seventeen cents a bushel to place wheat in store at Fort William from a Saskatchewan farm, and it costs the Argentine farmer approximately twenty cents a bushel to deliver his wheat to seaboard. The Argentine price is 594 cents as against the Canadian price of 70 cents.
In Australia they have developed quite an extensive marketing system as well as an acreage bonus scheme. Legislation was passed late in 1938 for the imposition by the state of a tax on flour milled for home consumption to establish a home consumption price of wheat of about 5s. 2d. a bushel, equivalent to 96 cents in Canadian currency. On the basis of 2s. 8d. wheat-Canadian equivalent, 48 cents a bushel-the bounty fund would be built up at a rate of $15,000,000 a year. A sum of $1,868,600 will be set aside this year to aid distressed farmers in the drought areas. This is a rather important feature; it compares with what we are doing in this country.
A bounty of 6d. a bushel will be paid this year on the following basis: farmers receiving seven bushels an acre or less will receive a bounty of 6d. a bushel; in addition, these farmers will receive from the drought relief fund a payment which together with the bounty on wheat sold or delivered, will give them a total payment equal to that which growers whose yields average seven bushels an
Canadian Wheat Board


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, on the second reading of this bill I wish to address you for a few moments concerning some features to which references have not been made by other hon. members. The purpose of the amending bill is to limit the quantity of wheat the board may purchase from one producer. The words are:
Canadian Wheat Board

Provided further that the hoard shall not purchase from any one producer more than five thousand bushels of wheat produced in any crop year.
I can remember the attitude taken by hon. members opposite about the time the pools began to operate. They opposed vigorously in the house the proposal I had advocated for some years, that there should be a wheat board to regulate operations in wheat, to market it and to ship the exportable surplus. They opposed regulations such as may be imposed upon railways, telephone companies and express companies in Canada by federal regulatory bodies. Such regulations were ridiculed in the house. After persuading one of the great newspapers to spend a great deal of money investigating this entire grain trade proposal I was told I was proposing a system of paternalism, when I supported the principle then of such a proposed wheat board, whereby it would be given wide grain functions.
Under this -measure the board will be reduced, so far as its functions are concerned. It is going to be tied down to a certain automatic rule, and will simply be reduced to the capacity of office boys, stenographers and all that sort of thing. I can remember when also aid came in opposition from Sir Henry Thornton who wanted to bring a million more wheat growers to the Northwest Territories and the Peace River district. We can realize what over-production of grain that would have involved. The grain industry would have been ruined' and wheat would have gone down to 50 cents a bushel.
In connection with this matter, I shall quote two or three observations which I made on a former occasion:
I know this proposal will be met with the shout of "paternalism." I would sooner have the paternalism of a protectionist government than the paternalism of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange and its allies, and the paternalism of a free trade that robs the growers of the best wheat in the world out of $25,000,000 per annum in the price of wheat, and puts that $25,000,000 into the pockets of the Americans who handle that wheat. We will have to have more paternalism in the management of this country's resources and the promotion of this country's welfare.
I believe those words were prophetic, because, after all is said and done, there should be no east or west or north or south in this question. The wheat growers and their great natural industry must be considered throughout the country as a whole. If the industry is a success, the banks and railways will benefit, as will the people in the east and west alike. The whole dominion will be benefited. It is of the utmost importance that we should not do anything here to-night which would weaken the position of that great basic industry,
{Mr. Church.]
an industry which has been the safety valve for business in Canada, both before and after confederation.
There are some features of the bill I do not like. It ignores the evidence taken in 1935 with respect to the grain act. My late leader created the grain board because it would be beneficial to the grain industry. He practically wanted to nationalize its scope and operations to aid the grower. If I can go by what I hear in the house and what I read outside the house, the wheat industry must be in a bad way to-day on the prairies. I think it is the duty of every good citizen to take a keen interest in the question and help it by wise precautions. I would not have taken part in this debate had it not been for the fact that people from Ontario pioneered in the prairie provinces and some of us are said not to be friendly in the matter. We were and are pioneers. I well remember, when I was five or six years of age, the great growth of that industry, and the movement connected with the sale of lots in what were known as Portage la Prairie lands. Thousands of people from Ontario went to the west then and pioneered in the wheat industry. For that reason I have always had a keen interest in it and its success has appealed to my fancy and imagination. I have watched the suffering that has taken place on the prairies, and I hope nothing will be said which would interfere with proper relief being given to that part of the country, and other sections, where want is for all the people all of the time.
The production of wheat is the most imperial and national industry Canada has, and one of the greatest the world has ever witnessed. It depends for its success on the British market very largely, and, for that reason, in view of what was said there yesterday by the Secretary of State for War, in the British House of Commons, namely, that the people of Britain must now be ready and sleep on their haversacks, I cannot understand why more extensive measures are not taken by the government. As I said last year, great storage reservoirs erected by Canada should have been created in the old country to take care of our exportable surplus. The carryover of last year and this year could have been taken over to Great Britain by this government and stored there in advance of the world's crisis. If we had had the vision to move that crop, the carry-over of last year and this year could have been stored in the old country.
The present bill narrows the scope of the whole wheat board. The marketing of grain is quite properly under the Minister of Trade

Canadian Wheat Board
and Commerce (Mr. Euler). After all is said and done, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is engaged with technical matters concerning agriculture, aid to farmers, aid to the poor grain growers who have been suffering and who have always been the victims of the middleman. There is a duplication in the provinces of the work of the Department of Agriculture. The function of the Department of Trade and Commerce is to advance our surplus overseas, market our crops, eliminate the middleman and get the best price for our wheat in the markets of the world, so that the poor grain grower who has suffered so much may receive some direct benefit, and his share of the profits with the middleman eliminated.
I cannot understand why the government of the day has not accepted' the suggestion which was made by Hon. H. A. Wallace, the very able federal secretary of the department of agriculture in the United States. He conferred once or twice with the former Prime Minister and Mr. McFarland, and this year again proposed that the two countries, Canada and the United States, should make a survey, act together and consider the possibility of joint action with regard to dividing the important overseas markets as am emergency measure for the joint orderly marketing of wheat on this continent. This marketing could have been carried on so that the two countries which are so closely related would not suffer. I cannot understand why the wheat board or the government did not accept this proposal, as the government of this country abrogated the six cent preference on wheat of the Ottawa agreements, which would have done so much to eliminate the carry-over of last year, the carry-over of this year and the carry-over of future years. That was a steady market in Britain for our wheat, not a market that was here to-day and away to-morrow. That preference carried with it the stipulation that the grain must be shipped in British ships. I cannot understand why that was not continued, and I should like to see all the papers in connection with that matter laid on the table of the house. I should like to know if the British government suggested this. Two free traders, Right Hon. Ramsay MacDonald and Oliver Stanley represented that government in negotiating the United States treaty with Great Britain. I should like to know if the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce have received any correspondence from them or the United States. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) who spoke in the debate is the only Conservative from the prairies. Hon. gentlemen opposite after being free traders and wearing a coat of
many colours, are now adopting a policy of protection all along the line in the way of bonuses, stabilization funds, subsidies and all that kind of thing, which the wheat board should be carrying out.
I should like to know if the department or the minister has had any correspondence in connection with the handling of grain in the old country. The importing countries have reduced their imports by 20 per cent. Germany, France and Italy are growing that much for their own home markets. When we have such a large exportable surplus, how does it come about that Great Britain enters into an agreement with the United States, which has been produced in the British house and which has received some discussion in Washington, whereby Britain is to take 100,000,000 bushels of the exportable surplus of the United States in exchange for rubber and tin. That is about half our carry-over. Where are we going to find a market? The wheat board cannot find markets. Some of our markets are gone beyond recall forever. As I said in connection with the wheat board bill this year, regarding the United States treaty once this preference is gone the United Kingdom will have to make other arrangements. These other arrangements have now been made with the United States by Britain for 100,000,000 bushels. We are the losers.
I cannot understand why the wheat board and the government have not made any move also to reconvene the world's international advisory committee and attempt to negotiate an agreement with the major importing countries which have reduced our exports by 22 per cent. I have directed the attention of the house to the statement which was made in the British house in connection with the grain trade and Canada's exportable surplus. We must remember that we are in an emergency. Great Britain imports 90 per cent of her food and 97 per cent of her raw materials. Where is that food to come from? Mostly from the dominions. During 1919 Great Britain was almost starved out by the submarines which sunk our shipping and grain and food ships. Last year I urged that our merchant marine ships should not be sold but should be placed under the control of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the wheat board, so that this grain could be earned across to Great Britain and stored there instead of in the elevators along the great lakes. I do not want to delay the house any longer. Speaking as a private member I should like to see it conclude its business to-morrow night because I think we have been here long enough. I should like, however, to elaborate on what the British
Canadian Wheat Board

Minister of War said yesterday and quote from the National Review of April, 1939, with reference to the great menace of the submarine to our grain and food trade. I quote:
One apologises for introducing these figures: but memories are short. The great war is almost forgotten, and our younger generation never _ knew it. The unrestricted submarine campaign of 1917-18, however, was the gravest peril that has ever threatened the British empire. It was calculated to break Britain's resistance by the autumn of 1917. If 600,000 tons of shipping were destroyed a month, and about 1,200,000 tons of neutral shipping were scared off through terrorism, the argument ran, tshe war would be won for Germany in five months. It nearly was.
Food was short in England, and severely rationed. Our total imports during the war were reduced by over 19 million tons, roughly 35J per cent, and of this decrease about one-third represented food. There was undoubtedly much hardship, and the more irritation. The general shortage of meat, sugar, and butter, the bad quality of much of the meat and bacon released for civilian consumption, the unaccustomed restrictions on diet and habits, and the increase in the cost of living to about 140 per cent above the figure for 1914, all had their repercussions in the widespread industrial unrest after the war.
And again:
In December, 1916, 167 British and allied ships of 276,400 tons were sunk by UJboats. In January, 1917, the corresponding figures were 180 ships of 285,007 tons; in February, 260 vessels of 469,000 tons: in March, 338 ships hr 524,000 tons; in April, 430 vessels of 852,000 tons. The unrestricted submarine campaign started in February; but April was the worst month of the war. On April 19, 1917, the worst day of this blackest month, eleven British merchantmen and eight fishing craft were sent to the bottom. One out of every four merchant ships that left this country during that terrible month never returned. In all, during the war. 5.408 British, allied and neutral vessels of
11.189,000	tons were sunk by U-boats. The British share of this prodigious total was 2,098 merchant vessels and 578 fishing craft of nearly seven million tons gross.
My point is that the wheat board with a free hand is the only board that should be handling all these problems, and not a government department. I am surprised that the Minister of Agriculture has not done this because he is supposed to be an astute politician. Although I do not agree with him, he is a hard-working minister. I have no quarrel with him; far from it. I believe he is a hard working young minister, but I regret that he did not do something a year ago along the line of my suggestion that he should build storage elevators in Great Britain, and that he take the wheat board into his confidence far more than he was doing, like Mr. Bennett and John I. McFarland did, and I suggested that he should try to get together with the motherland. There are great perils for this country at the present
rMr. Church.]
time. We have a great industry upon which the whole credit of the country depends-the stability of our banks and financial institutions, the traffic of our railways, and the general welfare of Canada. It is not a north and south industry but an east and west industry to the markets of the world. As I said in this house on July 4, 1935, on the second reading of the grain bill of that year:
The best friend of the western wheat grower is the policy of protection, as that policy has been and should be extended and administered by the founders and soldiers of the national policy, the Conservative party of Canada. The western wheat grower has eaten the sour grapes of free _ trade. . No wonder the western wheat growers teeth are set on edge. The western wheat grower has taught himself to believe, or has allowed so-called leaders to persuade him, that wheat growing in western Canada is a continental industry, an industry that must prosper by reason of the admission of the product to the United States market or perish because of its exclusion. I submit that wheat growing in western Canada is the most truly national, the most widely imperial of all Canada's great industries. The markets of the British Empire mean more and the markets of the American section of the North American continent mean less to the wheat growers of Canada than to any other class of Canadian producers.
That has been proven to be true. Here we are to-day, after hon. gentlemen opposite had said they were in favour of the policies of free trade, finding that they have veered round to protection, and of course, properly so. They have adopted all these protective measures of subventions, bonuses, subsidies, crop insurance and all the rest of it.
The premises upon which this bill is based may be here to-day and gone to-morrow in view of the international situation and the emergency of foreign affairs, and we may not be able, unless proper steps are taken now, to give the old country what we have always given her, and always to the great credit of the grain industry of Canada. I believe the minister should confer with the British authorities and see if something cannot be done because the fate of the British empire depends upon food and grain from this great dominion to supply the mother country in peace and war alike. There are two thousand fewer merchant ships to carry our food and wheat, across to the mother country unconvoyed, because the north American squadron has been transferred to home waters and the Mediterranean. We had only 120 convoy ships for the Atlantic in the last war, when there was no wheat board. To-day Great Britain has to protect the seven seas with Japan and Italy against us. Japan and Italy could menace our communications on the seven seas and with their modem type of submarines could sink the ships carrying our

Canadian Wheat Board
grain and other food supplies. Japanese submarines can cross the Pacific and get back to their base without refueling. Italian submarines operating in the Atlantic could sink our ships and get back to their base without refueling. They could even go round the Cape of Good Hope and on towards India and get back to their base without refueling.
We would have hardly any carry-over of wheat to-day if we had done as Australia has done-stored a huge part of the surplus in Britain, built huge grain storage spaces, and also created reservoirs over there to take care of the exportable surplus.
I believe the Minister of Trade and Commerce is the minister to handle the marketing and sale of our grain. It is not a matter for the Minister of Agriculture. Trade and commerce is federal and not a field where you have federal and provincial ministers of agriculture operating. I believe great economies could be effected if the Minister of Trade and Commerce were in charge of the marketing and sale of our grain.
There are so many agricultural bills before the house that it is pretty hard to keep track of them.
In conclusion. I believe that the powers of the wheat board should be enlarged not contracted, especially since 80 per cent of our crop could be utilized in the domestic market. We should have, as in 1935, an advisory body of producers with them. If things are in such a terrible state in this country, with one million people on relief, why has not the wheat board been enlarged, with wider powers conferred upon it to deal with wheat for domestic consumption along the lines I suggested in this house on May 4 of last week? Why would it not be a good idea for the government to authorize definite steps along these lines:
1.	Buy directly 'from the farmer the wheat and corn needed for the domestic market at an adequate price, giving each farmer his proportion based on what he has been producing in recent years.
2.	Close the grain exchanges and forbid all speculation in the necessities of life.
3.	Require millers, cotton manufacturers and other processors to buy what they need from the government.
4.	Permit the farmer who desires to produce more than his quota to sell his surplus in any market outside Canada.
I think the government were badly advised when they did not accept the proposal of Hon. Henry Wallace, secretary of Agriculture in the United States, when he proposed that the United States and Canada should make a survey and consider a policy of dividing
the vast markets in the importing countries as a temporary measure for the orderly marketing of this continent's grain from the commercial aspects jointly in the markets of the world.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, before expressing my views on Bill No. 63, which is now before the house for second reading, I wish to express my appreciation of the acceptance by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) of some of our suggestions this afternoon. They will make Bill No. 83 of greater benefit to the people it is intended to serve. I think time will show the wisdom of his action and encourage him to go all the way we suggested by fixing crop failure areas on the basis of the value of the yield per acre rather than on the basis of the yield per acre in bushels. Ultimately I think that will come about.
Bill No. 63, when enacted into legislation, will confirm the selling of wheat by a wheat board as a permanent policy in this country. I have no objection to that; in fact, I think it is the right thing to do. If we must accept the principle of operating under a wheat board as a permanent policy rather than as a means of dealing with temporary conditions, why not do so openly and adequately rather than by half measures such as this? A wheat board is now in existence. The price may be fixed by order in council later in the crop season when all the facts are available to enable the board and the government to set a price at the proper level when there is some grain to sell-not before the grain has even begun to sprout. But if parliament must fix the price in the spring, why not fix it at an adequate figure? The price of 70 cents at Fort William is the same as 52 cents at Medicine Hat, and less than that further west. A price of 80 cents for No. 1 northern at Fort William gave us about 62 cents net in 1938, and with low yields even a price of 62 cents net is not nearly sufficient to meet the costs of production. With a ten-cent cut in the price per bushel, which this bill provides for, the problem for the individual farmer becomes just that much greater. It well may break the back of one of Canada's major industries.
I am pleased to see that this bill makes provision also for the eastern farmer. That is one of the bright spots in the bill. In my opinion it is the one bright spot in the bill. What is good for western Canada is good for all of Canada. Eastern producers should be fairly provided for as well as western producers, each according to his needs. This is a good step in the right direction. When the western committee were here, I asked
3S64
Canadian Wheat Board

them what consideration they had given to the eastern farmers' claim to the same consideration for which we in the west were asking, and I -was surprised that up to that time they had not given it very serious attention. Anything we can now say will not change the price proposed in this bill, so that, although the great weight of evidence of all speakers in this debate points to the necessity of a minimum price of 80 cents for 1939 to save the foundation industry of Canada from complete rout, I shall say no more until the bill is in committee.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: When the two bills were before the house the other day, I expressed my opinion very largely on the bill which is now before us. At that time I had intended to say something further, but I found that owing to a few interruptions and so forth my time was cut down and I could not say precisely what I wanted to say about bill 83. But I should like to join with the hon. member (Mr. Mitchell) who has just spoken in saying that, although I was not in the house this afternoon because I was attending the banking and commerce committee, I believe , that some of the amendments which were made this afternoon have improved the bill, and while I regard it as inadequate as a crop insurance plan, I hope it will be the initial step in working out a crop insurance plan which will be on a sounder, better, fairer and juster basis than the bill which was passed this afternoon.
The bill before us, No. 63, is the one which has caused the bitterest opposition in western Canada. Those of us who come from Saskatchewan know of the enormous petitions which were presented to the members individually from their constituencies. I am not going to read the list, although I have it before me. I am just going to say that between us the members from Saskatchewan received petitions which had upon them 155,204 names. That showed an enormous dissatisfaction with what it was proposed to do, and what it is proposed to do under this bill, because 70 cents as an initial price-and that is what it is called-is inadequate to meet the costs of production and do those things which are necessary in order to maintain the agricultural industry.


James Garfield Gardiner: Every one of those
signatures was in favour of Bill No. 83.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes. I said that I too approved the principle of Bill No. 83. I think we are all agreed that some form of crop insurance would be beneficial; and as I said, I hoped that this was but the initial step and (Mr. Mitchell.]
that, after experience, we might have something better than the bill which was passed this afternoon. But I am not criticizing the principle of that bill. What I am saying and what I want to say explicitly is, that the two things should be kept entirely separate and distinct, and that in my opinion Bill No. 63 deals with the industry as an industry, and not with the condition as a relief problem, and that upon the basis of the initial price in this bill, which appears likely to be the maximum price unless certain things happen, it will bring disaster to the western producer. I believe that justification for that opinion can be found in the Minister of Agriculture's own statement-I think it was last Friday- when he said that the average farm price during the last thirty years for No. 1 northern had been 95 cents. I quote from memory. A et even at the end of that thirty years of a farm price of 95 cents, which in many parts of the prairie provinces means a Fort William price of SI.15, thousands of western farmers are in a state of poverty. Having produced vast quantities of new wealth, having received on an average on the farm 95 cents a bushel for No. 1 northern in the last thirty years, nevertheless they find themselves to-day in the condition which we have described.
As a result, farmers have been demanding, and I believe they are justified in demanding, an adequate minimum price. The hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Weir) said he did not think that any government of any political stripe in power in the Dominion of Canada would attempt to do better in the way of price than the present government is doing. Well, our little group may be a long way from power, but I want to say this, that a government with a policy and a program almost identical with that which we are advocating in Canada is now in power in our sister dominion of New Zealand, and has set prices of cheese and butter which were arrived at in accordance with the costs of production, after a very careful inquiry. As a matter of fact, I have before me at the moment a book -I am not going to quote from it-written by Mr. John A. Lee, MJ, parliamentary under-secretary to the Minister of Finance of New Zealand, in which he shows that by the first step which the government of New Zealand took, in taking over the central bank of New Zealand and making it an instrument of national policy, and by the utilization of the central bank and the control of exports and of the international currency which came to them, they were able to do something in the way of fixed prices for agriculture. I believe that if our own banking system were used as an instrument of national policy,

Canadian Wheat Board
something of that kind could be done for agriculture and for our other industries. So I say that if a government with a policy of that description were in power in Canada, they could give a more adequate return to the western farmer than is proposed under the present bill.
There are a good many arguments which one could bring in support of a wheat board, and in support of an adequate fixed price, and I believe that SO cents is the irreducible minimum upon which the average farmer in western Canada can operate. Indeed I do not believe that 80 cents is high enough. It represents something of a compromise which the producers thought might be acceptable to the federal government; and now we find an initial price of 70 cents. There are a good many arguments which one could bring in support of that contention, but to-night, doing what I usually do not do, I am going to confine myself to placing before the house the considered opinion of the committee which came to Ottawa in April and submitted reasons why they though the 80 cent price was the one which should be adopted for the current year. I will not read the preamble.
I will confine myself to the facts bearing upon this particular bill:
We submitted to you our considered conclusion that the continuance of a guarantee of not less than 80 cents for No. 1 northern wheat is the fairest and most feasible method available for the 1939 crop by which western agriculture can be partially saved from the national and partially from the international conditions which those" who depend upon wheat-growing had obviously not created and were powerless to control.
In support of our case we advanced arguments which can very briefly be summarized as follows:
(a)	The west, the expansion and development of which made possible the growth of modern Canada, has made a tremendous contribution by way of purchase of goods and the payment of tariffs to the prosperity of eastern Canada and is justified in asking, as a partial return, for national support in its own special emergency as a reciprocal national contribution.
(b)	This request is particularly reasonable and its granting particularly essential at the present time, because of the ever present necessity of selling some two-thirds of our output in international markets where we receive no protection for our product.
(c)	The assistance actually rendered to the
wheat industry over a period of years had been infinitesimal in relation to its contribution to the production of national wealth.	_
(d)	The same economic disaster which threatened our wheat growers in 1938 is still as near in 1939 unless the government is prepared to continue the same measure of justified support.
(e)	An 80 cent wheat price which means an estimated average price of 57 cents on the western farm does not bring prosperity, but in the main only a restricted level of almost bare subsistence. It is not more than equivalent to
the unsupported domestic price obtained by eastern farmers for similar grains.
(f)	A determined national effort to meet the western emergency is also necessary to maintain a satisfactory national credit position which would be seriously jeopardized by a breakdown in the financial structure of western Canada inevitably resultant from an abandonment of western agriculture to the prevailing disastrously low wheat prices.
(g)	The wheat industry should not be expected to bear the impossible simultaneous double burden of high tariff and other costs and low wheat prices.
(h)	Any disturbance of the balance of western agriculture with its natural concentration upon wheat growing must be also a devastating disturbance of eastern agriculture. It is in the national interest to prevent a disorderly retreat from wheat.
(i)	The wheat board plan cipupled with
adequate price protection, in spite of some inequalities which are at least no less inevitable in any alternative plan, is the simplest _ and most effective method of tiding over in a period of emergency a temporarily depressed industry.	-
As this is a brief and perhaps inadequate summary of arguments previously advanced, we respectfully refer you to the details _ of our previous submission for their elaboration. To the arguments there presented we now submit some additional matters for your consideration. In doing so we note with satisfaction that the government has by the language of section 3 of its proposed Bill No. 83 _ (an act to assist prairie agriculture) recognized the fact that 1939 can properly be termed an emergency year, by which is presumably meant a year of continuing distress and trial for the western farmer.
May we respectfully draw your attention, Mr. Prime Minister, and hon. gentlemen, to the following facts and arguments:
1.	Barter agreements. Recently completed barter trade agreements under which Argentina and other countries dispose of a substantial volume of wheat in return for goods from other countries have provided a form of competition exceedingly difficult to meet.
2.	Subsidized sales. A recent report shows that the Federal Surplus Commodities Corporation in .the United States has disposed of 68,000,000 bushels of wheat during the present season under its subsidy program. The 'bulk of the subsidized wheat is reported as sold to the United Kingdom. This is a form of competition which it is unfair to expect the wheat growers to meet without a reasonable measure of price assistance.
May I interject that the way in which this subsidy is being paid in the United States is by assigning some 30 per cent of the tariff revenue collected for the agricultural industry. In other words, in that country it is recognized that agriculture is entitled to a compensating adjustment by reason of tariff protected industries.
3.	Agriculture is entitled to as much consideration in the shaping of national policies and trade agreements as are our secondary industries. It is not necessary to emphasize the fact that national trade, fiscal, monetary and tariff policies have hitherto functioned

Canadian Wheat Board
primarily in the interests of the development of our secondary industries and against the best interests of agriculture.


Mr. McNEVIN:: Can the hon. member tell us what percentage of the customs tariff collections this year was paid to western Canada?


Major James William Coldwell: At the moment we do not know exactly what we shall get for wheat, but I imagine it would be rather less than 30 per cent.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: The collections are about eighty millions.	.


Major James William Coldwell: 
Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Take it as read.


Major James William Coldwell: I am quite agreeable.


William Henry Golding: Go ahead and read it.


Walter Edward Foster: Unless the hon. member has unanimous consent it cannot be placed on the official report without being read. But I think it has already been placed on Hansard by other hon. members.


Major James William Coldwell: I do not think this has been drawn to the attention of the house at all. I can read what remains in five minutes.
The western conference, as has already been indicated, was summoned to face facts, however unpleasant. We derive some comfort from the hope that the present situation is not permanent. Our belief is that any improvement in international relations and economic conditions in Europe will bring about a better balance between production and consumption, and must be reflected in an improvement in wheat prices.
In repeating our prior request for an 80 cent guarantee and before proceeding to analyze the published alternative proposals of the government, may we in conclusion of this portion of our submission respectfully affirm the following:
. 1- Western Canada is practically unanimous m supporting our application for a continuation of the present price protection as a minimum requirement to maintain economic stability in the west during the coming year.
They went on to say that various individual members of this delegation support this statement.
2.	The organized producers of eastern Canada, knowing the special needs of western agriculture and fearful of the effects of the disorganization of the Canadian agricultural economy which would inevitably follow if reasonable wheat prices are not maintained, have, we are advised, already indicated to the government their general support of our position.
3.	Representatives of industry and finance recognize their own partial dependence upon the western farmer, and are not in the main opposed to a continuance of national assistance to the wheat industry, but in general support it as a necessary national safeguarding of the national interest.
We now ask your permission to deal briefly with the proposed legislative program of the government in so far as it affects western agriculture.
Then they go on to discuss the other bill.
I do not propose to put that upon the record because I am dealing at the moment with Bill No. 63. But I wanted to place upon the record the considered opinion of the group representing many western interests, arrived at in connection with Bill No. 63. In my

Electoral Matters-Special Committee
opinion, the western prairies-and I speak not of the farmers only but of the people generally who live there-face disaster it the initial price of 70 cents should prove to be the maximum price during the coming year. The agricultural industry cannot operate on that low return, and after years of low prices the farmers were hoping that they might be able to replenish some of their depleted household necessities, clothing and so on.
So far as the limitation of 5,000 bushels is concerned, I agree with what the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) said earlier this evening, and would merely add that again and again in this house in these debates the cost of production of highly mechanized industry on large farms has been quoted as the basis. If we are to compete in a world in which there is to be keen competition, it seems to me that instead of fewer highly efficient mechanized farms producing a commodity for the world market we shall have more large mechanized farms producing for that market. The only alternative is that the people engaged in the production of these commodities shall accept, as I said the other day, a peasant level of subsistence-and I mean "peasant ' not in the sense in which it was perhaps taken the other day, but in the sense of the low standard of living of the land workers that is to be found in the European countries. So, if we are going to limit the delivery of wheat, we should also take into consideration this fact, that the men who over the last ten years have been tilling a section or more of land have, because of the conditions, each year sustained proportionately heavier losses than those who have been operating smaller farms in the same districts, and they ought to be entitled to some consideration. I recognize, of course, that it may be necessary to take delivery on a graduated scale up to so many hundreds or thousands of bushels at one price and, above that, at a perhaps lower price; nevertheless to throw a large quantity of non-board wheat into the open market in competition with board wheat may have a bad effect not only upon the farmers themselves but upon the experience of the government in handling this wheat through its board.
On motion of Mr. Blaekmore, the debate was adjourned.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house having reverted to the order for
motions.
Mr. R. W. GRAY (Lambton West):: With the permission of the house I move:
That Bill No. 139, to incorporate the Prescott and Ogdensburg Bridge Company be now read a second time and referred to the committee on private bills.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I should like to debate this bill. Could this motion not be made to-morrow? I am expecting a report on this bill. It is rather an important one.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Has the bill been read the first time?


Ross Wilfred Gray: It is a senate bill; it has been debated there.


Walter Edward Foster: This is the first instance of this kind since the motion was passed suspending the rules of the house a few days ago. Bills from the senate when reported here are supposed to be read the first time. This bill will stand for second reading; proposing it to-night will give the hon. member a chance to have the bill referred to the committee on private bills.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I suggest that it should go not to the private bills committee but to the committee on railways, where such bills have always been sent. This is rather an important bill. I think it should have a little more consideration than it is being given.
Motion stands.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, May 11, 1939