1939-05-09

[Stage Direction]
Third report of the standing committee on agriculture and colonization.-Mr. Weir.
First report of the joint committee of both houses of parliament on printing.-Mr. St. Pere.


Mr. B. M. HILL (Charlotte) moved:: _ That Bill No. 71, letter Y of the senate, intituled an act for the relief of Zdenka Pauline Ottilie Josefine von Ehrenfeld-Pop Drummond, otherwise known as Yvonne Drummond, be referred back to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills with instructions that they have power to report whether or not standing order 100 be suspended in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 134 to amend an act to incorporate The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada."-Mr. Young.
Bill No. 135 for the relief of Harold Morris. -Mr. Factor.
Bill No. 136 for the relief of Philippe Emile Collette.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 137 for the relief of Muriel Suckling Brown.-Mr. Plaxton.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) whether the report on constitutional matters made by W. F. O'Connor, K.C., to the Speaker of the other chamber will be made available to members of the house.


Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Well, Mr. O'Connor is the law clerk of the senate. I have not considered the matter, but I do not see in what capacity his report could be laid upon the table of the House of Commons. He is neither the adviser of the House of Commons nor an officer of the Department of Justice.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I did not ask that it be laid on the table of the house, but, since this document is printed at the public expense, whether it would be made available to members at the distribution office of the House of Commons.


Ernest Lapointe: I will consider the matter. It is a senate document, and we had nothing to do with the preparation of it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is a report that was made to the senate, and not infrequently other reports made to the senate have been made available at the distribution office of the House of Commons. I should like the minister to consider whether this document might not be made available also.


Ernest Lapointe: I am advised that it is already in the distribution office of the House of Commons.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I am informed that these documents are in the joint distribution office for the two houses of parliament.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Thank you; I was not aware of that.

Prairie Farm Assistance



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, May 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gardiner for the second reading of Bill No. 83, to assist agriculture in the prairie provinces.
Mr. J. A. MARSHALL (Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is my duty to take part in this debate, first, because I represent a truly agricultural constituency, and second, because I come from western Canada where I have lived for over twenty-six years. During the whole of that time I have been intimately associated with agriculture, and I may be considered as one who has spent a portion of that time "farming the farmer."
Hon. members of this group have thoroughly canvassed the problem in all its phases, and I do not therefore wish to repeat any of the observations which have been made. At the same time I believe my constituents would feel I was lax in my duty were I not on this occasion to express some of the opinions they have expressed to me. I have received a considerable number of letters, telegrams, resolutions and petitions from every part of my riding and from almost every organization in the riding, including boards of trade, city councils, and officials of municipal districts. In addition I have received communications from almost one hundred social credit groups operating in the constituency. The petitions have been signed by hundreds of farmers, business men and professional men. One thing of which I am certain is that I have heard from a majority of the people in my constituency.
It is true that the recommendations are not all alike. Later in my speech I shall touch upon some of the differences. At this point I should like to place on Hansard a copy of a resolution I received from a social credit group which I believe offers to the government .a constructive recommendation with respect to the wheat surplus we have at the present time. I shall not read the preamble, but shall read only the resolution, which is as follows-


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member would not be permitted to read from a petition expressing opinions of people outside of the House of Commons with respect to legislation or bills before the house. To support that

ruling I would refer the hon. member to page 101 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, citation 306, which states:
It is not in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or communications emanating from persons outside the house and referring to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the house.
I remember one occasion in the last parliament when I was called to order by the then Speaker for presenting to the house a petition from a certain body of people protesting against a bill before the house, and expressing opinions contrary to the principle of the bill. Therefore it is not in order to read the petition.


James Alexander Marshall: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to offer this as a criticism of the bills. It contains only suggestions. Now that I am not privileged to read the resolution to the house I shall place it before hon. members in my own words by giving only the substance.
The suggestion is that all persons on relief in Canada be asked to purchase bread and other wheat products processed in Canada from Canadian wheat at a discount of 25 per cent from the retail price, and Canadian flour at a discount of 33i per cent from the retail price, to induce those on relief so far as possible to use our wheat surplus. The other suggestion is that people on relief be permitted to purchase rolled oats and oatmeal from Canadian mills and grain companies at a 25 per cent discount from the retail price, so as to encourage the use of our surplus oat production; and that the retail merchants be reimbursed the discount out of the government's relief appropriation.
I offer those suggestions to the government, coming from a group of farmers in my constituency. I would go farther and say that the idea embodied in the resolution could be applied to almost every product raised in Canada. It could be applied to the fishing industry on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. It could be applied to the apple growers of the Annapolis and Okanagan valleys. It could be applied to the products of the market gardeners of Ontario. It could be applied to the cheese industry. As a matter of fact in some degree it is being applied in connection with the butter surplus. I leave those suggestions with the government to be used as they deem most desirable.
The farm problem in Canada to-day-and let me hasten to assure hon. members that I make no distinction between eastern and western Canada-will never be settled until
Prairie Farm Assistance

the farmers of Canada themselves can exert an effective influence [DOT] over one side or the other of their business ledger. Until they are able to do this they will continue to slide further and further down the economic scale. As their plight becomes increasingly worse, so will the efforts of this and succeeding governments to cope successfully with the situation continue to give us grave concern. From time out of mind Canadian industry has demanded a fair return, which is only another way of saying that industry wants a price for its products and services which will enable it to pay fair wages and earn a fair return upon its capital investment. Our working men have long demanded a living standard, meaning that they want a wage that will enable them to have their modest share of the comforts of life, a decent home and to be able properly to clothe and educate their children. How long would Henry Ford stay in business if the selling price of his automobiles were fixed by the Chicago board of trade or the Liverpool grain exchange? He is successful because he knows almost to a cent his production costs and because he has absolute control over his selling price.
The question is being asked: What should we do for the farmers? I believe that we should guarantee the farmers a price on the home market that will assure them their production costs, depreciation on their farm plant and machinery and a small return on their investment. Is there anyone in this house who will rise in his place and say that this is too much to ask, especially when it is recognized that the purchasing power of the farmers is fundamental to prosperous stores, factories, mills and all branches of secondary industry? The last twenty years have been years of struggle and deprivation for the farmers, particularly those living in western Canada. They have also been years of experimentation with methods to offset the effect of subsidizing privileged industry by tariffs and other means. During the last twenty years the position of the agriculturist and his family has grown steadily worse until to-day it is reduced to the level of the European peasant.
Last year the dominion government set the price of wheat at 80 cents for No. 1 northern, Fort William. I wonder how many hon. gentlemen have taken the trouble to find out just what the farmers of western Canada did with the proceeds from the crop of last year? For more than ten years a considerable number of farmers, I should judge running into the hundreds, have consulted me about their financial problems. I believe
fMr. Marshall.]
they did this because I occupied a position in a municipal office and they felt that in some small measure I might be able to assist them in solving the problems with which they were confronted. They felt that as I was in touch with the provincial government through the municipal office, as well as with the banks and the loan mortgage companies, perhaps I could help them. So they came to my office, as many as eight in one day, to tell me their troubles and to ask for my advice.
As I look back over the years from 1929 to 1939, I divide them into two periods, the first extending from 1929 to 1935 and the second from 1935 to the present time. The farmers in my district have been taught in the school of bitter experience to fear the threats of over-bearing, tyrannical collection agents, especially those who are the paid hirelings of the mortgage corporations. I hasten to exempt from this class the agents of the land departments of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Hudson's Bay Company. The course pursued by these two companies differs very materially from the policy pursued by the mortgage companies. The agents of the land departments of these companies have proved themselves to be perfect gentlemen. They have endeavoured to see the problem of the farmer from the farmer's standpoint, and I have heard nothing but the highest commendation and praise for them.
On the other hand, so great was the fear in which some of the collection agents for the mortgage companies and other like companies were held, that I have known farmers to stoop to all kinds of questionable practices in order that the one-third crop share should be available to these agents when they came around. From 1929 to 1935 the farmer set aside one-third of his crop which was applied on his mortgage, to pay all or part of the interest charges, and, if any was left over, to be applied on the principal. The balance of two-thirds had to take care of all the rest of his expenses, such as binder twine, threshing bills, store bills, hospital and doctor's bills, seed grain, and, last but by no means least in size, taxes. Were all these expenses paid? The answer is obvious. No, they certainly were not. During those years the mortgages held in my part of the country were kept on a satisfactory basis, but prices were not sufficiently high to permit the farmers to pay all their yearly obligations in full. Taxes were allowed to accumulate, accounts for seed grain, doctor's bills, hospital bills and other liabilities were allowed to accumulate. I know

Prairie Farm Assistance
as a matter of fact that municipalities were called upon to guarantee some of these accounts, and around the year 1935 many municipalities were faced with a very serious situation indeed. But from 1935 onwards I could see a decided change. Fewer and fewer payments were being made on mortgages and more and more payments on small debts and taxes. I want it understood that I am not speaking for the whole west but simply from my experience in my own part of the country, and of course conditions there may not be generally applicable throughout Canada.
What happened to the proceeds of the 1938 crop, the price of which was guaranteed at 80 cents a bushel f.o.b. Fort William for No. 1 northern? In almost every instance with which I came in contact the farmer, after paying his threshing bill and his binder twine, paid first of all his small store bill. He played the game with his grocer and his hardware merchant, his doctor and others who had carried him through the most critical time in 1938. He applied the balance of the proceeds from his crop to his seed grain loan and to school and hospital taxes, and if there was anything left he applied the rest to his municipal and provincial taxes. That is exactly as it should be. I believe that interest charges on mortgages should come last and be paid only after these other obligations have been met. The point I want to make is that the percentage of farmers who paid anything on their mortgages from 1935 to 1938 was very small indeed, and I believe that is one of the reasons why the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) has brought down his bill dealing with mortgages.
The farmers of my community, facing as they do increased debt in the form of interest charges on their mortgages, looked to their provincial government to protect them against the high pressure methods of mortgage company collection agents, and in my opinion the government of Alberta was justified in protecting the farmers of the province by passing such legislation as was deemed necessary to meet this trying situation.
What will happen this year under the 70 cents guaranteed price? I predict that the farmers will follow exactly the same line of action as last year. Of one thing I am positive, and that is that they will not be able to pay anything on mortgages or contracts of the kind. It is strange that among all the letters and telegrams and petitions and resolutions which came to my desk, not one came from a bank or mortgage company or other lending or banking institution. I ask the Minister of Agriculture to inform me, when we get into committee on these bills,
how many requests he received from institutions like the Bank of Montreal, the Royal Bank of Canada, the Canadian Bank of Commerce, the Associated Mortgage Company, the Sun Life Assurance Company, the Toronto General Trusts or the Montreal Trust Company, petitioning him to do all in his power to assure the farmers of western Canada a fair price for their production. All these organizations are vitally interested in the west; they have in fact a higher financial stake in my part of the country than the farmers themselves. Did they ask for 60, or 70 or 80 cent wheat? That is the question I direct to the Minister of Agriculture, and in respect to which I hope he will enlighten us as fully as possible in committee.
Another question I direct to the minister is this: Whose brain child is this scheme, anyway? It is apparently based upon the ideas expressed by Professor Hope. Did Professor Hope have any finger in this pie?


Mr. MacNICOL:: Lots of hope.


James Alexander Marshall: Were any other agricultural authorities consulted, or has this whole scheme been hatched within the confines of the executive council? In all the correspondence which I have received this year, two facts stand out clearly and distinctly. First, my constituents are confused over the acreage bonus plan, and I believe the majority of them are against it.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Why?


James Alexander Marshall: It may be that they do not understand it. I venture the suggestion that very few in this house understand it intelligently enough to go out to western Canada and educate the people on the plan.
My constituents also want a guaranteed price ranging anywhere from 80 cents a bushel, for a crop of 1,500 bushels, to $1.15 a bushel without any limit to the bushelage. Some hon. gentlemen may say that the farmers out there do not know what they want, but whoever says that does not know what he is talking about, I know positively and definitely what they want. They want a price for their commodities-not wheat alone but all their commodities-which will guarantee them a sufficient income to pay their debts, renovate somewhat their living quarters, and provide them with that measure of happiness and sweet content which many of us enjoy but which so many of them lack. Can this be brought about by 70 cent wheat and the acreage bonus plan now presented to us for approval? I do not think so. I believe that the whole plan should go to the committee
Prairie Farm, Assistance

on agriculture for close study and for modification in such a way as will be generally satisfactory to all lines of thought.
This is no matter for sectional prejudice or isolated action. Only a united nation will defeat the enemy-a nation united in a basic attack on the basic source of everybody's trouble, namely money and the money policy of those in power to-day. Consumer credit to the amount required to absorb the nation's full productive capacity is the only solution for the farmer as well as for everybody else.


Mr. A. H. MITCHELL (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe in wasting my breath and the people's money in making long speeches, but I want to take this opportunity to state that I believe this is objectionable legislation. It does not even pretend to touch the roots of the problem. It is a mere palliative, and as such, a very weak one. The principle of crop insurance is good; but my constituents feel, judging from letters and telegrams and resolutions I have received, that the benefits are quite inadequate and the limitations are so severe as to emasculate the intended purpose of the legislation.
All this has been covered by previous speakers, and I shall not go over it again now.
As to Bill No. 63, fixing the price of wheat, No. 1 grade, at Fort William at 70 cents, that too, though well intended, does not begin to meet the needs of the situation. This is a national issue. A national industry is fighting for its life. We do not want to have it preserved at the cost of other industries; we want them, east and west, preserved too; but this legislation does not provide a price high enough to save or to help very greatly a sorely-tried agricultural industry and correspondingly to help the other industries which are dependent upon it.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting during the last day or two in the hope of speaking to the other bills which will be presented by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler). But this afternoon I thought I would take advantage of the opportunity to offer some remarks on Bill No. 63, also introduced by that minister. This is the bill which, when it reached the prairies on March 27, set them on fire even though the plains were still covered with the winter snow. That fire has been smouldering round there ever since. There must have been some cause for this.
I may say at the outset that I approve entirely of all the bills presented by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), although that does not mean that I concur in all the details; some of them might possibly

have been improved upon. But the minister is to be congratulated upon presenting to this house such a remarkable chain of useful cooperative bills, seven or eight in number. I think he deserves the commendation of this house. I wish I could say as much for Bill No. 63.
Before we can deal properly with that amending bill I think we should take a little retrospect and spend a short time with the original bill, which was passed by the previous government in 1935. Prior to that, again, and for the past twenty years, the farmers of the west had been longing and looking, praying and hoping for a grain board bill somewhat similar to the one we had in 1919-20. One thing and another, into which I need not go now, interfered with it. Finally, in 1935, the previous government brought down a bill which was strongly pressed for by the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited- another name for the combined pools. The then government consented, at the request of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), to submit this bill to a special committee consisting of nine members representing all parties in the house. That was a very fair attitude to take. It was the object of that committee to arrive if possible at 9ome conclusion in which all parties in the house would concur. Everybody knew that an election was coming on, and many of us did not want that to be an issue; if it were made an issue it would tend to spoil the working out of the bill. Anyway, the house, after debating the matter quite fully, decided on the character of the bill, as it appeared in reprinted form after going through this special committee, without one dissenting voice or one amendment as it went through second and third readings of the commons.
That bill provided for a very important committee called the advisory committee. This committee was appointed and was looked upon as an important, integral portion of this legislation. When the new government came into power they changed, I believe quite rightly, the personnel of the wheat board, because there were a few points on which policies were quite different, and in my opinion it was right to give expression to the viewpoint of the new government by having a new board. But it did not follow, I think, that the advisory committee should have been dispensed with. Possibly while the government had their hand in, they felt like swinging the axe a little bit, and they summarily dismissed all the advisory committee-which I think was a profound mistake. From that day to this the government, in my estimation,

Prairie Farm Assistance
has been on the wrong track in not taking the advice of an advisory committee of seven, composed, as to four of them, of representatives of the producers. I did not make any particular protest about this at the time. Everybody has his own work to attend to; maybe the government had their own reason for doing this, and I thought possibly they would appoint a new advisory committee later, but that has not been done yet.
Let me refer briefly to some of the debates, and also to the original bill with respect to this matter, because it is a very important feature of the old bill.
In Hansard of 1935, page 4272, will be found the remarks of the then prime minister as the bill was going through its last stage. They are very brief:	Mr. Bennett said:
Then the board is being assisted by an advisory committee. It was suggested by one of the witnesses who had been and still is associated with the pool, that there should be some compensation paid to the producers at least, as well as to others who came to Winnipeg or elsewhere for the purpose of giving their advice to the board. So it will be observed that this advisory board, of whom four out of seven shall be producers, shall be paid their transportation and living expenses and a per diem allowance of $10 while they are away from home. That was to ensure continuity of interest. But it goes further: it provides that the Minister of Trade and Commerce may ask them at any time to give their advice, to meet together. Further, this advisory board shall send a copy of its minutes to the minister in order that he may know what has transpired.
This was, then, not to be a temporary committee but a permanent part of a permanent board. There was in 1935 no crisis or emergency except one which had become quite simple, namely the carryover. I can remember quite distinctly that when Mr. McFarland was justifying his course it was believed by him that it would be a picnic to deal with that accumulation, because carryovers were disappearing all over the world. It was a comparatively easy matter to dispose of the two hundred million odd of the carryover in view of the market conditions that prevailed at that time. The board was meant to be a permanent one; there was no emergency about it. It seems to me that we are making a great mistake. The farmers have been wanting a permanent wheat board for twenty years, and if they cannot get a permanent board yet, they will take the next best, but hang on to it. Let me refer to the original act itself of 1935:
The governor in council may appoint during pleasure an advisory committee to advise the board, which committee shall consist of not more than seven members of whom four shall represent wheat producers.
The members of the advisory committee shall not obtain any salary but shall be paid a per diem allowance.
All we have to do, if we wish to restore the advisory committee, is to make "may", "shall". I understand from lawyers that in some instances "may" means "shall", but "shall" always means "shall." Sometimes "may" includes "shall"-I do not know. Evidently the government thought they were perfectly within the law in dismissing the advisory committee and not appointing a successor. I assume they were within the law. But were they within the spirit of the law? Here was this most important committee whose services were used in the first year-1935-to arrive at the initial wheat price. There was no trouble about it. There were differences of opinion but I know that there was comparatively little talk before they arrived at the initial price of 871 cents, and as soon as that was fixed everybody was apparently satisfied, and there was no trouble. But ever since we departed from that we have been head over heels in trouble. What a spectacle it is, what an upheaval it has caused, to submit to this parliament a price of 60 cents or any other price and to ask us to decide upon it! We are thus inviting a cat-and-dog squabble from the beginning.
In the first instance, in 1935, it was simply the advisory committee plus the wheat board plus the government that set the initial price of 871 cents. I do not know how many days it took them to decide the matter, but certainly not as many as we are taking in arriving at a decision here. I suggest that if the government were ill-advised, if it took the wrong course, then it should get on to the right one right away. Once we are satisfied that we are on a wrong course it is good business for governments or individuals to regain quickly the right course. I hope I do not say this in any arbitrary way, but I am thoroughly convinced that it was the intention of parliament that the advisory committee should constitute an important integral part of this act, and the intent of parliament was that it should remain there.
I do not believe the government have anything against advisory committees generally. I am quite sure they have not, because in several bills this year advisory committees have been quite properly appointed. The dairy act, the live stock act and one or two others have recognized the principle, so that the government has no objections to advisory committees. Then what objection was there to this one? It took a great burden off the shoulders of parliament and settled a knotty question fairly, and to the extent that it
Prairie Farm Assistance

Now I must pass on or I will not get half through my story. When the 60 cent wheat announcement was made, the first spring heat wave went over the west, and I think that was what made the snow in Manitoba disappear so early. A deputation or a committee from western Canada, headed by Premier Bracken, came to Ottawa giving reasons for 80 cent wheat. That took place on March 1. On March 27, Bill No. 63, with its 60 cent proviso, was read the first time in the house. Naturally people would take this bill as an answer to the prayer or brief of the western committee, !No wonder the west got busy and prepared a huge petition. I am not one who attaches too much importance to petitions, but I am disposed to attach considerable importance to this one bearing 160,000 signatures, spontaneously attached. So far as the signatures in my constituency are concerned may I say that there are 8,000 of them, and that they ask me for 80 cent wheat, and for any other improvement which can be made in connection with acreage. They laid particular stress on their protest against the 60 cent price and their request for 80 cents.
I must give some heed to their representations.
The second invasion of the Bracken committee came two or three weeks ago. I do not know whether or not they were instrumental in bringing about the change in this bill to 70 cents instead of 60 cents. I do not know why the government made that change, but I must say that I appreciate it. Half a loaf is better than no bread. Just the same, when one considers the statement I was privileged to make not quite a year ago in connection with the contribution made by western farmers to the cause of the allies in keeping down the price of wheat, under the board of grain supervisors, one realizes the vast contribution then made by western Canada. My observations made then fill two or three columns of Hansard, and I shall not give them in detail again. But having regard to the fact that the western farmers in the years 1916, 1917 and 1918 contributed nearly $600,000,000 in reduced prices of wheat, as a result of the board's operations under fixed maximum prices, surely that should be a sufficient line of credit to warranE our having some consideration for the west at a time when we are nearly down and out.
Three years ago it was estimated we were going to be out $15,000,000 on the operations of the board of 1935-36. But the subsequent upswing of the market practically wiped that out. It is claimed by some that had not the alleged "fire sale" disposition of this carry-over been made, better results still would have been experienced. The sales, 
however, were made on a competitive basis with other wheats-any other course is not sound business. It would now seem that history is going to repeat itself. We have now an estimated deficit of $48,000,000 in the operations of the wheat board of 1938. No one, however, is in a position to tell exactly what this deficit will be; it is purely an estimate. The Minister of Finance has cut down this figure to $25,000,000. But wheat is now going up, and crops are going down, not only in the United States but in many other countries, and even this remaining $25,000,000 may easily be absorbed by the profits on the new estimated carry-over on August 1, of over 100,000,000 bushels.
I have not found an unfair element in this house, or an unfair attitude towards the west in regard to this matter. I feel confident, theiefore, that when this year's operations are completed there will not be a deficit of even $25,000,000. That money should not be referred to as a loss, any more than the deficit of the Canadian National Railways. We get a service in one case as well as in the other. But I am confident that between now and the beginning of the new grain year that $25,000,000 will further disappear. What, therefore, is all this hullabaloo about the west imposing on the east made by two certain prominent gentlemen at the head of the governments of Ontario and Quebec, and whom our federal government seem anxious to appease by first advocating 60 cent wheat. My humble advice is to go easy on this kind of appeasement policy, and avoid making a second Czechoslovakia of the three prairie provinces. That would not be fair. They have stood up as long as they had the strength in their body to stand up. They are now in the position of an old cow on the lift I do not know whether all hon. members know what is meant by that. A cow gets down, in the spring of the year, near freshening time, and she cannot get up under her "l'ift "Steam' She is then said to be on the
We are on the lift, and we want our friends in eastern Canada to help to put us on our feet until we gather strength to pull our share again. I have always been in favour of a self-sustaining wheat board. I said that two or three years ago; I said it last year and I repeat it now. There is provision in one of the minister's bills, and quite properly I think, for a small tax of one per cent on all wheat going to elevators. I should like to see a small processing tax on flour consumed in Canada, as there is in many other countries. By taking a little bit here and a little bit there we would soon have a reserve sufficient

Prairie Farm Assistance
to take care of any possible deficit, and we would not then be in the humiliating position of having to beg, as we seem to be to-day, notwithstanding our heavy contributions to eastern industry.
I am skipping a great deal of what I had intended to say, because I wish to finish in the appointed time. I want to vote for the bill under the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler). I will vote for all the bills of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). I do want to vote for the bill of the Minister of Trade and Commerce;
I want to vote for it very badly, but I cannot vote for it in its present form. I do not wish to dictate terms in an arbitrary fashion.
I do not expect to see any more changes in the bill stipulating a 70 cent advance. I cannot imagine the government allowing itself to be pressed further. Where they made their mistake was in not jumping at once, when they saw the gathering storm. But there are a great many people who do not do that. No one in most governments wishes to admit he has been wrong. I should be glad if the government would consider changing the expression " The governor in council may appoint an advisory committee " to " The governor in council shall appoint an advisory committee," involving a change in only one word, thus establishing an advisory committee that we thought we already had. Then I would suggest that it should make a provision whereby the price should be set in the way it has always been set, namely, through a combination of the advisory committee, the grain board, and the government of the day. That is the way it was done so satisfactorily in 1935. But it has not been done that way since, because there has been no advisory committee. I say that would be the logical and proper way to do it.
I cannot understand how in this instance the government could arbitrarily refuse an advisory committee, when all the time in government departments advisory committees are being appointed. The principle has been acknowledged by them. However, in the case of the wheat board they deny it, and I suggest that is a most unfortunate circumstance. It has led to a condition where the price of wheat has to be discussed in parliament, and placed at 60 cents in a bill, raising a great hubbub from one end of Canada to the other. Let us get back to first practices and principles; do not decline to restore a policy simply because it was a Tory government that enacted it previously. I used to think that all the virtues were in my own party, and all the mischief in the Tory party.
But I have had to remodel my views somewhat about that. I realize that we sometimes make a great mistake by assuming that all that the Tories do is necessarily wrong. Here is one case in point. This was a Tory wheat board, this was a Tory advisory committee. Away with them! No, that is a mistake. The latter should have been kept on, and I plead with this government to restore it as a peace-offering to the prairie farmer.
The government having done that, the next logical step is to have an advisory committee to advise, among other duties, on setting the initial wheat price for each year. I think even the government will admit that there have been times when they were in need of advice. Surely they do not think that they know all about it.. Having wilfully deprived themselves of the services of an advisory committee, they have an opportunity now to restore that committee. Even Mr. Hepburn knew when to snap back when he got into trouble in Hastings over the separate school tax. I am not pointing out Mr. Hepburn as an example for this government to follow, except in this particular. That was the proper course for him to take. He never turned a hair, and away he went again. This government should not consider that they are infallible, that they are always right, when we know very well that, being human, they, like us all, are liable to err. There must have been times when they needed the services of an advisory committee.
I submit that the government should make these two simple and reasonable changes. I should like to hear some argument against the restoration of the advisory committee. I do not think one could be presented. This would be an appropriate type of appeasement to offer our wounded farmers. By such action, the government would be doing simple justice to themselves. The government having appointed an advisory committee, its members could be called round a common table with the wheat board and the government to set a price instead of having hon. members unavoidably wrangling over something with which many have little opportunity to familiarize themselves. There is the solution. If that were done, I would vote for the bill. We will not get any more than 70 cents leaving this bill as it is. Prices are likely to go up. The first thing we know the market price will be 80 cents or more. As soon as the price goes beyond the 70 cents, the board will not be worth a continental because, as has been previously pointed out, only a comparatively few will patronize it. The outside market will be higher. I think we would have a better
Prairie Farm Assistance

chance of improving on 70 cents if the price were set with the aid of an advisory committee. The market is almost sure to go up. Just let Hitler shake his sabre once more, and the deficit of this year may all go up the flue. We do not want it done from that cause, but that is what may happen.
Before I sit down, I should like to repeat what I have said. Let us have these two amendments which were originally intended to be in the bill permanently. If that is done, I will even support the thus amended Bill No. 63, which, as originally drafted, raised such Cain all over the prairies on March 27.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, there is one consideration which ought to be emphasized before we make up our minds as to how we are going to treat agriculture. I gathered from the minister the other night that he believed we were simply in an emergency, that if matters settled down in Europe our difficulties would tend to clear away of their own accord. One of the gravest mistakes that we as a parliament can make is to come to the conclusion that this is just an emergency. To-day we are in the midst of an age of abundance, but we are trying to carry on with equipment which is suitable only for an age of scarcity. Our financial and economic system is as much out of date in trying to navigate the many difficulties of our present-day traffic as an ox-cart would be on the streets of New York. That is why we are sensing these jolts and are quite at a loss to know what to do. We must remember that the old order is gone. We are living in the midst of conditions which are new and strange to us. In order that we may again have prosperity, great changes must be made in our way of doing things. Chief among the sufferers from the maladjustment which has come into being because of this transition are our agriculturists. Our primary producers as a whole are also suffering.
It must be borne in mind that we are one great family. There has been a great tendency on the part of several speakers from the east to assume that we from the west are not in favour of the east receiving consideration. This is utterly wrong. We look upon the eastern farmers as being co-sufferers with us. Their problems must be dealt with by measures similar to those which are necessary to deal with ours. We consider them our brothers in this struggle. I do not think I could do better in opening my remarks than read a few words attributed to Sir Edward Beatty, whom all hon. members of this house will recognize immediately. He is reported in 
a Canadian press dispatch to have addressed the purchasing agents' association in Montreal on April 18 in the following words:
"In my business," he said, "I am very much worried about this lack of price parity . . . and what I can do with it.
"I know, for example, that our biggest single block of customers-the farmers of western Canada-are not getting enough for their goods to enable them to buy what other people have to sell, and my company cannot hope to prosper unless this exchange of traffic goes on. If we are to have profit, then the farmer must sell wheat and buy other goods as well. It is difficult for him to do that in any volume at the present level of income which he enjoys.
"That leads me to think that, unless the price of what the farmer produces is going to rise very rapidly, the rest of us will have to set our minds very seriously to reducing the price of what he buys."


Mr. GARDINER:: Is that not an answer to the hon. gentleman immediately behind my hon. friend who asked me a question a few moments ago as to whether anyone other than the farmers had been asking for this?


John Horne Blackmore: That might be. I do not recall the passage between the minister and the hon. member. I was concentrating on my own speech.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was not a passage; it was in the member's speech. He was asking me whether any particular interest in Canada other than the farmers had asked for this 80 cents. If it was not the farmers themselves who asked for it, who else asked for it? This appears to be an answer.


John Horne Blackmore: It may be that my hon. friend had not heard of this statement by Sir Edward Beatty. It is a rare statement, and Sir Edward Beatty deserves high commendation for having had the vision to see.
What we are talking about in this debate is the question of price parity, and the problem confronting us is how as a government we can proceed to aid in bringing about this price parity. Most members of the house seem to find it rather offensive to have suggested to them the philosophy which I have come to advocate, but that philosophy aims exactly at price parity. I shall not discuss it at all now; I merely point that out, and I recall to members of the house, who I notice are interestedly attending, merely the expression "the just price," which is sufficient to prove that one of the fundamental principles of my economic philosophy is price parity.
In dealing with the problems of agriculture there are confronting us as sober Canadian thinkers, which I believe we all are, five great considerations. In the first place we must save the farming industry. It would be an

Prairie Farm Assistance
easy matter to allow conditions to become such that vast numbers of our present farmers would be compelled to go out of business, would find their equipment become so depleted that advantageous and economical production would be for them no longer possible. This has in large measure already taken place with respect to the dairy industry in the west, and particularly in my own district. It will take some years perhaps to build up that industry to a point where it will be as efficient as it was a few years ago. I use that merely as an example to show that we might easily, without intending to do it, allow our agriculture industry to become impaired to the point at which, when the strain of a great emergency came upon it, it would no longer be able to support the strain. The possible consequences of such a contingency are more than alarming to me.
If I might digress for a moment, contrast the conditions which existed at the beginning of the last war with present day conditions. I believe every member of the house realizes that from the point of view of efficiency the farming industry of Canada as a whole is most alarmingly ineffective to-day as compared with its condition before the last war, and in the last war a strain was put upon it which taxed it almost to the limit. We must save the farming industry.
We must bear in mind, too, that while just now we are more or less worrying about the over-production of wheat, and of beef and various other agricultural commodities, yet the day might be coming, when wisdom will come to dwell in the minds of those who govern this country, and they will realize that the thing for them to do is to render available to the people these goods which we can so abundantly produce. When that time comes they will be astonished to find how inadequate will be our means of producing the goods which the people will demand.
The United States have made an interesting discovery. They have not yet acted upon it to any great extent, but they are apparently thinking progressively. It has been discovered by a United States committee investigating the question that if the people of the United States were all to be enabled to consume the commodities which they ought to consume in order to be in a sound condition of health, the acres in production in the United States in the years 1928-32 would have to be greatly increased, and there would have to be increases of 76 per cent in dairy cattle, 43 per cent in beef cattle, 68 per cent in veal calves, 22 per cent in hogs, 42 per cent in sheep and lambs, and 36 per cent in poultry. Also the United States would
have to increase the acreage in vegetables by 264 per cent and in small fruits by 282 per cent. Even this great increase in acreage and production would allow for giving the United States people only S12.75 worth of food per week for a family of five. If-as we shall- we make a discovery here in Canada which will enable the people to use the goods which our agriculturists are able to produce, we shall probably find our agriculturists, unless we manage carefully, in such a condition of, shall I say, decay, that they will not be able to produce the goods to meet the people's needs. This is another reason, I think, for our being very careful about the agriculture industry. We should save it; we must save it.
There is another matter which I almost hesitate, sir, to mention because I find it so rarely mentioned. But I think all the members of this house will remember having heard a tradition something like this, that the leaders in the professions and in most other vocations of life grew up on the farm; in other words, the farming population feeds the urban population, if not with its leaders, at least with a substantial percentage of its best people from generation to generation. Now, if we render conditions such that the farming population can no longer raise the families which they have in past generations raised, we are putting ourselves in danger of a most alarming development, which might easily mean the destruction of our civilization. Our birth rate is falling at a truly astonishing rate. I have from the bureau of statistics a set of figures of which I shall read to the house just a few. Our birth rate per thousand in 1929 was 23-5; in 1930, 23-9; 1931, 23-2; 1932, 22-5; 1933, 20-9; 1934, 20-5; 1935, 20-3; 1936, 20; 1937, 19-8. If this trend continues unchecked I wonder who will pay off these debts that we are so abundantly accumulating. That is a serious consideration for forward-looking statesmen.


Mr. REID:: They will never be paid.


John Horne Blackmore: I deplore the tendency on the part of a number of people to assume that the solution of the problem of supporting the farmer can be deferred by putting him on just a subsistence level. Let us bear in mind the fact that when the farmer goes on a subsistence level one of the first things he will consider is a diminution of the family birthrate.
The next problem which confronts us in dealing with the agricultural situation is that we must save the financial structure of the western provinces. Already, in the midst of a veritable smoke-cloud of vituperation and condemnation, we have seen Alberta default,
Prairie Farm Assistance

and I stand here as a representative of that province to tell this house that Alberta did the only thing she could do under the circumstances, and that what she has done Saskatchewan and Manitoba will do unless a change comes about. The revenue-producing power of the tax structure of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba depends directly upon the prosperity of the people who make up those provinces. The result is that if we impair the prosperity of the men who live in those provinces we immediately impair the ability of the provinces to raise revenue, and sooner or later only financial collapse can result. To show that what I say concerning the actual danger of collapse is not imaginary, let me read from the report of the Bank of Canada when it was investigating the financial structure of the prairie provinces:
We are of the opinion that the scale of taxation in Alberta in 1937-38 will be approximately the same as in the other prairie provinces, and we are not prepared to say that any further increase in taxation would be practical or desirable under existing conditions.
. . . As in the case of the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, we are prepared to say that expenditures could not be kept down to the low point of the depression years and that some increases were inevitable.
All of which indicates a realization on the part of the author that the province of Alberta could do no other than it did, and that the province of Saskatchewan, unless this parliament comes to its aid, will be in a similar position. Again:
If Alberta were now paying full interest on its obligations, the province in 1937-38 would presumably have to borrow its full share of unemployment relief from the dominion, and on the basis of budgetary estimates (not including debt retirement), would have a cash shortage of about $600,000. Its position would be a little worse than that of Manitoba, but distinctly better than that of Saskatchewan; and a claim for assistance would no doubt be considered in the light of these facts.
I take these two quotations as confirmation of my contention that the financial structure of the three prairie provinces, the homes of the farmers with whom we are now particularly concerned, are actually in danger. We must look to the rescue of those provinces.
Along with that problem naturally comes the problem of saving the financial structure of the dominion; for after all the financial structure of Canada is the financial structure and stability of the provinces which constitute it. We cannot with impunity take such measures as will imperil the financial stability of the three prairie provinces.
The fourth consideration to which we must have regard is the debts which are owed by western farmers. I believe that a large number of hon. members represent constituencies

in which are people who are creditors of men in the west. Certainly if I were in a bond company, if I were a shareholder of a bank, if I were in a trust company or a mortgage company, I should want my member of parliament to take such measures as would ensure as far as possible the safety of my loans. A tremendous number of loans have been placed in those three western provinces. They will never be repaid unless the people who borrowed the money are enabled to pay them back. If this parliament does not have some concern about the matter, I do not know who is likely to give it consideration.
Let me indicate to some extent how great is the structure of debt out there which we must make some provision to enable the people to repay. In the Regina plains the debts are $26 per acre of crop lands and $52 per acre of wheat lands. The interest required from a twenty bushel crop because of the debt is 17 cents per bushel. In the Gravel-bourg area the debt is $28 per acre of crop lands. This is shown by Professor E. C. Hope in his contribution to the conference which has been referred to a great many times in this debate. In Alberta the agricultural debt alone in 1936 was estimated to be $395,000,000. This estimate is offered by the Alberta debt adjustment board. In Saskatchewan the agricultural debt in 1936 was estimated at $525,000,000. This is set forth by Saskatchewan in the province's submission to the Rowell commission. Surely it is part of the functions of this parliament to safeguard those who have risked their money in the western provinces. They did it in good faith. We were glad to have them do it because it helped in increasing production. It is a fundamental principle of our thinking that the men who lent money should have that money preserved. Contrary to all the foolish talk which has gone forth in this dominion against Alberta's desire to pay her debts, let me affirm that the sanctity of contracts is for Albertans a very serious matter. We hold other things more sacred, but let it not be forgotten for a moment that we hold sacred the debts we owe; and if this house does, too, it must be prepared to take such measures as will enable the people who have borrowed the money to pay it back, or at least to get the means of paying it back. The measures which are advanced by the government at the present time are not adequate to enable farmers to pay back those debts.
There is a fifth consideration which we must have in mind, and that is, markets for us all. This has been discussed a good deal. I shall not say very much about it, but I point out that the farming population is essential to

Prairie Farm Assistance
the rest of the state. It is impossible for manufacturers and other secondary producers to sell their goods unless they keep the farmers in a condition which enables them to buy those goods. Up to the present time we have laid altogether too much stress on foreign markets. Let no one foolishly run away with the idea that I do not value foreign markets. But the day when dependence could be placed on foreign markets is rapidly disappearing. As a case in point, you notice how disturbing are the reports that the United States is going to build up a great wood pulp*industry in the south, and that Australia also intends to build up a wood pulp industry- of her own. Every country which finds itself, geographically and from the standpoint of resources, able to do so will build up an industry within its own borders; for men to-day are discovering that they cannot afford to import goods which they can produce at home. There are reasons, which I have not time to discuss here, why that is so; but the most enlightened statesmen all over the world are discovering that that is true, and that is the reason why Germany, Italy' and other countries are so hesitant to import from us goods which once they imported in abundance. Let me read a quotation from a man whom I believe most people will recognize as worthy of respect, Mr. Rupert E. Beckett, chairman of the Westminster bank, London. England. Speaking in March of this year, Mr. Beckett said:
The past year has seen certain developments which have not only intensified existing trading difficulties but created others, and the problem of retaining some of our old markets is becoming as difficult as that of finding new ones. Our trade with certain countries which owe their development largely to British capital investments in the past is threatened with extinction.
Our own foreign markets will be threatened with extinction bit by bit, just as rapidly as the people who trade with us find themselves able to produce economically the goods we have to sell them. And they will eventually be in that position in an age like this. Consequently we should be more and more looking to our home markets and seeing that they are kept in a state of repair, so to speak. Foreign trade is becoming less and less profitable. I was impressed when my attention was drawn to the following statement from the Bank of Toronto at its annual meeting. Mr. John R. Lamb, the president, speaking in November, 1938, said:
A recent analysis of prices of goods which we export as compared with those which we import showed a decline of 23 per cent in the former and a decline of only 6 per cent in the latter from the levels of a year ago.
That is a serious statement. He goes on:
It is also significant that prices of our export goods average only 61 per cent of their 1926 level while prices of our imported commodities average about 83 per cent of their 1926 level. That puts us at a disadvantage in trade.
One of the most encouraging things I have heard this year came the other night from the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore), who pointed out that you could have a great deal of trade that was unprofitable. All other members of the Liberal party have seemed to be obsessed with the idea that all you need is a great volume of trade and you are well off. 1 have seen men develop a big trading business and before long go bankrupt.


James Garfield Gardiner: You must have trade
before you can eat bananas.


John Horne Blackmore: But you must have
profitable trade or you will not have any bananas to eat. You cannot lose on every deal or you will not be able to buy bananas, and we are losing on a great many of our exports.


James Garfield Gardiner: You still believe in
profits.


John Horne Blackmore: Surely. We must
believe in profits. Let me emphasize the significance of these figures. The value of our exports is only 61 per cent of the 1926 level while the value of our imports is 83 per cent of the level of that year. One of the reasons why trade is causing so much difficulty in other countries is that they are not sure that their trade will always be profitable. For the primary producing country trading goods abroad for secondary products, trade is almost never profitable, and the result is that the primary producing areas tend to fall into debt.
I have mentioned five points that we must keep in mind in approaching this farming problem. Let me restate them. We must first save the farming industry; we must save the financial structure of the western provinces-


Mr. MICHAUD:: Of all the provinces.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes. I thank the minister for the correction. We are so much accustomed to thinking of Ontario and Quebec as being absolutely sound that I unconsciously made that slip. I repeat these points: We must save the farming industry; we must save the financial structure of all the provinces; we must save the financial structure of the dominion; we must save the debts that are invested in the dominion; and we must save markets for the future.

"KTt*
t /D
Prairie Farm Assistance
To consider these points as far as I have time to take them up now, I would point out first of all that the farming population needs to be saved. A primary producing area trading with a secondary producing area tends to fall into debt to the secondary producing area for the reason I have already cited- that process of increasing values of imports from secondary producing countries and declining values of exports from primary producing countries. And that process has been going on a long time, particularly in western Canada.
One of the main reasons why the west is so much in debt to the east is that the three western provinces are largely primary producers and the central provinces are secondary producers. That is why the tariff restrictions have borne so heavily upon us in the west. As that point has already been discussed at great length, I will not go into it at this time.
I had thought of putting on Hansard a set of figures that have been given once or twice. They are to be found in Mr. Gardiner C. Means' Industrial Prices and Their Inflexibility. The following table shows the relation between price level and production, for certain industries from 1929 to the spring of 1933:
Price v. Production
Permanent Permanent drop in drop in prices production
Agriculture implements.. 6	80
Motor vehicles	
16	80Cement	
18	65Iron and steel	
20	83Auto tires	
33	70Textile products	
45	30Food products	
49	14Leather	
50	20Petroleum	
56	20Agricultural commodities. 63	6


Joseph Enoil Michaud: What would be included in agricultural commodities?


John Horne Blackmore: I presume it includes everything, meats, wool, and every other product of the farm. While we are discussing wheat we must remember that it is merely an example of a general problem that is quite far-reaching. This tends to show why the primary producing areas are inevitably forced into a position of weakness in relation to those that are producing secondary commodities.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Does the hon. member admit that wheat production amounts to 21 per cent of the total agricultural output of Canada? Those figures were given some days ago.


John Horne Blackmore: I have not the figures here but I suppose that is right. Not only are the agriculturists thrown into a position of weakness economically-and this applies to Ontario and other parts of Canada as well as to the west-but the prairie provinces have lost enormously in income between 1931 and 1937. Let me quote from a submission made by the west:
During the seven years from 1931 to 1937 there was a decline of $2,540,000,000 in the gross value of agricultural production in the prairie provinces as compared with the corresponding value from 1924 to 19So, of which decline something more than half was accounted for by lower prices.
The Searle index has some valuable observations from which I might quote briefly. This quotation has been used by other speakers, but it is good enough to merit consideration again. I quote from the Searle letter of March 15, 1939:
The Searle Index of the price of "Things Western Farmers Buy" (147 items) now stands at 132-9, 1913-14 = 100, which means that these things cost farmers in the west at the present time 32-9 per cent more than they did before the war. The price of wheat-No. 1 Northern- as of March 14th, basis the open market price, is 42 per cent lower than it was in 1913-14, and basis the board price is 10 per cent lower. This means, therefore, that a bushel of wheat in western Canada has a purchasing power in relation to the "Things Farmers Buy," on the open market, of 44 per cent in comparison with the purchasing power of 100 that it had before the war. Basis the board price its purchasing power is 68 per cent of what it was.
That was 80 cents. Now, if we give these farmers only 70 cents, look at the deplorable condition they will be in as compared with 1913 and 1914. This is a very serious matter. If we in this parliament overlook it, we shall be committing a grave blunder. The western farmers realize its import. There are so many people who say, "Well, the farmers want this and that," while others smile or laugh and say, "The farmers will take all they can get," and all that sort of thing. It is not that at all; it is that the farmers, after long experience with bitter, hard realities, have learned just at what price they can subsist and at what price they cannot subsist, and they know that if they are to survive at all they must receive a certain sum.
I hesitate to read so much, but there is another excellent quotation from the Searle letter of April 19, 1939, giving greater detail. It mentions the various things farmers buy, putting them in groups such as groceries,

Prairie Farm, Assistance
clothing, household equipment, farm equipment, heavy farm machinery, taxes and so on, showing how the prices have risen in each group since 1914. Then it continues:
The 147 items included in the Searle index comprise only the bare necessities required for living and production. The index does not include automobiles, tractors, trucks, nor any item that might be termed a luxury or any amenity of life. Interest on borrowed money or on debts is not included. Neither is any allowance made for amusements or medical or insurance services. In other words it means that a farming family of five, operating a half section, 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.
The problem which confronts us as a parliament, and the minister as administrator of his department, is whether the 70 cent advance that we are offering the farmer is sufficiently high to enable a safe percentage of the farmers of western Canada to stay on their farms, to make $887 a year. I say it is not.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, yes; you would.


John Horne Blackmore: Well, if I would not, who would? If the representatives of the farmers will not speak for them, who will? Our farmers are competing with farmers in countries whose governments are doing things for them. This fact we sometimes forget. The government of the United States, a great, powerful country with far more people than we have, far greater home markets for their farmers than we have and a far more stable establishment, if I may say so, is doing things of which apparently we have not yet begun to dream. According to the Christian Science Monitor of March 11, 1939, the AAA estimated that its crop programs had added $2,080,229,000 to the income of producers of cotton, wheat, tobacco, corn and live stock from 1933 through 1937. It divided the
benefits as follows:
Cotton	$876,000,000
Wheat	 263,129,000
Tobacco	 327,100,000
Corn and live stock	 784,000,000
The AAA also claimed that indirect benefits were extended. The report stated that 3,743,904 farmers on 3,002,037 farms had cooperated in 1937 control programs. Subsidies paid cooperating farmers were listed at $376,000,000, an average of $81.93 per farmer. The depressing and arresting thing about this for us is that our farmers are in open competition with the farmers of the United States. Yesterday, in supporting the bonus, the hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Donnelly) quoted from page 667 of the Commercial Intelligence Journal of May 6, 1939, dealing with what England is doing for its farmers. I should like to give the first paragraph from that statement:
London, April 21, 1939-The Agriculture Act, 1937, gave authority to the Minister of Agriculture in respect to the five years 1937-41 to pay subsidies to United Kingdom growers of oats and barley in any cereal year when the average price of oats during the seven months from September to March is 7s. 7d. a hundredweight (112 pounds) or less. The subsidy is arranged so that growers are compensated upon an acreage basis.
I need not quote further. Had I thought the hon. member for Wood Mountain would have felt kindly about it I should have asked him, while he was speaking, this question: Does he know whether or not the government of England is taxing from the farmers the money with which to pay that amount? I venture to say it is not.


Thomas Reid: If he is a landowner he is paying taxes.


John Horne Blackmore: Of course; and Canadian farmers are being taxed in that way also. What I had in mind, however, was the proposal to take one cent a bushel off the price of wheat in the west and with that money build up a fund with which to pay the acreage bonus. That principle is not sound.


Mr. P. J. ROWE (Athabaska):: Mr. Speaker, I come from a district which produces quite a quantity of wheat, and I should like to say just a few words on the general question of fixing prices for farm commodities. First I want to express my approval of certain remarks made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) the other day in introducing this bill. He said that wheat growing was the only part of Canadian agriculture which had paid its way, as far as governmental activities are concerned, right down to 1935. Then he went on to say that manufacturers have received tariff protection,'that subsidies were paid on coal, freight rates and steel production.
My attention has just been called to a statement contained in an editorial appearing in the Winnipeg Free Press of May 5, to the general effect that in these days we are standing almost on the edge of the sort of political ramp the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation would like to build in this country; that is, that a farmer should get for his wheat what is called the cost of production. Well, Mr. Speaker, that raises the whole issue of

Prairie Farm Assistance
whether or not those who feed and clothe the world by the production of grain, fruit, vegetables, hides and wool, should not receive from society remuneration sufficient to enable them to buy the goods necessary to maintain a decent standard of life. That is a wide social question, and I suggest it is more than astonishing that any editor or any person in public life in Canada should question the morality and the justice of the demand of the farmer that he should be granted his share of the national income.
I want to express approval of two other points in the bills. The first is the introduction into the country of the principle of crop insurance. The producers of farm commodities-as I know very well, having been born and brought up on a farm in Ontario- are subject to the ravages and attacks of insects, and the misfortune and vagaries of the weather, frost, drought, hail and all that kind of thing. Broadly speaking, if the collective productive capacity of Canada is capable of providing sufficient food in the form of agricultural products to feed the population and to have a surplus to spare, then the principle of crop insurance is not only sound but is eminently fair and just. However, the manner in which the premiums to pay the crop insurance are raised is another question.
I would suggest that those premiums should be raised from the people who are able, more than the farmers, to bear the cost. I would collect it from an excess profits tax, or something like that. If one glances at the income of the farmers in Canada he will see that they are not receiving sufficient to enable them to carry a cost of that kind, however socially desirable and justifiable it may be.
The second principle of which I approve is that of the fixing of prices. I think that it is a milestone in the history of our country -indeed, in the history of civilization-when we come around to the point of view that there should be a measure of regulation and control to ensure at least a minimum of income for our producers. I am sorry I have to inject reservations in my approval of the price-fixing principle, but I must say that to attempt to raise the cost of living, which is inevitably involved in the fixing of the prices of butter, beef, pork, fruit or any other kind of produce, has its immediate and inevitable effect on the standard of living of groups like the workers who work only part time.


Mr. GRANT:: Would not the same apply
to wheat?


Percy John Rowe: Yes, absolutely. On two previous occasions I have pointed out that there are between 800,000 and 900,000
:Mr. P. J. Howe.]
workers in Canada to-day whose incomes are slightly over $200 a year. To be exact, the figure is placed at $202. Sixty-five per cent of the working population of Canada have incomes of less than $400 per year, and 98 per cent of the workers receive less than $700 per year.


Mr. HARRIS:: Will the hon. member
state from what he is quoting?


Percy John Rowe: if it were not for that tariff wall and, in the second place and more important still, it enables cartels and combines to be set up behind that wall which fix prices regardless of competition.
However much we may rail at cartels, trusts and combines, I think it should be obvious and indisputable that cartels, trusts and combines are the inevitable consequence of competition. The United States is the best illustration that I could use to show the fallacy of the suggestion that free trade or even lower tariffs will solve the problem. That country has the greatest free trading area and the richest domestic market in the whole world. Not only has that country a great market from the standpoint of the number of consumers, but it is the richest country in the world in minerals. Statistics issued by the Brookings Institution show a shocking maldistribution of income. Thirty-six thousand families in the United States, representing one-tenth of one per cent of the population, received in 1929-admittedly this was the year of highest national income, but it is the latest year for which figures are available- an average of $300,000 per family. The lowest income in that group was $75,000, but the average was $300,000. At the same time 12,000,000 families at the other end of the scale, representing sixty per cent of the population, received the same total income of $10,000,000,000, but this worked out to only $830 per family. Professor Moulton of the same Brookings Institution, commenting on the question of the standard of living, said that $2,500 was not sufficient to maintain a family in comfort. We hear a great deal about subsistence levels, but Professor Moulton is referring to the comfort budget.
Further, another commission in the United States found on investigation that there was a living of $4,400 for every family in the United States if the people of that country would use their machinery to produce goods and services and eliminate the defects and abuses of the present economic system. So, while some members speaking in this debate have suggested, as I think the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) did, that the tariff should be reduced, I point out that even if the tariff were reduced we would immediately come face to face with world competition, and in the face of that world competition the standards of living of the people of Canada and of every other country would be reduced to the mean level-I use the word ''mean" advisedly-of the scale of wages prevailing in oriental countries and in other countries where sweat-shop labour conditions prevail.

So neither moderate tariffs nor free trade offer a solution of the problem; and of course I need not add high tariffs, because my analysis of the tariff as a whole is that it is simply an attempt to legalize scarcity. The present system can succeed only by making things scarce. In 1938 in western Canada we had twice the amount of wealth from the point of view of bushels of grain that we had in 1937, but our total income in cash was actually less. That principle applies to the production of clothing as well as to wheat. An abundance of anything is a calamity under the present system. The object of planning under our system to-day is to make things scarce; to make things scarce you have to legalize scarcity, and that is done by designing a law known as the tariff law. Under a cooperative plan of production, the harder you work and the more skill and energy you put into your efforts, the richer you become collectively both nationally and internationally. But under the present scarcity philosophy, the harder you work, the more energy and skill you put into your efforts the poorer you must become, and when the children in our cities cry for bread the answer is:	No, you cannot have any because we
have too much. That is the situation. Incidentally I cannot pass this point without putting on Hansard an item which will illustrate the point I am making and which appeared in the Toronto Star of May 1, in a dispatch from North Bay.


Mr. POTTIER:: I am wondering what point the hon. member is making. I thought this was a wheat bill.


Percy John Rowe: Mr. Speaker, I understood that the question of fixing prices, not only of wheat but of other farm commodities was being considered, and in order to make an intelligent analysis of the problem I must think through-and I trust my friend will think along with me-the implications of these proposals. I cannot confine myself to one thing in order to illustrate the point that if we are going to fix the price of one commodity, price fixing has to be extended to all, and I am presently discussing the desirability of fixing prices for everything and establishing our standard of living on a basis not of scarcity but of abundance. I am suggesting that in an intelligently planned economy the one invariable yardstick by which to measure the standard of living is the collective capacity of the people, working cooperatively together, to produce. I am going to put this item on Hansard.
North Bay, May 1-Allen Aiken, 42, will serve a 10-day gaol sentence so he can get a few meals.

Prairie Farm Assistance
Police said Aiken collapsed on a street here from starvation just after a fruitless call at an employment office seeking work.
"He is starving." Police Chief William Clark told the court. "A few days in gaol would enable him to get a few good meals."


Walter Edward Foster: I think this reference
would be more pertinent to the question of unemployment which was before the house some time ago.


Percy John Rowe: I bow to your ruling. Mr. Speaker. I was merely trying to point out that lack of food as a result of the policies of this government-


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Why take an isolated case and base your whole argument upon it?


Percy John Rowe: It is not an isolated case. I have pointed out that $202 a year is the income of 35 per cent of the workers of this country because of this system. How can the hon. gentleman suggest that this is an isolated case? I wonder how he would like to try to live on $202 a year.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I have done it many times, and on less than that.


Percy John Rowe: The fact that the hon. gentleman has done it I do not question, but I suggest that in this enlightened age it is possible, by using the machinery of production scientifically, and by planning, to give the Canadian people a much better living than that. That is what I am advocating now.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: What is your plan?


Percy John Rowe: I will come to the plan in a moment. I have an outline here of what I believe to be some constructive suggestions that I am going to leave with the government.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: Social Credit or Cooperative Commonwealth Federation?


Percy John Rowe: I suggest that hon. gentlemen opposite have had an opportunity to present their plan, and I am at the moment in the act of analysing that plan. I do not agree with their plan, and therefore I am submitting one which I believe to be better.
A little while ago an inquiry by dietetic experts in the United States brought out this interesting fact, that for every person in that country to have a thoroughly adequate diet it would be necessary to bring under cultivation 40,889,000 more acres than were under cultivation in the United States in 1933. Obviously the reason for that is that the mass of the people of the United States, sixty millions of them, with incomes, as I pointed out a moment ago, averaging $833 per family, cannot buy the foodstuffs that are required
for a minimum diet. Sir John Orr, who, I believe, is one of the best and most competent food experts in the world, when he was in Ottawa a little while ago said that $12.75 a week for a family of five was the minimum requirement for food. How could a man with ar. income of $830 pay $600 for food and provide for all the other necessities of life on the balance?
The point I want to make is that the market for our farm production is right in this country. If we would step up our production and plan it so that the people who produce the clothing, the shoes, the furniture, and who thus render indispensable services to society, were remunerated on a scale which would enable them to buy the commodities which scientists and experts say they should have in order to maintain their families, our production would be increased enormously. I proceed to quote for just a moment or two from this article:
... a 76 per cent increase in dairy cattle, 43 per cent increase in beef cattle, 68 per cent increase in veal calves, 22 per cent increase in hogs, 42 per cent increase in sheep, 36 per cent increase in poultry, 204 per cent increase in vegetable production, 112 per cent increase in fruit, and 282 per cent increase in small fruit would be required-
That is in the United States, if the people were to have an adequate diet. The question of foreign markets would be solved.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: Is the hon. member contending that we should consume in Canada all the wheat we raise?


Percy John Rowe: No, I do not suggest that. I would not think of asking the farmers of Canada or anywhere else to produce things which the world did not want, and for which there was no demand. What I am advocating is an intelligent plan, based upon engineering and scientific principles, under which, first, we survey the potential productive capacity of our country, and then, having found out what we can produce and what we need, lay out a plan and fix prices for all commodities, making the yardstick our collective capacity to produce.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: And export nothing?


Percy John Rowe: No, I did not say that. I would export only goods which are required to bring in goods which cannot be produced advantageously in this country. That is the only sane and rational view of foreign trade.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: The hon. member would not sell any exports at all?


Percy John Rowe: I have just said the opposite.
Prairie Farm Assistance

Just to complete the statement about Canada, our own position is approximately the same. Unfortunately we have not the figures, but Doctor Hopper of the dominion Department of Agriculture has given us some idea of what is required in the matter of milk supply. I quote:
His recent statistics show that if all Canadians used as much milk as is used by those families receiving incomes of $4,000 a year or over, it would require 200,000 more dairy cows giving 5,000 pounds of milk each per annum to furnish the required supply. This would mean an increase in revenue to Canadian dairymen of $15,000,000 a year.
According to Doctor Hopper the average per capita consumption of fluid milk in Canada is only seven-tenths of one pint.
A report from Stellarton, Nova Scotia, which I well remember reading last fall, and which appeared in newspapers across the continent on November 30, 1938, stated that 80 per cent of the children in a group surveyed never tasted cow's milk.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: Where was this report?


Percy John Rowe: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few minutes left. I am taking full responsibility for' what I am saying here, and I suggest to the hon. member that he can read it in Hansard. I should like to go on answering questions, but I am afraid that my time is limited.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: It is hard to understand a statement like that.


Percy John Rowe: The people were trying to live on nineteen cents a day. The fact of the matter is that the whole world is deplorably undernourished, and it is undernourished because we are not planning our economy.
Before taking my seat I want to present a brief outline of what I believe could be done. Admittedly what I am going to say is unusual; it may be regarded as extreme and even as revolutionary. But the fact of the matter is that we are confronted with a situation which is unprecedented in human history. We have a productive capacity in our machinery, on the farms and in the factories, capable of providing us with all that we need, and we are not getting what we need. I suggest that before we can get it we shall have to do these things.
We want the socially-necessary means of production and distribution to be under social rather than individual control. These would include factories, mines, power stations, power systems, railways, packing plants, et cetera and the main arteries of distribution. Farming could, however, be carried on by individual effort, because by no stretch of the imagination can farming be classified as a 
monopoly operating to the detriment of society. However, cooperative marketing, purchasing and banking should be a part of the farmers' organizations. Small stores also could still be owned by private persons.


Walter Edward Foster: Order. The hon. member
has exhausted his time to speak.


An hon. MEMBER:: Let him finish.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.
Mr. QUELCH:: With regard to subsection 1, paragraph (d), would the minister define a little more clearly " cultivated land "? The paragraph says, "which land has not reverted to natural prairie." For instance, does it mean land which has been cultivated immediately prior to this year or to the emergency year, or land which was cultivated several years prior to this year? [DOT]


James Garfield Gardiner: It means any land which is cultivated prior to this year. Land cultivated this year merely for the purpose of getting the allowance would not be allowed to come within the terms of the legislation.


Victor Quelch: What about land in the drought area which has gone back to Russian thistle, land formerly cultivated which has not gone back to grass? The custom in the spring is to burn the Russian thistle off and sow the land to grain. I refer to any land covered with Russian thistle which in the past has been cultivated; will that be eligible for the bonus?


James Garfield Gardiner: Land cultivated as it is usually cultivated for the purpose of growing grain would be eligible.


Victor Quelch: Even though it has not been cultivated within the last two or three years?


James Garfield Gardiner: Not if it has not been cultivated in the last two or three years.


Victor Quelch: How long back?


James Garfield Gardiner: Anything which has been allowed to go back to prairie would have to be broken up.


Victor Quelch: But I am inquiring about land which has gone back to Russian thistle, because in the constituency I represent there are thousands of acres in that condition.


James Garfield Gardiner: Anything which has been allowed to remain uncultivated, which means

Prairie Farm Assistance
that it is in the process of going back to prairie, would not come under this legislation if it had not been cultivated for one year.


Victor Quelch: If it has been sown to grass it would be eligible?


James Garfield Gardiner: If it is sown to grass, yes.


Mr. PERLEY:: There is a great deal of land in the south central parts of Saskatchewan which is in Russian thistle, land which has not seen a plough for two or three years. Would that be included?


James Garfield Gardiner: That would be included in the class of land which is going back to prairie. It might take twenty years to get back, but it is on its way back.


George Halsey Perley: It would not be included in this provision?


James Garfield Gardiner: It would not be
admitted, no.


Mr. ROBICHAUD:: As regards paragraph (e), I would point out that the sentence is incomplete. The paragraph reads:
"Cultivated land" means land which had been cultivated prior to an emergency year or prior to the year in which a declaration under section i of this act that an area including such land is a crop failure area, and which land has not reverted to natural prairie.
Prior to the year "in which a declaration"- what? You must have "is made" or some such words if the sentence is to be complete. Section 4 provides that:
The governor in council may, whenever the minister finds that as a result of drought-
And so on.
-declare such area to be a crop failure area.
In paragraph (e) we could say that cultivated land means land which had been cultivated prior to an emergency year or prior to the year in which the governor in council declares under section 4 that an area including such land is a crop area, and so on. As the sentence stands, however, it is not complete. I have an amendment covering the point.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would rather not
change the language of a bill that has been drafted by the officials of the department who are entrusted with the work and then very carefully checked by the Department of Justice. I do not think the wording should be changed merely for the purpose of using words in section 4. A declaration is already provided for and this is merely a definition. I understand that the officials are very much of the opinion that we should not legislate in the defining sections of a bill.


Louis-Prudent-Alexandre Robichaud: But surely you want good English. In paragraph (e) as it stands 71492-238
the sentence is incomplete, because there is no predicate. It is neither English nor French. Surely it does not require a legal mind to see that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Declaration of emergency year.
Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: May I read subsection (I) as it appeared in the bill as originally drafted?
In any crop year the governor in council may, in the event of there being distress amongst farmers in the spring wheat area so serious or general in character as to create a national emergency, declare such crop year to be an emergency year and fix basic values for each grade of wheat as representing, for the purposes of this act, a fair valuation of wheat in store at Fort William.
Subsection 1 in the reprinted bill reads:
Any crop year in which the average price of No. 1 Manitoba northern wheat in store at Fort William is less than 80 cents per bushel may be declared by the governor in council as an emergency year under this act.
The first draft, as I understand it, gave the governor in council, at any time when conditions warranted it, authority to declare a national emergency, which would bring into operation certain sections of the bill. Under the reprinted bill this has been changed, and there is a much greater limitation. The first draft allowed the governor in council to declare any year a national emergency when conditions warranted it; the new draft allows the governor in council to declare an emergency year only if the price is less than 80 cents. Can the minister explain this serious change?


James Garfield Gardiner: The change is not so marked as a mere reading of these two sections w'ould seem to indicate. Subsection 3 of section 3 has also been changed to read: The crop year commencing on the first day of August, 1939, shall, for the purposes of this act, be deemed to be an emergency year.
There is a change there as compared with the original bill.


Mr. STEVENS:: There is no doubt there is a great change in the principle of this bill through this amended draft section. As a matter of fact, there might be distress in certain areas and the minister could not operate, as I read the amended bill, unless the price of wheat at Fort William were less than 80 cents. There might be distress and the price of wheat might be higher at Fort William-which by the way would probably be more likely if there were a short crop than if the crop were heavy. If, therefore,

37S4
Prairie Farm Assistance

there were a maximum of distress and a small crop but a high price, the minister could not apply the acreage relief provided for in this bill.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not sure whether the change is in the direction indicated by the two hon. members who have spoken, and no one can be sure until this year has passed. It will be noted that in the original printing of the bill in subsection 3 there is an 80 cent limitation, and in the bill as now drafted, as the hon. member for Weyburn points out, that 80 cent limitation is omitted. So that no one can say whether this bill will result in a higher payment than the original bill would have produced to the individual farmer.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This year is declared to be an emergency year, and to that extent the question is settled.


James Garfield Gardiner: But it was not in the previous bill.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But the minister and the government are implying that they are providing in this bill against distress in future years. That is the claim, but under subsection 3 of section 3 we have a definite limitation. In the first place, no date is fixed with regard to the 80 cents.


James Garfield Gardiner: The date is covered by 'average price" in paragraph (a) of section 2.


Henry Herbert Stevens: At any rate it must be less than 80 cents before this bill can apply at all. Then it is permissible for the governor in council to declare the year one of emergency. Subsection 2 of section 4 reads:
The minister may, subject as in this act provided, with the approval of the governor in council, award to each farmer . . .
And there are several other instances in the bill where discretionary power is left entirely with the minister. I think that is an extremely dangerous principle, and I have pointed it out before.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 21, respecting Industrial Loan and Finance Corporation-Mr. Vien-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 1-Objects.
Mr. LANDERYOU:: I have already stated that I am entirely opposed to parliament adopting this bill, for the simple reason that we have already passed an act which will allow these corporations to charge interest at the rate of 2 per cent a month, the rate permitted under this bill. As yet I have not been given any real reason as to why this bill should pass. I should like to ask the hon. member for Outremont whether he has any further information to give the committee as to why this private bill is being introduced when we have already placed upon the statute books a general bill bringing about the same result.


Mr. VIEN:: I do not believe I can give any further reasons than those I have already given, but at the request of my hon. friend I should be glad to repeat my reasons. Perhaps to-night I may be more successful than on my first attempt. These bills, Nos. 20 and 21, purport only to give these companies the charter powers that have been determined by the general bill which we now know as the Small Loans Act, 1939.


Thomas Reid: Are these two separate companies?


Thomas Vien: They are separate companies, entirely independent. Bill No. 21 deals with the Industrial Loan at Montreal; Bill No. 20 deals with the Central Finance, changing its name to Household Finance, a subsidiary of a company the head office of which is in Chicago, having its Canadian head office at Toronto. For a long time the superintendent of insurance was of the opinion that the rate of 2^ per cent fixed in 1934 was too high, and that an all-inclusive rate of 2 per cent a month to cover not only interest charges but also all service charges should be enough to enable these companies to function properly. For a long time these companies have been urged to come to parliament and have their charter powers clarified. The superintendent of insurance held certain views with respect to the proper construction of the statutes or charters of these companies, and litigation was instituted in both Ontario and Quebec. The circuit court of Quebec, which is an inferior tribunal, upheld the views of the superintendent of insurance. Mr. Justice Chase-Casgrain of the superior court of Quebec reversed that decision and supported the view Which the company has always held in respect to the interpretation of its charter powers. Later the superintendent of insurance rendered a decision which was attacked by one of the federally incorporated companies, the Discount and Loan Company; and the

Industrial Loan and Finance
exchequer court of Canada, holding the same view as the superior court of Quebec, reversed the decision of the superintendent of insurance. An appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of Canada and the matter has been argued, but as yet the decision has not been rendered.
As I have said, the superintendent of insurance and the Minister of Finance have urged these companies to come to parliament to have their charter powers clarified; and at the same time the ceiling of per cent a month, including interest and all other charges, was to be reduced to 2 per cent a month. The companies objected to this being done. They contended that 2 per cent a month was not enough for them properly to function; and that if two or three companies, on account of the volume of their business, the efficiency of their methods and their good management, succeeded in making both ends meet at a rate of 2 per cent a month, the small companies and other money lenders could not efficiently carry on under such a rate.


John Charles Landeryou: With the exception of the banks.


Thomas Vien: No, I would not say that. I am sure my hon. friend, who is a member of the banking and commerce committee, will recall that only one bank in Canada has tried a personal loan department. That is the Canadian Bank of Commerce. All other bankers, including the president of the Canadian Bankers' Association, came before the committee and stated that Canadian chartered banks did not desire or think proper to enter into that field.


Mr. YOUNG:: May I tell my hon. friend that the Bank of Montreal has just instituted a system of the same kind.


Thomas Vien: I was not aware of that. But the Canadian Bank of Commerce, in discussing that experiment, stated that it had not made any money, that it had not even collected any interest on the money it had placed in a special fund for that particular branch of its business. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that this bill is introduced with only one object in view; that is, to comply with the directions received from the superintendent of insurance and the Minister of Finance to come to parliament to have the charter powers of this company clarified.


John Charles Landeryou: The hon. member referred to the charges made by this company and stated they had contended that they could not loan money at lower rates of interest. I am not going to debate whether or not that 71492-2381
is so, but I would ask my hon. friend this question: Does he believe these companies should have their charges based upon the actual cost of making loans?


Thomas Vien: I think so.


John Charles Landeryou: In other words, the actual cost of production?


Thomas Vien: I think so.


John Charles Landeryou: Does the hon. member believe the same principle should apply to the production of wheat or any other commodity?


Thomas Vien: I do, and if my hon. friend will bring in a workable measure that will bring about that result I will support it to the full. If the hon. member will bring before this parliament a measure by which the wheat growers of Canada may receive their cost of production and, in addition, a reasonable living allowance I think the people in all nine provinces of Canada will support him to the full. I do not think that is a gratuitous assumption because, notwithstanding the fact that my hon. friend as yet has not been able to evolve such legislation, we are paying millions of dollars to make up the difference between the cost of production and the living allowance to which I have referred.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Section 2 of Bill No. 20 refers to capital stock. Where is the section in Bill No. 21 which refers to capital stock? I believe the bills are almost identical.


Thomas Vien: In Bill No. 20 to which the hon. member has referred, and which will come up later to-night for consideration I hope, when we have passed this bill, they change the corporate name and increase the capital stock. In Bill No. 21 there is no such provision. We do not change the corporate name and do not touch the capital stock. This bill deals only with the charter powers of the company. So far these, companies have been operating on what is commonly called a discount basis. A discount basis means that when a borrower comes to a company to borrow $100, for instance, for a month, at 2i per cent a month, the borrower receives $97.50.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: Does the hon. gentleman think that is wrong?


Thomas Vien: Yes.


Charles Edward Johnston: The banks do it.


Thomas Vien: I think it is wrong, for two reasons. Even in respect of the banks I say it would be a good thing to change from a
Industrial Loan and Finance

discount to a straight interest basis. When operating on a discount basis you have the interest charge and the other service charges. The discount is made from the amount loaned, and a person does not realize what he is paying on a straight interest basis.
The superintendent of insurance has been active in helping to bring a change from a discount basis to a straight interest basis, so that the borrower shall pay only the interest charge or the cost charge which, in this instance, is 2 per cent a month on the reduced balance, from month to month. If I make a charge on a discount basis I charge that rate on the full amount of the loan. But if I change from the discount basis to the straight interest basis I charge 2 per cent on the remaining reduced balance, and a person under that circumstance would know what he is paying. The complicated system in connection with the discount basis does not always indicate to the borrower what he is called upon to pay.


Charles Edward Johnston: Then the system should be changed.


Thomas Vien: I am of opinion it would be preferable, even for banks.


An hon. MEMBER:: And bonds.


Thomas Vien: I do not know that there is any change to be made in bonds. But I would suggest that when a person goes to a bank with a note to be discounted, he should be called upon to pay on the due date only on the remaining balance due to the bank, instead of paying a discount on the day he places the note at the bank. A person would not know what it meant in interest on a per annum basis.
Therefore the superintendent of insurance has been urging these small loans companies to change the basis of their operations from a discount to a straight interest basis, on the reduced balance from month to month. Therefore in this bill, as well as in the Small Loans Act, 1939, which has received royal assent and is now on our statute books, the basis is changed. To-day the borrower will know from month to month the amount he is called upon to pay and what the interest charge will be. On a discount basis, unless a person is a chartered accountant he cannot detect the actual annual interest rate. Therefore I believe that this bill which is only to bring the charter powers of the company in line with the principles already adopted under the Small Loans Act, 1939, should commend itself to the good judgment of parliament.


Thomas Reid: Mr. Chairman, when Bill No.
20 was before the house on Friday I had some
[Mr. VienJ
observations to make against it, and I believe some of what I said at that time could be argued to-night against Bill No. 21.
As has been pointed out before, these two bills were before the house last year, and have reappeared this year. One begins to wonder why there has been all this amount of lobbying and pressure to put through the two bills at this session. I wonder if some hon. members-


Thomas Vien: May I correct the hon. member? I defy my hon. friend or any other member of the house to say that there has been any lobbying during the present session of parliament with respect to the bill I now sponsor.


Thomas Reid: Well, if the persons interested did not do any lobbying this session, they surely did plenty of it during the last one. While I am talking about lobbying, may I say that they are getting it down to a very fine art. Years ago a lobbyist used to tackle a member of parliament irrespective of his views. But they are getting it down very fine in these days; they accost only certain members, and leave others alone. I take pride in the fact that I am one who has been left alone. I repeat, however, that there was plenty of pressure brought to bear upon hon. members last session, if not in the present one. The more the hon. member for Outre-mont and the hon. member for Brantford City speak on these bills, the more they reveal to me the purpose behind the bills. On the one hand they argue they are going to do a splendid thing for the public. They point out, "We are charging 2J per cent. Just pass this bill, and we will charge only 2 per cent." When the Minister of Finance was speaking with respect to the Small Loans Act, 1939, if I remember correctly he informed the house that when that measure was in effect it would apply to every company, and that no company could charge more than 2 per cent. But the sponsor of this bill brings before us another picture, namely that there are grave doubts as to the constitutionality of the legislation that has been passed.


Thomas Vien: I never mentioned that.


Thomas Reid: I am wondering if this is not
the thought prompting the anxiety of certain interests to have these two bills passed at the present session-and I hold this viewpoint until I hear others expressed-that if parliament grants special legislation to any company it is very doubtful indeed if the Small Loans Act, 1939, will have any effect on that special legislation granted to them. The move

Industrial Loan and Finance
in Canada with respect to interest rates is downward, not upward. It may well be that if this bill passes, granting special rates of 2 per cent, and if parliament at a later session passed another Small Loans Act reducing the rate to 1 per cent a month, these companies might very well say, "But we have a special charter granting us the right to charge 2 per cent." They might be willing to fight strenuously for that rate.
I voted against the small loans bill because of my belief that the banks of this country should have been made to inaugurate a small loans system to help people in distress. In British Columbia, the province from which I come, they passed the credit union act last year limiting interest rates to one per cent a month, including all charges. I think every hon. member will agree that a rate of one per cent a month should be sufficient. I claim that this bill grants to this company the special privilege of charging two per cent a month. All this may have been explained in committee, but I have not yet heard a proper explanation of why this bill is necessary if the small loans bill is constitutionally sound. During the session we have heard one argument from the sponsor of one bill, and we have heard another argument from the sponsor of the other bill, until I know that many hon. members are in somewhat of a maze.
I feel sure this is done in the hope that hon. members, being in a maze, will get tired and let these two bills go through. I have yet to be shown that these bills are in the public interest, and I intend to oppose them without wanting to be accused of stopping their progress.


Mr. CHURCH:: Mr. Chairman, since the house dealt with the general bill dealing with small loans, this Bill No. 21 has been before the committee on banking and commerce which has made certain amendments. The main objects of the bill are to change the operation of the company from a discount to an interest plan and to vary and clarify its charges and to set up a system of operation based on a simple flat and uniform rate not exceeding two per cent a month. The time has come for this parliament to express its opposition to this type of company. As I said when the general bill was before us, these companies should be wound up and a statutory obligation placed upon the bankers of this countiy to do this work. This personal loan business is only in its infancy. We spent nearly a week debating protection for the farmer on the prairies and in other parts of Canada, but we should not forget that these loans are made principally to the
industrial worker in the industrial provinces. This business has been flourishing like the green bay tree. Ten years ago when the doors were open they came to this parliament and got their companies put through. They come now, some to change their names and others to extend their scope of business. In my opinion, the government should take over this work and have it handled through the banks, allowing a little for costs of operation. The time to stop this thing is now.
Why should there be one form of protection for a certain class in the community and none at all for the industrial worker? Many of these people are forced to go to these companies to borrow money to pay hospital bills, taxes, doctor bills and other expenses brought about by the depression. In my opinion, some of the older companies are just as bad. I have had some dealings with them on behalf of some poor people, and I know how they operate. The same could be said of certain prominent citizens. I believe the time has come when we should have a national policy in connection with personal finance. It has been said of this party that we would have no truck or trade with the Yankees, but apparently hon. gentlemen opposite do not want any truck or trade with a national policy. In my opinion, the government should bring down general legislation taking over these companies, so that the poor classes, who make up fifty per cent of our people, will get some form of protection.


Louis-Prudent-Alexandre Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I am inclined to think that this bill should have an interpretation clause, the same as the small loans bill which we passed some time ago. It will be noticed that paragraph (b) of section 1 reads in part:
The company may lend money in sums not exceeding $500 in amount and may charge, exact or receive or stipulate for the payment by the borrower of a sum of money as the cost of a loan. . . .
Nowhere in this bill can I find a definition of the cost of a loan, and interest is not mentioned. It might well be contended before a court of law that the cost of a loan was not intended to include interest. The cost of a loan was defined in the small loans bill as being the whole of the cost of the loan to the borrower whether the same is called interest or is claimed as discount,, deduction from an advance, commission, brokerage, chattel mortgage and so on. If we do not have something like that in this bill, it might well be argued before the courts that interest was not intended to be included.
Industrial Loan and Finance


Mr. LANDER  YOU@: 
John Ritchie MacNicol: Is the company referred to in Bill No. 21 connected in a financial way with the company referred' to in Bill No. 20?


Thomas Vien: No. The interests in control of the company referred to in Bill No. 21 are located exclusively in Montreal, while those having to do with Bill No. 20 are located in Chicago.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Thomas Vien: If my hon. friend will look at line 25 on page 1 of the bill I think he will find the information he wants. The bill was amended in committee; it has been reprinted, and I believe it covers the point he has in mind. The two per cent a month is not only interest, it is the cost of the loan, including every possible charge.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2, 3 and 4 agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN:: Shall I report the bill?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.
Motion to report bill negatived: yeas, 32; nays, 42.



SECOND HEADINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 125, for the relief of Audrey Elizabeth Logan Williams-Mr. Plaxton.
Bill No. 126, for the relief of Winnifred May Routledge Nilsson.-Mr. Walsh.
Bill No. 127, for the relief of Ernest James Feasey.-Mr. McAvity.
Bill No. 128, for the relief of Ethel Jean Peters.-Mr. Bercovitch.

Bill No. 129, for the relief of Eva Clara Doe Durrell.-Mr. Hill.
Bill No. 134 to amend An Act to incorporate The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada.
Bill No. 135 for the relief of Harold Morris.
Bill No. 136 for the relief of Philippe Emile Collette.
Bill No. 137 for the relief of Muriel Suckling Brown.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. G. MacNEIL (Vancouver North) moved the second reading of Bill No. 26, to amend the criminal code.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in the time at my disposal I shall merely explain briefly the nature of the proposed amendments. Section 87 of the criminal code deals with unlawful assembly, and as it is now, subsection 1 reads:
An unlawful assembly is an assembly of three or more persons who, with intent to carry out any common purpose, assemble in such a manner or so conduct themselves when assembled as to cause persons in the neighbourhood of such assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds, that the persons so assembled will disturb the peace tumultuously, or will by such assembly needlessly and without any reasonable occasion provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultuously.
Subsection 2 reads:
Persons lawfully assembled may become an unlawful assembly if they conduct themselves with a common purpose in such a manner as would have made their assembling unlawful if they had assembled in that manner for that purpose.
I propose to amend section 87 by adding a proviso to the first subsection reading:
Provided such fear shall not be deemed to be caused on reasonable grounds if it be the result of peaceful picketing as defined in section five hundred and one of this act.
The purpose of the amendment is to provide that an assembly of trade union members engaged in peaceful picketing shall not be deemed an unlawful assembly within the meaning of this section. Immediately any reference is made to "peaceful picketing," it becomes apparent at once that there is necessity for a clearer definition of such action in the act. Accordingly I propose to insert the accompanying amendment to section 501 which deals with intimidation. The intimidation section (501) now reads:
Every one is guilty of an offence punishable, at the option of the accused, on indictment or on summary conviction before two justices and liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding

Criminal Code-Peaceful Picketing
one hundred dollars, or to three months' imprisonment with or without hard labour, who, wrongfully and without lawful authority, with a view to compel any other person to abstain from doing anything which he has a lawful right to do, or to do anything from which he has a lawful right to abstain,
(a)	uses violence to such other person, or his wife or children, or injures his property; or
(b)	intimidates such other person, or his wife or children, by threats of using violence to him, her or any of them, or of injuring his property; or
(c)	persistently follows such other person about from place to place; or
(d)	hides any tools, clothes or other property owned or used by such other person, or deprives him of, or hinders him in, the use thereof; or
(e)	with one or more other persons, follows such other person, in a disorderly manner, in or through any street or road; or
(f)	besets or watches the house or other place where such other person resides or works, or carries on business or happens to be; or
(g)	attending at or near or approaching to such house or other place as aforesaid, in order merely to obtain or communicate information, shall not be deemed a watching or besetting within the meaning of this section.
Here I should explain that the present paragraph (g) is in the nature of a proviso which is found in the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, which is an imperial statute. This proviso first appears in Canadian statutes in "An Act to amend the criminal law relating to violence, threats and molestation." chapter 37 of the statutes of 1836. It was reenacted in the revision of 1886, but was for some reason omitted when our criminal law was codified in 1892. In the period between 1892 and 1934 action was taken in some instances against strikers for picketing. In the case of The King v. Russell (Dominion Law Reports, 1920), Mr. Justice Cameron held:
The striker has no more justification for picketing than he obtains by the right of every British citizen to go about his own business in a peaceable way.
In 1934 the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), at the request of the Trades and Labour Congress, amended this section by adding paragraph (g), which followed the language of the Canadian act of 1876. He thus declared that it was the intention of parliament to protect by law peaceful picketing, although this term was not actually used in the wording of the amendment.
Although there can be no doubt as to the intention of parliament, the term in common usage is not expressly referred to in the section. This particular section has been difficult of interpretation, and consequently I propose an amendment which would repeal paragraph (g) in its present form and add as subsection 2 of the said section the following;
2. Peaceful picketing, that is attending at or near or approaching to such house or other place as aforesaid, in order merely to obtain or
communicate information, or to peacefully persuade any person to work or abstain from working, or to direct attention of others to grievances, shall not be deemed a watching or besetting within the meaning of subsection one of this section.
The advantages of this amendment will be readily apparent. It lifts paragraph (?) out from among clauses defining forms of intimidation and makes it more clearly a proviso in proper relation to the whole section. In this sense, it makes for better construction. The phrase "peaceful picketing" is introduced and defined very largely in the language of imperial and Canadian statutes. The words, "or to direct attention of others to grievances" are new, but deal frankly with the main purpose of peaceful picketing, and amplify the words, "to communicate information." If the law permits strikers on picket to communicate information to others, the additional words do not extend this permission substantially, but express the right in clearer language, and in accordance with common usage. The onus is not on the courts to interpret grievances, but only as to the manner in which such grievances are communicated to others.
Turning to section 87, so far as I can discover, it was never the intention that that section, dealing with unlawful assembly, should be applied to peaceful picketing. For that reason I would quote from Crankshaw's Annotated Criminal Code (1935) as to the origin of the section. Here it refers to the remarks of the royal commissioners upon the definition of an unlawful assembly. They are as follows:
The earliest definition of an unlawful assembly is in the year book, 21 Henry VII, 39. It would seem from it that the law was first adopted at a time when it was the practice for the gentry, who were on bad terms with each other, to go to market at the head of bands of armed retainers. It is obvious that no civilized government could permit this practice, the consequence of which was, at the time, that the assembled bands would probably fight, and certainly make peaceable people fear that they would fight. It was whilst the state of society was such as to render this a prevailing mischief that the earlier cases were decided; and consequently the duty of not provoking a breach of the peace has sometimes been so strongly laid down as almost to make it seem as if it was unlawful to take means to resist those who came to commit crimes. We have endeavoured in section 84 to enunciate the principles of the common law, although in declaring that an assembly may be unlawful if it causes persons in the neighbourhood to fear that it will needlessly and without reasonable occasion provoke others to disturb the peace tumultuously, we are declaring that which has not as yet been specifically decided in any particular case. The clause as to the defence of a man's house has been inserted because of a doubt expressed on the subject.
[Stage Direction]
Criminal Code-Peaceful Picketing
There are a number of eases on record where police action has been taken against members of trade unions engaged in picketing in such a manner as to make them liable to prosecution under the section dealing with unlawful assembly. I desire to illustrate the point by reference to events which arose during the strike at Blubber Bay, British Columbia, last year.
A dispute arose during 1938 between the Pacific Lime Company of Blubber Bay and its employees. The members of the union employed every legal channel available to them in order to effect a settlement of the dispute. Conciliation and arbitration were conducted under the provisions of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act of British Columbia. An arbitration board, under the chairmanship of Judge Macintosh, brought down a unanimous award. The award recommended the reinstatement of men who had been formerly black-listed because of union activities.
As a result of the failure of the company to give effect to the principal recommendation of the arbitration board, a strike was declared on June 2, 1938. The members of the union took all the usual steps to carry on the strike lawfully. One of these steps was to establish a picket line on the government wharf upon the arrival of passenger vessels at Blubber Bay. This picket line was maintained for months and cannot be described as anything but peaceful. The strikers would gather in a group on the wharf and simply carried placards which displayed the words "Strike on here " or, " Scabs keep away." On occasion they sang songs which were humorous parodies prepared for the occasion, but the general opinion was that they endeavoured by peaceful means to dissuade the strike-breakers, who were at that time being imported by the company from other points, from entering the employment of the company in order to break the strike. So far as I am aware, no evidence was shown that there was intimidation or threat of personal violence up to the final incident to which I am going to refer. Intimidation was not at any time charged in our courts so far as I am aware. There was no attempt to molest the imported strike-breakers as they went to and from their duties in the company's plant. No attempt was made to interfere with the operations of the plant.
Upon the outbreak of the strike a detachment of provincial police was dispatched to Blubber Bay. At first these police officers did nothing but protect property and maintain law and order in that community. Eventually, however, they were influenced by the company's officials and commenced to display a very unfriendly attitude towards the strikers.

With the exception of one or two incidents which provoked some disorder, the men on picket duty were at the outset regarded by the authorities as maintaining a peaceful attitude. Finally, though, it became apparent that the police officers were determined to disperse the pickets. Evidence was given at the ensuing trials that such intention was declared in advance of the evening of September 17, 1938, and the detachment had been strengthened accordingly. I think I may safely claim that immediately prior to that date the activities of the police were directed not so much to the maintenance of law and order as to the suppression of the strike and the dispersal of those in the picket line. This attitude was revealed in several ways. The officer in charge recruited strike-breakers from among the relief recipients in the adjoining district. The police did not hesitate to make it known by their language and actions that they were unfriendly to the strikers. They encouraged company employees to congregate on the opposite side of the wharf and at the same time that the strikers were on picket, with the resultant exchange of provocative language. Thereupon the police would peremptorily order the strikers about. As this picket line had been maintained for months, I submit it could not be regarded as being lawful at one time and unlawful later.
On the night of September 17, 1938, the pickets assembled at the usual time, upon arrival of the steamship. They were herded into one corner of the dock. With encouragement from the police, strike-breakers made an obvious attempt to provoke disorder among the strikers on picket duty.
The police officer in charge ordered the dock cleared. As soon as he gave the order, tear-gas bombs were used. The strikers, in obeying the order, and upon leaving the dock, were ambushed by strike-breakers, who had been furnished with white arm-bands to distinguish them. The strikers, in attempting to escape, were stoned. This resulted in some disorder.
About 2 a.m. the following morning, the police attempted a round-up of all the strikers who had been present on the dock the previous evening, and arrested them under the charge of unlawful assembly. Some later, of course, were charged with rioting, as a result of this stoning episode to which I have referred. One man was awakened from his sleep in his home, placed in custody, and later taken outside the room used as a police cell and brutally beaten up by one of the provincial police officers, a man who had been formerly in charge, and that officer was subsequently convicted for this offence and sentenced to six months in prison.

Criminal Code-Peaceful Picketing
That, I think, illustrates the attitude of the police officers on duty at that point. His victim was charged with unlawful assembly; he lay in hospital for many weeks, and is still.
I understand, in a seriously impaired state of health.
As a result of this episode, twelve men were sentenced for unlawful assembly. I knew them as decent, industrious citizens. They were not of the stuff from which criminals are made. Nevertheless they were made criminals under this section, because under the interpretation of the section the police found an opportunity to abuse the law.
I consider it a serious tragedy that men should be sentenced under these circumstances. They were sentenced to terms ranging from six to eight months.
The background of this struggle should be taken into consideration, particularly because of the interpretation given the law. May I stress this point. This isolated community was divided completely into two camps: one, comprised of the strikers and their sym-,. .*-uizers; the other comprised of those who were determined to break the strike. That is important when one comes to consider the manner in which the evidence was given. Another important point to note is .that strike-breakers, who were also members of the same assembly alleged to be unlawful, were not charged with being members of an unlawful assembly. Information was not laid by officers of the crown but was subsequently laid by representatives of the union, and when the accused, charged in our courts, were acquitted. Apparently it is not a crime to take part in what is alleged to be an unlawful assembly if one happens to be a strike-breaker, although it is clearly shown that some of these men participated in and were guilty of riotous and tumultuous action. I am convinced that no man would be behind the bars as a result of these events had there been levelheaded and experienced officers in charge. The trial judge carefully summed up before the cases were referred to the jury. He made it clear that it was necessary to establish in evidence three points in order to prove rhe crime of unlawful assembly: 1. There must be three or more in the assembly. 2. There should be a common purpose, whether lawful or unlawful being quite irrelevant. 3. The assembly must be of such a kind as to cause fear in the minds of those in the neighbourhood that the peace will be disturbed tumultuously.
On the first point, it was conceded in these trials that there were three or more, and that there was a common purpose, namely, to picket peacefully; and a legal assembly became 71492-239
an unlawful assembly only by the action of strike-breakers, aided and abetted by the police. The third point, a most important one, could be established only on the evidence of police officers and those in the neighbourhood, who were obviously biased against the strikers. There was a suspicious uniformity about the evidence given by these witnesses. Actually the men were convicted on an estimate of the degree of fear existing in the minds of those who were known to be prejudiced against the accused.
Thomas Reid: Has the hon. member been quoting from a dominion statute?


Mr. MacNEIL:: The criminal code. I am asking for a proviso to the section dealing with unlawful assembly, whereby trade union members peacefully picketing, not indulging in intimidation or threatening personal violence, shall not be deemed to be an unlawful assembly.
I followed the evidence closely, and at no time was it shown beyond reasonable doubt that property or lives were threatened. Bad feeling existed between the conflicting groups, but this was to be expected after a prolonged dispute aggravated considerably by the attitude of the police. As a result of my experience with these trials, and from the reading of cases heard in other courts, I am convinced that the law should be amended so as to make it clear that peaceful picketing should not be regarded in any sense as an unlawful assembly. May I also point out that such a proviso in the act would have a useful effect on the public mind and on the general attitude of trade union members and others towards this particular phase of strike activity.
With regard to my amendment to section 501 I shall have to state merely that the jurisprudence in this matter is very much confused. Even a casual study of the precedents frequently quoted by judges with regard to the interpretation of section 501 will show that they are contradictory. In almost every important trial reported, the judge has made his point by reference to precedents existing in common law or case law. There is confusion in the various provinces and contracdic-tion in the decisions given as between provinces.
I have not sufficient time to deal with the matter to-night except to point out that in a number of cases, as in the well known case of Rex v. Richard & Woolridge, heard in British Columbia, it was clearly proved that there was no molestation. In the case I have mentioned, the union notified the Edison theatre that they would strike. The men



Criminal Code-Peaceful Picketing
were simply walking in pairs on the sidewalk, displaying slogans inscribed on their raincoats. Unfortunately, however, they were convicted under section 501 notwithstanding that they were clearly engaged in peaceful picketing. There were also convictions in the city of Hamilton where, again, it was clearly shown in evidence that the men had merely walked up and down in pairs in front of the theatre, displaying signs. Other judges refused to grant a continuance of interim injunctions because they held contrary views.
I submit that this section needs clarification in view of the contradictory decisions that have been rendered, and for this reason the situation is most unsatisfactory. Certainly the law should be made quite clear in this matter. The trade unions should know exactly what, under the law, is permitted, with regard to picketing, and there should be no doubt as to the interpretation of the law in any court.
I do not intend to add to the difficulties of the courts; rather, my amendment would make it easier for the courts, in the light of the experience derived from cases heard since 1934, to deal fairly with charges in this regard. I understand that it is our procedure, when we have gained a certain degree of experience in these matters, to codify that experience in law. I submit that we have reached a point where the law in this regard should be codified. I may add that since this bill appeared on the order paper, I have received wide-spread endorsation from trade unions and trade union councils, and the approval of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada.


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member, in the explanatory notes which accompany his bill, implies that this bill would bring our law more or less into conformity with the law of England. I do not quite agree with that, and I think I am able to show that the law of England in the matter of picketing is stricter than the Canadian law.
I intend to place on Hansard the various sections of the British laws concerning this matter. They are taken from the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act of 1875, the Trade Disputes Act of 1906, chapter 47, and, finally, the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act of 1927. I am afraid, however, that time will not permit me even to begin quoting these sections. However, I shall do so when I continue my remarks on the bill on the next occasion on which it is before the house.


Walter Edward Foster: The hour for private and public bills having expired, the house will now resume the business under consideration at six o'clock.
fMr. MacNeil.]



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 83, to assist agriculture in the prairie provinces-Mr. Gardiner-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Frederick George Sanderson: We are discussing
section 3.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is an amendment to section 3.


Mr. CRERAR:: I move:
That section 3, line 1, be amended by deleting the words "or No. 1 Manitoba northern wheat in store at Fort William."
I understand that this is covered in the definitions section of the bill.


Henry Herbert Stevens: At six o'clock I had called the attention of the minister to the effect of the new wording compared with the wording of the original draft of the bill. I had hoped the minister might give the committee some explanation or justification for the change. I will repeat what I said then, in order that the minister may have' an opportunity of dealing with it. Section 3 as it now reads declares in effect that in any year, no matter what the conditions, unless the average price of wheat falls below 80 cents at Fort William, this bill will not apply, except of course to the current year, 1939.
I cannot understand the motive behind such a structure. It surely cannot be that by making the crop year 1939 an emergency year the minister is getting by the term of an election and that then, having induced the west to expect relief under this section, he will be able to say, "Well, the price in Fort William is 80 cents; therefore there is no emergency," although, mark you, there may be areas in the west where there are no crops at all. As I pointed out before six o'clock, when the crop is at its lowest it is likely that the price may be higher, because if Canada has a crop failure the chances are that the world price of wheat will rise, seeing that very rarely do we have a spring wheat crop failure without the spring wheat area of the United States being in a more or less similar condition. So when there is the greatest distress, as I read the section now-


James Garfield Gardiner: That is dealt with in section 4.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I cannot see that, because the national emergency feature is contained in section 3. I do not suppose we are permitted to consider the two sections together,

Prairie Farm Assistance
but my reading of section 4 makes it subject to the conditions contained in section 3. The minister should at least clearly explain the facts, and if the language is not satisfactory to cover that point it should be made satisfactory. In any event, what is the reason for the change? Why not leave the language somewhat similar to that contained in the original draft of the bill, which did not contain this 80 cent feature?


James Garfield Gardiner: The section as now
drafted is not so much different from the old section as might be taken from the remarks of the hon. member. As a matter of fact subclauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of subsection 2 are not the same. Subclause (i) still provides that all the acreage yielding from 8 bushels to 12 bushels to the acre goes out at 80 cents. That provision was in the original draft of the bill with regard to all three provisions; they all went out at 80 cents. In other words the provision in the original bill was that all these different groups of acreage yields went out at 80 cents. As the bill is now drafted the governor in council can declare any year to be an emergency year provided the price is less than 80 cents, but subclauses (ii) and (iii) do not go out on the 80 cent basis, as they did before. That will mean that this year, the crop year 1939-40, those two subclauses will operate whether or not the price is above 80 cents. In regard to those who have a crop of from eight bushels up to twelve bushels to the acre, however, they go out at 80 cents. Section 4 operates in any crop failure year, and a crop failure year is defined as a year in which there are 135 townships with a yield of five bushels or less to the acre, in which event everyone, no matter what may be the price, is paid under section 4. The price may be $1.25 a bushel, but if they have no wheat the price makes no difference to them, and they are assisted in any event.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is, provided there are 135 townships.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, and of course
there never has been a year that you could really designate as a crop failure year in western Canada when there were not at least fifteen municipalities in the province concerned that actually had yields from five bushels down. If there were only two or three municipalities, or let us say, twenty townships, that had from five bushels down, that has never been considered such a devastating crop failure as to require assistance from 71492-239 i
Ottawa. It has been assumed that the province can look after a difficulty of that kind without federal assistance.


Mr. DONNELLY:: What does the minister mean by the average price for No. 1 northern? Over how long a period is that average calculated?


James Garfield Gardiner: Paragraph (a) of section 2 defines the average price:
"Average price" means the average of the daily closing prices of No. 1 Manitoba northern wheat in store at Fort William, between the thirty-first day of July and the first day of November in any year as ascertained by the minister pursuant to regulations.
Wherever that term is used, that is what it means.


George Halsey Perley: WThat would be the earliest possible date by which a farmer would know whether he would come under this bill?


James Garfield Gardiner: The bill states that it
is to be declared before December 1. That is the reason for setting the dates between which the average price is obtained as July 31 and November 1, which gives us thirty days in which to compile the information.
Amendment (Mr. Crerar) agreed to.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I wonder if
we could take this section a clause at a time. Dealing with subsection 1, if I understood the minister correctly just now, he said that only yields of from eight bushels up would be dependent upon price and that yields under eight bushels would go irrespective of price.


James Garfield Gardiner: For this one year.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is the
point I was going to make. A year cannot be declared an emergency year so long as the price is 80 cents or more.


James Garfield Gardiner: After this year.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: To me that takes all the crop insurance out of the bill. I heartily agree with those who have said that we need crop insurance in this country, and this bill is a move in that direction for which we are all grateful. But subsection 1 of section 3 removes that very feature, because of the fact that in almost any year there would be bound to be farmers who would be in a no man's land; that is, they could not come within the crop failure provisions of section 4, by virtue of the fact that there would not be a sufficiently large area concerned-
Prairie Farm Assistance


James Garfield Gardiner: We are not assuming that the province has no obligation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am discussing the statement that this is a crop insurance scheme. It is quite conceivable, as has been suggested, that if you have a poor crop the average price between July 31 and November 1 might conceivably be 90 cents. That fact is not going to help the fellow who has no crop. He cannot come under the crop failure section of the bill, and he cannot come under the national emergency section because of this whole scheme being contingent upon price.
I notice in the second submission by the western committee on the federal wheat policy the same matter was mentioned, at page 9:
In turning now to bill 83 entitled, an act to assist prairie agriculture, commonly referred to as the acreage bonus bill, we shall have some criticism to make. We desire to make it quite clear we cannot consider this an adequate substitute for a satisfactory price guarantee. As a subsidiary or collateral measure for raising the relief subsistence of farmers suffering almost total failure in defined crop failure districts in all years and affording some special assistance for farmers with moderate or less than moderate crops in emergency years and as an initial step towards some form of crop insurance, it merits some commendation. In fact within those limits it is recognized as an attempt to satisfy part of our Saskatoon resolution which asked for special consideration for distressed areas and distressed farmers.
We recognize three distinct principles in the hill. Section 3 of the bill gives legal recognition to the fact that distress amongst prairie farmers may be so serious or so general in character as to constitute a national emergency and that such a national emergency must be dealt with in the coming crop year. Assistance in an emergency year is to he contingent upon price. It is thus made clear that the emergency intended to be dealt with under this section is that arising from the price situation.
I think they put their finger on the whole difficulty, that the benefits of this section of the bill are to be determined and be contingent upon a price limit. It seems to me that this is a most unfortunate situation.


James Garfield Gardiner: This afternoon, when we were discussing the matter, someone asked a question as to whether or not this policy had been drafted by Professor Hope, who has been discussed very widely during the discussion of the bill. While I know who Professor Hope is, I do not believe I have ever met him personally. I have read some of his articles. The particular article I happen to have in my hand I had never read until about two weeks ago. It has been stated that this was probably 
the basis for this particular policy. While I had never read the article before, it does give some explanations as to why certain things would be done. Naturally a man who has
Deen maKmg a study ot the matter as long as Professor Hope and others associated with him, would arrive at some definite conclusions. I may say that the Monetary Times apparently asked Professor Hope and those associated with him in the university of Saskatchewan to make a sort of criticism of any policies which might be formed on the acreage basis, and to compare them with the 80 cent price level which had been established before. The article says:
The accompanying article is a study of several plans of assistance for grain growers, made by the department of farm management of the university of Saskatchewan.
And in that survey this is stated:
In formulating and criticizing proposed plans it was necessary to draw extensively upon farm management data .accumulated from 1926 to 1935. Budgets of various sized .farms on different soil types were drawn up to indicate the incidence of varying prices on net farm income, in these farm budgets a living allowance of $000 to $650 was allowed, which is not particularly high. It is considered to be from $100 to $200 per year less than a normal living standard. All farm costs were held to the minimum; no charge was entered for buildings, either repairs or depreciation; only partial replacements of machinery were considered; no allowance for payments of debts of any kind was made.
In considering the data presented on net income, necessary assistance per acre or minimum prices required, the above assumptions must be kept Clearly in mind.
Then he goes on to deal with what he calls plan No. 1. Under the heading "disadvantages," it is stated:
On the basis of present fixed prices with good yields on average acreages the farmer receives a net income considerably above the necessary minimum. Table I illustrates this point for the Regina plains.
What I should like to point out is that this survey has indicated that a certain amount of money is necessary in order to maintain a farm family throughout a difficult year, not sufficient for them to pay accumulated debts and that kind of thing, but sufficient to assist a family through a difficult year.
With the permission of the committee I should like to have placed on Hansard this first table which deals with the relation between the 80 cent price and what this committee considered to be the requirements of a family on a farm. I would also submit the second table which deals with the same

Prairie Farm Assistance
matter, with a 15 bushel crop. The first one I might point out deals with a 20 bushel crop. The tables are as follows:


Table I:: Estimated net income above minimum living and minimum farm expenses per farm. Assuming 20 bushels per acre of wheat at 80 cents and 60 cents per bushel basis No. 1 Fort William.
Net income per farm above minimum standard
Acres of	80 cents	60 centswheat	No. 1	No. 1per farm	Fort William Fort William100	
$ 178	$ 180150	
643	100200	
1,070	340250	
1,480	560300	
1,806	700350	
2,160	870400	
2,506	1,030450	
2,872	1,210500	
3,250	1,450550	
3,608	1,570600	
3,966	1,740650	
4,294	1,880700	
4,634	2,030750	
4,984	2,190
Table II.-Estimated net income above minimum living and minimum farm expenses per farm. Assuming 15 bushels per acre of wheat at 80 cents and 60 cents per bushel. (Basis No. 1 Fort William.)
Net income per farm above minimum standard
Acres of	80 cents	60 centswheat	No. 1	No. 1per farm	Fort William Fort William100	
8 18	$-240150	
253	-140200	
472	- 60250	
665	0300	
814	10350	
1,008	70400	
1,226	150450	
1,420	210500	
1,650	300550	
1,858	370600	
2,056	430650	
2,264	500700	
2,494	580750	
2,684	650
Table III.-Estimated net income above minimum living and minimum farm expenses, assuming 11-7 bushels per acre of wheat at 80 cents per bushel. (Basis Fort William) southwestern Saskatchewan.
Net income per farm above minimum standard
Acres of	80 cents	60 centswheat	No. 1	No. 1per farm	Fort William Fort William100'	
$-221	$-410150	
- 46	-310200	
138	-260250	
323	-180300	
447	-160350	
622	- 90400	
886	- 30450	
946	40500	
1,095	70550	
1,260	130600	
1,404	170650	
1,549	210700	
1,703	260750	
1,858	310
It will be found that the figures compare very closely with the figures which happen to be provided under the legislation we are now discussing. In going over this item, which is referred to, it will be found that the amounts which are provided there are very closely associated with the figures contained in the submission made by the department of farm management of the university of Saskatchewan. The reason for making the difference in the second item is the very matter raised a moment ago by the hon. member for Weyburn. He has said he can scarcely see why we should consider this a matter of insurance, when we do not provide for crop failures where there happens to be only a small area suffering. One of the reasons for that is that we still believe that the province has some responsibility in connection with a matter of this kind, and that if you are going to provide for smaller areas they probably should be taken care of in the way they always have been taken care of, namely by the provincial authorities. But when they reach a certain range, the federal government should take full charge and full responsibility, as it has been doing in connection with relief matters.
But that one difference having been allowed for as between this and what might be called our hail insurance policies in the western part of Canada, it will be found that this works very much on the same basis. We call a complete crop failure anything from five bushels down. And for anything from five bushels down, in an area comprised of 135 townships and upwards in any province we pay the full allowance, no matter what the price may be. But when you come to from five bushels upwards, a man who has seven or eight or nine or ten bushels to the acre, and receives a fairly good price for it, reaches the requirement levels covered in the tables of the farm management department of the university of Saskatchewan. But we think probably that is about as far as insurance should go.


Victor Quelch: That would be only in a national emergency year.


James Garfield Gardiner: Even in a crop failure year, up to the five bushels. But in a crop failure year, which, as is pointed out, would not be an emergency year, the price would be very much above 80 cents. But, after all, we must remember that 80 cents is an average over three months, and the price may be, over a considerable part of that period, 90 cents a bushel. It may run down close to 70 cents a bushel. It is an average over the period. For this reason it is not correct to say that no one can get more than 80 cents a bushel and still come under this legislation.
Prairie Farm Assistance

I think it will be found, in going over any of the amount* that may be worked out in connection with this plan, that the assistance to be given under this legislation is greater than the assistance given under our hail insurance legislation which we have had working for many years in western Canada.


Mr. COLD WELL:: Mr. Chairman, except for some of the features of this bill I am glad to see that something is being done to start what at some future time may be a crop insurance plan. A number of experiments in crop insurance have been carried out, particularly in the United States. This is the only one I know of which is worked upon this particular basis, where the same contribution is made by all areas within the province or state or country. I was going to ask the minister if the western provinces had submitted any crop insurance plans based upon investigations made in the United States with regard to their zoning plan. I understand Saskatchewan has done some work along this line. I know that some months ago Premier Bracken of Manitoba sent to Washington a representative committee which inquired carefully into the schemes that were then under way in the United States. When I was in the United States last autumn I inquired regarding the crop insurance plans in the western states. Last summer I saw Doctor Bean of the department of agriculture at Washington and discussed crop insurance plans with him.
It seems to me that we might take some interest in their plans, because they appear to have two particular aims. One is to give a return in all times to farmers who are farming land that is likely to remain productive. The other aim is to encourage farmers, in areas where the experience has been bad, to go out of the raising of cereals and other crops subject to drought. The Regina Leader-Post of April 11 referred to the radio address made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) the day before. This report reads:
First reaction to the enunciation of the federal government agricultural policy, announced by radio Monday night, was a call to the provincial government for more seed wheat.
Farmers are eager to qualify for the maximum bonus and therefore want their full acreage seeded.
Hon. J. G. Gardiner was conferring with his departmental officials Tuesday and was planning to leave Regina Tuesday night by Trans-Canada air lines.
Apparently the first reaction was from areas where there had been continuous crop failure, and applications were being made for more seed. Of course, I am basing this opinion on the Leader-Post report. I was

wondering if the minister had received any suggestions from the western provinces in connection with schemes which they had investigated. I should like to know if their suggested plans are along these lines, or do they propose something along the lines of the plans adopted in the western states.


James Garfield Gardiner: The only plan that was suggested to me was the one the Saskatchewan government was working on, and that was submitted after we had announced that we were proceeding with a plan. This plan is not modeled on the plan on which they had been working, but much of the information that was available to them was made available to us. As a matter of fact, the figures which I gave to the house on a previous occasion, having to do with the developments in Saskatchewan as a result of the payment of the 80 cent price, were worked out by those who were working upon a possible scheme of crop insurance.
The point raised by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) with regard to encouragement being given for the sowing of wheat is one on which I have no information, that is so far as it relates to the effect of the speech I delivered in Regina, other than the article from which he has quoted. I made some inquiry, and I found there was really no ground for the article which appeared in the press at that time. If one understood the plan he would realize that there would not be any such reaction. Payments are made whether a man sows his land to wheat or to some other grain. Wheat is used only in setting the average price and in dealing with the matter of yield in order to determine whether or not an area is in. When an area is in, it does not make any difference whether it is wheat, barley, oats or grass that has been sown, the bonus is paid if the yields are down to certain levels. There would be no reason for a person sowing wheat in order to come within the provisions of this bill. There is no reason for an individual doing anything in particular with regard to his crop in order to come in even on the averages because the averages are determined on a township and not on an individual basis.


Victor Quelch: If there were no wneat
in a township, How would you arrive at an average?


James Garfield Gardiner: There will be a provision by regulation to set up the relationship existing between, say, oats, if that is the prevailing crop in the area, and wheat, but the amounts are not set out in the bill.

Prairie Farm Assistance
There was one other thought which came to my mind as the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar was speaking, and which is a partial answer to the question raised by the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens). In drafting this bill the second time, after certain changes had been made in the bill sponsored by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler), it was necessary to take into consideration those living in areas where the crops have been particularly good in the last few years, or, say, in the last two years. For instance, in the year before last, Manitoba had the largest crop in her history. In spite of many comments that have been made in the house during the debate, I am told by many of the creditor houses of Canada that their collections in Manitoba the year before last were the best in their history. Manitoba had a fairly good crop last year, and for the second time the government paid something on the crop. Something was paid in 1935. Probably it is fair to say that for one year at any rate it is not asking too much of these people who had a considerable price last year that they should pay one per cent this year. It is possible, although not as probable as it looked to be a week or two ago, that with the 70 cent initial payment this year there may be considerable amounts paid to those who have considerable crops. Naturally some people are in the areas where crop failures do not occur very often. I do not think we are asking anything unreasonable when we say that for this year at any rate there should be a payment of one per cent over the whole area. In order to get information upon which to base future action in connection with this policy, it will be necessary to cover the whole area and get detailed information with regard thereto.
It is just possible that in succeeding years we may be able to follow some of the experiments being tried in the United States and define areas, but for this year we think we should get full information with regard to every township in the area covering the spring wheat sections of western Canada. I do not think anyone out there is going to complain of the one per cent charge this year in order that we may get all that information compiled to enable us to deal properly with the matter in the future.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I understand that this is the policy for this year and that we may expect some modification or change in the legislation another year if experience warrants H?


James Garfield Gardiner: All legislation, of course, is subject to future amendment. This particular legislation is intended to deal with the question every year from now on, on this basis, with the exception that there are differences as applied to this year. The main reason for the differences with regard to this year have regard to the fact that we have come through eight crop failures, which create a partial emergency at least, no matter what the price this year may be. We think that a farmer who has less than eight bushels to the acre this year, and who has had no crop over a period of years, will require assistance this year no matter what the price may be. Future years the government will take care of with this legislation as the basis.


Mr. MANION:: The minister has partly answered a question I was going to ask. Somewhere in the bill, although I cannot lay my finger on it at the moment, there is a provision that the emergency must be declared before December 1.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Robert James Manion: Then how does the minister justify calling this an emergency year now, six months in advance of December 1? The minister's previous answer has partly explained it but I should be glad to have a complete answer if there are other reasons than the one he has given.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have given the main reason, that we have had ten crop failures in a row in some sections of western Canada, and in other places five or six in a row, and the average in the area likely to be affected by this legislation would be three or four in a row. With that experience just behind us, we say that we should not make this year subject to the 80 cent provision only.


Robert James Manion: Suppose we had two or three normal years in a row; which month would the minister consider the proper month, roughly, in which to declare the year an emergency year?


James Garfield Gardiner: I should think that the only time you could properly determine whether it was an emergency year or not would be about the month of December, the reason being that 80 per cent of the wheat is delivered on the average between August 1 and December 1. By that time the farmer has obtained whatever he is going to obtain for his grain; the government knows what the yield has been and has all the facts upon which to base a conclusion as to whether it has been an emergency year or not. Eighty per cent of the farmers are not going to be able to
Prairie Farm Assistance

change their position.after that month, because the wheat is already out of their hands and someone else has it.


Robert James Manion: Has the fact that there will possibly be an election this year anything whatever to do with this year being declared an emergency year; and supposing the election is put off until next year, will next year also be declared an emergency year?


James Garfield Gardiner: No one knows-I do not myself-whether there is going to be an election this year.


Robert James Manion: We hope there is.


James Garfield Gardiner: This would be declared an emergency year whether there is an election or not. So far as next year is concerned-


Robert James Manion: We will decide that.


James Garfield Gardiner: -I could not say what will happen then.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I want to draw the minister's attention to what I conceive to be bad draftsmanship. It will be noted that clause 3 refers to the average price. By an amendment we are striking out the interpretation of that average price; and referring to the interpretation clause, if the minister will just follow me, "average price" under paragraph
(a)	of section 2 is defined as:
(a) "Average price" means the average of the daily closing prices of No. 1 Manitoba northern wheat in store at Fort William, between the thirty-first day of July and the first day of Ncwember in any year-
Then note these closing words:
-as ascertained by the minister pursuant to regulations.
Very well. I now turn to the minister's powers to make regulations. Paragraph (c) of section 5 reads:
The minister may, with the approval of the governor in council, make regulations:-
(c) providing the manner in which the average price of each grade of wheat shall be ascertained by the minister.
Neither this clause nor the interpretation clause makes clear what the average price is. The interpretation clause is qualified by the words, "as ascertained by the minister pursuant to regulations." The minister, of course, cannot make a regulation that is not provided for in the bill nor one that is contrary to the powers already conferred by the bill. His only power to make regulations is pursuant to what the bill declares, and the bill does not declare what the average price is.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, it says that the average price is so and so, "as ascertained by the minister pursuant to regulations."


James Garfield Gardiner: The average of the daily closing prices as ascertained by the minister.


Henry Herbert Stevens: These words should not appear in the bill. What I am suggesting is that we should make it clear what "average price" really means.


John Gordon Ross: There are two things: one is No. 1 northern, and the other is the spread.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not going to argue the point; I simply call attention to it.
Then the minister will find that subsection
2	of section 3 contains a proviso on page 3 of the bill which reads:
Provided that no award under this section shall be made:
(a)	with respect to more than one-half of the cultivated land of the farmer; nor
(b)	with respect to more than two hundred acres of the cultivated land of the farmer.
The word "nor" should be stricken out or changed to "or".


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, it should be "or."


Mr. FAIR:: Paragraph (i) of subsection 2
of section 3 reads:
(i) If the average yield of wheat in the township is found by the minister to be more than eight and not more than twelve bushels per acre, the award shall be ten cents per acre of the cultivated land of the farmer for each cent, or fraction thereof, not exceeding ten, by which the average price is less than eighty cents per bushel.
This wording creates an inequality between the man who has good grain and the man who has poor grain. With the present spreads between grades, a man would require eighteen bushels of No. 6 wheat to get as much as the man with twelve bushels of No. 1 northern. In order to correct this situation I move:
That paragraph 1, subsection 2, of section
3	be amended by inserting the words "the equivalent in value of" after the words "to be" in the second line thereof.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the hon. member who proposes the amendment has not taken into consideration the fact that in these sections we are not dealing at all with individuals in determining either the amount of yield or the average price. It is not the price which a man happened to get for his crop, it is the price he could have got for it. We are not going to be able to follow every individual round to find the price at which he sold his crop on a certain day, nor are we going to be able to visit every man's farm

Prairie Farm Assistance
to find out what particular quality of grain he had. But those of us who have farmed in western Canada know this, that, generally speaking, if you have rust in an area which reduces the grade of your grain, it probably reduces the grade of everyone's grain in the township, and perhaps in many townships.
If you have frost, the same thing happens.
If you have drought, the same thing happens.
If the quality of your grain is down because of any of these things, then the quality is down pretty generally throughout the whole area and to everyone in it, and that is the determining fact in this matter. It is not a case of whether this man has No. 1, that man has No. 2, and another man has No. 6, but we say that in an area where these crops are light, and they are light because of one: of these reasons of which I have been speaking, in all probability most of the people will have approximately the same grade. If it is all low-grade, it will be down round No. 4, No. 5 or No. 6; if it is all high grade, it will be No. 1, No. 2, or No. 3; but to go out and find what every man's grade of gram is, and pay accordingly, would be a very difficult,
I think an impossible, task. To start to figure out the different ranges of price in accordance with the amendment would be an impossible undertaking.


Malcolm McLean: I should like to point out. too, that it would be most unusual that No 6 grade would yield 50 per cent more than would No. 1 grade in the same district. Rather it would be the other way about. It it were No 6 it would be much more likely to yield twelve bushels, and if a corresponding kind of crop matures to a No. 1 grade, it would be, in all probability, not eighteen but twenty-four bushels, probably twice as much as it would be of No, 6, because the yield, the bulk, the weight and everything would be low as well as the quality.


Mr QUELCH:: On the contrary, you find a great deal of frozen grain in the low places, and it is there you get the heavier yields. If a whole township had an average of fourteen bushels of No. 6 wheat, that area would be eligible under this bill. You do not necessarily have to apply it to the individual for that amendment to work satisfactorily.


James Garfield Gardiner: You have to remember that, when once the township is in, the payment is being made on the land, and No. 5 or No. 6 wheat is sometimes more valuable if a man feeds it, than some No. 1 wheat sold. Eor example, I had my attention called today to an editorial in one of the Toronto papers, stating that the Minister of Agriculture apparently did not know his agriculture
very well, that what we should be doing was feeding wheat to hogs and we would be getting $1.20 a bushel for it instead of 60 cents. I can say to the editor of that particular paper and to hon. members, that I have not sold any wheat this year. I am feeding it to hogs. I did not sell any of my rusted wheat in 1935; I sold it to hogs, and I got more for the hogs than I would have got for the wheat.


Robert Fair: That is one occasion on which the Minister of Agriculture has told the truth, because there is such a thing as selling wheat to hogs.


James Garfield Gardiner: Fed it to hogs. By selling it through the hogs I got more than its price on the market. This bill is not encouraging people to sell low grade wheat. It will probably encourage them to feed their low grade wheat, thereby getting more out of it than they would if they sold it.


George Halsey Perley: How will the minister
arrive at the average yield of the cultivated land in the areas? What kind of staff will be set up, and how far will he use the municipalities to get the information?


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course the regulations are not yet set up, but my view would be that we would require the municipality first to apply and to state their acreage and their yield. We would require the province to corroborate their application, and then we would make a check on it ourselves.


Victor Quelch: As an example of how inequitable this would be, I want to mention what happened in Alberta last year. In order that the province might qualify under the federal drought relief legislation, the area had to be one with an average of five bushels to the acre or less. I have here a copy of a letter sent to the minister by the minister of health of Alberta, which shows that in thirty-six municipalities the yield averaged from five bushels to seven bushels, but the grade of that wheat in twenty-eight out of the thirty-six cases was No. 4. So we find that the municipalities which had a yield of seven bushels with a grade of No. 4 were considerably worse off so far as monetary reward is concerned than those municipalities which had five bushels to the acre of No. 1; yet the department refused to accept the former municipalities because they had seven bushels to the acre, although, as I have said, they were worse off than those which had five bushels of No. 1. When you base your acceptance of an area on yield alone without taking grade into conside-ation, you are causing a great injustice.
Prairie Farm Assistance

It is all very well to say that you can feed low grade grain, but that is not always possible. Farmers have incurred certain obligations. The thresherman demands payment of his bill, the mortgage company wants its interest, the storekeeper expects payment of his account. These people are not going to wait until hogs are fed and disposed of. So this grain has to be sold. Therefore this section does create a great injustice, and I believe the amendment would be well worth considering. It would be far more equitable, and it would work just as well upon a township basis as upon an individual basis.


Frederick George Sanderson: Shall clause 3 as
amended carry?


Robert Fair: I believe the first amendment carried.


John Gordon Ross: That was not the amendment of the hon. member for Battle River; that was the amendment of the minister.


Frederick George Sanderson: The amendment which was carried was moved by the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar).


Robert Fair: When that amendment was carried, I thought it was in order to move the amendment which I moved.


Mr. PELLETIER:: Before the question is put, perhaps the minister would explain why he thought it necessary to omit frost and other conditions which might cause a low return to the farmer, and has included only drought and damage by grasshoppers. In districts such as the one from which I come, the Peace River, one is almost always assured of a fair yield; nevertheless there may be frost, and because of frost the returns for our grain would be lower than in some other place where the yield, though smaller, is of a better grade. That places an unfair burden upon farmers in our part of the country, because they could not be included in this legislation as it stands. The idea, of course, is that using the words "the equivalent in value" means that they would then be put on the same basis as those who had a better quality of grain but a lower yield. If the minister has no objection to inserting the words "drought, damage by hail or frost" in a later section, then there is no point to the amendment; but we have no assurance to that effect.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member for Peace River has just raised the question as to why we have covered only damage by grasshoppers and drought in the crop failure assistance to be given. It is largely because of

the fact I stated a few moments ago. Usually rusted or frozen grain provides a very good feed, and this legislation is assuring the people of the possibility of getting through a year when they otherwise would not be able to maintain themselves from anything that can be produced on the farm. With a fairly good crop of feed of any kind it is generally possible to get by one or probably two difficult years. We have not thought it wise to take years when there is feed into consideration in connection with the crop failure year, although I would call attention to this fact, that we have not omitted such difficulties as are created by frost or rust in considering the factors contributing to emergency as reasons for accepting the year as a difficult year. These may be some of the reasons for placing the emergency year in that column.


René-Antoine Pelletier: But is it not rather a question of value? What difference does it make to the- farmer whether he has a larger quantity of frosted grain, or a smaller quantity of No. 1 northern? In the final analysis what counts is the return he gets from his crop, and whether he gets it from a smaller quantity of No. 1 northern or from a larger quantity of frosted grain should have no bearing on the treatment we mete out to individual farmers. I repeat, it is a question not of quantity but rather of value. Even though he might have a large amount of feed, if it is not worth more than a smaller quantity of No. 1 northern, why should he have to contribute a proportion of his production to pay another farmer who gets an equal return, so far as actual value is concerned? In order to be fair to all concerned, the question of value as well as the question of return should be taken into consideration. At any rate, the argument from the point of view of actual return should be given some weight in the matter.


James Garfield Gardiner: If it were desirable to consider that question, then I suggest it should be left for succeeding years. We have sufficient experimenting to do in what is set out in the bill now, without going so far into details as the suggested amendment would require us to do.


Frederick George Sanderson: Shall the amendment carry?
Amendment negatived on division,


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I come back to subsection 1 of section 3. I raised this matter a little while ago, and the minister quoted Professor Hope to show that people getting a return under the bonus scheme

Prairie Farm Assistance
would get something close to the amounts he outlined. On page 240 of the report of the conference on markets held last December Professor Hope said:
To make the bonus fair, if it should be necessary in another year, it should be based on the total acres of crop land.
And again he says:
At a dollar an acre basis it wouldn't cost any more money to the government of Canada.
Professor Hope had in mind a more or less blanket bonus. My objection to this is, not that people will not get enough under the scheme

I will deal with that later-but that there are people who will come in an economic no man's land and get nothing at all. For instance, there is a patch of dry land in the southwestern corner of Manitoba. To my knowledge it has never been fifteen municipalities in extent.


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, yes. The municipalities are larger, and that is why we use townships.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: At the time I lived in Manitoba there was a drought there, and it certainly did not cover fifteen municipalities.


James Garfield Gardiner: There were fourteen
municipalities three years ago.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is conceivable that there might be ten or twelve, so that people could not come within the crop failure assistance scheme. It is conceivable that the average price of wheat for the time fixed by the bill might be about 82 or 83 cents, and here would be these people who could not come within the ambit of the bill. In that event the minister says the provincial government is responsible. That very argument destroys his reason for making this year an emergency year. If that is going to be true in another year, why is it not the responsibility of the province this year? The answer the minister gives is that we have had eight successive crop failures. Well, if we have another one there will have been nine successive crop failures, and next year should be an emergency year; but it cannot be unless the bill is amended again. I think it is much more sensible to do what the minister proposed in the first place. The governor in council should have discretion to declare any year to be a national emergency year if, in its opinion, the conditions warrant it.


James Garfield Gardiner: But why take up time worrying about it this year? There will be a parliament next year. What the hon. member
is suggesting is provided for this year and by that time we shall have had the experience of a year under the legislation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, but I am terribly afraid that this bill is something for this year for an election, and it will be pretty much a dead letter except with reference to the crop failure part of the plan.


Mr. POULIOT:: The hon. gentleman himself may be a dead letter after the election.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: You will not find me in the post office. I submit that it would be much better to give the governor in council power to declare a year to be an emergency year. This will be permanent legislation and you might as well give the governor in council power now. I therefore offer an amendment, that we delete subsection 1 of section 3 and substitute the following:
In any crop year the governor in council may, in the event of there being distress amongst farmers in the spring wheat area so serious or general in character as to create a national emergency, declare such crop year to be an emergency year and fix basic values for each grade of wheat as representing, for the purposes of this act, a fair valuation of wheat in store at Fort William.
That is exactly the wording which was in the first draft of the bill. It would give the governor in council power in any year to bring this part of the legislation into operation. Otherwise, as the bill now stands, the governor in council may declare a year to be an emergency year if the price is less than 80 cents. But they cannot act, no matter how much they may wish to do so, if they find in August that conditions warrant the declaration of an emergency, because their hands are tied. The governor in council ought to have power at any time to make the legislation operative.


James Garfield Gardiner: The wording the hon. gentleman has just proposed was in the first draft of the bill. I suggest to him that the proposal I made a moment ago is a reasonable one. After all, only 25 per cent of the population live in the area where we are growing spring wheat, and I find it somewhat difficult, as I am sure any hon. member would, to place the facts before the other 75 per cent of the population, as we ought to be in a position to place them, before asking that certain things be done. I have not that information at present. I tried to secure all possible information in order to prove the very point we are being asked to consider now, but I am quite satisfied that with this legislation in operation for a year we shall have all the information necessary in order to place clearly before everyone concerned
Prairie Farm Assistance

arguments in relation to many of these matters, because of the fact that we are asking other people to assist in paying the cost of the operation of the measure. I would suggest to the committee that it would be very much better to leave it in its present form. This year we shall operate as apparently the hon. member for Weybum wants us to operate in connection with this matter, and we shall have a year in which to gather information. Probably after that year we may be able to present a very much stronger case in favour of what the hon. member is now suggesting than we are able to present at the moment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am not going to prolong this discussion except to say the minister must have presented a very good case to the cabinet in order to provide in the bill that 1939 should be an emergency year.


James Garfield Gardiner: I had the other in before, as the hon. member knows.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I see no
reason why, when next year comes round and if conditions warrant it, if he is still Minister of Agriculture he should have any more difficulty in presenting that case to the governor in council. In addition, we have this fact, that in the meantime he will be able to accumulate a great amount of data. The minister would have no more difficulty in persuading his colleagues in the months of July and August, when crop conditions would be quite apparent, than he would have in persuading this house in March or April, when one could know very little about crop prospects. It seems to me that from the point of view of administration the cabinet, rather than the house-which is usually prorogued long before crop conditions become well known-should decide, in view of conditions, whether or not this part of the legislation shall become operative. I do not think the minister would have very much difficulty, in this or any other year, if conditions warranted it, in persuading his colleagues to take the necessary action.


James Garfield Gardiner: I consider it quite a
compliment that the hon. member should suggest that I should assume more power in connection with this matter than the bill proposes to give me. I rather expected the criticism to be the other way round. If I had maintained the section as it was in the original bill I would have expected to be criticized for wanting to be placed every year in the position of declaring an emergency or no emergency, irrespective of prices altogether.

I imagine that if I had brought in the bill in that form someone would have wanted to put a roof on it somewhere and say we should not be permitted to declare it an emergency year if wheat was $1 or $1.25 a bushel. I would rather assume that there should be some roof to it somewhere. This year we will start at 80 cents; We will gather the necessary information, and it is possible that this figure may have to be changed in future. At the present time, however, I do not think we are taking any chances in making it 80 cents and providing that under subclauses (ii) and (iii) we shall work irrespective of whether the price is 80 cents or higher.


Ernest Lapointe: I would direct your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that the amendment, if carried, would mean a possible increase in the expenditure that would have to be made. I do not think the amendment is in order. According to the bill the price of wheat must be below 80 cents before an emergency year may be declared. Under the amendment of my hon. friend any year might be declared an emergency year, with no such condition applying, and the charge to the treasury of the country would be greater. I think this amendment is hardly in order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister raises a
point of order, but as a matter of fact I question very much whether this bill as reprinted is in order. The bill that was given first reading is the bill from which this amendment is an extract. It was this amendment that received the governor general's recommendation to the house in connection with the resolution that was brought in. The wording at present contained in the bill was never announced to the house as having received the governor general's consent, and was not preceded by a resolution. It is a grave question in my mind whether or not this bill is in order at all, because all that happened was that the minister announced to the house one night that the bill was going to be reprinted.


Mr. GRAY:: And the consent of the house was secured.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, to reprint the bill;
but when that consent was secured, the minister stated there would be no change in the principle of the bill.


Ernest Lapointe: The bill has had second reading, and all these preliminary objections disappear.

Prairie Farm Assistance


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is true, but the minister raises a point of order on the suggestion that the wording of the original bill be restored. I am simply saying that if we are going to split hairs on the question of an amendment of this kind, then there are grounds for a definite point of order whether or not this bill is in order at all. I doubt very much if it is.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member for
Kootenay East has mentioned the principle of the bill. The principle of the bill is not 60 cents, 70 cents or 80 cents; it is an authorization to give a certain kind of assistance or help, in the form of money, to farmers in distress. That is the principle of the bill. My hon. friend knows very well that very often the recommendation of the governor general is in the form of nothing more or less than a blank cheque. Very often there is no specified amount put before his excellency when his recommendation is asked for and given. Therefore, sir, the principle of the bill is not at all the amount of money mentioned in the bill. It is something altogether different, and if his excellency gives his recommendation in connection with a bill of this kind it is up to the government to change it afterwards, if they think that should be done, and submit it anew to the house. Therefore I do not see how any objection of that kind can stand now.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: If the hon. member for Temiscouata is right, then there is no point of order.


Frederick George Sanderson: On the point of order-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: before you give your ruling may I say this-


An hon. MEMBER:: Why block?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I point out that the words I have suggested as a substitution are exactly the same as the draft submitted by the government, namely that part approved by the house in the resolution stage, the contents of which were conveyed to his excellency. I point out, second, that it would only remove a restriction and place the decision with reference to the operation of this part of the legislation with the governor in council. I cannot see why it is *out of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Speaking to the point of order, I believe an important question is involved in deciding this point of order. It
must be noted, for instance, that paragraph 556 in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms is as follows:
The house can make amendments which diminish the amount of reduction of taxation, or postpone the day when the reduction takes place, although the amendments may increase to that extent the charges proposed to be levied upon the people.
So long as an existing tax is not increased, any modification of the proposed reduction may be introduced in the committee on the bill, and is regarded as a question, not for increasing the charge upon the people 'but for determining to what extent such charge shall be reduced.
I say that this point of order might establish a precedent about something for which as yet there is no precedent in this parliament, or perhaps even in the history of parliaments. At the moment we are not dealing with a matter of taxation. I would point out that we are dealing with a levy, which is something entirely different from a tax. There is no question whatever of increasing the tax burden upon the people of the country, because the country is not being called upon to supply any fund, except in the form of an advance,, or as a loan which is repayable.
Therefore the point of order cannot be considered to be on an increase of taxation, because in fact there is no taxation under this measure. We deal only with a levy. I cannot recall a precedent for this type of legislation, which introduces the principle of a levy instead of a tax. Therefore I say paragraph 556 cannot apply because we are dealing not with a tax, but with a levy.


Frederick George Sanderson: On the point of order raised by the Minister of Justice I would quote paragraph 551 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms:
551. It is a fundamental principle that no resolution or amendment to increase a charge upon the people can be moved with the Speaker in the chair; it must be initiated in committee by a minister acting on behalf of the crown.
I think the point is well taken, and in my opinion the amendment is out of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Frederick George Sanderson: Shall section 3 as amended carry?


James Garfield Gardiner: Before the section is carried, I would call attention to the fact that the word " nor " at the top of page 3 should be " or," as I have indicated.


Frederick George Sanderson: I have already made that change.
Prairie Farm Assistance


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Before leaving this section would the minister care to explain why there is a change in the amount of money payable? The minister will remember that in the first draft the basis 5, 10 and 15 bushels and $1, $2 and 1250 is now changed to 4, 8 and 12 bushels and $1, $1.50 and $2.


James Garfield Gardiner: This is within what the government felt inclined to have applied to this particular purpose this year.


George Halsey Perley: Can. the minister indicate from what source any suggestion of that kind came, so far as the west is concerned? Was there any suggestion from the west?


James Garfield Gardiner: I would say the suggestions really came from the minister, in order to meet the discussion that had taken place in the cabinet itself.


George Halsey Perley: Before the section carries, I would say that so far as the principle of the bill is concerned, I am wholly in accord with it where it is a relief measure. I would say that particularly with respect to this section. I am also in agreement with the principle of crop insurance. But I am wondering if from what they have learned and the information the minister has given with respect to the bill the farmers may look at the schedule of bonus payments, under certain conditions, and forget that it may develop that about 70 per cent of them would not come under the operation of the legislation or get any benefit therefrom.


An hon. MEMBER:: This year.


George Halsey Perley: I am just afraid the farmer will lose sight of that fact. But so far as the bill may be termed a relief and insurance measure, I am in accord with it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I believe I did not get a satisfactory answer from the minister. Under the change that was made in this section, persons who before would have been eligible for the bonus, men with thirteen, fourteen or fifteen bushels to the acre, will not be eligible under the new scheme. A person who before would have received $500 of a bonus will now get $400.


James Garfield Gardiner: The average crop for the last eighteen years was twelve bushels to the acre, or slightly under that amount. And it was thought wise to apply the payment for the first year at least, or until we get experience with it, to those who have from the average downward rather than those who have from the average upward.
[Mr Chairman.]


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I would point out to the minister now that the draft of the first bill provided up to fifteen bushels. It seemed to those of us who saw Bills Nos. 63 and 83 withdrawn, and then saw Bill No. 63 come back with the price up to 70 cents, and the amount of bonus payable, that the minister had taken it from one group of farmers and given it to another. In answer to a question from the leader of the opposition when Bill No. 83 was in the resolution stage, the minister said that in a normal year, under the bill as it was then drafted, it cost from $10,000,000 to $15,000,000 a year, and in a disastrous year, about $30,000,000. How much difference will this change make in the amount the treasury will have to pay in a normal year and in a crop failure year?


James Garfield Gardiner: It will depend upon what happens next year. If it were on the basis of the last year, the amount provided now would be a little higher than the amount provided in the previous two bills-if the government had to pay it all. It would probably be $10,000,000 higher-if the bills as now drafted applied to last year compared with the bills as they were before applied to last year.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I was not speaking of both bills together. The minister said that this Bill No. 83, as drawn up before, would cost in a normal year between $10,000,000 and $15,000,000, and in a crop failure year about $30,000,000. Under the changes which have been made in section 3, what will it cost? What would be an estimate of the cost in a normal year and in a crop failure year?


James Garfield Gardiner: I can only base it on years with which we have had experience, and last year is the nearest year. On the basis of last year, compared with Bill No. 83 as it was originally drafted, it would probably cut it by $5,000,000 or $6,000,000.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 4-Crop failure assistance; conditions for declaring area a crop failure area.


Louis-Prudent-Alexandre Robichaud: The same correction should be made here, namely, "or" instead of "nor."


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: I notice that section 4 is the section under which a crop failure area is defined. It reads:
The governor in council may, whenever the minister finds that as a result of drought or damage by grasshoppers the average yield of wheat is five bushels per acre or less. . .

Prairie Farm Assistance
Our experience in setting crop failure areas in the past has not been the best. As pointed out by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), this year in Alberta there were thirty-six municipal units which had yields of six and seven bushels to the acre, and twenty-eight of those thirty-six had an average of four bushels, while the others had an average in value of considerably less than five bushels to the acre. The method of defining an area by the yield in bushels does not seem to me to be as fair as defining an area by the value of the yield. For instance, five bushels to the acre of forty cent wheat would bring in only $2 an acre, but under the bill the minimum allowed is $2.50 an acre. There might be a large area producing fifteen bushels to the acre, which would put it outside the provisions of this bill, but the return in value might be considerably less. I believe it would be more fair to define an area on the basis of value rather than on the basis of yield, and I therefore move:
That subsection 1 of section 4 be amended by striking out the words "is five bushels" in the third line thereof and inserting in their place the following words "is equivalent in value to five bushels of No. 1 Manitoba northern."
The section would then read:
The governor in council may, whenever the minister finds that as a result of drought or damage by grasshoppers the average yield of wheat is equivalent in value to five bushels of No. 1 Manitoba northern .	.	.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have a suggestion to make which would meet some of the difficulties advanced by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Pelletier). I do not recall, and so far as I can find out those round me are in the same position, any areas where we have had yields of five bushels or under an acre for causes other than grasshoppers or drought. But there is a possibility that this might occur. I do not see any difficulty about striking out the words "as a result of drought or damage by grasshoppers," and just say:
The governor in council may, whenever the minister finds that the average yield of wheat is five bushels per acre or less in each of not less than one hundred and thirty-five townships .	.	.


George Halsey Perley: How about hail?


James Garfield Gardiner: Would that meet the situation?


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: I agree that it would be some advantage. In 1928 I saw crops at Granum which were just coming in milk and which were estimated to yield probably 40 bushels to the acre. They were frozen by a hard frost which reduced their value to the poorest feed as well as reducing the yield
tremendously. The farmers were not being assisted in 1928, but if assistance had been given, these farmers certainly would have required it. Although they had more than five bushels to the acre, the value was less than the value of five bushels of 80 cent wheat because the crop was just rotten pulp. I think it is only fair to declare an area subject to the provisions of this bill on the basis of the value of five bushels of wheat at Fort William, rather than on the basis of a yield of five bushels.


John Gordon Ross: Mention has been made of feed wheat, but I do not think feed wheat should be used as a gauge. Feed wheat is not millable wheat. It is only feed, and much of it is not as good as long feed. It should not be used as a criterion of the yield per acre in a township.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: I am simply pointing out that the gauge for crop failure should be the value rather than the yield. The value should be equivalent to five bushels No. 1 northern.


James Garfield Gardiner: This section really presumes that when you are below five bushels to the acre you really have no saleable wheat. When a man gets down to that point, he may have his seed but that is about all.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: Why five; why not
seven?


James Garfield Gardiner: And a little feed. He would have just about the same treatment as anyone else from there down.


James J. Donnelly: With the proposed
amendment it would be almost impossible to administer the legislation. We could not have people going round the country and asking every man how many bushels of No. 3 northern he had, how many of No. 5, how many of No. 6, how much feed, and so on. An estimate would have to be made for each farmer, and it would be absolutely impossible to administer the legislation. It is going to be hard enough as it is, but it would be an impossibility with the proposed amendment.


Victor Quelch: The best answer is that it has been done already. We have statistics showing the average yields and average grades for different townships and municipalities. It is nonsense to say that it cannot be done because it has actually been done. I traveled through most of that country last fall, and the farmers were in a position where they had to get relief.


James Garfield Gardiner: Did the hon. member say he traveled over all that area?
Prairie Farm Assistance


Victor Quelch: I traveled over practically the whole of my constituency, which takes in a number of those areas. The farmers there had to sell a certain amount of their wheat to pay the threshing bill and certain current expenses, and that leaves them with nothing . for seed. The farmer with seven bushels of No. 4 is worse off than the farmer with five bushels of No. 1. It is easy to find the grade when you are finding the yield.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: Suppose that 100 of these 135 townships come under the five-bushel qualification set out in the bill, and that the other thirty-five have fifteen or twelve or nine or seven bushels of feed wheat. It would mean that the whole area, the 100 townships with the five-bushel crop, and the thirty-five townships with the low grade wheat but with a little better yield than five bushels to the acre, could not qualify for benefit under the legislation. Under the amendment they could qualify, and I think they ought to be allowed to qualify.


James Garfield Gardiner: I quite agree with the member who states that it would be very difficult to administer.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: You got the information from Saskatchewan this year.


James Garfield Gardiner: I got some, yes, but when you are paying money out on this basis the information would have to be more carefully gathered, and there would be great difficulty in securing information upon which to base a decision.


Victor Quelch: It is being secured in this case.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think it is better to put the section through as it is and to get our information this year.
Amendment negatived.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Section 4
restricts the causes of crop failure to two. It reads:
The governor in council may, whenever the minister finds that as a result of drought or damage by grasshoppers the average yield of wheat is five bushels per acre or less. . . .
And so on. There might be crop failure by rust; wind; rain after the crop has been cut, causing it to sprout; frost and hail. I therefore suggest, without further elaboration, that subsection 1 of section 4 be amended by striking out the words "drought or damage by grasshoppers" in line thirteen and substituting therefor the words "crop failure." It will then read:
The governor in council may, whenever the minister finds that as a result of crop failure the average yield of wheat is five bushels per acre or less. . . .

And so forth:
. . . declare such area to be a crop failure area.
I think that would meet the situation.


James Garfield Gardiner: As we cannot get
through the bill to-night, I would suggest that we allow section 4 to stand and I shall give further consideration to the proposals that have been made with regard to it. We might give consideration to sections 5 and 6.


Victor Quelch: We object very strongly to that part of the clause which states that if there are more than 135 townships the clause will not apply. We believe that number should be reduced to fifty. It seems to us the minister has what might be called a Saskatchewan complex. He invariably quotes figures for Saskatchewan.


Frederick George Sanderson: Is the hon. member discussing section 4?


Victor Quelch: Yes.


Frederick George Sanderson: It stands.
Section stands.
Progress reported.



SINGLE HOMELESS UNEMPLOYED-STATEMENT OF MR. MACINNIS ON MOTION OF MINISTER OF JUSTICE

[Stage Direction]
Righ Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) (for the Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, before your honour leaves the chair, I wish to address the house for a very few minutes on a matter which I consider to be of the utmost importance. It is one which I have tried to bring to the attention of the house on several occasions since May 1. by questions addressed to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers). His answers to these questions were entirely unsatisfactory, and the conditions which I then sought to bring to the attention of the house still prevail, only in a more aggravated form. I refer to the plight of the single unemployed.
On May 1 the provincial governments stopped all assistance to the single unemployed, and most of the municipalities also stopped giving them assistance. To make matters worse, charitable institutions which had been to some extent looking after this class of unemployed by supplying food and beds also stopped giving assistance.
When I was working on the farm, when spring arrived and there was sufficient grass,

Single Homeless Unemployed
we used to turn the young animals out to forage for themselves, but we never did so until there was sufficient feed for them to maintain themselves.
When the first of May came this year, it did not mean that there was any more employment than there was on the last day of April, and by no possibility could these single homeless men find jobs by which to maintain themselves. They were just as much in need of assistance then as before. Despite their efforts since to find employment they are still in the same need they were in during most of last winter.
Almost every city in Canada has its quota of these single homeless unemployed men. In some parts of Canada the municipal authorities are looking after them, but, of necessity, on a very low scale. Most of the municipalities in Canada to-day are almost bankrupt and are not in a position to provide for these men. There are in the city of Ottawa more than one hundred men who, since May 1, have had no place to sleep and who are entirely dependent for their food upon the charity of well-disposed citizens. I think it is the duty of the government to provide sustenance for these homeless unemployed until such time as work can be found. It is heartless and inhuman to turn them out on the street when they have no means by which they can get food and shelter.
When I brought this matter to the attention of the Minister of Labour, he suggested that they should go to the employment bureau, and stated that a number of men had already received work by applying at these bureaux. I have now ascertained that almost all these men are registered at the employment bureau. The work which some men have found is of no value to the men who did not find work and who are still in need of food and clothing and shelter. I have before me the Ottawa Journal of May 5 with the heading "Police called to eject jobless." It states that when more than eighty members of the Ottawa single unemployed men's association refused on Thursday to leave the office of the employment service of Canada on Queen street without getting work, city police were called in to eject them. Surely we have come to a sorry pass when the employment bureaux have to call in the police to eject men who have made application for work and for whom no work is available. The position of these men is that they have no homes, no place where they can find shelter, and if they are not allowed to stay in the employment bureau they have to be out on the street. Since May 1, they have been living in a hall in which there are no
beds. If they sleep at all, and they must, they sleep sitting in chairs. I do not think that is good enough.
It is particularly appropriate that at this time the government should be not only just but should be generous to these men. We are getting ready to receive Their Majesties, our King and Queen. We are decorating and beautifying our cities and our streets for that purpose. But we are doing nothing and, indeed, less than nothing to improve the conditions of these subjects of his majesty to enable them to welcome him when he comes. Indeed, all the decorations and all the pomp and splendour in the city at the present time can mean to these men nothing but more heart-burning and bitterness because they can have no part in it. Last Sunday evening I saw them marching to church. It was certainly a sad spectacle to watch them marching along the street in their rags, the same clothes they have been wearing and sleeping in ever since last fall. All this decorating and show are surely a shallow sham while we allow men to starve and to go in rags in our midst, while on every side we see wealth and abundance. I urge upon the government that, merely as a patriotic gesture, if for no better motive, the Department of Labour should get in touch with the provincial governments and offer to come to some arrangements by which unemployed men and women too can be fed and housed and clothed at least during the period their majesties are here. It is just possible that, after that, the summer being further advanced, some work may be available.
The conditions which prevail in Ottawa are pretty much the same all over the dominion. I have a clipping from the Halifax Herald of May 3 which states that relief costs in Halifax for the weekly period ending April 28 are greater than for the corresponding period last year.
I take up the Vancouver Province and I find a similar story. The heading reads:
Warns job seekers not to come here.
That is, to Vancouver. The item is as follows:
A warning to unemployed men in neighbouring provinces not to be "misled" by stories of trade expansion in British Columbia has been made by J. H. McVety, general superintendent of the employment service of Canada. "It has come to our notice," said Mr. McVety this morning, "that a number of young men are drifting out here from other provinces because they have been told of a shortage of labour in B.C.
"Such talk is quite misleading. There is an
ample supply of men and women in the province just now to take care of all labour requirements."

Single Homeless Unemployed,
Indeed, the last report issued by the labour department in British Columbia, at the end of April, was that there were at that time on relief 74,000 men, women and dependents. I suggest that at this time, if merely as a patriotic gesture because of the occasion, we should try to do something for these men. I warn the government that the situation is serious. They are making beggars of these men, if not worse. The latest figures issued by the bureau of statistics with regard to unemployment in Canada, namely those of February this year, estimate the number of unemployed as 491,000. That is an increase of 6,000 over January, the date of the previous monthly report.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Can the hon. member say how that compares with February of last year?


Angus MacInnis: I have not the comparisons with me, but the number is greater than last year and the year before, and pretty much the same as in 1936.


Mr. DUPUIS:: Has the hon. member a
record for other countries as well?


Angus MacInnis: I am not concerned with other countries. Let the people in other countries look after their own affairs. We should look after ours.


Vincent Dupuis: I should like to see that on record; that is all.


Angus MacInnis: Anyone who wants to find out the conditions in other countries can do so by reading the public press and reports from various sources. We cannot evade this issue by saying that things are bad in other countries. That may be true, yet other countries may not have the surpluses of wheat, butter, fish and other commodities which we have. And while we have these surpluses, which an hon. member last night suggested we should supply to the needy people of other countries, we should at least use a part to feed people who are here, who are dependent upon us, and who to a large extent helped to produce these surpluses.
I sincerely hope the government will not disregard this plea, but will make an early and earnest effort to deal with the situation, by making provision for these men now so that they may, when work again is available, take their place as active producers.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Before we leave this question, I am going to make a suggestion, very briefly, and it is this. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maelnnis) has mentioned the condition of the unemployed men and has suggested that some-

thing should be done for them during the royal visit. I should like to make this suggestion to the government. Throughout Canada there are a large number of families, including children, who will be interested in the royal visit. Many of the parents of these children are on relief, and I was going to suggest to the government that a fitting way of celebrating the coming of their majesties to this country would be to get into contact with the provinces and the municipalities with a view to giving these families some additional assistance during the time their majesties are passing through the districts where relief people live. We know that a large number of these families will be going to adjacent cities where stops are made by the royal train, and on these occasions it is necessary for the parents to take sandwiches and other food, to make some provision for the children. I recollect that in the old days when I was a boy in the old country at the time of the diamond jubilee of Queen Victoria and at the coronation of His Majesty King Edward VII, the children of the land were given a special treat to celebrate the occasion. It seems to me that with so much poverty and misery and with such a shortage of things which the children like, our Canadian children would appreciate something being done for them by the various governments to mark the coming of the king and queen.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: Since it is nearly eleven o'clock I would ask the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) if he does not think it possible that these children might squander that allowance, as was declared by the relief administrator of Alberta with reference to the fifty cents given at Christmas?


Major James William Coldwell: I do not think there is much danger of that.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OP FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
80. Grants to fisheries exhibitions, in the
amounts detailed in the estimates, $2,300.
Mr. NEILL:: As this is the first occasion on which we are going into the estimates of the Minister of Fisheries this year, it might be appropriate to spend a minute or two at least in paying tribute to his deputy who has left the department since the last session.
Doctor Found served the government for forty years, beginning as a junior clerk and working his way up by his own ability and by devotion to his duties. He had a long and distinguished career-distinguished at least by

Supply-Fisheries
*constant attention to his duties and a record of creditable achievements. Doctor Found was, above all, a worker, and he was always at his desk, holiday or no holiday. He practically lived for the work in which he was *engaged. He was the prime mover in negotiating the halibut treaty with the United States, and was for a number of years a member of the board under that treaty, which has resulted in the rehabilitation of the halibut industry on the Pacific coast. Encouraged by that, he devoted much time and effort for long years to arranging a treaty with the United States in connection with the Fraser river situation, and it was due to him more than to any other man, living or dead, that this was finally achieved.
Doctor Found was in office when many other reforms were carried out. I am speaking more of the Pacific coast, with which I am familiar. He was at the head of the branch at the time when the policy of breaking up the individual monopolistic control was carried out-the system under which one company absolutely controlled a large tract of water and no man could put hook, line or net in it without their consent. He was also responsible for initiating many of the regulations for the conservation of the salmon industry.
Some years ago the university of New Brunswick conferred on him the degree of Doctor of Science in recognition of his distinguished services. Doctor Found always had a strong sense of loyalty to the officials of his department, both those above him and those under him. Possibly at times he was subject to criticism in carrying out or defending, from a sense of loyalty, policies which he himself might not personally have approved. In that regard I have often strongly and perhaps violently opposed him in the carrying out of policies or in the method whereby he himself carried them out, but in the seventeen years that I have come in contact with him in his personal capacity I have never known him to say a discourteous word to anyone or to do a discreditable act. I am sure the wishes of all the members of this house who came in contact with him go out to him in his retirement, in the hope that he may for many years enjoy a well-earned rest.


Jean-François Pouliot: Just a word on that. For the information of the hon. member, may I tell him that the gentleman to whom he has referred has been superannuated for cause at my own request, according to files that are
public. I will say no more now, but I regret very much that an example is not made of the wrongs done by former civil servants who have left the service for very good reasons. This is one instance in which I could say much more. I had the file for three months and I know something about the matter. I speak with knowledge, and I say that an example should be made of Mr. Found to indicate to the service that there should be no favouritism such as he has been guilty of. That is my point of view and I speak with knowledge. We have had enough of these compliments paid to unworthy civil servants.


Leslie Gordon Bell: It seems to me that
the Minister of Fisheries should say something after the remarks just made.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: The item stands.


Ernest Lapointe: Item 275.


Mr. MASSEY:: In view of the extraordinary remarks just made, and inasmuch as it is not yet eleven o'clock, I think the minister should make some statement before we take this item.


Ernest Lapointe: It was
one minute to eleven o'clock, and we wanted, as I think it was reasonable to ask, to have two departments called. One has been called and we should like to have the Post Office Department called.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: How long is this
going to last?


Ernest Lapointe: One
second.


Denton Massey: I am sure the right hon.
gentleman who is leading the house would not want Hansard to go across the country without any response from the Minister of Fisheries. I think he should make a brief statement.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: It is one minute short of eleven o'clock. I believe there was an understanding that two departments should be called this evening, and in one minute it is not possible to make a statement of any value on the point.


Denton Massey: If the Minister of Fisheries-


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. The hon. member is out of order.
Electoral Matters


Denton Massey: I am not the only one out of order.


Ernest Lapointe: Item 275.


Frederick George Sanderson: Item 275.


Major James William Coldwell: How are we out of order?


Ernest Lapointe: Because
the item has been allowed to stand and another one has been called, and we are going to move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, May 10, 1939