1939-05-06

OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
House of Commons Bebates
[Stage Direction]
Saturday, May 6, 1939


[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. H. MOORE (Ontario) moved that the sixth report of the standing committee on banking and commerce be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (Minister of Fisheries) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish a board to be known as the salt fish board with powers to investigate the marketing of salt fish, to establish terms and conditions under which it may give assistance to producers of salt fish for export, to enter into agreements for the exporting of the same, and generally with powers to expend and administer any sums of money which may be, for the purposes of the act, advanced as therein provided; and further to provide for the appointment of advisory committees and for their travelling and living expenses, and for the appointment of officers, clerks and employees as may be necessary.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Mr. MacNEIL:: Will the minister explain the purpose of this resolution?


Mr. MICHAUD:: The object is to help a branch of the fishing industry that has been totally depressed owing to conditions over which the Canadian parliament has had no control. The salt fish industry, particularly on the Atlantic coast, has been the mainstay of the fishermen in that part of Canada for centuries, and up to the time of the great war it had been fairly prosperous. When I speak of the Atlantic coast I mean the north shore of Quebec up to Labrador, the Magdalen islands, the Gaspe peninsula, the north shore of New Brunswick, the eastern and western coasts of Nova Scotia as well as of Cape Breton.
This industry usually produced from 50,000,000 to 70,000,000 pounds of dried salt fish, which was practically all exported to foreign countries-Spain,	Italy, Portugal,
South America, the West Indies and the United States-and the return from these exports was sufficient to maintain in some degree of modest comfort the population dependent upon the trade. The decline in the trade began immediately after the great war and continued until the beginning of the depression in 1930. Since 1930 the fall in the production and export of dried fish has been greatly accentuated. It reached its low level last year when it dropped to about 19,000,000 pounds, and the low level in price was also struck.


Mr. MANION:: That is the lowest level in some years.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes. In 1927-28 the
average price of dried cod, the basic price, was $6.50.


Mr. PELLETIER:: Per hundred pounds?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Per 112 pounds, a quintal. Last year it was $3.75. This decline in production is due to the loss of markets, which had been almost exclusively foreign, and that restriction in markets was in turn the result of the contraction of purchasing power in the consuming countries. It was attributable also in a measure to new economic policies adopted by those countries in the way of quotas, high tariffs and restrictions in various ways against imports of Canadian fish. Another factor that has contributed more than anything else to depress the dried fish industry has been the increasingly severe competition the producers have had to meet from foreign countries. Before the great war Europe exported very little fish to South America, the West Indies and the United States, which constituted up to that time our best and almost exclusive market. After the war, some countries induced their people to enter the dried fish industry on a large scale and public funds were provided to increase production and keep down the cost of such production to individuals. Norway and Newfoundland have displaced,

Salt Fish Board

by the means of subventions, subsidies and bounties, our Canadian product in markets which were formerly enjoyed by our exporters.
No one in Canada is responsible for the existence of the present conditions in the salt fish industry. Nevertheless we have to meet a condition under which about twenty thousand people have to depend for their livelihood, and that of their dependents, on the returns of a trade which to-day does not return the cost of production. It may be said that these twenty thousand Canadians should turn to some other occupation. But everyone who is familiar with the geography and the economic conditions of the Atlantic coast knows that it is impossible to absorb that number of people into industries which do not exist. In the localities where these fishermen are situated, the land is not adaptable to profitable farming. There are no manufacturing industries of any kind and there are no natural industries that could take care of these people.
For the last five years the annual return to those who have been engaged in the production of salt fish averaged about $190 to each fisherman.


Robert James Manion: Pev year?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Per year. With no prospect of any immediate natural improvement, it becomes absolutely necessary either to place these people on relief rolls, or, through some help, enable them to derive from their only possible occupation sufficient to maintain themselves and their dependents.
Commissions, both federal and provincial, public bodies, socially-minded private individuals, during the last ten years, have investigated these conditions. They have been almost unanimous in their suggestions that some help should be given to these people to enable them to continue in their present occupation pending an economic readjustment.
It is intended to constitute a board made up of men who have acquired experience in the salt fish industry who will suggest and bring about improvements in the methods of preparing the fish for export, and in the methods of marketing. It is intended to provide a limited amount of money to enable the board to carry on its work, and provide some assistance to the fishermen who cannot make enough out of their industry to take care of themselves and their dependents. The adverse conditions which have prevailed in the dried and salt fish industry have had the effect of forcing many of the Atlantic fishermen to turn to the fresh fish business and the lobster trade. The result has been to force down returns in these two branches of the industry to unprofitable levels and bring

about a general all-round depression in all branches of the industry. It is hoped that by a revival of the dried and salt fish trade, the pressure on the fresh fish and lobster trade will be released. With the expansion of our markets for fresh fish, both at home and abroad, and the expected reduction in the number of those employed in it, one is justified in assuming that better conditions will prevail in the fishing industry and among the fishermen.


René-Antoine Pelletier: The minister states
that this resolution is to precede legislation which will create a board in order to bring about improvements in the fishing industry, especially with relation to packing for export. A moment ago the minister admitted frankly that his foreign market had vanished. I do not see any reason why he should not be quite frank about it and say clearly: We used to depend on foreign markets, but we now find that owing to changes in world conditions and for various other reasons the fishermen are without any more markets.
It seems to me that this type of resolution is the same as the resolution which was presented by, for example, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) to assist employment and to alleviate agricultural distress.. At this time it happens to be for the salt fishermen of Canada, and of course I admit that they need this assistance. But I can never understand why it is necessary for various departments of the government to set up boards of this kind in order to help out one particular branch of one industry. I do not see any reason why it should not be said at once that unemployment and distress are national problems. Instead of the government trying to evade its responsibility, or only partly fulfilling its duty, by segregating each industry and setting up a board for one industry or another, I do not see why the whole thing could not be consolidated and the government properly accept its responsibility throughout the country. The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud) admits that his markets have vanished. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), I know, is experiencing difficulty in finding markets for Canadian exports. The same can be said to apply in respect of almost every producing industry in this country. That is why I say that instead of creating a whole flock of boards, each to take care of one industry, it should be possible for the government to centralize these activities and admit its responsibility on a national basis.
Is it the intention, through the legislation to be based on this resolution, to give

Salt Fish Board
assistance in the way of relief grants, as we are doing under the Department of Labour or the Department of Agriculture to assist distress, or will the efforts of this board be simply confined to locating new markets and assisting in better packing? Does this mean more bonus legislation by way of assistance to the salt fish industry? Is it general assistance in the form of relief, but under the guise of a board, or just exactly what is intended?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: That will be apparent
when the hon. member sees the bill.


Mr. ISNOR:: When we have the bill before us we shall be able more intelligently to discuss the reason for such action as is proposed in this resolution and the proposed establishment of a board to deal with this very important subject. I simply wish to express to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud) my appreciation on behalf of the fishermen, particularly of Halifax county, and, I think I can very well say, on behalf of the fishermen of Nova Scotia and elsewhere in the maritime provinces who, I feel, will profit by such a bill.
In reading the resolution as tabled on April 21, I note that it is divided into two parts: first, the powers of the board; second, the appointment of an advisory committee. The powers of the board could very well be subdivided under three headings. The first is to investigate the marketing of salt fish. This is a very important function, and the condition is not as stated by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Pelletier) who advocates that there are no markets. I say that there are markets, and it is the duty of the board which is to be established to make the proper contact with those markets and thus create additional sales for our fishermen, and make it possible, we hope-


René-Antoine Pelletier: Mr. Chairman, I do
not want the hon. member to misquote me, and I am sure he does not want to. I said the minister admitted that his former markets had vanished. I did not "advocate" no more markets.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I am quite willing to be corrected, and I accept the change suggested by the hon. member for Peace River. I still feel that he did indicate that there were no markets, but I am quite willing to accept his correction. I intended to point out that there are markets, and that it is because of these markets and the possibility of sales therein that this resolution has been introduced which will lead to an act establishing a board which will endeavour to procure additional sales for the fishermen of the maritimes.
Then the resolution says the bill will establish terms and conditions under which the board may give assistance to the producers of salt fish for export. I think that word "export" should be given serious consideration. This is new business for Canada, and I am particularly gratified because we are reaching out for that new business in connection with our fishing industry. I think it would be well for the Minister of Fisheries to bear in mind our export business in fish when the agreement with the West Indies comes up for renewal. That is one lost market that I think we can regain by the methods suggested in this resolution.
It is stated also that the board will enter into agreements for the export of salt fish. We have not the bill before us, and I am not quite clear as to what this means. No doubt the minister will enlarge on that point later, but I suggest that not only the large exporters but also individuals or groups of fishermen should have the opportunity to export through the board that is to be established.
The board is to be given power to expend and administer the sum of money necessary to accomplish its purpose. I did not like the words "a limited amount" used by the minister; I should have preferred him to say an agreed amount or a certain amount, because if it is only a limited amount the activities of this board may be curtailed to such an extent that it may not bring about the results that we who are interested in the fishing industry look for. I would suggest that the amount necessary to provide proper assistance be arranged for or decided upon, and that such amount be sufficient to take care of all the marketing that may be done.
Provision is also made for the appointment of advisory committees, and the minister stated that men experienced in marketing methods and the export business would be appointed. I am pleased to have that assurance, because it is only through the appointment of such men that we shall be able to bring about the results hoped for under this legislation. Provision is made for the necessary travelling and living expenses of members of the board, and so on. That, of course, is a matter of routine, but I trust that care will be exercised in this regard also.
With reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Peace River, may I, in a very kindly way, say that we hear a great deal from this hon. gentleman. I have been careful not to show how little I know about the wheat question; in fact I have been careful not to enter into any controversy or make any statements in regard to matters in which
Salt Fish Board

I am not particularly well versed. I may not know all I should know about the fishing industry, but I feel that there are many things our friends from the west do not know about it, and I think it would be well for them to read up on both sides of the whole question in order that they may intelligently discuss and understand our problems in the east, as we endeavour to be sympathetic to those in the west. I was impressed by a cartoon which I saw in yesterday's newspaper, depicting two patients in a hospital ward. The one patient is supposed to represent the western wheat grower; the other is a fisherman of the mari-times. The wheat grower is surrounded by the best physicians in the country, and the government is being advised not to spare any effort to ease his suffering. The poor fisherman of Nova Scotia, however, is left alone, without any assistance whatever.
I am very glad the minister has brought in this resolution, because it shows that the government has given some thought to the needs of our fishermen in the maritimes. I hope this board will go a long way towards stimulating the fishing industry and creating additional business, not only to the fishermen but also to stevedores and men on the waterfront, who naturally benefit when there is any export business to be obtained.


Mr. NEILL:: I should like to ask the minister three questions, just for purposes of information. I shall be brief; for I know the temper of the house is to get on with the business. It is proposed to give assistance to the producers of salt fish. I should like to ask how that assistance is to be rendered. Is it to be by way of a bonus on their output, or what is to be the method? Second, they propose to enter into agreements for the exporting of salt fish. Is that to be done by the board purchasing the fish and shipping it to foreign countries, as a sort of experiment, or what is the procedure to be followed? One must presume that by the time a measure reaches this stage some policy must have been formulated. The last question I should like the minister to answer is why the word "salt" should appear in the resolution. Why could it not read:
-it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish a board to be known as the fish board with powers to investigate the marketing of fish-
Then you could give assistance to the producers of all fish for export. That would take in the fishing industry on the Pacific, which in regard to its export markets is just as greatly in need of assistance as is the industry on the Atlantic. I do not propose to deprecate

the needs of the Atlantic fishermen; as long as the maritime members are satisfied I am satisfied, but I should like to know why, when the minister is establishing a board which will cost a great deal of money, with the usual chairman and officials, and officials under the officials, it could not apply to the fishing industry all over Canada. Why confine it to one phase of the industry which concerns only the Atlantic? I should be glad to have the minister answer those three questions.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: In reply to the last question, it is not intended by this legislation to provide for the fresh fish branch of the industry. We feel that those who are engaged in that branch of the industry can fairly well take care of themselves, and so far they are well taken care of by indirect means. The intention of the government through this legislation is to provide for those who are in immediate need of protection, and the measure is to apply only to export trade in dried fish. It is not to apply to local trade, or what might be described as domestic trade.
The second question of the hon. member was as to the method of entering into agreements for the sale of fish.


Alan Webster Neill: Of exports.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes, I understand. The details will be determined by the board itself, in order to meet local conditions. In some respects, I am sure, the board will have to act as the agent for some classes of fishermen. For instance we know there are fishermen on the Labrador coast, on the Magdalen islands and other out-of-the-way places. They are without means of communication with buying agents who could take care of their fish, with the result that season after season those fish are left on their hands. The government is asked to dispose of quantities of such fish which have been prepared during the preceding season. In such cases the board will have to act as the agent for these people, and will have to enter into contracts with foreign buyers to take care of the fish.
The purpose of the measure is not to eliminate those who have already established themselves in the export trade, but is more to help provide them with every assistance possible to carry on their trade more profitably. Would the hon. member repeat his first question? I must confess I have forgotten it.


Alan Webster Neill: I wanted to know in what form the assistance would 'be given to these fishermen; would it be by way of bonus?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: It must naturally be by some such means, whether you call it bonus, or help of some other kind. The fact is that

Salt Fish Board
the government would be granting money, and part of that money would be used to help bolster up an industry so that it might compete with foreigners who use the same methods. That is, our fishermen will have to use practically the same methods as our competitors in foreign markets are using. Some of those methods are known, and some are unknown.
The government will have to help those who are in need. For instance, at the beginning of a season it would provide assistance by providing salt to take care of the fish which would toe taken during the season. In other parts of the country points will be established at which fish will 'be finally cured to meet the requirements of 'buyers for foreign markets. In still other sections, the price obtainable on foreign markets would be supplemented in order to bring the fishermen's return up to a point where at least it would equal cost of production, plus a little more for their livelihood.


Alan Webster Neill: The information given by the minister is quite useful and appropriate. I have only one or two comments to make, and they are these. The minister says that the government is not dealing with the fresh fish question. I had asked a question about that, but the minister did not answer further than to say that the government was going to do nothing. Fairly extensive machinery would be set up, and it would be just as easy to make it permissible to have that machinery deal with any situation which might arise on the Pacific or Atlantic coasts in connection with fresh fish. It would already have power to deal with salt fish. We are prohibited from discussing the fresh fish situation, because this measure is confined to salt fish. It would be equally powerful if it were used for the purpose indicated. In other words, if it were directed to "fish" it could be used also in connection with fresh fish. Perhaps in years to come that machinery could be used, if necessary.
There is another point upon which I anticipated a statement when I asked my question. It would appear that sooner or later, at some phase of the transaction, this aid will resolve itself into a bonus. I suppose a good deal of this fish might possibly go to the United States. According to my recollection of the United States tariff provisions, there is provision under which if any country -we will say Canada-bonuses the production of any article on which there is a duty going into the United States, the United States government will regard that bonus as a depreciation, so to speak, of the tariff, and
will add such bonus to the tariff. In other words, if the duty on codfish were 3 cents per pound and the Canadian government gave a bonus of one cent per pound to those in our country who catch codfish, automatically the United States tariff would immediately become four cents. In that event the effect of this legislation would be nullified. That is a point on which I should like to have some information.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Again I will answer the last question first. No doubt the hon. member had in mind the countervailing clause in the United States tariff which states that if a bounty or a bonus is being paid by a producing country on goods exported to the United States, they will have the right to add to the duty the amount of that bounty. The government is aware of this provision, and we will have to take care of it. There are many factors as between Canada and the United States which will have to be considered in connection with this question. After all, if it is not possible to send into the United States fish caught by the people who are to be helped under the provisions of this measure, then we will have to make an exception. All this has been taken care of in the program which is being elaborated for the board. The board will take care of that, and will make sure that those who export fish to the United States shall not be penalized.


Alan Webster Neill: I do not know how they are going to do it.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: They did it in Nova
Scotia last year, and I think we can profit from their experience. With regard to the other matter, having given full consideration to the problem whether or not it would be advisable for the government to take in all the fish business of the country, both domestic and foreign, fresh and processed, we have thought it would not be possible or practicable, and that we should be satisfied with taking care of those who cannot take care of themselves.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I should like to congratulate the minister and the government upon having introduced some measure which would help to alleviate the lot of the fishermen on the Atlantic coast. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor) rather accused the westerners of not taking any interest.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: No.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, I thought that was the case; I will have to leave it to Hansard. I assure the hon. member that some of us have given a good deal of attention
Salt Fish Board

to this matter. As a matter of fact at the present time on the order paper there is a resolution standing in the name of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), who was acting on behalf of this group. The resolution reads:
That in view of the international marketing situation and the present outlook for the primary products of agriculture and fishing. . . .
I would ask the hon. member to note that word.
This house urgeB the government to place before it, at this session of parliament, concrete proposals for the establishment of guaranteed minimum prices for the products of these industries, together with such legislation as may be necessary to institute co-operative or governmental control of packing and processing plants concerned with the primary products of agriculture and fishing.
Again let me pause to note the inclusion of the word "fishing."
Further that guaranteed minimum prices for primary products should be based upon the determination to provide for adequate standards of living for those engaged in their production and also to eliminate, as far as possible, the disparity between the prices of the products of monopolistic and highly protected industries and those of the unprotected primary producers of Canada.
It seems quite improbable that this resolution will be brought before the house. However, I introduced it in this connection to emphasize the fact that we are not indifferent to the plight of the eastern fishermen. The hon. member for Halifax did not refer to the plight of the western fishermen, but those of us who have lived on the west coast know that they are having difficulties although somewhat different from those of the easterners. The minister said that those engaged in the fresh fish industry are fairly well able to take care of themselves. The minister nods his head, but I do not believe that to be true. Only a few weeks ago I quoted an extract from the Halifax Herald and directed attention to the wide spread between the amount paid to the fisherman and the amount charged the consumer. That in itself indicates that the men engaged in the fresh fish industry are not receiving all that is coming to them. The minister is indefinite as to the kind of assistance to be granted and I think the committee should receive more explicit information on that point.
I am glad to note that this proposed government board is to act as an exporter. This is in line with what the members of this group have been advocating, that this government should set up both export and import boards. If the Liberal government remain in power

long enough I think they will gradually come to recognize the necessity of the broader program which we urge.


Mr. BROOKS:: I do not intend to make any extended remarks on this resolution, because the need of the fishermen in the maritime provinces is only too well known. As was very well expressed this morning by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud), and as we have heard on numerous occasions in this house, when a fisherman finds himself unemployed at his regular vocation, there is no manufacturing industry to which he can turn for employment. Also because of his situation it is impossible for him to engage in farming. I am in favour of any help that can be given to the fishermen of the maritime provinces. These fishermen were perhaps disappointed when the United States treaty went through this house, particularly those engaged in the salt fish industry. As the minister points out, it is entirely a question of marketing. Over a period of years we have lost our markets in the West Indies, which we all know was a most serious blow to the maritime fishermen. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor) has suggested that when this treaty is renewed some effort should be made to get our fish into the West Indies. This would prove a great boon to those engaged in the industry.
While the department has made considerable effort to increase the consumption of fish in Canada, I still think that more could be done along this line, especially for the salt fish industry. We know that it is not possible to send fresh fish all over Canada, but the shipping of salt fish is a different-matter. If the situation were studied, i think the consumption of salt fish could be increased in western Canada as well as in other parts of the country. A number of investigations have been held into the marketing of salt fish over a period of years. It seems to me that we are continually investigating this matter but not getting very far. I believe a commission went down to the West Indies last year to investigate the marketing of salt and other fish in the West Indies and in other parts of the south. That commission must have collected considerable information. The provincial governments have also collected information in this regard and there must be sufficient data available in the department without appointing more commissions.
It must be remembered that we have trade commissioners in the West Indies, in other parts of the southern hemisphere and throughout the world. These officials could give considerable help in this regard. I do not

Salt Fish Board
want to say anything against what the minister is doing. I hope it will be a success and that everything possible will be done for the fishermen of the maritime provinces. These men are in a worse plight than the western wheat growers of whom we have heard so much in this house. I have not heard any member from the maritime provinces criticize the spending of one dollar in western Canada to assist the wheat growers. We realize that that is necessary to a certain extent, but I believe that if an estimate could be made it would be found that for every dollar per capita which has been spent to assist farming or other industries in the maritime provinces, at least five or ten dollars have been spent in western Canada. Considerable assistance has been given to other parts of Canada. Just the other day we passed a bill to provide a bonus for cheese producers. This bonus is not going to bring one cent to the maritime provinces; we will benefit in no way from it. If any assistance is to be given to this industry in our three maritime provinces, I certainly wish it well and hope it will be a success, because these men are in great need of assistance.


Mr. GREEN:: Will there be a representative of the Pacific coast on this salt fish board? While our production of salt fish is small as compared to the production on the east coast, I do not think this board will be of much use to the fishermen of the Pacific coast if they are not represented.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: It is not the intention of the government to make this board exclusive in any way. It is not intended to eliminate the possibility of extending the operations of the board to the Pacific coast. As my hon. friend has said, the production of salt fish on the Pacific coast is quite small; for the last five years its value has hardly exceeded $500,000 annually, as compared with a value of $16,000,000 for the fresh fish industry. On the Atlantic coast, the value of the salt fish production is about fifty per cent of the value of the fresh fish production.


Howard Charles Green: What is the value on the Atlantic coast?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: The average annual production is valued at a little over $3,000,000, but it used to be $8,000,000. I cannot assure my hon. friend that there will be a representative of the Pacific coast on the board, but it is not intended to exclude the Pacific coast from the operations of the bill. As the resolution indicates, it will be possible to constitute advisory boards. Whether British
Columbia is represented on the board or on the advisory board for that district, it will receive consideration just the same as any other part of the country.


Howard Charles Green: Is it intended that the act shall apply to the Pacific coast?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: The salt fish of the Pacific coast can come under the act; it is not intended to exclude it.


Howard Charles Green: I understood the minister to say that our production on the Pacific coast is about half a million and on the Atlantic coast about three million.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: About three and a half.


Howard Charles Green: There is not such a great difference, and I think the production on the Pacific coast could easily be increased. Would it not be fair that we should have at least one member on the board? Otherwise it will be of practically no use to us.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: There is nothing in the bill to exclude British Columbia or to prevent it from being represented. There is nothing definite about it, either.


Howard Charles Green: How many members are there to be on the board?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Three.


Howard Charles Green: The minister must know from where they will be chosen? Are they all to come from the maritimes?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No, I do not know.


Charles Grant MacNeil: To what extent is it
intended to help the salt fisheries on the Pacific coast? There was an attempt to develop the dry salt industry there, and in 1936 the total production of dry salted salmon went to 153,493 hundredweight and the production of dry salted herring went as high as 383,337 hundredweight, but in the subsequent year there was a serious drop. Heretofore any aid extended to fishermen has gone solely to fishermen on the Atlantic coast. Departmental reports, for example, indicate that rehabilitation loans have been extended to fishermen on the Atlantic coast, but in no case to fishermen on the Pacific coast because British Columbia did not come into the agreement. Bounties are also given to Atlantic coast fishermen but not to fishermen on the Pacific coast. Is the aid to be provided under this legislation dependent upon a cooperative agreement with the British Columbia government?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No.
Salt Fish Board


Mr. REID:: We had a fish board in British Columbia up to 1937, but it did not work out very well. It was found, after it was set up, that as most of the salted fish went to the orient the salt fish board in British Columbia was controlled by the orientals, and they fixed a quota most of which went to their own nationals. Would the minister indicate clearly whether the powers of this board will be compulsory along the line of the powers given under the Natural Products Marketing Act of 1937?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: It is not a compulsory act.


Robert James Manion: I shall say only a few
words now because I feel the question can better be discussed after the bill is introduced. I am pleased to see anything being done that may be of assistance to the fishermen on the Atlantic coast particularly, though of course those in need on the Pacific coast should be given equal consideration. I had the opportunity in the past few years of travelling along the Gaspe coast, and along the Atlantic coast in the maritimes. and the conditions I found there were so pitiable and the hardships so evident that anything we can do in this house, as I stated earlier in the session, to help these fishermen should certainly be done. I really believe that they have been suffering under conditions much worse than those of many for whom we have been caring, and I am delighted to see anything done to help these fishermen because undoubtedly they have had an extremely hard time. I remember motoring along the Gaspe coast and coming to little villages where up until a few years ago they had extremely good opportunities for exporting their fish products, but at the time I motored through there they told me that practically the whole of their market was gone; they were shut off from the European market.
The other remark I wished to make was this. This government is prone to claim that it can solve this problem and that problem by trade, by expanding export markets. I do not want to be misquoted as belittling export markets. I believe that so far as we can keep them we should keep them, and secure more and enlarge them, but the complaints coming this morning from followers of the government, the junior member for Halifax, for instance, as well as from the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and others to the effect that markets have been lost, illustrates the need of doing something more than depending almost wholly upon export markets to solve such problems as unemployment and distress in this country.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I do not think the minister answered the questions asked by the hon. member for Vancouver North and the hon. member for Vancouver South in regard to fisheries on the Pacific coast. Will they be on a parity with those on the Atlantic coast under this scheme or under any new development affecting the fishing industry?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: In so far as the need for help is there. This legislation is not simply for the purpose of helping the salt fisheries. It is for the purpose of helping the fishermen who otherwise would be in need of public assistance to sustain them and their dependents. If we find on the Pacific coast a situation that should be relieved, certainly it will be taken care of.


René-Antoine Pelletier: It must not be thought that I or the members in this group are not in favour of assisting the fishing industry both on the Atlantic and on the Pacific. The junior member for Halifax will find that the member for Peace River and those associated with him in this group will be only too glad to vote whatever amount the government thinks necessary for the purpose. What I had in mind was not that assistance should not be given, but rather to point out to the government how dangerous it is to base youi economic philosophy upon export markets which can vanish from time to time. I realize that it is not customary to go into lengthy discussion at this stage, but there are a few things I should like to say, not because I am very familiar with the industry, but because of the principle involved. I thank the junior member for Halifax for the delicate manner in which he told me that I knew nothing about the fishing industry, but I am aware of the fact, without needing to know much about the fishing industry, that fishermen on the Atlantic coast and elsewhere have suffered greatly because of the depression. There is a principle involved which I should like to discuss when the time comes, with respect to giving assistance that has become necessary because of the breakdown of a false philosophy respecting markets which have vanished. I can assure the junior member for Halifax that he will find this group quite ready to vote whatever amount is required to assist the fishermen.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister has stated that the purpose of this resolution and of the bill to be founded upon it is to help the fishermen in destitute circumstances in the maritime provinces, a most laudable ambition and one in which we must all join. When I suggested that the scope of the bill might be extended to cover conditions on the Pacific

Salt Fish Board
coast, he replied that it was the purpose of the government in this legislation to deal only with salt fish and that the needs of the salt fish men on the Atlantic coast were greater than those of the fresh fish men on the Pacific coast. Some of our fishermen on the Pacific coast have reluctantly had to accept relief in the past, and there are many more living close to the edge of it. I do not think the minister would like to have it said that he has introduced in this house as Minister of Fisheries legislation which confines its scope to only one section of the country, and that he is ignoring the needs of those on the Pacific coast. I suggest that he would at least placate or gratify or interest the fishermen on the Pacific coast, provided he does not see his way clear to bringing them under the scope of this bill, if he announced that it was his intention to abandon the use of fish traps. That would keep a good many off relief.


Mr. SPENCE:: I agree with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni that this board should take account of fresh as well as salt fish. I have been in every part of eastern Canada and I know that the system followed in the maritimes is antiquated so far as fresh fish is concerned. I do not think the board should devote all its time and attention to salt fish. Let me assure the committee that I am not opposing any grant to this particular industry any more than I am opposed to assistance being given to the producers of wheat or any other commodity. We are living in Canada and we should help one another. In my opinion altogether too much distinction is made between east and west. This is not a provincial legislature; it is the dominion parliament and we should discuss matters from the standpoint of the nation at large. We should forget all parochial considerations. No one ever hears me discuss my own province exclusively unless I am absolutely forced to do so, because I realize that we are not here simply to advocate what suits the convenience of our own particular part of the country. Our job is to keep confederation together. We know what deplorable conditions have prevailed in western Canada for a number of years and we are prepared to help the people there, and we should be equally prepared to assist the fishermen of eastern Canada.
Having said that, however, I suggest that people will have to learn to help themselves very soon. The more you help some people the more indolent you make them, and if you keep up that sort of thing too long you will soon have a nation of imbeciles and no one will be allowed to act for himself.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, no.


David Spence: Oh, yes. That is what will happen, because the policy my hon. friends to my left advocate, the policy of fixing a price for this, that and the other thing, would tend if it could to rob the farmer of his brains. The farmers do not need all these boards that are being established. I know something about farmers and they know a good deal about business. They are astute and they know how to market their products. I object to all these boards, which are going to cost the country a good deal of money. The Minister of Agriculture is going to set up three or four boards at great cost to the dominion, and now we are to have another board in connection with the fisheries. Surely there are enough men in the department, loafing around on the job, to undertake this work. I have seen some of these officials of the Department of Agriculture-inspectors, supervisors and others. If the Minister of Agriculture sets up a board for everything that comes along he will have the most wonderful organization he ever had in his life to elect the Liberal party in Saskatchewan. If my party were doing this I would denounce it on the floor of the house because I do not believe in this sort of thing on the eve of an election. If I could not exert some influence on my own party I would not be in it.
I do not speak very often in this house because there are so many who want to talk and say nothing. When I get up to speak I try to say something. I am not trying to hurt either the Minister of Fisheries or the Minister of Agriculture, who are both good men.


Robert James Manion: Nor any of the rest of us, I hope.


David Spence: No; I do not want to hurt anybody. We are all men of common sense, or we should be. The Minister of Finance is laughing at me as usual.


Mr. DUNNING:: Only smiling-and it is a kind smile.


David Spence: Seriously, I suggest that
we should get down to business and stop making charges across the floor of the house, east against west, and vice versa, making long-winded speeches. There are hon. members who speak for half an hour before they start to say anything worth while-what they have said in the last ten minutes. I know one hon. member who spoke for two hours one day and said nothing. I am not trying to disparage him. That is his policy-to make a two hour speech and say nothing. My hoD.

Salt Fish Board

leader sometimes says too much. He talks so rapidly and says so much that he is apt to say something he does not mean. And as regards the Prime Minister, for whom I have every regard-in fact I have more probably than I should have-he tries to see how long he can talk and how little he can say. That is a positive fact. Every hon. member knows that and the people of the country know it. That is not the sort of speech that should be made here. If you have something to say, say it and sit down. Sometimes you will see somebody talking out a bill at eight o'clock- to me, the most disgusting thing in the world. All these private bills should be dealt with immediately and voted on, no matter whom it hurts. Last night there was a private bill before the committee and there was a great deal of talk on it, when the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lawson) suggested that we forget all about it and take up some other bills. That should not have to be done in this house. Why should a private bill be discussed night after night and not be disposed of? The rules of the house should be changed in order to allow us to get on with the business. We act like a bunch of school kids in a kindergarten. I am not scolding but I think there is room for improvement in the conduct of the business of the house.
I support anything that will help any part of the country. That is the policy of my party and it has always been. It is the policy of my leader and it was the policy of his predecessor. We will do all that we can to help both the maritimes and the prairies because we want to hold confederation together. If we wreck confederation, if we wreck Canada, the brightest spot in the empire, it will mean the breaking up of the empire. We must be careful not to go too far with any foolish nonsense.


Mr. DUSSALTLT (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to congratulate the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud) on the resolution he has just introduced in the interest of the fishermen. This class of our population is to be found not only in the maritime provinces or the Pacific coast, but also in my province, where fishermen are specialists. It is in the constituencies of Levis and Bellechasse that all the eels in the world are caught. But our fishermen still have in cold storage their entire catch of last year. If the proposed salt fish board is going to help these fishermen, I 
shall support the measure and I congratulate the minister on having taken means to promote the export of this fish.
Our fishermen find themselves in a difficult position because of the fact that their product is consumed only by Germans and that we are not trading with Germany. The sole market left to them is therefore the German population of New York, but they want their eels fresh.
I do not know of any effective rvay of aiding our eel fishermen. If the experts of the Department of Fisheries can find a way of helping them to dispose of their catch, I can assure the minister that he will have not only my own support but also that ol all those who may benefit from the effort he is making to see that our fishermen receive a fair remuneration for their work.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I support the suggestion of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, that the name of the board be changed from salt fish board to fish board. After all, there are marketing problems in all branches of the industry, and if the emphasis is placed on salt fish to the exclusion of other branches of the industry, confusion may result. May I ask the minister if he will take into consideration some procedure by which reference may be made to such a board of any serious marketing problem which may arise in any other branch of the industry?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Any problem regarding marketing in any other branch of the industry can always be referred to the department, and we have men who can advise them although they cannot take their place. My hon. friend knows well that, for example, on the Pacific coast, in connection with that branch of the fisheries which is called "the industry", those who look after the marketing and exporting are very well organized, are meeting with considerable success, and should be interfered with as little as possible.


Angus MacInnis: Will this federal board interfere in any way with the marketing legislation in British Columbia with reference to salt fish?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No, not at all.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Michaud thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 130, to provide for the constitution of a salt fish board.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Central Mortgage Bank



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
The house having reverted to the order for introduction of bills:
Mr. VINCENT DUPUIS (Chambly-Rou-ville) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 131, to amend the criminal code.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. DUPUIS:: The purpose of the bill is to amend the criminal code to meet the requests of farmers who sell various products on the local markets in large centres such as Montreal, Quebec and similar cities. Last year section 490 of the criminal code was amended to prevent people from using the receptacles of companies like the Borden milk company to fill with any beverage of their own and market in their name. As far as this is concerned the farmers, and I myself, are willing that these companies should be protected in respect of their property, but the amendment is intended to make the section a little clearer, because now it is so interpreted as to find the farmer guilty even though he fills with cream these bottles which are brought to the market by consumers. I have therefore introduced this bill to add to section 490 a third paragraph to deal with the situation.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CENTRAL MORTGAGE BANK


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to incorporate a central mortgage bank, to provide for the appointment and salaries of the officers and staff of the bank and the appointment and fees of the directors, to authorize the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of not exceeding ten million dollars for the purchase of shares of the bank, to authorize payment of any losses suffered by the bank out of the consolidated revenue fund, to authorize the governor in council to guarantee the principal of and interest on the debentures to be issued by the bank, and to make provisions with respect to the functions and powers of the bank.
He said:	The object of bringing forward
this resolution to-day is in the hope that discussion upon it might be sufficiently brief, on my part as well as on the part of other hon. members, to permit the immediate tabling 71492-231J
of the bill, so that everyone will then have an opportunity over the week-end of studying its detailed provisions and be in a position to discuss and to put questions on the second reading and the committee stages of the bill itself. However, in that regard I am in the hands of the committee; but I propose at this stage to give only a general explanation touching what I might call the high spots of the problem and the manner in which this bill seeks to provide means of. dealing with it.
I need not sketch in great detail the mortgage problem of Canada. Every hon. member is familiar with it, and also with the fact, that during the last few years the effects of monetary policy have become apparent with respect to the borrowing of what I might call new money, through the medium of the National Housing Act in relation to urban housing, of the farm loan board and other provincial institutions in the field of agricultural mortgage credit. The measure with respect to home improvements, and other enactments of the kind, together with the impact of a generally easy money policy upon rates of interest generally, have tended to move distinctly in the right direction so far as the cost of what I might term new money is concerned. All of us however are aware of the tremendous backlog problem in the mortgage field with respect to obligations undertaken years ago which have not yet reached maturity and which carry interest rates higher than the current rates on new money, and rates which, owing to conditions which have prevailed especially in some parts of Canada, have proven unduly onerous at the present time.
There is a secondary aspect of the problem which is sometimes given, I think, too little consideration, and that is the fact that while the mortgage debtor is in difficulties, particularly when he is a debtor who cannot fully meet his obligations under present conditions, it is also true that the creditor to whom the mortgage debtor owes the debt is himself a debtor. I can illustrate that by taking two very common examples. In many cases the creditor of the mortgage debtor is the life insurance company. The life insurance company in turn is the debtor to its policyholders. Most mortgage companies are debtors to two classes of people, their debenture holders and their savings depositors. A trust company is in the same position. So when in our thinking we stop at the primary debtor and fail to follow through, fail to remember that the creditor of the primary debtor is in the great majority of cases also a debtor to a great
Central Mortgage Bank
[Stage Direction]
group of creditors, very often a large proportion of the Canadian people-unless we recognize that fact we are not taking a realistic view of the mortgage problem.
At this stage that is sufficient, I believe, to indicate the problem. At a later stage of the bill I shall be glad to deal further with it. As to the means of helping to solve it under this legislation, it is proposed to set up a central mortgage bank controlled entirely by the dominion government, the Minister of Finance holding on behalf of Canada $10,000,000 of shares of the bank. It is proposed also to empower the central mortgage bank to issue debentures, guaranteed by the government of Canada, to an amount not exceeding, under the present bill, $200,000,000. It is proposed that the governor of the central mortgage bank shall be the governor of the Bank of Canada; that the deputy governor of the mortgage bank shall be the deputy governor of the Bank of Canada; that there shall be a board of six, including the governor, the deputy governor, the deputy minister of finance and three others appointed by the government of Canada. I can go into the details and restrictions concerning the qualifications of directors and so forth more conveniently on the bill itself than at this stage.
The bill, then, will provide that any lending institution in Canada, mortgage company, trust company, insurance company or any type of corporate lender-
Mr. CASSELMAN:: Individuals also?


Charles Avery Dunning: No, not individuals. I will come to that on the bill. Any lending institution may become a member company of the central mortgage bank. In becoming a member company it must assume certain responsibilities and agree to make certain adjustments, and as a consequence will receive what might be called certain rediscount facilities.
With regard to the obligations which a member company will assume in the agreement with the central mortgage bank by which it becomes a member company: it will first agree to adjust all its mortgages held on farms in Canada at the date of the membership agreement, and also all its mortgages held on non-farm homes in Canada in cases where the mortgage account does not exceed $7,000, excepting, of course, mortgages under the National Housing Act, to which obviously this measure need not apply. The major adjustment which will have to be made by member companies under the agreement will be to adjust the rate of interest on all mortgages coming within those two classes to which I referred, that is on all farm mortgages

and on home mortgages where the account is $7,000 or less, to a five per cent interest basis. In addition the lending institution must adjust arrears of interest by writing off all such arrears in excess of two years' interest. In addition the total amount owing on the mortgage account for principal, interest and other charges must be reduced to a point where it does not exceed eighty per cent of the fair value of the property under mortgage.
Let me repeat those three major adjustments which are required to be made. First, the effective rate of interest on the mortgage must be adjusted to a five per cent rate. Second, all arrears of interest in excess of two years must be written off. Third, in cases requiring it the amount of the mortgage must be adjusted downward to the point where it does not exceed eighty per cent of the fair value of the property mortgaged. There are other minor provisions, such as extending the mortgage over a period of twenty years on the amortization plan, and so forth, with which I can deal better at a later stage. The rate of interest on the adjusted mortgage, as I said, is to be five per cent. I am trying to pick out of my material the essential points, just to give a general sketch of the proposal.


Robert James Manion: The minister mentioned
farms and homes. Is this legislation to be general, all over Canada?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Robert James Manion: It would include homes in cities and towns as well as farms?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. The only difference between the farm mortgage and the home mortgage is that all farm mortgages held by a member company come within the scope of adjustment, but only homes in cities, towns and villages in connection with which the principal amount of the indebtedness is $7,000 or less may be dealt with. In other words we are not compelling adjustment on high priced houses but are attempting to deal with that low and intermediate level which I think is the real urban mortgage problem in Canada.


Mr. McCANN:: Does the $7,000 include arrears?


Charles Avery Dunning: The amount after being adjusted under the terms of the act. I hope at this stage hon. members will not ask me detailed questions, because this is a very complicated matter and only with the bill before us, with all these details completely set out, will it be possible really to question me effectively. I am asking for just that consideration at this stage which I know hon. members will be willing to give.

Central Mortgage Bank
la connection with the western provinces there must be provision in the new mortgages, if the central mortgage bank so desires, for a crop share basis of payment; and in the case of urban homes the method of payment must be the same as that under the National Housing Act, that is to say monthly payments of principal and interest amortized over the period of the mortgage.
That is what the member company will have to obligate itself to do with respect to its present mortgages before it becomes a member company. What then are the advantages, from the point of view of a member company coming into the scheme? Well, in the first place, to the extent of fifty per cent of the aggregate write-offs necessitated by the conditions I have just outlined, twenty year debentures of the mortgage bank will be handed to the member company. In other words the dominion, through the mortgage bank, undertakes tp bear, over the next twenty years, half the loss brought about by this general readjustment of mortgages across the dominion.


Robert James Manion: Including arrears of interest?


Charles Avery Dunning: Including arrears of interest and the necessary reduction of principal to bring it to the eighty per cent valuation, but of course with no provision for the dominion to bear anything with reference to the new rate of interest which will apply from now on; with respect to the determined amount of the loss created by complying with the adjustment terms; with respect to interest write-offs in all cases, in excess of two years, and any adjustments of principal which may be necessary under the eighty per cent provision. In effect, one half of that amount is borne by the dominion through the medium of the mortgage bank, and spread over the next twenty years. Provision is made for these particular debentures to be redeemed by moneys voted by this parliament annually to meet the amortization terms of the debentures. That is one advantage a lending institution will get, namely that it will at any rate receive an asset for one-half of its total write-offs.


Miss MACPHAIL:: The creditor receives it. He loses one-half and gets one-half.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Mr. LANDER  YOU@: You are going to give him something he would not otherwise get.


Charles Avery Dunning: constitutional aspects of the matter because, as is well known, a mortgage instrument is an instrument under provincial rather than federal law. The control over property and civil rights by provincial legislatures gives to them control over many of the factors involved in making loans and taking security from their citizens. Care has been taken not to step beyond our constitutional powers in any particular, nor to infringe the rights of any province. But in view of the fact that the provinces have these wide powers in relation to property and civil rights, it is necessary to insert a clause which will not compel an adjustment by a member company in a province in which legislation exists which, in the opinion of the central mortgage ban, would render unsafe the mortgage which the dominion institution would be rediscounting, by reason of unfair legislation. However there is provision whereby the province may study the matter, and there is time allowed, of course, for any adjustments which may be necessary in that regard. However, that may better be discussed when we are in committee on the bill.


Robert James Manion: Before the minister takes his seat may I suggest he might tell the house some of the conditions with respect to the individual mortgagee coming under the operation of the act-that is, the individual who is lending money on a house.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have not yet been able to find any means whereby the advantage of a close margin system of state-assisted credit could possibly be applied to the individual mortgagee. That is to say, up to now it is impossible to work out a means whereby the individual mortgagee could go into the central bank and there discount a mortgage which he, as an individual, holds. The reasons for that are Obvious, I believe-on the score of expense alone, with regard to an individual mortgage anywhere in Canada.
However I should say this, that of course a mortgage includes an agreement of sale, and there is nothing to prevent individual mortgagees from forming themselves into cooperatives for the purpose of obtaining the facilities of this measure. Neither is there any difficulty imposed upon the sale of mortgages. That is to say, it is quite possible for an individual mortgagee to sell his mortgage to some institution which can come under the provisions of this measure. Up to now, however, it has not been possible to bring together into one statute facilities for cheap long-term money, and at the same time facilities for dealing with individual lenders. It is altogether too expensive, so far as anything we have

been able to work out up to now is concerned. However, I do not regard that aspect of the problem as finally settled, because I recognize fully that in many parts of Canada the individual rather than the corporate mortgage is the prominent factor in the economy of the area.


Mr. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: I should like to ask a question.


Charles Avery Dunning: We shall be in committee in a few moments, and I suggest that the hon. member wait until then.


James Samuel Taylor: Is it possible under the terms of the measure for a municipality to be a member company?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is not contemplated at the present time, but there is nothing to prevent a municipality, or any other organization, from forming the kind of institution which would qualify.


James Samuel Taylor: Or a province, on behalf-


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would ask the hon. member to refrain from questioning the minister until the house is in committee.


James Samuel Taylor: I had a special reason.


Charles Avery Dunning: I know quite well that I am asking a lot when I ask hon. members not to interrupt in a matter which has such wide ramifications. I appreciate there are questions in the minds of hon. members, and while I do not wish to 'be discourteous I suggest seriously that in the bill itself will be found answers to the great bulk of the questions which might arise. I will have opportunity at a later stage to deal with other phases of the matter.


Mr. J. C. LANDERYOU (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the government has seen fit to introduce this resolution at this time. The resolution states that it is expedient to introduce a measure to incorporate a central mortgage bank, which will have for its purpose the settling of mortgages on homes and farms. This matter should have been dealt with many years ago. The inflationary money system which has been operating in Canada for some time has been indeed inimical to the interests of debtors in Canada. For instance, during the war years inflationary monetary policies were in effect throughout the world. In Canada millions of dollars were put into our monetary system by the increase in real money known as legal tender and by the expansion of bank credits.

Central Mortgage Bank
During this inflationary period there was a tremendous development in western Canada. The farmers borrowed large sums of money to purchase land and machinery at high prices and to develop farm operations to meet the call of the allies for foodstuffs. During this inflationary period prices were always high. When this money was borrowed the farmer could expect to pay it back to his creditor with wheat selling at from $1 to $2 a bushel, and with comparable prices of other commodities.
In 1920 and 1921 a depression set in, and then we had the depression of 1929 which was more severe. Other non-monetary factors, such as the embargo on cattle, and tariff and trade restrictions of one kind or another, entered into the picture. To-day we find that the farmers of western Canada are required to meet their obligations, incurred during an inflationary money period, in terms of money that is worth three times the value of money at the time the debts were incurred. We find that all through western Canada- I believe the same holds true of other sections of Canada but I am more familiar with the position of western Canada-farmers who have borrowed 83,000 to 810,000 or more have paid back in interest and principal the total of the original sum borrowed and yet still owe the amount that they originally borrowed. The same thing holds true of many home owners. People bought and built homes when they knew they could secure work, when money was inflated. They now find that their wages have tumbled and their position is similar to that of the farmers. In the years from 1914 to 1928 these people could secure a dollar for one hour's work, but now they have to work for three hours to secure the same dollar.
This situation has created great hardship among the home owners and farm owners of western Canada and other sections of the country, and it is about time the government brought down legislation of this kind. It does not go as far as the legislation introduced by the government of Alberta, which was declared ultra vires by the court, but from what I can gather from the statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) the government at least recognizes that this problem exists and realizes that there should be an adjustment between debtors and creditors in the Dominion of Canada. We shall have to wait until the bill is introduced before we can properly understand what benefits will accrue to these people. We shall then know what protection is going to be given to the creditor.
As I pointed out, after making a careful analysis of the situation confronting the farmers and the home owners, the government of Alberta took steps to deal with the problem. However, this federal government saw fit to criticize that action, as did the newspapers of this country, but apparently this government now realize in the dying days of this session, which may be the last session of this parliament, that this matter should be dealt with. I commend them for at last recognizing the need for this legislation. As my hon. friend says, it is in line with the policies advocated by the government of Alberta. However, we shall have to leave any further discussion until the bill is before us.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Chairman, I have just a word to say. This resolution has been allowed to pass so that we may have the bill before us and have an opportunity to study its provisions. At the same time, I submit with all deference that the position of the individual is so important that the government should give a little thought to the matter over the weekend. It is for that reason that I mention it at this time. I have in my possession many pitiful letters complaining of the operations of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. For instance, a widow may have as her sole support the income from a mortgage. Under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act the mortgage may be cut down to such an extent that she is left without sufficient upon which to live. We are taking steps to protect some of our great financial institutions; I am wholly in accord with that, but I do not think we should forget the individual lender who has everything he or she possesses tied up in a small loan.
It strikes me that this is most urgent. The minister was good enough to tell me that the government have given a great deal of thought to it. I will admit that it is a difficult question. The minister says that the small lender can go to a loan company, but I doubt very much if he would have much success. I do not mean that he could not apply, but in my opinion he would receive very little consideration from the loaning companies. It seems to me that some other method should be set up whereby the widow, we will say, who has a mortgage of 85,000 or 810,000-it would have to be less than $7.000-would be protected. Suppose she has a mortgage of 85,000 upon which she is dependent and it falls into arrears, and consequently she gets into
Central Mortgage Bank

difficulties. There should be some method whereby she can walk into a mortgage bank and put the case before some officer who would deal with it to give her some redress. I do not think this method of protecting the lender should be limited only to the big mortgage companies. While I am wholly in accord with protecting them, because I know it would be a catastrophe if one of our big lending institutions or a big life insurance company went into bankruptcy, it is an even greater catastrophe for the individual who sees her all that is invested in a small mortgage go by the board, with no opportunity for redress.
Perhaps over the weekend the minister and his officers could work out some plan that would deal with such a case. I have nothing to offer at the moment because I have not had an opportunity to give any study to the matter. While I accept, of course, the minister's statement that it is a very difficult problem, I cannot see why it should be impossible of solution; and I trust that before the bill is again proceeded with, the minister and his officers will give serious consideration to working out some plan whereby the small individual lender may get redress something akin to the redress here being provided for the big financial institutions.


René-Antoine Pelletier: We in this group
heartily endorse the attitude of the leader of the opposition in refraining from discussion at this stage, but in permitting the resolution to pass we reserve the right to discuss the principle of the legislation on the second reading. We shall be glad to facilitate the business of the house by permitting the resolution to pass on that understanding.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Dunning thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 132, to incorporate the Central Mortgage Bank.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at two o'clock. PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE



PERCENTAGE DEDUCTION FROM GRAINS MARKETED IN SPRING WHEAT AREA-PROVISION FOR ACREAGE PAYMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, May 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gardiner for the second reading of Bill No. 83, to assist agriculture in the prairie provinces.
Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, when this matter was before the house last evening I spoke for about half an hour, but unfortunately I did not quite conclude my remarks and therefore I find it necessary to make a few further observations this afternoon. If I speak at any great length on the question to-day, perhaps I may be excused on the ground that I have listened patiently for many hours, yes, and even days, to others discussing it. What remarks I have to contribute to the debate will, I hope, be altogether constructive, and I can assure you entirely unprejudiced. I say unprejudiced because I think that most Canadians are free from prejudice with respect to matters affecting religion, race or section. There are, unfortunately, a few who may not appear to be absolutely so, but I do believe that most of us at any rate aim at that freedom from prejudice. And that, it seems to me, is the course that we should take in discussing a matter of this kind, because to take the moderate road between two extremes is usually the better course.
I shall try, sir, not to cover the ground I did last night, though I may repeat a few points that I made then. Speaking of the importance of the west, I pointed out that in the last fifteen years exports of wheat and wheat flour constituted an average of 28-7 per cent of the total exports of Canada. Of all the exports of Canada in those fifteen years 2S-7 per cent consisted of wheat and wheat flour, amounting to $279,000,000 annually. I quote that from the report of the royal grain inquiry conducted by Mr. Justice Turgeon. Further, I pointed out the huge wealth that has been produced in western Canada not only in grains but in live stock as well, and I made the point, in view of that production and all that it involves, that the east and the west are mutually dependent. We are one nation and we should aim at developing a united dominion. We should not strive to develop as nine or any other number of separate entities but one undivided nation. With our vast area, our rich resources and our sparse population it seems to me that we have a great opportunity to build up a great united dominion. At the same time, whether in this or any other important measure of the kind in which controversy is unavoidable, I suggest that we should show that toleration which does not seem at times to be quite evident.
I have sometimes been struck with the thought that there are certain individuals who perhaps have less regard for one section of Canada than for another. That, in my opinion, is the wrong attitude to take in considering

Prairie Farm Assistance
any of our problems; nevertheless, when we come to discuss a matter of far-reaching importance such as this, we should try to be frank with one another without fear of giving offence. If my western friends will permit me to say so, it seems that they are sometimes rather too touchy with reference to remarks made by members of this house, or perhaps outside the house, which are not intended to be critical but to be merely observations of fact. For example, the other day one or two members behind me, broadminded Canadians in every respect, made a slight reference, which might perhaps have been regarded as rather critical, to a certain bill-indeed, I forget exactly what it was- and within a few days one of the Saskatchewan newspapers violently criticized these two hon. gentlemen on the ground that they had attacked the west. As a matter of fact there was no thought in the minds of those members of attacking the west. Newspapers that take that attitude simply because of a bit of mild criticism are only sowing the seeds of antagonism-something that we should do our best to avoid if we wish to be good, loyal Canadians.
I think I have the right to speak plainly because I look upon myself as a westerner. I have always done so. I come from Fort William, which, as I pointed out last night, has been for many years-Vancouver now shares this distinction with it-the spout through which western grain has been handled. Commercial products going into the west have had also to pass through that point, and consequently both geographically and commercially we at the head of the lakes regard ourselves as forming a part of western Canada, rather than as belonging to the eastern country. I well remember some of the trials western Canada has had to face. From 1908 to 1912 the west passed through a trying time, particularly in the urban centres. From 1907 to 1912 all of us in western Canada, from the head of the lakes clear through to the Pacific coast, were so confident that the west would rapidly attain a position of vast importance, with a very considerable population, that the idea was prevalent that all one had to do was to buy real estate and forget all about it and that almost over night one would make a huge sum of money. From Fort William and Port Arthur right through to the Pacific everybody bought land. As old-timers will remember, there was a land boom of most extraordinary proportions and when it broke in 1912, and then was completely
smashed by the war in 1914, terribly chaotic conditions followed, involving all those who had indulged in that speculation.
I visited Saskatoon on one occasion in 1911, and miles away from the centre of the city there were subdivisions of land which were then regarded as city lots but which to-day have reverted to farm lands. This is true of my own city as well as of Saskatoon, This will give some idea of the crises through which western Canada has passed. I know something of the problems of the west, and I believe that we were over-optimistic. An old friend of mine, with whom I used to sit in the evening and drink a pot of tea, used an expression which I thought was very apt. He said that we were insanely optimistic and I think it is true. That was the spirit of the western country. In Fort William we used to talk about ourselves as the Chicago of the north and we believed that it was only a matter of a few years until there would be a population in Canada of 25,000,000. Indeed, in looking over the speeches of some of the statesmen of that day-at that time they were merely politicians as we are, but since their demise they have become statesmen-one finds that they too had visions of a population in Canada of some 25,000,000 in ten or fifteen or twenty years time. That was what we believed, and that is why we overbuilt railways, creating the problem which we have to deal with to-day.
I point this out to show the state of the western mind at that time. We all plunged into debt, originally in the cities and later on the farms, in the municipalities and in the provinces. But the point I wish to make is this, that while those of us who got into debt in western Canada-and the same applies to the east-deserve sympathy, we should not regard as criminals all those who lent us money. It is well for us to remember that the man who borrows the money should take his half of the blame. The problem should not be regarded as though the lender were a person who has committed a crime, although I am afraid that that represents a frame of mind which is altogether too common. At the same time I realize that such a measure as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) introduced this morning is, properly modified, the sort of legislation which will do something to readjust this situation.
Having laid that general foundation, I wish to offer a few observations which to a certain extent I touched upon last evening, but only hurriedly. They are points which we all, I think, should remember in dealing with the
Prairie Farm Assistance

complicated subject presented by the drought in western Canada, the marketing of wheat, and other phases of the grain problem.
In the first place vre must remember that world markets have changed considerably, and I doubt, as I believe most thinking people doubt, whether those markets will ever be the same again. I will cite some figures which I have taken from the Turgeon report, and which I believe demonstrate this fact better than any words of mine could do.
During the years 1922 to 1927, France, Germany and Italy purchased wheat to the aver-age of over 200,000,000 bushels annually. Ten years later, from 1932 to 1937, their average purchases were just about 35,000,000 bushels, or hardly more than one-sixth of the amounts they bought ten years before. I do believe that this picture will never again present the appearance it did from 1922 to 1927. For the sake of western Canada I hope that I am wrong, but I doubt very much whether in the world of to-day we can look forward to those three and other countries ever again making the heavy purchases of wheat which they did in earlier years.
The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) remarked upon the excellent bread he bought in South America. I well remember that during my first visit to France, away back in 1905, and on subsequent visits up to the time of the great war, I was struck by the splendid quality of the bread; I thought it was the finest I had ever eaten. It was crusty and white, and I was told at that time that the quality was due to the fact that over there they knew so well how to blend wheats. I might interject that the only bread I have tasted elsewhere which equals the French bread of those days is the crusty rolls they make at the Chateau Laurier. But during and since the war the quality of the bread in France changed markedly, and to-day you get, instead of that fine, white crusty bread, an inferior quality which is probably no better and no worse than the bread of many other nations. So France, like many other nations, can make bread of inferior quality, doing without Canadian wheat. They have not been buying much of our wheat, although they have been getting from Northern Africa wheat raised from fine quality seed obtained,
I believe, from Canada.
I make +his point from the scientific standpoint, of which I have some little knowledge, that while bread is called the staff of life, it can be the staff of life without being developed to the highest degree of quality. After all, bread is made up largely of starch, with gluten, which is protein. Three elements,

starch, protein and fat, with salts and water, are all we take in for nourishment. Salts and water we obtain everywhere in our food and drink; protein is obtained largely from meat and cheese; butter and cream provide fats; starch is provided by bread, potatoes, beans, and things of that sort. So if you take a piece of bread, even of inferior quality, with some butter, you have what is required for a complete staff of life; and of course the starches can be obtained from other products. I noticed the other day an item in a newspaper which brought back that fact to me. It stated that the poorer people in Ireland, living as they did to a large extent upon potatoes and milk, were getting a perfect diet. The potato contains the starch, and the milk contains a certain amount of protein and also fat, so that potatoes and milk supplied the same type of perfect diet as bread and butter. Just as an Irishman could get his complete diet from potatoes and milk, so could the people of France and other countries which used to import our wheat get their starches from other wheats than ours, or they can take their starches in the form of rye bread, brown bread, peas, beans, potatoes and various other articles. I point that out because we in Canada must realize that we cannot force the world to take our wheat. The world can get along without it. The only way we can sell it is by, so to speak, coaxing them to take it, not by forcing it upon them.
Another point we should bear in mind is that the world production of wheat is just about ten times Canada's production, or roughly 4,000,000,000 bushels. In round figures Canada produces over the years about 400,000,000 bushels annually. I well remember that I was out in Fort William in 1929, when wheat went to about $1.50 a bushel.


Mr. STEVENS:: One dollar and seventy-five cents.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: One dollar and eighty-two cents.


Robert James Manion: All right. I remembered that it was around $1.50. I recall that a big financier and dealer, a man well known to almost every westerner, was at that time making radio addresses across western Canada in which he prophesied, as did many other grain growers, that wheat would reach $2 per bushel. I say this in no spirit of criticism, but it illustrates the prevalence of an attitude which did something to hurt our position in foreign markets. One of the pool organizations held a big dinner at the head of the lakes, to which they invited public men, and in consequence I was there; and they boasted

Prairie Farm Assistance
very openly that they had the world by the tail with a downhill pull, if I may use a street expression. They thought the world could not get along without our wheat, and they were going to force the world to pay our price.	Mr. Justice Turgeon in his report
mentions this a number of times. I do not wish to be understood as criticizing those who took that attitude, but undoubtedly it prevailed among the western pools and also among individuals, private grain merchants and dealers; and their belief that they could force our wheat upon the peoples of the world was one of the causes which interfered with the sale of Canadian wheat in foreign markets.
It is well to keep these facts in mind. I am doing it for the purpose of outlining the problem as I see it so that we may be prepared, all of us, to work out something in the way of a permanent plan. It seems to me that what we need is not a hit or miss policy, not a policy which is just for the present year, but one which, so far as we can ensure it, will last over at any rate a period of years. We should attempt to work it out in association with the other wheat-producing countries, the Argentine, Australia and the United States in particular, and in association if possible with the consumers, remembering that our Objective should be to get prices which are both remunerative to the producer and fair to the consumer. It is only upon that basis, it seems to me, that we can work out a long range plan for western Canada.
There have been held in London, I believe since 1933, at spasmodic intervals, conferences such as the one to which the governr ment recently sent a number of apparently able representatives, to judge from their positions ^pd their names. It is however less than a month ago that the government sent over these gentlemen, Mr. Mclvor, Doctor Wilson, and Doctor Shaw. Mr. Pearson and a couple of others are over there.


Mr. GARDINER:: Mr. Turgeon sat in at a meeting of the same committee in 1936.


Robert James Manion: That is, Mr. Justice Turgeon?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes,-while he was on the commission.


Robert James Manion: Yes, but he was not there for a great length of time. Since then, if I am not mistaken, Mr. Massey has been sitting in more or less as a spectator; but with all due respect to Mr. Massey, for whom I have a great deal of respect, he does not know anything about the wheat business, so far as I am aware, and I do not think he would be of any particular use at a meeting of this kind except as an observer.


Mr. EULER:: That was why we sent the other men.


Robert James Manion: I quite agree, but if I
may say so I think some of the other men might have been sent sooner, to some of the earlier conferences. Probably the previous government might have done the same, because my information is that this conference was really begun in 1933, largely at the instigation of Mr. Bennett. So perhaps we should have sent a more learned group of men.


William Daum Euler: It might be only fair to say that Mr. Massey was not the sole representative of the government at the earlier meetings. We also had Mr. Biddulph, representing the Canadian wheat board, a gentleman with considerable knowledge of the wheat business, and Mr. Allen of the Department of Agriculture.


Robert James Manion: I see their names as being among those present. I do not know these gentlemen, so perhaps I have underestimated their ability. I know Mr. Pearson quite well, but again he is not a grain man. I am glad, however, that the government has sent over practical men in the person of Mr. Mclvor and Mr. Wilson. That was what I wanted to point out, that having done this, it seems to me it is our duty, aided by whatever results may accrue from that conference, to work out a permanent wheat policy.
After all, without going outside this house, this government has very many advisers. At least two-thirds of the members from the prairie provinces, perhaps more, sit on the government side. On the other hand we have been at something of a disadvantage because we have had just one member from the prairies, in the person of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley). We are short in numbers but we are high in quality. I have listened to the speeches of hon. members belonging to all parties in this house, and I have heard no one better posted or fighting more emphatically for the rights of the western grain growers than the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. He has carried on that fight in the house consistently and persistently. In spite, however, of his great ability as a practical grain grower and dealer in wheat, I do wish we had more western members on this side. With all due respect to any individual, a number of heads are usually better than one. In addition, it is true, we have among our members three other outstanding agriculturists; the hon. member for Haldimand, (Mr. Senn), the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), and the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Thompson). These hon. gentlemen have been
Prairie Farm. Assistance

engaged in agriculture all their lives and have been members of this house for many years. They are of the utmost value in dealing with agricultural questions, but from the point of view of discussing these matters I should be very happy if we had a greater number. We will have more shortly, but at the moment we are a little low in numbers, although not in quality. In any event, sir, if the government has not been able to work out a good policy certainly it has not been because of any lack of members.
I do not intend to take up very much time, but I want to say that I do not like the expression "emergency year". Those words have been used in some of the speeches, and I believe appear in some of the legislation. The suggestion is that the government or the minister can declare any year to be an emergency year. I object to that because I think it might be abused; in other words, it might be used for political purposes. Either we have an emergency or we have not. It is not a question of declaration; it is a question of fact. And if we have an emergency no one either in the east or in the west will criticize whatever assistance may be given the prairie provinces in their time of need. But we might declare every year to be an emergency year, and if this policy is to become permanent we shall find that the farmers of other sections of Canada, the fishermen and other producers all over the country, will ask where they get off in connection with legislation of this kind. In other words, we shall have producers of all kinds saying, "Well, it is an emergency year for me also, and I want to know just what I get out of this government."


Mr. YOUNG:: Just like the manufacturers.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend keeps
harping on the manufacturers. I do not know that they ever get any assistance, except in so far as the tariff holds their markets for them. I hold no particular brief for the manufacturers, but I want to do them justice. I have not heard them howling very much. Many of them have had to close down their plants, and more are closing down right now under the legislation of this government, but I have not heard them howling. Certainly, if this government, or our government when we succeed it, attempted to bring any legislation into this house to assist any manufacturer who might be going out of business, it would be talked right out of the house. The manufacturer does not get any direct assistance, so far as I know. I do not want to get off on a tariff discussion, but the tariffs hold

the markets for manufacturers. At least that is what they should do, and the manufacturers should not be permitted to exploit the people because of the tariffs. I believe in a proper tariff system, and it seems to me that anyone who under present conditions does not hold that view is simply not properly using his mental capacity. To-day every country in the world has tariffs against us, so how could we possibly lower our tariffs and allow other countries to dump their goods here and put out of business not only our industrialists but also our farmers, so far as the east is concerned? It seems to me it could not be done.
As I was saying Mr. Speaker, when there is a real emergency in the west I think we should act as one family, one nation, not for political but for national reasons. We should recognize that emergency and should do everything possible to assist those affected, because in my opinion any great emergency in the west should be above anything in the way of politics. There are certain matters which should not be treated politically, and I think, any real emergency in the west, such as we have seen during the last few years, particularly in the drought areas, is a situation that must be treated in a different way from the ordinary treatment given the west.
Another point is that the policy, whatever it is, must be stable and not subject to change over-night or by order in council. I read the speech delivered last year by the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell), in which he rather bitterly attacked his own party for having changed certain legislation by order in council. I think it is just as important for the farmers of the fl-est to have a stable policy as it is for the manufacturers of the east to have a stable policy. And then any such policy must be just to both east and west. For example, I believe the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) has corrected his bill so that it applies to Ontario wheat as well as western wheat. The original bill, I understand, did not apply to Ontario. I think it only just that this change should be made. I was going to protest, as I know other hon. members were, if the Ontario wheat farmer was not put on the same basis as the western wheat farmer. I know of no reason why, in dealing with wheat in general, the Ontario wheat farmers, who raise from fifteen to twenty million bushels of wheat a year, should not also be given a fair deal.


An hon. MEMBER:: And the Quebec farmers.

Prairie Farm Assistance


Robert James Manion: And the farmers of Quebec, although I did not mention them because I do not believe there is so much wheat grown in Quebec. I mentioned the Ontario farmers because they do grow a fair amount of wheat, but this should apply to all wheat farmers. They should all get a fair deal at the present time. Some weeks ago I pointed out to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that United States wheat was being imported by Ontario millers in competition with Ontario wheat, and that this could be done because United States wheat was subsidized by the government of that country.


William Daum Euler: I do not like to interrupt my hon. friend, but I think I stated at that time or a few days later that the Canadian millers concerned had agreed not to import any more United States wheat beyond what they actually had on order.


Robert James Manion: I was going to give my hon. friend credit for that, but I should like to draw to his attention an item that appeared a few days ago in the Toronto Globe and Mail. I do not know whether he saw it.


William Daum Euler: I know of it.


Robert James Manion: I should like to read it, because it illustrates the difficulty. I believe at the time the minister dealt with the matter he straightened it out temporarily, but apparently the situation needs to be straightened out again. I should like to read the item, which is dated April 27, only about ten days ago, from Buffalo:
Grain milling interests of Buffalo are bewildered to-day by the economic implications of the exportation of 100,000 bushels of subsidized wheat to Canada for milling purposes.
A shipload of the grain, loaded at a Buffalo elevator, will head for Port Colbourne, Ontario, as soon as ice conditions permit. There the grain will be milled by the Maple Leaf Milling Company for export.
Controlled by the Federal Surplus Commodities Corporation the shipment involved subsidized grain.
This is an item from Buffalo, remember.
The federal government is absorbing the difference between the selling price and the prevailing United States price. In this instance, it is reported, the Canadian miller has acquired the grain for 45 cents a bushel, whereas the market price on equivalent grain in Buffalo is 80 cents a bushel.
That is the item.


William Daum Euler: May I say a word? I saw the item, too. My hon. friend will remember that I said in the house that the millers of Ontario, and among them the Maple Leaf company, had been importing this subsidized cheap United States wheat in order that they
might compete in the export market. I also said that they agreed that they would not import any more than what they had already contracted to take over. Immediately I saw the item I communicated with the Maple Leaf Milling Company and was told that what they were bringing in then-and they will have to bring in a little more-was part of the amount for which they had already contracted, but that they were not bringing in any more in addition to that.


Robert James Manion: I hope that is right.


William Daum Euler: My information was received from that company.


Robert James Manion: That is why I am trying to draw attention to the matter. Does not the minister think that something could be done about those imports? Mr. D. Campbell MacLachlan is mentioned in the article.


William Daum Euler: He was the gentleman with whom I communicated after I saw the article.


Robert James Manion: Then he should give the press the same information he gave the minister. Here it is:
D. Campbell MacLachlan of the Maple Leaf Milling Company said last night the company's export in flour was an inconsiderable item of its business and that without this cheap United States source of supply, the company would not be in a position to compete with other countries.
"If we did not take advantage of this low price per bushel, we would not be able to hold this export market," said Mr. MacLachlan. "We could not buy Canadian wheat for the export trade. The purchase of 100,000 bushels of United States wheat is not a large transaction when it is considered we mill 1,000,000 bushels a month."
I rather wonder he did not point out to the minister what is in this article. I do point out however, that for the good of the wheat growers in eastern Canada, particularly in Ontario and Quebec, the minister should take other measures. After all, companies can be reached and influenced by governments without resort to legislation on the part of the government. This company has a good many dealings with the government- at least it had when I was Minister of Railways and Canals. Remember, I am not saying anything against the company, because I realize it is a good company. But in this instance they were taking unfair advantage of the wheat grower, by importing subsidized wheat from the United States. That should be stopped. The Ontario wheat grower should be given a fair deal, and I would urge upon the minister that he insist that this company, and any other which may be implicated in the matter, give that fair deal. After all, this is the government's responsibility. The
Prairie Farm. Assistance

government has been in office four years, and has behind it two-thirds of the western members. I suggest that if it has settled on its policy it should stick to it, and that it stop changing policies. When changes are made they bring about instability, chaos and too much uncertainty not only in western Canada but in the east as well.
I will not discuss present plans. They are too complicated for me to base an opinion upon. I hope that they may be successful. With whatever modifications hon. members may decide to bring about, I hope they may be given a fair trial. But I repeat we must aim at something by way of a long range plan.
May I point out that between 1930 and 1935, when we were in power and an emergency arose in the west, we met that emergency courageously, with plans that gave not only satisfaction but profit to the west and to Canada. Last night I referred to some of the things we had done, but I missed a couple and I should like to repeat them at this time First of all we gave the five cent bonus on wheat, which cost about $12,000,000 or $13,000,000 in 1931 and 1932. We gave drought relief to the extent of tens of millions of dollars. I do not know the exact figure, but I think it will amount to almost $90,000,000 or $100,000,000. We brought about stabilization operations under John I. McFarland, with a profit, which probably meant one hundred million dollars to the west. The profit to the government on the deal was between nine and ten million dollars.
We established a wheat board which the minister is still maintaining. We fixed the price of wheat at 87| cents per bushel. Then there is this point which I forgot to mention last night. We obtained a six cent preference on the British market through the empire agreements, something which this government has lost, and the loss of which I believe is a misfortune. I am convinced that the barter deal would not have been possible if the six cent preference on wheat had still been maintained.
Then, I mentioned last night the provision of seed grain, the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, the Natural Products Marketing Act and the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act.
I believe that covers pretty much what we did, when we had a chance, and when we were in power and realized the emergency in the west. The only thing I can say is that I believe we successfully coped with that emergency. When we are again in power and an emergency arises we will give the same just treatment to the west, in the belief that

it is the desire of Canadians in every part of Canada to preserve this great nation, In addition our policy would be to work out a plan of a permanent nature, and I am urging upon the minister now that they should work out a similar plan, when in power, if possible in cooperation with other producing countries, a plan which would be just not only in world trade but to all sections of the dominion.


Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) upon the excellent address he made yesterday. I always enjoy listening to the minister, because he always presents his views in a pleasing manner. I am sorry I cannot also congratulate him upon the various proposals he has brought down to the house to deal with certain conditions which exist to-day. The whole bunch of them fill one with a feeling of futility and confusion.
On April 5 we listened with a great deal of interest to the Minister of Agriculture with respect to his new wheat marketing policy. I have since that time read his observations several times. I have read the various bills that are being brought down, and after careful consideration I have come to the conclusion that the minister has made an error in regarding two entirely different problems as one. The two different problems, as I see them, are these: First of all, the introduction of a sound, permanent wheat marketing policy, under which we shall attempt to fit supply to demand, in order to stabilize prices at a level which will guarantee to the producer a price at least equal to the cost of production, and commensurate with the price that he has to pay for other commodities. The second problem, as I see it, is drought relief. Perhaps under that heading one might also include crop insurance.
Up to the present time not one single measure has been brought before the House of Commons which will deal adequately with either of these problems. As a result of the minister's proposal the majority of wheat growers in western Canada very shortly will find themselves in the same unfortunate condition in which the farmers in the drought area found themselves, namely in a state of bankruptcy-unless prices of their own volition rise.
Before going farther I should like to deal with a statement made by the minister on April 5, a statement -which in my opinion was very unfortunate, because it has caused

Prairie Farm, Assistance
a lot of misunderstanding throughout the country. I refer to page 2623 of Hansard, and the following quotations:
It has been proven over and over again that twenty bushels to the acre of 'wheat can be produced at a cost of from 30 cents to 40 cents a bushel.
The minister did not make any mention of two sections of land, but just made the bald statement that provided you produced twenty bushels to the acre you could produce wheat at a cost of from 30 cents to 40 cents a bushel, and he repeated it several times. Apparently he is having a hard job to convince himself of the truth of it. I should think he would hardly expect hon. members to be so gullible as to swallow it. There perhaps would have been some excuse for an eastern member making a statement of that kind. There might possibly have been some excuse for a western business man to make such a statement, but when a responsible minister of this government who is familiar with conditions, the Minister of Agriculture, makes such a statement I find it very hard to understand what his motive may be.


John Gordon Ross: What was the statement?


Victor Quelch: The statement was that provided there was a production of 20 bushels per acre, a farmer could produce wheat at from 30 to 40 cents per bushel.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not the statement.


Victor Quelch: I will read it again. The minister said:
It has been proven over and over again that 20 bushels to the acre of wheat can be produced at a cost of from 30 to 40 cents a bushel.


James Garfield Gardiner: Read the next sentence.


Victor Quelch: It reads:
We have had a great deal of discussion about the cost of producing wheat. It costs a certain amount to work an acre of land whether you get any wheat off it or not; it costs a certain amount to harvest it if you do get any wheat off it. It has been proven over and over again, I say, that 20 bushels to the acre of wheat can be produced at a cost of from 30 to 40 cents a bushel.
I maintain that there is absolutely no justification for that statement.


James Garfield Gardiner: If my hon. friend will put the two sentences together he will see that they refer to the cost of working the land and the cost of taking the wheat off the land. Anyone who knows anything about farming in western Canada knows that that can be done for that price


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: That is not the cost of production.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is exactly what, the statement says.


Victor Quelch: When the minister made that statement it was challenged by several hon. members, and the minister then said that he was not including debt. Seventy per cent or even more of the farms in western Canada are held under mortgages, agreements of sale or on a rental basis. The usual practice is to turn over twenty-five or thirty per cent of the crop to the mortgage company. That thirty per cent must be included in the cost of production. If it is agreed that thirty per cent of the crop has to go to the mortgage company and that that must be included in the cost of production, it can hardly be said that a bushel of wheat can be produced for from thirty to forty cents.


James Garfield Gardiner: I made that clear in the statement.


Victor Quelch: It certainly does not indicate that clearly. According to the comments in various papers, the general impression is that the Minister of Agriculture stated that 20 bushels to the acre of wheat can be produced at a cost of from 30 to 40 cents a bushel.


John Gordon Ross: As an operating cost.


Victor Quelch: Debt, charges are bound to be part of your operating costs; then you must include depreciation charges on machinery. It is all very well to say that a farmer does not have to pay his debts, but in some cases he must pay them. He may have to hand over thirty per cent of his crop to the mortgage company, or if he is renting he has to pay that to the owner. If he does not hand it over, he can be charged with stealing.


John Gordon Ross: That is a production cost, not an operating cost.


Victor Quelch: The minister did not define it very clearly. As an hon. member says, they would have to be tight in order to swallow that statement.


Mr. HARTIGAN:: Aberhart said that 60 cents is a fair price for wheat.


Victor Quelch: Sixty cents is quite different from 30 to 40 cents.


David James Hartigan: With that operating cost, 60 cents would be a fair price.


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) has the floor and he must not be interrupted without his consent.
Prairie Farm Assistance


Victor Quelch: If our actual cost of production was from 30 to 40 cents a bushel, we would be tickled to death to get 60 cents a bushel, which would give us a profit of from 20 to 30 cents a bushel. To my mind, however, the proceedings of the Bracken western conference go to show that the cost is considerably in excess of 30 to 40 cents.
I should like to deal with this question from a slightly different angle. On page 151 of the proceedings reference is made to the cost of producing a similar number of bushels per acre. This reads:
On the basis of average yields of wheat of 20 bushels per acre (1918-1930) for the Regina plains and Rosetown area the costs of production are approximately 55 cents per bushel for the half section farm, 44 cents for the section farm and 34 cents for a two section power farm with tractor, combine and truck. This two section power farm is the most efficient wheat producing unit which it is possible to set up. 1 robably not more than one per cent of the farms of the west are as efficient as this.
According to that, the Minister of Agriculture was ninety-nine per cent incorrect in his statement, because only one per cent of the farms in western Canada are of a type to permit the production at a cost of 34 cents. According to the figures given by Professor Hope, the minister was twenty-seven per cent wrong in his cost of production figures for a half section. He was ninety-nine per cent wrong in his general statement and twenty-seven per cent out on his limit of price.
The statement goes on to show that in the Wellington area the average yield was 13-6 bushels per acre and the cost per bushel 71 cents for the half-section farm and 50 cents for the section farm. In the Gravelbourg area the average yield was 13 bushels to the acre and the cost of producing wheat was 70 cents for the half-section farm and 50 cents for the section farm. That is not including debt charges. It must be remembered that no bonus would be paid in any of these cases. Under the bonus plan a man must have twelve bushels or less to the acre, whereas here the average is thirteen bushels to the acre. With an average price of only 70 cents a bushel f.o.b. Fort William, the farmers will be selling at a price considerably below the cost of production. If we include debt charges, then the condition becomes even more unfortunate; it would be impossible for a farmer to meet his costs and pay his debts. The best he could do would be to pay approximately fifty per cent on them. It is all very well for the Minister of Agriculture to say that the farmer will have to wait until he has a good crop at high prices. When you consider the prices which have prevailed over a period of six years it stands to reason

that the farmer's debt charges are going to mount up to such a height that it will take an equal number of years to liquidate them. Unfortunately we very seldom have a good crop at good prices, nor do we have good crops for a sufficient number of years to make it possible for the farmer to liquidate his debts.
I was amazed at the action of this government in proposing to reduce the guaranteed price from 80 cents to 60 cents. In so far as the wheat board is concerned they have raised the price from 60 to 70 cents, but it must be remembered that yesterday we passed Bill No. 82 which provides for an initial payment of only 60 cents to the pools. I maintain that we are paving the way for doing away with the wheat board. 1 think that is the objective of the Minister of Agriculture. When the wheat board has been done away with, there would be provision for only a 60 cent initial payment to the various pools. We would then be back to the position in which we were before this last bill was redrafted. Realizing that such a reactionary government as this would not guarantee a price anywhere near the cost of production, public opinion in western Canada has finally swung in behind the recommendation of the Bracken conference for a price of 80 cents. They do not believe for one minute that that will guarantee the cost of production, but they realize that it is good strategy, when you cannot advance to your objective, at least to consolidate your position and try to hold what you already have. For that reason western Canada has swung in behind the Bracken conference recommendations. As hon. members know, that conference was composed of men who were fully representative of western Canada, such as farmers, business men and those connected with the grain trade. That conference made probably the most exhaustive study that has ever been made of this matter, and it came to the conclusion that if disaster was to be averted a price of at least 80 cents per bushel would have to be maintained. In spite of the evidence that has been submitted, this government proposes to sabotage agriculture by allowing prices to fall below the level that was maintained during the depression years of 1930 to 1933. The average price during those years was 43 cents a bushel; with wheat at 60 cents a bushel at Fort William the average price would be lower.


James Garfield Gardiner: The average price in the last three years is 89 cents.


Victor Quelch: The average price in the depth of the depression was 43 cents a bushel, as will be found at page 257 of the Canada

Prairie Farm Assistance
Year Book, and this low price meant wholesale bankruptcy to western Canada. Yet these proposals of the government would allow the price to go even lower than that. The government may think they are going to save themselves a certain amount of money by these proposals, but I predict that it will prove one of the most costly measures which the government have ever had passed, and one of their most costly mistakes.
What will be the results under these proposals so far as western Canada is concerned? Some people suggest that the result will be a decrease in production. They maintain that on account of the low price many farmers will stop producing wheat, that this will help to reduce the surplus, and that prices will then rise. But I doubt it. I say that the result will be a decrease in the number of farmers and an increase in the size of the individual farm unit. That is what has been going on these past few years in western Canada. The small farmer has been forced out of business, and the farmer alongside has taken over his farm and farmed an increased acreage. That contention is upheld by Professor Mackintosh, who at page 14 of the report of the conference on western farm products says:
If the conditions surrounding a product are such that a fall in its price will stimulate and increase consumption and at the same time limit substantially its production you will get a quick readjustment to the new position, but wheat has proved to be an extreme of the opposite sort. The downward movement in price has done little or nothing to increase its consumption, partly because the downward movement of wheat has too little effect on the price of bread, but mainly because the effects of falling wheat prices have been prevented from getting through to a large proportion of the world's consumers by limitations of trade, which have held consumer's wheat prices in hitherto importing markets of the world not at lower but at higher figures than formerly.
On the other side the falling wheat prices were discouraging to producers. In those regions where wheat production is specialized, and where the opportunities for alternative production are very limited, falling wheat prices have on occasion brought not reduced production but even increased production, in the effort on the part of the producer to make up a fallen income by increasing his output even at a lower price.
That statement will be true of the area that I represent. The farmer with a large farm and efficient machinery will endeavour to reduce his costs of production by spreading his operations over an increased acreage, while the smaller farmer will become hopelessly bankrupt, and giving up in despair will drift into the city and go on relief.
The minister has said that his policy will be to build up homes. I am satisfied that if
the policy is left as it is to-day the minister will go down in history as a wrecker of farm homes. If the price had been left at 60 cents, without wishing to say anything unpleasant about the minister, I am satisfied that when his name was mentioned in western Canada it would have been accompanied by a foul epithet. One realizes that the result of that policy would be that the average farmer could not continue without going head over heels further into debt. Although we propose to raise the price from 60 to 70 cents, we have left it at 60 cents so far as the guarantee to the cooperative marketing association is concerned.
Some eastern members-and I was very glad to hear the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Miss Macphail) take the broad-minded viewpoint she did-are continually objecting to the cost of the 80-cent wheat guarantee. They take the stand that the east is always having to subsidize western Canada, and for a little while I wish to deal with that view.
Let us consider what the cost of Canada's fiscal and monetary policies has been to western Canada. Many people felt that back in 1931 we should have followed the example of Australia and allowed the dollar to follow sterling, and, if necessary, to depreciate below sterling. In support of that statement I should like to quote from page 2 of part III of the Manitoba brief where Professor Upgren, in dealing with the subject, says:
In contrast to the policy in Australia, which resulted in a 25 per cent increase in returns in Australian money to Australian exporters on foreign sales, the Canadian policy resulted in a decrease of almost 20 per cent in the returns in Canadian money to Canadian exporters in 1932. In Hew Zealand, as in Australia, the exchange policy resulted in an increase in returns of about 25 per cent; in Argentina the increase was almost 20 per cent.
Let us trace the results of this policy for the wheat grower of Australia. The wheat grower of Australia, selling in the English market for a price that we assume without substantial departure from reality to remain unaffected by change in Australian currency policy, received in Australian pounds for every 100 pounds sterling worth of wheat sold in Liverpool, not just 100 pounds in value, but 125 Australian pounds. If the price of wheat in Liverpool was unchanged, as we have assumed it to be (at least as far as any important quantitative change is concerned), the change in what we have called the second price-making factor, the rate of exchange, meant that the Australian wheat producer got a 25 per cent increase in his own money for the wheat which he sold abroad. As a result of the fall in the English currency value of the Australian currency in the period from 1931 to 1936, the producers of wheat in Australia secured, upon their average exports of about 125 million
36S0
Prairie Farm Assistance

bushels, an annual increase in returns of about 18 million dollars, or about fifteen cents a bushel.
It was just this that Canada did not do. The prairie provinces, however, do compete in the world markets, very largely with Australia and Argentina. Argentina also allowed her rate of exchange to depreciate, and to depreciate even more than the Australian rate. Thus, the currency policy of Canada did not permit her producers and exporters for the world market, by far the most important of which is the wheat producer, to compete on an equal basis with the Argentine and Australian wheat exporter. The losses to the grain growers of the prairie provinces resulting from this monetary policy have amounted, as pointed out, to an annual average of 47 million dollars since 1931. This has been measured by calculating the difference between the amount actually received for wheat exports and the amount that would have been received if the relation of the Canadian dollar to the pound sterling had been kept in line with the rate Australia maintained, always assuming that such action would have had no effect on the sterling price of wheat.
We are told continually that we must be prepared to compete in world markets even when we are labouring under such a great handicap as is outlined in this brief. I quite realize that if Canada had followed the example of Australia and the Argentine it would have cost more to service Canada's debt and raised the price of imports. Therefore it was for the government of the day to weigh the disadvantages against the advantages of following the Australian policy. Apparently the government considered that the disadvantages outweighed the advantages from a national point of view.


James Garfield Gardiner: In 1931.


Victor Quelch: In 1931 and up until 1936, according to this brief. But that decision has cost the grain growers of western Canada-I am referring only to the grain growers, not the live stock men-$47,000,000 a year from 1931 to 1936, and to a lesser degree from then on, according to Professor Upgren who prepared this submission on behalf of the Bracken conference in association with J. Viner and A. H. Hansen. Yet we are told that we have to be able to compete with these other countries which have that tremendous advantage.
The minister referred to the Argentine the other day, but the Argentine is also getting an increased price for her producers by allowing her currency to remain at a depreciated rate.


James Garfield Gardiner: Even with the difference in the exchange, the amount the Argentine grower receives is less than the Canadian farmer receives for his wheat.


Victor Quelch: Nevertheless the point is that on the world market they are competing at the same price, and when that price is

translated into their own currency it is considerably more than when it is translated into Canadian currency. It is bound to be, when they have a depreciated currency. We can affect the price by means of a bonus, but in so far as sterling is translated back into the currency of the Argentine or into that of Canada, the net result is bound to be more in the Argentine than it is to the Canadian farmer because our currency is still above, and theirs below, sterling.


James Garfield Gardiner: Allowance is made for all those facts. When the price paid the Argentine farmer is compared with the price paid the Canadian farmer, the Canadian farmer is getting more in Canadian currency for his product than the Argentine farmer.


Victor Quelch: Only so long as a bonus is paid. But we are being told continually that we should be prepared to compete in the world market, and the only thing that counts then is the difference in the amount of currency depreciation.
Let me deal for a moment or two with the question of the tariff. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) told us yesterday that he did not believe the tariff was a sound basis for discussing the justification for the bonus. Many references have been made in this house to the submission to the Nova Scotian government by the hon. gentleman who is now Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers). I should like to refer to that very briefly, because the other evening when the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) referred to it, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) took exception to certain statements. I have here the case for Alberta on dominion provincial relations, and on page 190 I find a summary of the proposals that had been made by the present Minister of Labour to the government of Nova Scotia. It gives a statistical table. It shows that in the year indicated the tariff caused to the western provinces a loss of $56,000,000 in round figures, while it netted Ontario and Quebec a gain of over $83,000,000. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said, "Yes, but it also cost the people of eastern Canada money." But that is allowed for in that statement. If you subtract the gains to manufacturers in western Canada through tariffs from the losses to western Canada on account of increased prices resulting from the tariff you have a total loss of over $55,000,000-in round figures, $56,000,000. On the other hand, if you subtract the cost of these tariffs to the people of Ontario and Quebec as represented by increased prices from the total gains to

Prairie Farm Assistance
manufacturers in Ontario and Quebec resulting from the tariff you have a gain to the east of over $83,000,000.
The Minister of Agriculture stated yesterday that it would not be fair to take that as a basis on account of the fact that the farmers of eastern Canada pay a tariff. But the tariff they pay is included in that statement; and so far as the farmers themselves are concerned, we would say that all farmers, east and west, should be guaranteed a price not only for wheat but for all primary products-and I include the fishermen as well. That, however, is not the point I wish to make. The point is that we are constantly being told by certain eastern members that the cost of the subsidy to western Canada has to be borne by the east, and I have shown that for a number of years western Canada has been subsidizing eastern Canada to a far greater extent than the east has been subsidizing the west.
On several occasions the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) has made the statement that the western farmers do not wish to be subsidized and are prepared to sell at world market prices provided they can buy at world market prices. Well, here we have a Liberal government that is supposed to believe in free trade, and yet we had the amazing spectacle the other evening of the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) challenging any member on the government side who believed in free trade to rise in his place and say so. He threw out that challenge time and time again and not one Liberal member rose and said he believed in free trade. What is the use of saying you believe in the farmers being able to buy at world market prices when you have no intention of making it possible for them to do so? We contend that so long as the farmers of Canada are compelled to pay a protected price for the commodities they buy, they have every justification in demanding a protected price for the commodities they have to sell. Before that is possible, I believe we shall have to institute a marketing board probably along lines similar to that of New Zealand, and the board will have to have power to control not only distribution and production but exports as well before we can ever hope to deal with the problem in a really sound and satisfactory manner.
Figures similar to those I have quoted can be found in other parts of the case for Alberta, but I do not wish to take up the time of the house. We find that as a result of monetary policy and the tariff, the farmers of the west have been penalized to the extent of over $79,000,000 a year.
There is one more interesting point I might refer to in connection with the cost of the tariff to the grain growing industry. On page 191 of the case for Alberta reference is made to the Manitoba brief. I quote:
In the Manitoba brief to the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations, a direct estimate of the burden of the tariff upon the prairie provinces is attempted. This involves an actual comparison of the prices paid by a Manitoba farmer for his typical yearly purchases, with the prices paid by a nearby Minnesota farmer. We await the checking of this estimate also, by experts, but wish to express our point of view on a few aspects.
The following table is a condensed summary of the elaborate investigation, and indicates that the Canadian tariff costs the average western farmer about $110 annually.
Estimated Increased Cost Per Farm in Western Canada because of Tariff Imports from the United States
Automotive equipment and fuel	$ 27 19
Machinery, implements,	etc	
18	45Building material	
7	16Household equipment and	furniture. ..	12	60Clothing	
24	41Food	
20	57Total	$110 38
I have stated that the cost of Canada's monetary and fiscal policies to the farmers of western Canada has been over $79,000,000 annually, $32,000,000 on account of tariffs- and $47,000,000 to the grain growers, on account of monetary policy and that does not include the effect of monetary policy on the rest of the farmers, just the grain growers. In addition, we have the injustices caused by high interest rates, high insurance rates and high bank rates. Prior to the last revision of the Bank Act the banks had been deliberately robbing the farmers of the west by charging eight per cent, when by law they were entitled to charge only seven per cent.
The policy for the west, as I stressed before, has been, "Soak the west." That has been the philosophy on which sales prices, interest, and insurance, was founded. It was figured the west could pay more. Now it is realized that the west cannot pay and never will be able to. In addition, we have the high railway tariffs which are largely the result of subsidizing the bondholders to the extent of some $43,000,000 a year. Yet in spite of the fact that under our tariff and monetary policy we are asked to contribute to the extent of probably well over 8100,000.000 a year, we have some hon. members from the east who have the barefaced effrontery to challenge the right of western Canada to a guarantee of the cost of production.


Mr. EVANS:: What is the cost of production?
Prairie Farm Assistance


Victor Quelch: I would say the best place to get figures, if the hon. member wants them on a government basis, is to take the report of the experimental farms, which shows, over a period of years, 69 cents a bushel.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Why not try some
practical man?


Victor Quelch: We have taken Professor Hope.


James J. Donnelly: Professors know nothing about it.


Victor Quelch: The cost of production will vary according to type of soil, and for anyone to say 60, 70, 80 cents is the cost of production is nonsense.


James J. Donnelly: It has cost me S5 a bushel sometimes in the last few years.


Victor Quelch: W7e can only take the
average; and I say that the policy should be to lower the cost of production by taking mai ginal lands out of production. The sooner we can do that, the lower the average cost will fall.


Charles Robert Evans: Take good land that has
had a crop failure for ten years on account of drought; how can you get a cost of production?


Victor Quelch: That is a matter of drought relief, nothing to do with this question at all.


Charles Robert Evans: How can you figure cost
of production on that?


Victor Quelch: Drought relief is another question.
How can we expect to maintain unity in Canada when the monetary and tariff policies of the country benefit one section so greatly to the disadvantage of another' All that western Canada is demanding to-day is a truly national policy, a policy under which the rights of every section of Canada will be treated equitably. Would anyone suggest that is the case to-day? If that policy cannot be maintained then I say confederation has failed, and western Canada may well feel that it would be better off outside confederation. When it is proposed to allow the price of wheat to fall considerably below cost of production, while western Canada is subsidizing eastern Canada to an extent of well over $100,000,000 a year, I think the people of the west have sufficient ground for feeling that they are not getting fair treatment.
Some hon. members say that a subsidy means increased taxation and increased cost of production. But at no time have the members of this group advocated increased taxation in order to deal with this problem.

We have repeatedly stressed the fact that so long as we have the ability to increase our production, so long as we have surplus labour and a favourable balance of payments, there is no reason why under the expressed 'policy of the Liberal government we cannot issue currency and credit in terms of public need to pay that cost. The result will be that we shall be stimulating demand for goods within the country.
I should like to deal now for a few minutes with Bill No. 83. I shall not try at this time to deal with the bill at length, but just say a few words concerning it. I live in a constituency three-quarters of which might be termed part of the permanent drought area of Alberta, although strangely enough the other end contains some of the very best land not only in Alberta but in Canada, judging by the fact that even during the drought years it always produced a good crop. Therefore a bill of this kind may seem to place me in a somewhat awkward position. Yet from all over my constituency I have been receiving resolutions condemning some of the proposals in this bill. In only one case did I receive a telegram asking me to support the provisions of this bill, and in that ease they did not understand what the bill meant, because they demanded at the same time a guaranteed price of 80 cents, and when they have a price of 80 cents the bill ceases to operate, except in case of crop failure.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not correct. The 80 cents is the average price on the world market from August 1 to November 1.


Victor Quelch: But as soon as the price reaches 80 cents-


James Garfield Gardiner: That is as soon as the average world price at Fort William reaches 80 cents; not the price to be paid by the government.


Victor Quelch: It comes to the same thing; if the price is 80 cents there will be no bonus. They want a guaranteed price of 80 cents and the bonus.


James Garfield Gardiner: Their resolution was quite correct, they could have had both. The average price is defined in the bill. They want a guaranteed price of 80 cents; this bill does not provide that. Had Bill No. 63 provided a guaranteed price of 80 cents to be paid no matter what the world price, this bill would operate if the world price is below 80 cents.


Victor Quelch: But they want a guaranteed price of 80 cents, and if there is, this bill would not provide for a bonus, because as soon as the price reaches 80 cents-

Prairie Farm Assistance


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. gentleman does not yet understand my statement. The 80 cent price contained in this bill is the price which would be established at Fort William on the world basis; it has nothing to do with the price the government sets. The government could allow this provision to operate even though we had set a price of 80 cents in Bill No. 63.


Victor Quelch: Well, I am sorry that the government did not see fit to set the price at 80 cents. I see my time is up, so I shall have to deal with the matter in committee. But there are several other clauses here which make it impossible for this measure as at present drafted to deal adequately with the constituency I represent, for instance, because 135 townships have to be affected before it is declared a crop failure area. On the other hand, all the farmers are compelled to contribute under this scheme. Supposing my constituency, which, I say, represents part of the permanent drought area, has 80 townships with less than 5 bushels an acre; they cannot come in under this bill.


James Garfield Gardiner: Is it not just as fair that they should contribute in that way as that all the people of Canada should contribute to the 80 cent price?


Victor Quelch: 
James J. Donnelly: If they harvest less than 5 bushels to the acre they get $2.50 an acre.


Victor Quelch: Only if the area affected is a certain size.


Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: We are endeavouring to wind up this session within the next week, at any rate by Saturday next. We are now considering bills as one might say in groups; we are really considering bills Nos. 63 and 83 together.
The minister in referring to the different measures introduced in these two bills in particular has on different occasions taken albout six hours, five or more in this house and an hour in Regina in a broadcast, trying to explain to the Canadian public and more
particularly to the people in the west what he really means by these measures. And hon. members can judge the confusion that exists after listening to the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Quelch). I suppose he has read the bill a number of times; certainly he has seen it more often than any farmers in the west, and I judge hon. members would conclude that he is somewhat confused as to what these bills really mean.


Mr. MARTIN:: That is the fault of the hon. member.


Ernest Edward Perley: I would judge that he is of average intelligence, possibly a little above the average, so it is easy to understand how the rest of them feel. I regret that bills of such importance were not brought down earlier in the session in order that they might be properly considered, not in committee of the whole but by a committee of the house, possibly the committee on agriculture, which I think is a pretty good committee this year. To my mind this whole question is an economic one which must be considered in a fair and reasonable way and dealt with as a national problem. I have always tried to be constructive in any criticism I had to offer. I think the introduction of bills 63 and 83, together with the announcement by the minister on February 16 with regard to a change in agricultural policy, have disturbed the minds of the western people more than anything else ever presented to parliament. It is true that the bills have been revamped, following representations from all interests in the west, including the so-called Bracken committee. I am going to take a little bit of credit to myself for the changes that have been made, because Ontario was included under Bill 63 after I had made the suggestion in my speech on the budget.


William Daum Euler: I am afraid my hon. friend is flattering himself.


Ernest Edward Perley: Well, if I did not give myself a little credit I am afraid I could not look to the other side for it. I was quite encouraged last night to hear the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) speak of the average prices for the last thirty years. I believe he is an optimist, as I am; and perhaps if he would revamp these bills once more he might embody my plan in them. Then we would get down to a reasonable way of handling this problem, and if the board operating such a scheme had a little courage I believe it could be put over. So the next time the bills are revamped I shall expect to see my plan included.
Prairie Farm Assistance

The first bill set the figure at 60 cents, and the government tried to put that over. It does not matter what minister was in charge; the government must take the responsibility for trying to put through a bill making provision for a payment of only 60 cents. Even the 70 cent figure is nowhere near the cost of production and does not give the farmer any reasonable remuneration for his labour. The new bill also sets a limit of 5,000 bushels from any one farmer. While it is difficult to go into details in discussing these two measures, still I must say I believe vast discrimination is shown there. It can be argued that a man may have ten or fifteen thousand bushels, and anything over the 5,000 bushel limit will come under one of these pooling operations and eventually will come into competition with the 5,000 bushels which the board will have to sell. I do not think this figure of 70 cents will provide proper remuneration for at least seventy-five per cent of the producers.
I should like briefly to consider the act of 1935, which is amended by Bill 63. I regret that I have not time to recite what led up to the passing of that bill, but it was passed after the government of the day had the benefit of four years' experience in the stabilization operations carried on by Mr. McFarland. Those were strenuous times. I well recall the difficulty we experienced in bringing some people to support the operations carried on by Mr. McFarland; and, if I may say so, I played a considerable part on a few occasions in impressing upon the government the importance of what was being done. In any case, with that experience, the government thought it necessary, in order to save the farmers, to pass a measure of a permanent character, and Bill No. 98 was passed. Without going into all the details I will say that practically everyone in western Canada considered the 1935 Canadian Wheat Board Act good legislation. To substantiate that statement I need only refer to the reaction to the statement by the Minister of Agriculture on February 16, to the many protests that were received from the west, and to the fact that a committee came to Ottawa on two occasions in connection with this matter. I am sure all Canada, as well as hon. members of this house, were surprised to hear the minister announce that change in policy, which caused great concern and dissatisfaction all over the west. The provincial governments immediately became concerned. It happened that the three provincial legislatures were in session, and they passed very strong resolutions. I have in my hand a resolution coming from the province of Manitoba, moved by Premier Bracken and seconded by

Mr. Willis, leader of the opposition, which was adopted unanimously, calling upon this government to consider setting the price at 87b cents. Alberta and Saskatchewan took similar action, though Saskatchewan did not go quite so far. Possibly there was some reason for that.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, that the marketing problem has become chronic, and I do not think it will be helped very much by the statement of the minister on these bills. Hon. members in every group and party have consistently supported a wheat board. We all remember the speech of the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) last year. When this new policy was announced we all became alarmed. This problem, which I say is a vital, economic problem, must be dealt with by a long-range policy, as the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) said this afternoon. Temporary measures such as this will not be sufficient. In his report Judge Turgeon recommended that the wheat board should remain in case an emergency should arise. I should like to quote further from this report to indicate that on different occasions evidence was given to the effect that the exchange system of marketing had failed under certain circumstances and at certain times. Before dealing with the bill in such detail as may be possible, however, I should like briefly to review the period from 1929 to 1939.
Last night the Minister of Agriculture reviewed the whole marketing problem, going back to the time when we first grew wheat in western Canada. He did it very carefully and well. Of course, he started with the year 1901 when the grain exchange first organized. Then he dealt with the years 1917, 1919 and 1921. I might recall to his mind that in the 1921 campaign there was a definite promise of a wheat board, and that promise was made by the hon. member for Melville who at that time was a candidate. However, we did not get that board. Legislation was put on the statute books, but it died there.
I now come to 1929. We recall the optimism and the buoyant prices there were up to that time. I am reminded of the budget speech of May 1, 1930, made by the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) in which he said all markets were lost, and he referred particularly to our market for wheat in the United Kingdom. On that occasion he indicated that during the previous year our exports of wheat to that market alone had decreased to the extent of 143,000,000 bushels.

Prairie Farm Assistance
Then the government changed, and in 1930 the problem was shifted to the Bennett administration. I shall not go into details with respect to those five years further than to recite that as we all know, Mr. McFarland was placed in charge in 1931, and carried out his stabilization operations. I would say, however, that according to the Turgeon report, according to the report of the conference held in Winnipeg last fall, called by Premier Bracken, and according to the evidence of the committee appointed to investigate the charges made against Mr. Murray in 1935, and the evidence taken with respect to Bill No. 98, when it was considered in committee, it is clear that during the period Mr. McFarland was operating, and up to December 1, 1935, those operations made it possible for the farmers of Canada to sell in the neighbourhood of two billion bushels of wheat, all they had produced over that period at anywhere from 10 cents to 15 cents a bushel more than they would have received if that operation had not been conducted. In that respect I would refer hon. members to page 408 of the evidence, at which point Mr. Mclvor gave a sworn statement to that effect. It will be seen if hon. members follow it through, that Mr. Ralston tried for nearly an hour to break down the evidence, but failed to do so. On that occasion Mr. Mclvor struck to his ground, and gave the figures.
Then in 1932 the government of the day negotiated a trade agreement which gave us a preference of 6 cents a bushel in the British market. That was a most beneficial arrangement, but at this time I shall not go into details with respect to it.
Mention has been made of a London conference. I would say that in 1933 a world conference was held in London, on which occasion some agreement was arrived at with respect to exports and quotas. Canada was represented on that occasion by the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, who was Prime Minister at that time, and Mr. M. A. MacPherson, from the province of Saskatchewan. I should like to recall at this time that the agreement they tried to make was criticized by the party now in power in this House of Commons. Great criticism was lodged against the action of Mr. Bennett and Mr. MacPherson because they had agreed to an export quota.
At this point in my observations I shall come down to the present time. The minister has mentioned the representatives at a similar conference where they may come to some agreement. In my opinion there will be a great change in marketing in the next five years. I believe we must come to some agreement with respect to world exports and world
production. The situation is as bad as, if not worse than it was in 1933. I realize that the government are concerned in the matter, and while they may have opposed what was done on an earlier occasion, to-day they are giving it their consideration. We have representatives at the conference and I hope some of them will be clothed with authority to make a proper agreement, and help us in that way.
I would also point out that the Turgeon report has indicated what the stabilization operations of Mr. McFarland meant to Canada. If I cared to take the time I could quote from page 99 of the report of the Turgeon commission where Sir Herbert Robson, a grain merchant in Great Britain, is quoted. In effect he said that the operations of John I. McFarland were the means of saving the situation, so far as Canada was concerned, and had been of great benefit to the producers.
Then, at page 37 of the report there is a statement with respect to the McFarland operations to December 1, 1935. The statement shown on that page, and dated December 28, 1936, gives details with respect to the selling operations of the board following Mr. Murray's appointment as chairman. I do not wish to take time to comment on that statement further than to say that there is a statement here to the effect that there was a profit of $24,000,000 on one operation and a loss of $11,000,000 on the other. From the $24,000,000 they subtracted the estimated loss of $15,000,000, giving a net profit of almost $9,000,000 on the first operation. The net loss, taking the two accounts, was only $2,900,000.
I believe the report of the Canadian wheat board which I have in my hand, and which contains the figures I have set out-and I was speaking only in round numbers-should be placed in Hansard, so that the people of Canada might have an idea of exactly how those two accounts were handled, and what they meant. I refer to the table and part of the text at page 2 of the report of the Canadian wheat board for the crop year 1937-38. With the permission of the house I would ask that it be placed on Hansard.


Walter Edward Foster: That may be done, if
there is unanimous consent.


James Garfield Gardiner: Agreed.


Mr. CRERAR:: Is the hon. member putting on Hansard the whole report?


Ernest Edward Perley: No, only page 2 which
shows a statement of accounts.
36S6
Prairie Farm Assistance


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member
wishes only to have the table recorded.


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member may
do so. if he has the unanimous consent of the house.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have no objections to
that.


Ernest Edward Perley: The information and table
are as follows:
This transaction completed the marketing of the "old wheat" acquired by the board, and it is of interest to note that since the inception of the board in August, 1935, to July 31, 1938, total sales of 355,927,206 bushels of wheat have been completed, of which 150,740,226 bushels represented deliveries by the producers to the 1935 board and 205,186,980 bushels represented "old wheat" acquired from the Canadian cooperative Wheat Producers Limited.
The net results of these operations to 31st July, 1938, may be summarized as follows: Profit on wheat taken over from Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited at market prices of 2nd December, 1935. $24,809,988 42
Less:
Amount necessary to repay advances to board by dominion government against estimated loss (figured at market prices of 2nd December, 1935) on wheat taken over from Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited	$15,856,645	35Net	profit	$ 8,953,343	07
Less:
Loss on board operations:
1935	crop. .. $11,858,104 18
1936	crop. ..	49,574 88

 $11,907,679	06
Net loss	as at	31st July, 1938. $ 2,954,335	99
Then, in the years 1936 and 1937, by order in council the board became inoperative. As I have said, it was not to operate unless the price went below 90 cents. Fortunately it did not go that low in 1936 and 1937.
The minister made his statement with respect to the loss the government of Canada has taken in respect of wheat operations. Speaking before the board of trade of the city of Regina. I believe he made the statement that the real cause of our marketing difficulty was that in Europe certain conditions existed, and that there was a fear there might be a return to conditions such as there were between 1914 and 1918. I agree with him as to that. We know that the situation in Europe has brought about a certain condition with respect to world markets. Different countries in Europe have imposed certain restrictions and subsidized their own

producers, making it very difficult for our exporters to get into their market. The statement he made there, which is correct, is that the wheat operations of the government of Canada have not cost us an undue amount. Up to that time it cost very little.
Many references have been made to the operations of the wheat board in connection with the 1938 crop, and $48,000,000 has been placed as the estimate of the final loss. On several occasions I have objected to that statement being made because I do not think the ultimate loss will be anything like that. The loss certainly would have been much less if the board had pursued the proper policy in the early part of the year. With the way things look, I believe we are going to have a situation similar to that which we had in 1936. If we do, then the board will be able to show a profit. If the board had 130,000,000 bushels now and used a little judgment in pursuing a selling policy, they might easily get out with a profit. Already during this session I have demanded from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) that we should have reports from the wheat board showing their position. We had these reports last session, and I regret that the minister has not seen his way clear to bring down similar reports this year so that we might know where the board stands at the present time.


William Daum Euler: Does my hon. friend say he had them last session?


Ernest Edward Perley: They were in the sessional papers office and available to hon. members.


William Daum Euler: We were not handling any wheat.


Ernest Edward Perley: We had statements as to how they stood right up to August 20, 1938.


William Daum Euler: When the board was handling wheat it was always regarded as being improper or at least undesirable that information as to sales of wheat should be given to the public or even to the house.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It was for a limited time only.


Ernest Edward Perley: If the minister will go down to the sessional papers office he will find one dated August 20, 1938.


James Garfield Gardiner: We were not taking
delivery of wheat for about two years prior to August, 1938.


Ernest Edward Perley: You had wheat on hand. There was a balance sheet showing the credits and how the board stood with the banks.

Prairie Farm Assistance


James Garfield Gardiner: There were only between 6.000.000 and 7,000.000 bushels on hand at the end of July, 1937.


Ernest Edward Perley: I think we are entitled to have the reports from August 1 last when the board started to handle wheat. The 1935 bill provided for weekly reports being made.


William Daum Euler: Not to the house.


Ernest Edward Perley: At the present time I do not think anyone can make an estimate as to how the loss occurred. As I have stated before, I think there was a mistake in the selling policy adopted last fall which has resulted in a loss up to date. I have in my hand a number of reports by the grain statistician Sanford Evans, and in several places he makes the statement that the selling policy was absolutely wrong. He reports as to how the world markets considered the policy that was announced last fall, and states further that there could not be anything but a price decline and that there was not a single instance where there was any evidence of resisting such a price decline. The policy pursued certainly was not one of resisting a decline in price in any shape or form.


William Daum Euler: What particular part of the policy does my hon. friend criticize?


Ernest Edward Perley: I criticize the statement that the board is going to sell wheat at any time as fast as they receive it, that there are going to be no holdings.


William Daum Euler: That was never said. The act says that the board shall offer wheat continuously for sale, and that is what they are doing.


Ernest Edward Perley: I should like to quote what one report states.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: What report is that?


Ernest Edward Perley: By Sanford Evans. Reference is made here to the statement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that the wheat board's policy would not be to withhold supplies from the international markets, but rather to offer competition at all times. Reference is made in another report to an extract from the New York Journal of Commerce as follows:
Interpreting the minimum wheat price announcement by the Canadian government late yesterday as extremely bearish, longs on leading North American wheat pits unloaded their holdings. Prices broke to the lowest levels in five years


Then here is another one which states that along with other sellers of wheat throughout the world the policy of the government should be to attempt to strengthen prices.
There are several of these. Here is one that states:
... if the board is disposed to force sales, on the one hand, or try to raise prices on the other. It is the way the plan is administered in practice and not the terms of the act that must establish its real character in any season. In announcing the plan this season the government went to questionable extremes in disavowing market-price motives.


William Daum Euler: I do not like to interrupt my hon. friend, but is he in sympathy with the express injunction in the act that the board is to offer wheat continuously for sale in the markets of the world?


Ernest Edward Perley: I will say that under conditions such as we had last fall the government should have gone to - the extent of issuing an order, an order in council if it was desired, empowering the board at least to take some stand, to proceed in some way to resist any price decline and to try to keep up prices rather than follow the policy pursued.


William Daum Euler: In other words, not offer wheat for sale?


Ernest Edward Perley: I would buy wheat if necessary. I would do what Mr. McFarland had to do under similar circumstances when he had to buy 15,000,000 bushels in one day in order to keep up the price


James Garfield Gardiner: How could the board in Canada accomplish that when the United States government was offering a hundred million bushels of the same type of wheat for sale?


Ernest Edward Perley: If you had not taken off the 6-cent preference they might not have been offering that. If the board displayed a little more courage, if it was not afraid of a little carry-over, I think we would have the results we should have.


John Gordon Ross: Throwing off the 6-cent preference would not help much.


Ernest Edward Perley: We were accused of gambling and many other things from 1930 to 1935. Our operations resulted in a vast accumulation of wheat, but the result was that there was a profit from the operations from 1930 to 1935. As I said before, the operations from 1932 to 1935 did not cost this country any money.


John Gordon Ross: My hon. friend does not mean that the operations in 1932 were any good to anybody?


Ernest Edward Perley: There were no particular operations undertaken in 1932.


John Gordon Ross: In 1933 then.

Prairie Farm Assistance


Ernest Edward Perley: Yes, they were valuable. If this bill passes in its present form there will be a yearly struggle to convince the government that it is necessary to establish a reasonable minimum or fixed price on each crop. I do not think we desire to bring about a condition where we will continually be having delegations coming to Ottawa for that purpose.


William Daum Euler: To what bill is my hon. friend referring?


Ernest Edward Perley: I am referring to Bill No. 63.


William Daum Euler: Bill No. 63 definitely fixes the price, at least the advance payment.


Ernest Edward Perley: No one will ever be satisfied with the figure in that bill. It has been changed once, and we are suggesting now that it be revamped again.


John Gordon Ross: Is my hon. friend against the policy provided for in these bills?


Ernest Edward Perley: I do not think the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) even understands Bill No. 83. We will hear what he has to say when he speaks.


John Gordon Ross: I am just asking the hon. member if he is in favour of or against these bills.


Ernest Edward Perley: I am certainly not in favour of Bill No. 63.


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) has the floor and he should not be interrupted unless he gives consent.


René-Antoine Pelletier: On a point of order, the house is not in committee, and when the hon. member is making a speech he should not be subjected to a cross-fire of questions from across the chamber.


Walter Edward Foster: I agree with the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Pelletier), but great latitude is being allowed on these questions, although it must not be interpreted as a general rule.


Ernest Edward Perley: I have no hesitation in answering the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross). I am certainly not in favour of Bill No. 63, or of Bill No. 83 considered other than as a relief or crop insurance measure. I do not think relief and crop insurance should be confused with the question of marketing.
The brief presented by the Bracken committee was a well considered presentation and set out the whole situation clearly and fairly.

That committee certainly was not in favour of either bill. It dealt with production costs, the cost of marketing, and the return that is necessary to the farmer. There is nothing in that brief which I have not publicly advocated on several occasions both on the floor of this house and outside.
We had in 1930 and up to 1935 stabilization operations, and later the wheat board. When I was speaking on the budget I proposed a permanent plan, speaking more or less for myself, but I did not have time to conclude my remarks on that subject and I should like to say a word more now.
I had set out that the government should appoint a board, have a long range policy, and fix a price as well for coarse grains of export grade. In order to finance the proposition I would have the Minister of Finance through the Bank of Canada issue currency on the security of that wheat. I think he could do that to-day. I will agree with the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) and some others to the extent that when this country is holding 130 million bushels of wheat-and it might be a little more if my plan were adopted-currency could be issued on the security of that wheat to save any interest charges. The money thus put into circulation would increase the purchasing power of the farmer, the labourer, and the consumer. It would stabilize trade and industry, and help everyone in industry generally in Canada, if put into operation as a permanent national plan with all grains, including coarse grains, covered. The domestic price would then be set at $120.
If I had time I could give statistics to show that there is nothing to fear from the adoption of such a plan. I have tables showing world production in 1928, when it was at its highest; the world's carry-over in 1933, the highest on record, around 1,200,000,000 bushels, and we may have that much this year. I have Canada's average production over thirteen years, 353 million bushels; the average carry-over, 101 million bushels; and the average exports for the last twelve years, 201 million bushels. I believe that history will repeat itself and that we shall return to that condition. Even if we have a large surplus this year I do not think there is anything to fear. If a proper committee were set up to investigate and advise as to a permanent plan such as I have suggested, I think it could be worked out.
In regard to these bills, Bill No. 83 in particular is more or less a relief or crop insurance measure. I do not think we should confuse that with marketing. The Liberals

Prairie Farm Assistance
36S9
took credit in the 1935 campaign for having been responsible for the Wheat Board Act being as it was. I wonder if they will take any credit now for putting the figure of 60 cents into Bill No. 63. Will they give credit to the opposition in this house, to the protests that were made by hon. members on this side from western Canada, for having Bill No. 63 revamped to what it is to-day. If they are consistent they will tell the public, and the people of the west in particular, that it was the opposition in this house that was responsible for at least the ten cent ante from 60 cents. If you set the price where I have suggested, at 87 cents or more over a period of years, plus one cent a month, you would bring about a situation where two hundred thousand more people could be employed on Canadian farms, and that is what we want.
I have already referred to the section which limits delivery to the board to 5,000 bushels. I do not think that is fair or equitable. It discriminates against a certain class. When the bill gets into committee we may have questions to ask on both bills. I am somewhat confused to know just what Bill No. 83 means and how it will work out. At all events, I do believe that we should not confuse relief and crop insurance with marketing. These three things must be divorced. I am all in favour of a system of insurance against crop losses being worked out, and I am also in favour of any measure that will give reasonable relief to those who need it. But that is a problem in itself and should be taken care of separately.
Marketing is a national problem; due consideration must be given to all interests concerned, and certainly there must be fair treatment for the producers who have made a great contribution to Canada. It is not only the man on a four hundred acre farm who has made a contribution but the man on a two-section farm and on larger farms. In 1919 the farmers were compelled as a patriotic duty to increase production in western Canada. They did so; due consideration should be given to that, and they should not be put out of business now by any measure that sets a price which is beyond all reason, which is not fair or equitable. These farmers rendered a service; they made a great contribution, and are deserving of proper consideration.
I think the provision limiting delivery to 5,000 bushels should be struck out; let the legislation apply to all.
I should have liked to say a few words on the cost of production. I have had considerable experience in producing grain since 1900. In 1902, I had 37A bushels to the acre on part of one section of land, after it had 71492-232*
been covered twice with a snowstorm so heavy that one could not see the straw in the stook. On October 1, we took it out of the stook, and men working for fifteen or twenty dollars a month threshed the grain. Yet on the same section in 1915, I threshed 23,000 bushels of wheat, I took it out of the stook with men getting from five to seven dollars a day and the engineer receiving fifteen. That was on the same section of land. So it is difficult to estimate the cost of production. That one instance illustrates how different are the conditions that have to be taken into consideration. I do not think we can produce wheat at 40 cents a bushel. There may be one man in two hundred who can.


James Garfield Gardiner: If the hon. member does not mind a question, he is a practical farmer, and would he not agree that with his own labour on the farm he can put in a crop of wheat and take it off at a cost of around six to eight dollars an acre?


Ernest Edward Perley: It just depends on how you put it in and take it off. If it was a crop that could be easily threshed and you had no delays on account of bad weather; if you did not have to keep a threshing gang round for two or three weeks feeding them when idle because of bad weather, it is quite possible that you could put in a crop-do you mean seed it?


James Garfield Gardiner: Seed it and harvest it.


Ernest Edward Perley: Under the conditions I have mentioned you could put it in and take it off at six dollars an acre.


James Garfield Gardiner: My statement is six to eight dollars.


Ernest Edward Perley: On the same section I speak of-the minister knows my farm, I think; I have been past his and perhaps he has been past mine-right across the road from where the buildings are, in 1904 I prepared part of that section to be seeded by taking a load of straw and burning the stubble, and we did not do a thing but seed it. We did a beautiful job of burning the stubble. We seeded it and I had two drills working together on one part of the field and two on the other. They averaged 100 acres of seeding a day. They " were mile stretches and the cost of preparing it was nothing-just setting a fire and away it went. In harvesting it was over 20 bushels to the acre and the threshing and harvesting was easy. You simply could not figure the cost of it the next year when there would be a summer fallow crop, a heavy crop, hard to seed and to thresh. It is therefore almost impossible to arrive at any reliable average to show what it costs to grow wheat on either a 400 acre farm or a four-section farm.
Prairie Farm Assistance


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Speaking on the budget the other day I endeavoured to outline something of the record of this government with respect to wheat as disclosed by their actions during the last few years. I wish to deal now .with their wheat policy as it is revealed in the legislation before the house.
One might very well ask, what is the wheat policy of this government? It is not very easy to determine. On February 16, during this session, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) announced that the government was going out of the grain trade, that it was going to dispense with the wheat board and abolish the principle of fixed prices for farm products. This was a new and startling announcement, and various reasons were given for it. Papers like the Toronto Saturday Night suggested that the Minister of Agriculture was making a bid for support in the east, and others hinted that it was a bid for the support of men like the premier of Ontario, who has been objecting to the amounts spent in western Canada. Whatever the reason may have been, for the six or seven weeks following that announcement a number of kites were flown in western Canada in the form of newspaper articles outlining what the wheat policy would be, though without any definite official pronouncement. Under the storm of protest from western Canada, the policy which had been announced on February 16 was modified and it was intimated that the wheat board would be retained as a temporary measure with a fixed minimum price of 60 cents, and an acreage bonus plan for compensation. Then the Minister of Agriculture went back to Saskatchewan during the Easter recess and spoke to the people there outlining his new wheat policy. I thir.k it is safe to say that the reaction in western Canada has been such as to amount to a social revolt, and under the storm of protest which came from the three prairie provinces the government changed their policy again, raising the fixed price payable by the wheat board to 70 cents and trying to make up for this by cutting down the amount of the acreage bonus, reducing the number of farmers to whom it would be payable. In other words, to save their face the government now proposes to rob Peter in order to pay Paul.
Here is a government which is without a long-term policy but with a number of stopgaps each designed to gather a measure of support in different parts of the country, without any permanent approach to a solution of the problem facing the agricultural industry of
fMr. Pertcy.l
western Canada. As I look at the government's wheat policy I am reminded of a story I heard in the old country during the war. A sailor who came back from overseas brought a chameleon and gave it to his wife. It was a delightful little pet with the marvellous capacity to change its colour to suit its environment.


James Garfield Gardiner: That was told long
before the war.


An hon. MEMBER:: And many times
since.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Unfortunately it is still true because there are still some people who are running around like the chameleon and sailing under different colours. The chameleon would turn a shade of pink when his wife wore a pink dress and blue when she wore a blue dress, and when at last she wore a tartan plaid the chameleon killed itself trying to change all the colours at once. That is what has happened with this government's wheat policy. Trying to please everybody the government pleases no one. Since February 16 it has changed its policy from time to time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There are
a number of interruptions, Mr. Speaker, but last night when the Minister of Agriculture was speaking and we asked some important questions we were reminded that we were not in committee. I would also remind hon. members that this is the third agricultural bill that has been before the house and the people of western Canada would be much better served if some of these hon. gentlemen would stand up and speak on behalf of their constituents instead of trying to interrupt other members who endeavour to do what they conceive to be their duty.


Mr. McNIVEN:: Lecture No. 2.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Now may I
turn to the policy of the government as revealed in this legislation. It resolves itself into three parts: first, the government propose to abolish the wheat board as a permanent measure in the handling and marketing of wheat; second, they propose to reduce the guaranteed minimum price; and, third, they propose to introduce an acreage bonus scheme. I wish to deal with these three planks in their wheat policy.
First, with reference to the abolition of the wheat board as a permanent measure, it has been apparent from the beginning that this government have looked upon the wheat

Prairie Farm Assistance
board as a temporary measure and have sought every opportunity either to make it inoperative or to abolish it altogether. As originally conceived, the wheat board was not designed to be a temporary measure but was intended to function as a permanent contribution to the orderly marketing of wheat. Last night the Minister of Agriculture said that originally the board had been looked upon as an emergency measure, and that proof was to be found in the debates. This morning I scanned the entire debate that took place in 1935 on the introduction of the wheat board act. I find no foundation in fact for such a statement, except that the Liberals were the only people who looked upon it as an emergency measure. As a matter of fact it was one of the chief objections raised by Colonel Ralston, the opposition critic, to the -wheat board act, that it was not to be merely a temporary and emergency measure. At page 4231 of Hansard of 1935, he said:
I for one feel, and I so expressed myself in the committee, that we ought to deal with the situation as an emergent situation and should not tie anyone down forever to a permanent policy with regard to Canadian wheat. This bill on the face of it and without some reservation of some kind indicates that the Canadian government is going into the wheat business unless another parliament takes positive action to repeal the act.
Section 14 of the wheat board act provides that by order in council the cabinet may extend the operation of the act so as to deal in coarse grains. Instead of being merely a temporary measure the act envisaged the time when it would broaden the scope of its operations. The bill which passed the house yesterday, Bill No. 82, to encourage 'the cooperative marketing of wheat, plainly indicated to me that at the earliest possible opportunity the government proposes to dispense with the wheat board and to resort to a system of pools and associations which will result in an economic tower of Babel. So I sav that to the first plank in the government wheat policy, the departure from the wheat board as a permanent measure in the marketing of wheat, I am totally opposed. So far I have not heard from any minister any good and sufficient reason why the wheat board should not be retained and why it could not do great service to the people of western Canada. Granted that there are inequalities, they could be much more easily eliminated than by destroying the whole thing. What the government propose to do is to throw out the baby with the bath water. It would be better to try to remove the inequalities that are to . be found in the situation.
Turning now to the second aspect of the government's wheat policy, the guaranteed minimum price of 70 cents, I suppose the country ought to be grateful at least for the increase from 60 to 70 cents, although I do not know that any congratulations are in order in view of the fact that the change was made under pressure from thousands of people in western Canada making it clear that to retain the price of 60 cents would mean political suicide for the government. I only regret that when they were raising it the government did not go all the way and raise it to 80 cents, which is the veiy minimum to maintain any measure of security for the western farmer. However much the Minister of Agriculture may keep on talking about operating costs as compared with production costs, the fact of the matter is that in respect of people in other parts of Canada who are not familiar with the differentiation in terms he did a great disservice to the people of western Canada in talking about growing wheat at 30 to 40 cents a bushel.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was not I, it was the people who misrepresented what I said who did the disservice.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Well, I must confess that until the minister made his explanation this afternoon I think most of those who listened to him, certainly we in this comer, understood that he was talking about production costs.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no reason for that statement, because my hon. friend's desk-mate asked me the direct question at the time, and I answered it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, he asked the minister if it included debt costs. But there are other costs, capital costs, costs of depreciation, of machinery-
Mr. MeLEAN (Melfort): That is all provided for in Professor Hope's statement.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But Professor Hope's statement, as I pointed out the other day, was dealing with two-section mechanized farms, which represent only one per cent of the farms of the west. And even on these farms the very cheapest cost was 51 cents a bushel to produce wheat and meet those charges. On the same page he said that for the half-section farm north of Weybum the cost plus interest on estimated debt is 91 cents a bushel.
Mr. MeLEAN (Melfort): That is on the poor land.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No, certainly not.
Prairie Farm Assistance


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: What was the average yield of that poor land north of Weyburn?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon. member can read it.


Malcolm McLean: The average yield was 13-6 bushels on that land.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon. member can make a speech when his turn comes. I ask him not to interrupt me.
On page 161 Professor Hope points out that even on the very best land, two-section farms, representing as I say only one per cent of the farms of western Canada, the cost is 51 cents a bushel. Although last night the minister said this was not the farm price, this statement says distinctly that it is the farm price. May I remind the house again that on page 236 of the same report, in the discussion which followed, Professor Hope said:
Professor Hope: The present price at Fort William is not enabling the farmer to pay any debt in Saskatchewan except in a few cases in the north.
Mr. Brockington: And if such a price were maintained over a period of years it would not enable him to maintain a reasonable standard of living?
Professor Hope: No debt could be paid.
Mr. Brockington:	How about the standard
of living?
Professor Hope: Probably only just fair.
Mr. Brockington: Can you say what the conditions are in Manitoba and Alberta?
Professor Hope: That is a little more difficult, because we have not actually got any definite debt figures on Manitoba and Alberta. It would be more or less of a guess, I admit that, but I would make a guess that 80 cents at present-60 cents on the farm-would enable the farmer in the provinces to meet very little of the interest charges.
In making his statement on April 5 the Minister of Agriculture, after reviewing the activities of the so-called Bracken committee, said he found it very difficult to understand their actions. I imagine the Bracken committee find it very difficult to understand the minister's action, and I am sure that thousands of people in western Canada find it even more difficult, because they cannot help but remember that the present Minister of Agriculture is the same gentleman who as the head of the Liberal party in Saskatchewan in 1934 flooded the country with pamphlets which said:
Dollar wheat will run your schools and provide a donation to the church.
Dollar wheat will enable you to send your son or daughter to the university.
Dollar wheat will buy boots and shoes for your children and furniture for your home.


James Garfield Gardiner: And wheat has averaged $1.06 Fort William since that time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If it averages $1.06 this year it will not be because of the legislation the minister is now proposing.


James Garfield Gardiner: You do not get the
"average" in one year.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: One other
thing about Bill 63; since withdrawing the bill and reprinting it the government have put on a 5,000 bushel limitation; that is a producer can deliver only up to 5,000 bushels. That is irrespective of whether the guaranteed minimum is above or below the market price. In quoting costs the minister likes to take the lowest costs, and those lowest costs are to be found on the best land, the two-section mechanized farm. Yet the people on the best land with two-section mechanized farms are the very people who are going to be penalized by this 5.000 bushel limitation; for example, those on the Soo line, or up through the Rosetown district and the Regina plains. These people are going to have to sell part of their wheat outside of the wheat board because of this limitation. According to the 1936 census figures the number of farm units in Saskatchewan was 142,391. These were broken up as follows:
1 to 50 acres	 2,245
51 to	100	acres	
1,691101 to	199	acres	
45,944200 to	299	acres	
3,497300 to	479	acres	
44,296480 acres and up	
44,718
The fact is that in order to meet the increasing costs of production by virtue of the rise in farm machinery prices farmers are more and more going into larger units which they can operate on a mechanized basis. Here are these thousands of farmers operating large farms who are going to be directly penalized by this 5,000 bushel limitation.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If my hon. friend will permit me, I may say to him that that statement certainly does not apply to Manitoba.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Well, I am not speaking of Manitoba; I am speaking of Saskatchewan. It certainly is true there that you have thousands of farmers on large farms who will be directly affected by this limitation. I hope that before Bill 63 finally passes the minister will seriously consider taking that limitation out.

Prairie Farm Assistance
Before leaving this aspect of the matter I want to say that 70 cents is no more satisfactory than 60 cents was from the point of view of giving the farmers of western Canada sufficient to enable them to grow wheat, maintain a decent standard of living, and pay even part of their debt.


William Daum Euler: Then it may as well be put back.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have no hesitation in saying that I shall oppose Bill No. 63.
I turn now to the so-called bonus acreage scheme, the third plank in the government wheat policy. Let it be understood at the outset not only that the members of this group are in favour of crop insurance, but that we have advocated a crop insurance scheme ever since we came to this house. Furthermore we do recognize some of the inequalities inherent in the fixed price for wheat, although I think it can be shown that the inequalities in the bonus acreage scheme will far outweigh any inequalities that can be found in the present guaranteed minimum price. If the acreage bonus scheme as outlined in bill 82 were in addition to a wheat board, with a guaranteed minimum price of 80 cents, I would have no hesitation in supporting it. But, Mr. Speaker, when the acreage bonus scheme is merely a sugarcoating to persuade western Canada to swallow a very bitter pill, which is nothing more or less than the sabotaging of the wheat board and the betrayal of western interests, then I say it behooves every member from western Canada who is interested in the conservation of western agriculture to rise here and oppose this legislation.
I should like to touch on one or two aspects of the acreage bonus scheme which we may be prone to overlook in a hasty reading of the bill. I shall enumerate them in order to cover them quickly.
1.	The acreage bonus scheme is not an insurance scheme. Under an insurance scheme the farmer would pay premiums based upon the crop loss risk in the district. Furthermore under an insurance scheme a farmer would be compensated for crop failure irrespective of the average yield of his district, provided he could satisfy the authorities that he had properly seeded his land and could show that he had sustained a crop loss.
2.	The acreage bonus scheme is not a permanent policy. In section 3, subsection 1, it is provided that the act shall apply only
in an emergency year; and in section 3, subsection 3, the crop year 1939 is defined to be an emergency year. It will be noted that there is no provision for the operation of this act beyond this crop year, and that it will operate only if the price is below 80 cents at Fort William.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is provision for it to operate beyond this year.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Only when the price is below 80 cents.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, only this year is declared an emergency year.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I understand that it will operate this year irrespective of price.
3.	Under the national emergency scheme contained in the bill no bonus is payable if the market price for wheat is 80 cents at Fort William; and the crop failure assistance clause will be applicable to the farmers only if the yield is over four bushels to the acre. Furthermore, only half the bonus will be paid if the market price is between 70 and 80 cents at Fort William when the yield is between eight and twelve bushels to the acre.


James Garfield Gardiner: Just in that one class.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes.
4.	Under this scheme no bonus is payable if the market price is 80 cents at Fort William and the yield five bushels to the acre, unless there is an area of not less than 135 townships in any province in the spring wheat area which the minister declares to be a crop failure area.
5.	Even when the market price is less than 80 cents, no bonus is payable unless the average yield of wheat in the township in which the farmer resides is found by the Minister of Agriculture to be twelve bushels to the acre or less. Only if the minister finds the yield to be twelve bushels or less and the price 80 cents or less does the bonus become effective, on the basis of $1 per acre when the yield is from eight to twelve bushels to the acre, 81.50 when the yield is from five to eight bushels, and $2 when the yield in the township is four bushels or less.
6.	The maximum on which the bonus will be paid, even if all other conditions are fulfilled, is 200 acres, and then only when the farmer has 400 acres in cultivation.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that the levy of one per cent from those farmers who have crops, at low prices, will have to be paid to help
Prairie Farm Assistance

those farmers who have no crops; in other words the farmers are going to start now to help pay each other's relief. The people who will benefit most from such a scheme are those living upon submarginal land, and in crop failure areas. The effect of such a scheme will be to keep farmers on land that has long been recognized as unsuitable for wheat raising. I have worked out three short tables which, with the permission of the house, I should like to place on Hansard; or I can read them when we get into committee.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. That
can be done only with the unanimous consent of the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Other hon. members have been allowed to place tables on Hansard.


James Garfield Gardiner: What are the tables?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I can describe them. It makes no difference to me whether I put them on now or not; I can read them when we are in committee. I will describe them first, and the house can decide. I have placed in two columns a comparison between the gross receipts for a half section farm in 1938, with a fixed price of 80 cents for No. 1 northern at Fort William, and the probable returns in 1939, with an initial payment of 70 cents for No. 1 northern at Fort William, plus the bonus under the act. No reduction has been made in either column for seed, nor is there any deduction for the one per cent payable under the acreage bonus scheme.


James Garfield Gardiner: On a twenty bushel basis?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: From twenty bushels right down to nothing.


James Garfield Gardiner: Is that the same statement that appeared in the Monetary Times?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not know.
I put this together myself.


John Gordon Ross: Is that the price on the farm or in Fort William?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The price at the farm, assuming 320 acres in cultivation and 160 acres in wheat, in other words fifty per cent of the cultivated area in wheat merely as a basis for a comparison between 1938 and 1939.


James J. Donnelly: How much in wheat?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Fifty per cent of the cultivated land, and of course that would vary as between place and place.


James Garfield Gardiner: All right.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There are areas in my constituency in which from 60 to 65 per cent of the land is in wheat. In other places only 40 per cent is in wheat, depending upon the type of land.


John Gordon Ross: It will cover some of the country, no doubt. What price are you taking on the farm?


James J. Donnelly: How much are you taking off for transportation?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I will make it quite clear. I have taken off nothing at all. I have assumed that in 1939, with an 80 cent price, the farmer would get 60 cents on the farm. In some places he would get more and in others less. Last year the bureau of statistics gave the average price on the farm as 57 cents.


James Garfield Gardiner: When we are in committee I intend to put on record a table giving the exact figures.


Mr. CAHAN:: Why not let the hon. gentleman put his figures on record?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have no objection.


Frederick George Sanderson: I would point out once more that the house is not in committee, and the hon. member speaking should not be interrupted.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no objection to the hon. member putting the tables on Hansard.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Then I would
ask permission to place these tables on Hansard and then explain them.


Frederick George Sanderson: By unanimous consent.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The tables are as follows:

Prairie Farm Assistance
Half section
A comparison between gross receipts for a half section farm in 1938 with a fixed price of 80c for No. 1 Northern, at Fort William and probable returns in 1939 with initial payment 70c No. 1 Northern, Fort William, plus bonus under act to assist in prairie provinces.
No deductions have been made for seed in either case nor for the 1 per cent payable under the bonus acreage scheme.
Assuming 320 acres in cultivation and 160 acres of this seeded to wheat.
1938	1939
Farm price 60c. per bushel	Farm price 50c per bushel plus bonus
Total	Total	Loss or gain	Yield	Receipts	Wheat	Bonus	Receipts	new plan	20 bus	
$1,920	$1,600	$1,600	Loss	$32019 "	
1,824	1,520	1,520	<(	30418 "	
1,728	1.440	1,440	u	28817 "	
1,632	1.360	1.360	a	27216 "	
1,536	1,280	1,280	u	25615 "	
1,440	1,200	1,200	a	24014 "	
1,344	1,120	1,120	a	22413 "	
1,248	1,040	1,040	u	20812 " 	
1,152	960 plus $160	1,120	u	3211 "	
1,056	880	"	160	1,040	u	1610 "	
960	800	ft	160	960	u	09 "	
864	720	ft	160	880	Gain	168 "	
768	640	((	240	880	ft	1127 "	
672	560	if	240	800	ft	1286 "	
576	480	ff	240	720	a	1445 "	
480	400	ff	240	640	u	1604 "	
384	320	if	320	640	a	2563 "	
288	240	if	320	560	ft	2729 "	
192	160	if	320	480	ft	288l "	80	ff	320	400	a	3040 "	if	320	320	n	320
One section
A comparison between gross receipts for a one section farm in 1938 with fixed price of 80c for No. 1 Northern, at Fort William and probable returns in 1939 with initial payment
70c	No.	1 Northern, Fort William plus bonus under act	to	assist in	prairie provinces.	No	deductions	have been made	for seed in	either case	nor for	the 1 per	cent payable	under the bonus acreage scheme.	Assuming 640	acres in cultivation and 320	acres of	this seeded	to wheat:	1938	1939	Farm price 60c. per bushel	Farm	price 50c per bushel plus bonus	Total	Total	Loss or gain	Yield	Receipts	Wheat	Bonus	Receipts	new plan	20	bus..	$3,840	$3,200	$3,200	Loss	$64019	" .	3,648	3.040	3,040	ff	60818	if	3,456	2,880	2,880	tf	57617	" .	3,264	2,720	2,720	ff	54416	ft	3,072	2,560	2,560	ff	51015	ft	2,880	2,400	2,400	it	48014	ff	2,688	2,240	2,240	tf	44813	"	2,496	2,080	2,080	ff	41612	ft	2,304	1,920 plus $200	2,120	ff	18411	ff	2,112	1,760	"	200	1,960	ft	15210	" .	1,920	1,600	a	200	1,800	ff	1209	ff	1,728	1.440	a	200	1,640	tt	888	ff	1,536	1,280	a	300	1,580	Gain	447	ff	1,344	1,120	tf	300	1,420	if	766	" .	1,152	960	u	300	1,260	tf	1085	ft	960	800	u	300	1,100	ff	1404	" .	768	640	n	400	1,040	ff	2723	" .	576	480	u	400	880	ff	3042	ft	384	320	tt	400	720	ff	336i	ff	192	160	n	400	560	ff	3680	" .	....	u	400	400	ff	400

Prairie Farm Assistance


James J. Donnelly: I would like the hon. member to read his figures, because I have a table that shows the contrary.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I may have taken a different number of acres of wheat.


John Gordon Ross: We gave the hon. member unanimous consent to place the tables on Hansard.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I had permission. The hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Donnelly) may come along afterwards and show wherein my figures are wrong. I will pass a copy of my tables down to him so that he may look them over. On a halfsection basis, from nine bushels down, the farmer is farther ahead under a combination of bills numbers 82 and 63, but above nine bushels he stands to lose-probably not as heavily; but he does stand to lose some. Of course he would not lose as heavily as he would have under the 60 cent rate.

Coming to the one-section farm, the farmer who has no crop, or the one who has up to six bushels to the acre, stands to gain, but above that he stands to lose. On the two-section farm the man who has no crop, or the man who has up to four bushels to the acre, stands to gain, whereas anyone above four bushels to the acre stands to lose.


James J. Donnelly: How many acres have you on a section?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I assume fifty per cent of the amount under cultivation, sown to wheat. The point I am trying to make-whether or not it may be true in all areas-is that in a great many areas of Saskatchewan the tendency of this acreage bonus scheme will be to keep the farmers on the submarginal land, which, as the minister said last night, was broken up during war time, is unsuitable for agriculture and should have been left for ranging purposes. By virtue of the bonus, people who are getting low yields from lands will be able to remain on those lands-a procedure which I suggest is not economically profitable-and farmers who are on good land with good yields will find themselves penalized to pay for it.
My contention is that under Bill 82 the government is going to drive into bankruptcy farmers who now live in the wheat producing areas of western Canada. The

Prairie Farm Assistance
minister himself has admitted that only eight times in the last fifty years has the price dropped as low as the initial price the wheat board now proposes to pay. In view of the world surplus and the trend of world prices, a good crop on the prairies next fall could mean only serfdom and peasantry for many thousands of our best farmers.
I ask the government to consider the effect not only upon the farmers themselves but also upon the people with whom they do business, namely the storekeepers, teachers, doctors, railwaymen, and thousands of people in the towns and cities of western Canada whose income is derived from the wheat producer. A continued bankruptcy for the western farmer will be followed inevitably by economic insecurity and uncertainty for all the people living in the prairie provinces.
The first argument advanced for the acreage bonus plan, with a guaranteed price of 70 cents, as compared with the former price of 80 cents, is that it will help the small farmer, or the man who has a small crop. I think that is true. The statistics in the table I have placed on Hansard will prove the truth of that statement. But it should be remembered that this assistance is being given in lieu of relief, and by the time the farmer makes deductions for his seed and his living expenses, it will be difficult to see how he can feed his family and carry on normal operations during the year from this bonus.
The second argument advanced for this wheat policy is that it will save money. When the minister spoke on April 5 the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) asked him what it was going to cost. He intimated that under the new acreage-bonus scheme, in a normal year it would cost between $10,000,000 and $15,000,000, and that in the worst possible year the cost would be about $30,000,000. Then he proceeded to contrast that figure with the $48,000,000 which we are assumed to have lost last year through wheat board operations, plus $12,000,000 for relief, making a total of $60,000,000. The plea in support of accepting the legislation is that it will reduce the drain on the treasury by cutting that $60,000,000 down to $30,000,000.
Well, it is poor economy to save the dominion treasury at this time if in trying to do so we are going to place 300,000 farmers of western Canada in jeopardy. The repercussions of economic distress in western Canada will make themselves felt from the Atlantic to the Pacific. This is not a matter which is of interest only to one section of Canada. Every hon. member knows that, given purchasing power in western Canada, 71492-2331
the	factories of eastern	Canada	and themaritimes will begin	to	do more	business.Given purchasing power to enable them to buy machinery, paint, lumber, harness, clothing, boots and shoes, dishes, and household utensils, the farmers could give a stimulus to the	whole economy	of	Canada.	I mustconfess I am at a loss to understand this government. In the cabinet there are two former premiers of Saskatchewan, namely the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of	Finance. There	is	another	minister
namely, the Minister of Mines and Resources, who was at one time, many of us thought, the prophet who would lead western Canada out of the wilderness. There is also the Prime Minister, who represents a Saskatchewan constituency. How can these men be party to a policy which they must know will have terrible and devastating effects in the three prairie provinces? The Prime Minister may claim some excuse in that he is not as familiar with western conditions, and that his duties keep him busy here in Ottawa. But there can be no such excuse for the other three ministers. If the government insists in passing Bill No. 63 in its present form, in my opinion it will be betraying the same people who placed the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Finance in their present positions, in the hope that those two gentlemen would fight the battles of the common people. How tragically they have failed to do this is evidenced by the legislation now before the house.
In conclusion may I suggest one or two points I outlined the other day and which at this time I should like to repeat. I would urge upon the government:
(1)	That it send all three bills to the committee on agriculture, where the full implications may be thoroughly investigated;
(2)	That, it retain the wheat board as a permanent feature in the handling and marketing of wheat, and that they revive the advisory committee on which producers may have representation;
(3)	That it accept as a guaranteed minimum price for wheat, during the present crop year, 80 cents a bushel. To my mind that is too low. I am certain that it means for the farmers merely making ends meet, so far as their living expenses are concerned, with no hope of meeting their obligations. If the government will accept this price it will at least enable the farmers to carry on for the present.
(4)	That as quickly as possible the government bring down a crop insurance scheme

Prairie Farm Assistance
which will give the farmers compensation on the basis of their individual crop return, and premiums based on crop risk.
(5)	That the government set up a permanent marketing system based on the principle contained in the Natural Products Marketing Act, but with the provision that the legislation may become effective only in those provinces the governments of which have passed enabling legislation.
Six of the provincial governments have already passed marketing legislation of this kind, and it would be comparatively easy at this time for the federal government to approve legislation which would enable the farmers of Canada, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, to have the exclusive control and direction of the marketing of their own products. Until we are prepared to do that, the agricultural problem will continue to haunt this parliament. When we do that we shall be moving along the road which has already been trodden by other agricultural producing countries, a road which leads to cooperation and economic security.


Mr. HARRY LEADER (Portage la Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to speak at length, because I believe this is not the time for long speeches. It is certainly not my desire to inflict any undue punishment on hon. members at this stage of the session. However, the hon. member (Mr. Douglas, Weyburn) who has just sat down made one remark to which I must refer. He said that the increase in the price from 60 to 70 cents was as a result of the pressure which had been brought to bear upon the government by hon. members and representatives from western Canada. I do not like to think that is the reason, I like to think that the government were willing to listen to representations and wanted to meet the wishes of the people so far as they could. That is my impression of what happened, and I want to say that I think it is an encouraging sign.
The first remarks I have to make are in reference to Bill No. 83, to assist agriculture in the prairie provinces, often referred to as the acreage bonus bill. It is not my intention to condemn this bill, but I must confess that I have not been intensely interested in it, my main interest being in Bill No. 63. However, I am open-minded, and it may be that this is the nucleus of legislation that will be most beneficial to Canada. I am willing to admit that. When I went home at Easter I attended a meeting which had been called at

my instigation. This was an overflow meeting and Bill No. 63 was discussed. A resolution was passed reading as follows:
Resolved: That this meeting of farmers of Portage la Prairie district, assembled this 8th day of April, do also protest against the proposal of the one per cent deduction from all grain marketed, in that we feel that such a deduction should be made only in areas which would benefit under the plan.
Normally I would feel inclined to favour this deduction because it is only a matter of cooperation. However, I do not think it should be made this year. We cannot tell, but the indications are that this is going to be' a trying year for the grain growers of Canada. My suggestion is that the government withhold, at least for one year, this levy upon the farmers who do not participate in the acreage bonus. I make that recommendation to the government.
For a few moments I should like to deal with Bill No. 63, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. In the brief remarks I made the other night I stated that I supported the recommendations made by the delegation from .western Canada that called upon the government some time ago to ask for an 80 cent initial payment on wheat. I stated the other night that I had not departed from my previous attitude in that regard and I make the same statement at this time. I do so for several reasons. First, I believe it is a just request for the farmers of western Canada to make when they ask for an 80-cent intial price. If I am properly informed, this will apply also to the wheat growers of eastern Canada. I hold up both hands in favour of that because I hate to listen to speeches which indicate a division between eastern and western Canada. They rather irritate me, and I say we are not carrying on the traditions of our forefathers, we are not true to our heritage when we make use of such remarks in this house.
I know there is a feeling of injustice, especially in western Canada, but I am a long way from blaming the people of eastern Canada for that injustice. I do not think members from Ontario and other parts of Canada would have objected to an 80-cent initial payment on wheat, if the government had courageously provided for that in this bill. I support an 80-cent initial payment because the western delegation which came to Ottawa was so truly representative of western Canada. There never was a time when any question has had so much of the wholehearted support of the western people, and I feel I would be derelict in my duty if I did not back up that delegation. IV horn did that

Prairie Farm Assistance
delegation represent? They represented the United Farmers of Alberta; the United Farmers of Manitoba; the United Farmers of Canada (Saskatchewan section); the boards of trades of Regina, Saskatoon, Edmonton and Calgary; the Alberta wheat pool; the 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. Surely such a delegation was truly representative of our people.
I have received, as have all hon. members, a great many resolutions passed by different associations in western Canada. I have a file two inches thick full of them, but I do not intend to read them all to the house. I received one from the Winnipeg and district trades and labour congress asking for an 80-cent initial price. I received another one from an association of Ukrainian farmers, a fine type of farmer in my district, asking for the continuation of the 80-cent bonus. I received one from the city council of Portage la Prairie asking for the continuation of this bonus. I received one from the United Farmers of Manitoba, (Portage district). I received one from the Warren agricultural society, from the Fortier cooperative elevator association, from the Portage board of trade, from the rural municipality, from the Manitoba Pool Elevators Limited, from the Oakville cooperative elevators association and from the Edwin cooperative elevators association. Have I not the right to stand up in this house and give whole-hearted support to this request?


Mr. HAYHURST:: Does the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) mean the continuation of the fixed price?


Harry Leader: Yes, the 80 cent price.


James Garfield Gardiner: Most of them asked for the other as well?


Harry Leader: For the bonus? No. I may say I have not received one resolution or letter asking for the acreage bonus.


James Garfield Gardiner: The Bracken resolution asked for a plan of insurance on an acreage or some other basis.


Harry Leader: That is different from this acreage bonus. They asked for an insurance plan, which they have been considering in Manitoba for several years. I do not think, however, they object to an acreage bonus plan. I do not either, but what I do object to is paying a tax when you do not receive any benefits. That is really what caused what is known as the Boston tea party.


Malcolm McLean: But they might need help from the fund in another year.


Harry Leader: That is quite possible, but I would suggest that at least for this year, until this project gets under way, this levy should not be made. There is a limitation of 5,000 bushels provided for, which I support whole-heartedly. I have always taken that view. If the big farmer wants to grow more wheat than that, that is his privilege, but government support should be limited to the 5,000 bushels. I think that is a wise provision, and it should decrease materially the amount that will have to be paid out.


William Hayhurst: Does the hon. member not think that 5,000 bushels is too much?


Harry Leader: That is a matter for
adjustment. I do not want to suggest that the government accepted my suggestion, but that was the figure I mentioned when talking to members of the government. I think it is a wise provision.
I shall not delay the house further than to say that the meeting in Portage la Prairie was called expressly to discuss the initial payment of 80 cents. It was a large and representative meeting, and it passed the following resolution:
Resolved that this meeting of farmers of Portage la Prairie district, assembled this eighth day of April, do hereby protest the action of the dominion government in reducing the board price of wheat from eighty cents to sixty cents, and strongly urge that the eighty-cent price be maintained.
The resolution had my support; therefore I shall vote against the bill, which provides for an initial payment of only 70 cents.


Mr. BRUCE McNEVIN (Victoria, Ont.):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part briefly in this debate on what I might term the wheat bonus policy, I want to make perfectly clear that I do not subscribe to the principle that there exists a conflict or cleavage between the interests of the eastern Canada farmer and those of the western Canada farmer, or indeed as between eastern Canada, central Canada and western Canada. We all have very many things in common, and it is largely a question of getting down to a point where we can arrive at a policy which is in the best interests of the country as a whole.
Last night the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in introducing this bill made it perfectly clear that in his opinion any benefits derived from the tariff protection policy in Canada as they reacted on the agricultural industry must be to the advantage of the western Canada farmer as well as the eastern Canada farmer, and in that contention I fully concur.
Prairie Farm Assistance


Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: As one of those from the west who is charged with trying to get something for the west, it is not my wish, or that of the group to which I belong, to keep the farmers of the east from receiving similar treatment. We believe that the farmers of eastern Canada as well as of western Canada are entitled to at least costs of production, and we now ask them to join with us in getting from our government that to which we are entitled. The hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. McNevin) seems to be quite true to the Liberal policy of keeping in existence the grain exchange at Winnipeg. We had very definite evidence at the session of 1935 that the present government is definitely opposed to the wheat board and wheat pools, and definitely in favour of the grain exchange operating. As one who has farmed in western Canada for twenty-five years I am not satisfied to subscribe to that policy. Since the wheat pool was organized in 1923 I have delivered almost every bushel of my wheat production to that organization, and have not had cause to make any complaint as to weight, grade, dockage or any other treatment I have received. That is something that I think no hon. member can truthfully say of some of the other organizations operating in western Canada at the present time.
I believe Bill No. 83 is to be discussed in conjunction with Bill No. 63. I have not much to say on Bill No. 83. As a relief measure it is a start, but as a measure to take the place of Bill No. 63 I do not think for a moment that it begins to do the job that Bill No. 63 is supposed to do. If Bill No. 83 is to operate I should like to see the drought area excluded from its operation, because I believe the drought area is one of the mistakes of the dominion government (luring the war years, and for that reason should still continue to be a responsibility of the dominion government.
Under the present plan, growers of wheat in the spring wheat area are asked to contribute one per cent of the proceeds of grain delivered at the local elevator. That is not right. One reason is that we are already producin' grain far below the cost of production. Anotner reason is that the drought area is not our responsibility, therefore we should not be asked to pay for relief for that area; it is entirely a dominion responsibility. Another objection is that instead of the bill operat-

ing on a bushel basis I would much prefer to see it on a basis of value; because a farmer may get 12 or 13 or 14 bushels of Nos. 4, 5, 6 or feed wheat of low value, or on the other hand he may get fewer bushels of No. 1 wheat and get the bonus. This should be taken into consideration. Another objection is that the area is too large. I would much rather see it operate on an individual farm basis; then people would get far more equitable treatment, because, as the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) explained this afternoon, there may be both very good land and very poor land in the area comprised, and for that reason the bill as set up at the present time is not fair or equitable.
I am not opposed to the levy of one per cent, provided it is used as an insurance fee on an actuarial basis. This I believe is something that has been asked for by farmers for a number of years, and recommended, and I shall be very glad if the bill is changed so that that protection is given.
The hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Bertrand) gave us yesterday that old story of farmers in the west going to a warm climate in the winter. That is just as funny as it is old. I have lived in the west for twenty-five years and I have yet to find the first farmer in my district-and my district is as good as any in the west-who is able to go to California or to afford two cars per farm. So the story, while circulated by some interests-I do not know who started it-is just as false as it is old. If anyone can give any proof of it I should like to hear it.
A number of people also have the idea that in western Canada we get big yields of grain and for that reason are able to produce very cheaply. A few weeks ago I got from the bureau of statistics the yield for every year from 1914 to 1938. The average turns out to be 15-8 bushels. But for the past ten years, 1929 to 1938 inclusive, the yield has been very much reduced. The yearly averages were as follows:
Bushels
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
16-9
16-3
11-5
8-6
13-4
This indicates an average for the ten years of about 124 bushels per acre. In some districts yields are good, in others they are very much less. Speaking the other day the minister mentioned twenty bushels per acre being

Prairie Farm Assistance
produced at from 30 to 40 cents a bushel. That statement was dealt with this afternoon by the hon. member for Acadia; therefore I am not going to say much about it. Getting down to facts, which is what we ought to deal with, I shall discuss for a moment a district having a yield of 13J bushels. I believe that is what we should consider, because 12J bushels has been the average yield in western Canada for the past ten years. The statement of Professor Hope, already quoted, states on page 151 that :
From 1918 to 1930 these two areas each had an average yield of 13*6 bushels of wheat per acre. On the basis of those yields the cost per bushel of wheat sold is 71 cents for the half-section farm, and 50 cents for the section farm. The estimated debt now amounts to about $20 per acre of crop land or $40 per acre of wheat, or the interest charge at 6 per cent amounts to 20 cents per bushel of wheat sold. For the half-section farm the cost plus interest on estimated debt is 91 cents per bushel. For the section farm the cost plus interest is about 70 cents per bushel of wheat sold.
On February 27 last the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) moved a resolution advocating 95 cents a bushel at the local elevator. This statement, I believe, bears out that price right to the cent, because here we are given interest at six per cent-it is actually seven per cent or higher-and a little higher yield than we have been getting during the past ten years; so that an estimate of twenty-five cents per bushel for wheat grown on western farms is as close as you can reasonably get to the average cost for interest.
Then in case anyone should say the wages we pay on the farms of the west are too high I should like to give the figures in this connection, taken from the monthly bulletin of agricultural statistics for February, 1929. These are government figures, not mine:
Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta (cents per day)
1934		 44
1935		 47
1936		 52
1937		 59
1938		 60
45	52
51	55
55	60
55	65
60	70
For female help in the house we find the average for those years to be 30 cents a day for Manitoba and Saskatchewan and 36 cents per day for Alberta. Perhaps we might compare these with the wages paid in other lines of industry. I do not think it is necessary for me to quote those. Here in Ottawa we find civil servants starting in at $52 a month, out of which they have to pay board, of course, and for which they work 6i hours a day. On the farm 13 hours seems a short day, and many of the help have to work 14 and 15 hours per day, and in some cases more. We
had a royal commission, which plastered a little more white wash on the grain exchange. Possibly in return for some favours during the 1935 session, we find one learned gentleman being paid $200 a day, with a living allowance of $20 per day in addition. Those salaries and allowances had to be paid by the farmers who were growing the wheat and paying the low wages I have just quoted.
To come back for a moment to the cost of growing wheat, according to bulletin No. 159 of the Department of Agriculture, issued in 1932, the average cost of growing wheat was 95 cents per bushel at the experimental farm. Major Strange, in an address on Canada's wheat problem, said:
I have averaged up the price of all wheat produced for sixty-two years, and I find it comes out to $1.14 for No. 2 Northern at Winnipeg.
But, while that average has been received, at the present time perhaps seventy-five per cent of the western wheat producers are bankrupt, and if this policy is put into effect we may find that percentage very considerably increased in the very near future. The 80 cent rate which the Bracken conference recommended, which request is endorsed by myself and the group to which I belong, with an average yield of 12 bushels to the acre, which is just half a bushel below the average for the past ten years-I left it at twelve bushels because I am not so good at figuring- would give, at the local elevator, the following
returns per acre:	
	Dollars
	per acre
No. 1 northern			 7.44
No. 2 northern		
No. 3 northern			 6.48
No. 4 northern			 5.88
No 5			 5.16
No. 6			 4.92
Feed wheat			 4.92
That is ten cents a bushel more than we are offered under this legislation, and perhaps we will get that ten cents after the government thinks it over for a while. In that connection I should like to quote from a bulletin issued by the Searle Grain Company under date of April 19, 1939, which states:
In other words it means that a farming family of five, operating a half section-
That is the unit the Minister of Agriculture advocates.
-would have to receive during a year a bare minimum of . $887.24 in order to be able to stay on their farm, and to operate it with even a low standard of living. For the standard of living to be what might be termed satisfactory the income would have to be considerably higher than $887.24.
Prairie Farm Assistance

Just before that it says:
Interest on borrowed money or on debts is not included; neither is any allowance made for amusements or medical or insurance services.
Amusements and medical and insurance services are as necessary to the farm family as they are to any other family in Canada, and I believe it is the duty of this government to see to it that our farm families have these things.
When the minister made his announcement a short time ago it brought forth opposition from all over the west. As the hon.. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) pointed out a few moments ago, that opposition did not come from farmers alone. All organizations in western Canada joined in the request for a fixed price of 80 cents. I have a number of protests which I intended to read, but since the hon. member for Portage la Prairie, the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) and others have indicated the nature of these protests, I need not take time to do so. This morning, however, I received a petition which I should like to read:
Resolved that whereas the price of wheat at 60 cents per bushel No. 1 northern at Fort William is far below the cost of production, we the undersigned farmers and business men of the Irma district, petition the dominion government to set the price (minimum) of wheat at 87) cents No. 1 northern at Fort William, also that grain exchange (Winnipeg) be abolished, and that the wheat board Be maintained, and some consideration be given to the marketing of coarse grains.
That petition is signed by 152 farmers and business men of the Irma and Fabyan districts. Some of the organizations supporting the request for an 80 cent price are: Manitoba Pool Elevators, United Farmers of Alberta, Alberta wheat pool. United Farmers of Canada, Saskatchewan section, and others which I need not take time to enumerate.
We find also that there is some dissatisfaction with Liberal members from the west, as indicated in the following article appearing in the Western Producer of April 6.
People of Cartwright, Man., Fight Sixty-cent Wheat Proposal.
Suggestion that Liberal members of parliament representing western constituencies resign their seats if the government passes its amendment to the wheat board act setting sixty cents per bushel No. 1 northern, f.o.b. Fort William, as the guaranteed minimum price for wheat was made at a mass meeting held in Cartwright, Manitoba, last Saturday.
The meeting, which filled the town hall to overflowing passed a unanimous resolution calling upon the sitting Liberal members for Souris and Lisgar constituencies to resign in the event of the bill becoming law and asking all Liberal constituency associations in western Canada to follow their lead. The meeting also appealed to all citizens in every district on 'Mr. Fair.]
the prairies to hold mass meetings "to make clear to those in authority at Ottawa the determination of the west to secure a measure of simple justice. ..."
The resolution declared that "citizens in this area are determined not to acquiesce passively either in financial ruination or in any further lowering of living standards" and declared "it would now appear that the only effective further effort that can be made to persuade the government to alter its wheat policy is for Liberal members of parliament to carry their opposition to the present bill to the extent of undertaking to resign their seats in parliament in the event of the bill becoming law."
So far in the debate we have not heard from any of the western Liberal members. In that statement, of course I except the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) although I believe he is a Progressive. I hope hon. members who claim to be real Liberals will rise in their places and tell us what they think of the wheat legislation, because before the next six months roll round they will have to tell their constituents a great deal about it.


Mr. HANSELL:: The hon. member for Portage la Prairie is not going to vote for the bill anyway.


Robert Fair: At the last session of the legislature of Saskatchewan, in order to protect the interests of those who have loaned money, legislation was passed which will compel farmers to pay certain debts before they can sell any of their wheat. Perhaps that fact will be of interest to Liberal members from the west when they tell us what they think of this legislation.
Immediately after the new British Minister of Agriculture took office he got down to business, and did something for the farming industry of Great Britain. We will have to have a progressive Minister of Agriculture in Ottawa before agriculture in Canada gets on a sound or profitable footing. We are told eastern industries are not particularly interested in western markets. In that connection I have some information to place on record with respect to farm implements and machinery. In 1927, when wheat was selling at $1.46 a bushel, western Canada purchased $70,521,000 worth of farm machinery. In 1928, when the price was down to $1.24 a bushel-and I might say that at that time we were still reaping the benefit of the $1.46 price-western purchases of farm implements and machinery were valued at $89,306,000. In the next year, namely 1929, purchases were valued at $70,316,000.
Some of our eastern friends who believe they are acting in the interests of the working man might be interested to know that in 1932 purchases of farm machinery by people in

the west dropped to S8,213,000, and in 1933 it dropped still further to $8,196,000. If those figures are any indication of the state of the farming population in western Canada, let us hope that some help will be given to them.
In connection with farm machinery, we were told on one occasion that Ontario and Quebec provide markets for their own industry. The information which I shall now place on Hansard will probably change the views of hon. members who hold that view. The International Harvester Company, during the period 1926 to 1935 inclusive, marketed 77-60 per cent of its total Canadian sales volume in western Canada and 22-40 per cent in eastern Canada. In the same period the percentages for the Massey-Harris Company show 66-69 marketed in western Canada and 33-31 in eastern Canada. In addition the Deere company confines its operations wholly to western Canada, and this is largely true of the remainder of the companies manufacturing in the United States and marketing their products in Canada. In view of the fact that only slightly over 40 per cent of the total number of farms in Canada are located in the four western provinces, the importance of the problem to this section of the dominion, in comparison with the east, can readily be realized.
Because the greater number of farmers are in eastern Canada, some people may think those farmers are paying the greater share of tariffs and other duties. The figures I have just given must indicate clearly that, after all, the west is the real market for the farm implement companies. There can be no question about that. If anyone questions the point I shall be glad to show figures which I am quite sure will substantiate what I have said.
In 1928. when wheat was selling at $1.24 a bushel, the west purchased from the east, at point-of-origin prices, goods to the value of $387,000,000. In 1933, only five years later, when wheat was selling at 68 cents a bushel, the west purchased from the east, again at point-of-origin prices, goods valued at $80,000.-
000.	In 1928. the average income per farm stood at $2,286. while in 1933 the average income had fallen to $565. I believe those figures prove conclusively that when the western wheat grower is prosperous that prosperity is passed along, throughout Canada, and is as valuable to eastern Canada as to western Canada.
When wheat was very low in price we found that prices of farm machinery remained at high levels. Taking the year 1926 at the basic
Prairie Farm Assistance
figure of 100, when we were receiving almost $1.50 a bushel for our wheat, the index numbers of farm implement prices were as follows:
1927.
1928.
1929.
1930.
1931.
1932.
1934
1936
1938
100-3
99-1
97-9
93-5
96-6
102-8
I suggest these figures prove conclusively that no matter what the prices of farm products may be implement manufacturers continue to demand their pound of flesh. The same observation could be made with respect to the banking institutions, and all other organizations charging interest. We could say the same about the railroads. They have to collect high freight rates, despite the fact that the farmers may be almost giving their grain away. Then, the elevator companies must have their full pound of flesh. The farmer is the goat; he must take the rap every time.
I was going to refer to tariffs, and as the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) is in his seat, and as he is interested in those matters, I shall make some observations in that connection. The net loss for the three prairie provinces in 1932 was *54,925.352. In Manitoba the net loss was $9,274,769 or *13.25 per capita. In Saskatchewan the net was *25,952,335 or $28.16 per capita.


William Daum Euler: To what loss is the hon. member referring?


Robert Fair: These are losses because of the tariff.


William Daum Euler: Oh.


Robert Fair: It may be a good joke but it is rather expensive. The present Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) was the author of these figures back in 1931. The net loss in Alberta was *19,698,248 or a per capita loss of *26.93. This amounts to approximately *135 per family. In the same year we find that Quebec had a gain of *31,685,885 or *11.03 per capita, and good old Ontario, the milch cow for all the rest of Canada according to Premier Hepburn, had a net gain of *51,989,/61, or $15.15 per capita. The net gain for these two provinces amounted to *83,675,646.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They fed the cow rather than milked it.

Prairie Farm Assistance


Robert Fair: We are doing the feeding and Ontario has been doing the milking. Up until a short time ago it was collecting duties on our cream separators.
Mr. EULER; Does my hon. friend say it is only Ontario that is doing the milking? Would he not allow the province of Quebec to come in on that?


Robert Fair: They got just a little drop; Ontario got the main shot. I think the gross value of the production of manufacturing industries in Ontario and Quebec might be of interest. I have tried to point out that when we in western Canada are able to buy, the labouring man in Ontario and Quebec is at work. The figures I am about to give will perhaps substantiate the statement I have already made. In 1928, when wheat was selling at $1.24, the manufacturing production m Quebec was valued at $1,016,162,758 while the production in Ontario was valued at $1,861,190,039. Next year the value was a little better; in Quebec it amounted to $1,106,475,248 and in Ontario to $2,019,092,453. Dropping down to 1932, when wheat struck the bottom, we find that the value of the Quebec production was $619,093,915 while that of Ontario was $971,521,866. In 1933, when prices were still down, Quebec had an output valued at $604,496,078 while the output of Ontario was worth $958,776,858.


Mr. MacNICOL:: What year was that?


Robert Fair: That was 1933.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The year of the depression.


Robert Fair: 
Walter Edward Foster: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but he has exhausted his time.

Prairie Farm Assistance


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, the bills standing in the names of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) are predicated upon an initial price of 70 cents a bushel being paid for No. 1 northern at Fort William and a limitation of 5.000 bushels which may be delivered to the wheat board by a producer. Based on the experience of this year, this will mean that the average initial price received on a Saskatchewan farm will be about 47 cents a bushel. If such should be the case, in my opinion it will spell ruin for the western farmer. As I said in an earlier debate, in view of the world situation, with the tremendous carry-over that seems in sight by the end of next July, in my opinion the initial price will in all probability be the maximum price.
Yesterday, and to some extent this afternoon, the minister argued that wheat can be produced, under certain circumstances at from thirty to forty cents a bushel, with a crop of twenty bushels to the acre, and with certain mechanized equipment. Professor Hope has been quoted in support of that statement. I have before me the report of the conference on markets for western farm products and I find in it something to which attention has not been directed in this house as an opinion of Professor Hope. At page 236 Mr. Brockington, the chairman of the broadcasting corporation, said:
In view of that-
That is, all that went before:

may I say this: If the farmer of western Canada is not to be allowed to subside into a condition of living and of livelihood less comfortable, less secure, less worthy of him and not to maintain the position that as a good and useful citizen he ought to occupy, the wheat price should be more than 80 cents.
And Professor Hope's reply was in three words: "That is right."


James Garfield Gardiner: That ha3 no relationship to the statement I made.


Major James William Coldwell: Oh, yes. The statement we have been discussing is whether this price- should it be both the maximum price and the initial price-is sufficient to enable the average farmer to continue to operate his industry as a wheat grower. It is true, as I said before, that Professor Hope did say that on the superior soil areas, which, according to the soil survey of Saskatchewan, amounts to approximately seven per cent of the land, on a two-section power farm, equipped with tractor, truck and combine, a bushel of wheat could be produced for 34 cents.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the whole operating cost apart from the debt?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, apart from debt. But no 'business operating anywhere in Canada would compute its costs of production without including interest on capital, depreciation, and all the other items which have to be covered in the price of the product of that particular industry.


James Garfield Gardiner: I take no exception to the statement the hon. member is now making. The only thing I take exception to is hon. members opposite attempting to prove that because I said that a man could put his wheat into the ground and harvest it at a certain cost, therefore that covers all his costs.


Major James William Coldwell: I followed the minister very carefully on April 5, and as he may recall, I interjected a question. At page 2623 of Hansard the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) asked the minister a question, and the minister replied as the following will indicate:
Mr. Johnston (Bow River):	What is the
basis of that estimate of from thirty to forty cents a bushel as the cost of production?
Mr. Gardiner: Estimates have been made by authorities in Saskatchewan university, and there are also the figures submitted by the Saskatchewan government to the Rowell commission.
Then I interjected:
Mr. Coldwell: Professor Hope gives quite a different set-up.
Mr. Gardiner:	He gives a set-up based on
the cost of the wheat itself, but it amounts approximately to this. Bv adding debt costs and other items he arrives at another figure.
Then I asked:
Mr. Coldwell: But are not those legitimate costs ?
And the minister replied:
Mr. Gardiner:	Not in estimating the cost
of producing wheat.
My contention is that in estimating the cost of producing anything at all, you must add all the legitimate costs of producing that article, and I do not think that the farmer should, in his industry, be expected to operate on a basis different from that of every other well-conducted industry.


James Garfield Gardiner: Just to clear the point up, I would ask the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar to read the next sentence, where I said:
A crop of twenty or more bushels to the acre, with a reasonable price-I say a reasonable price, not the price that sometimes prevails -would therefore give a profit to the average farmer.
Prairie Farm Assistance

I had just got through saying that the average price had only once in fifty years been below sixty cents. No one has ever contended that sixty cents is a reasonable price. I have stated that for a farmer to operate at all he must have a reasonable price for twenty bushels to the acre.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister goes on in the same paragraph to say:
Since the 30 cent costs are on large mechanized farms, and the 40 cent costs on smaller farms-
Which incidentally is not a correct statement of what Professor Hope says in the quotation that has been referred to so frequently this afternoon:
-the tendency to change from the small to the large farm is greatly encouraged by increasing profits in that manner.
The only interpretation that can be placed on that statement is the interpretation that has been placed on it by members on this side of the house and by people generally throughout the country. I see it is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker; therefore I move that the debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned.
Monday, May 8, 1939