1941-05-01

MOTION FOR SECOND READING OF CERTAIN BILLS AND FOR SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDER 105

Mr. G. G. McGEER (Vancouver-Burrard) moved:: That the following unopposed private bills, which have been read a first time, be now given second reading, and that standing order 105 be suspended in relation thereto:
Bill No. 18 (Letter B of the senate), intituled: An act to incorporate General Security Insurance Company of Canada.
Bill No. 26a (Letter A-2 of the senate), intituled: An act respecting the Ontario and Minnesota Power Company Limited.
Bill No. 27 (Letter B-2 of the senate), intituled: An act respecting British Columbia Telephone Company.
Bill No. 29 (Letter D-2 of the senate), intituled:	An act respecting the Wawanesa
Mutual Insurance Company.
Also bills Nos. 30 to 56, both inclusive, and bills Nos. 58 and 59.


Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition) :: This is rather a strange procedure,
and I suggest that this motion has no right to be put at all, at least without notice. So far as we are concerned we have never seen these bills. To give them second reading without having seen them, without notice and without knowing what may be their import, is asking too much. To call them unopposed is wholly unwarranted. They may be unopposed; I do not know anything about them, but certainly I question the desirability of this procedure.


Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: With regard to one bill which I understood to be called, No. 27, concerning the British Columbia Telephone Company, I am afraid it cannot be considered as unopposed, because I wish to discuss it at some length.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The motion concerns
unopposed bills. Any bill which is opposed of course will be struck out of the motion.


Richard Burpee Hanson: All of
them may be opposed. Until we know what they are about, we cannot say. To say that they are unopposed, even on the authority of the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard which ordinarily I would accept without question, is going pretty far; and at the moment I cannot bring myself to accept that statement unless I know something more about them.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I think it might be possible, by a conference between the leader of the opposition and myself and the leaders

Business oj the House
of the other groups, to agree upon a procedure in the matter of these private bills. Perhaps the motion could stand until that is done.
Motion stands.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
compulsory military service requirement

Mr. COLD WELL:: 1.	Has any non-British country the right and power to enforce within Canada, acts, decrees, regulations, etc., made or issued by the said non-British government, ordering its nationals domiciled in Canada to undertake compulsory service in the armed forces of the said government?
2.	If so, under what authority?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to say just a word in regard to this question, to point out to the hon. gentleman who has asked it that the question really solicits a legal opinion. If we were to hold strictly to the rules and not establish a precedent which might be very embarrassing I think I would have to ask him to allow me to decline to answer the question. Questions on the order paper are for the purpose of eliciting facts, but not legal opinions or expressions of opinion with respect to theories or other matters. However this is a subject of general interest, and I believe it might be advisable on the whole to clarify what seems to be a matter of doubt in the minds of some. Therefore I shall give an answer. I should like it to be understood however that it must not be cited hereafter as a precedent for giving legal opinions. The answer to the question is as follows:
No non-British country has the right and power to enforce within Canada acts, decrees, regulations, et cetera, made or issued by its government, ordering its nationals domiciled in Canada to undertake compulsory service in its armed forces.
A foreign government, which has a legal system imposing compulsory military service on its nationals abroad, can, under existing international practice, provide for calling them up. Its representatives can bring the call to the attention of the nationals. They cannot exercise any compulsion within Canada in order to induce them to respond to the call.
The national of the foreign government can refuse to respond to the call, without incurring any penalties within this country. On the other hand he will not be able to embark on a 14873-155
ship flying the flag of his home country or enter its territories without subjecting himself to prosecution in his own country.
Under the Foreign Forces Order 1941, the forces of certain allied countries are enabled to maintain their own discipline and internal administration. For such purposes, they can arrest members of their own forces within this country and can call upon Canadian civilian and military police to assist them in maintaining their own discipline. The provisions of the order, however, make it clear that the measures of compulsion do not apply to a person who, while in Canada, has been called up for service under the law of a foreign power and who has failed to comply with such call or to be enrolled in its service.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	How many men in each military district were called for military service pursuant to the national war services regulations?
2.	How many of such men in each military district passed the first medical examination?
3.	How many of such men in each military district were granted postponement?
4.	How many of such men in each military district reported to camp?
5.	How many of such men in each military district failed to respond when ordered to present themselves for medical examination?
6.	How many of such men failed to present themselves at the military camp for training when ordered to do so?
7.	Have there been any prosecutions for failure under either category?
8.	If so, how many prosecutions in each category?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, if the debate of yesterday is to be proceeded with, a motion will be required, and will have to have the unanimous approval of the house. I gather from reading Hansard that last night there was some doubt in the mind of the minister as to whether we could proceed without a motion. He was of the opinion that we did not require one. However standing order 28 is as follows:
On Thursdays and Fridays when the order of the day is called for the house to go into committee of supply, or of ways and means, Mr. Speaker shall leave the chair without putting any question, provided that, except by the unanimous consent of the house, the estimates of each department shall be first taken up on a day other than Thursday or Friday.

Supply-State oj Agriculture

The motion I would move so as to enable the house to continue the debate on the amendment to go into supply, if there is no objection to continuing that debate, would be the following:
That the provision of standing order 28, in relation to Mr. Speaker leaving the chair without putting any question, be suspended this day, in order to allow debate on the proposed amendment and subamendment to the motion that the house be resolved into committee of supply.
If there is any objection to that motion, of course the house will not be able to proceed.


Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: Mr. Speaker, may I say a word in connection with this motion? When I raised the matter last night at the adjournment I wished to make it clear that we on this side of the house were not opposed to proceeding with this matter to-day, but as we understood the rules it was not possible so to do except with the unanimous consent of the house. I take it that the motion now before the house regularizes that position.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, April 30, consideration of the motion of Mr. Ilsley for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Douglas (Weyburn).
Mr. L. PHILIPPE PICARD (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned last night I was referring to the proposal that had been made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to pay half the transportation costs on a certain quantity of wheat from western Canada to the eastern provinces. Some hon. members have questioned the figures I quoted, and with that in mind I have gone into the matter further.
I stated last night that in certain quarters of Quebec wheat retailed at SI .60, and that the same wheat was sold off the farm in western Canada for as little as 50 cents. Because those figures were questioned I sought further information, and I have gathered from experts that most of the wheat sold privately on western farms did not bring to the western farmer more than 50 cents. On the other hand when the eastern farmer wants to buy wheat for feeding purposes the cost is considerable. I have learned that the wholesale price of No. 1 northern in car lots is 86 cents. When I stated that $1.60 was paid

I was referring to cleaned wheat sold at retail in most parts of Quebec at $1.60. That is the explanation I give in connection with the figures which have been questioned.
Last night I referred to the attitude taken by the Premier and Minister of Agriculture of Quebec, the Hon. Adelard Godbout. I stated that while I have the greatest confidence in the federal Minister of Agriculture -and I indicated yesterday what I thought of him-I had just as much confidence in our friend, the Premier of Quebec, who is an expert in agricultural matters. For many years Mr. Godbout has held the portfolio of minister of agriculture. I know that he is now devoting all his energy toward bringing about betterment and advancement of sane agricultural conditions in Quebec.
I knew, too, that Mr. Godbout in Quebec was assisted by a group of experts, headed by his acting deputy minister, Mr. Adrien Morin, another brilliant technician in agriculture.
I could scarcely believe the premier would let pass an opportunity to benefit Quebec or the farmers of that province. I could not believe that he would fail to avail himself of these 'advantages. As I said yesterday, I went to the source and got some information as to how these negotiations had been carried on. What happened in connection with this proposal is this:	The federal offer
was that the federal government would pay 50 per cent of transportation costs, the provinces would pay 25 per cent and the railways 25 per cent. I understand a meeting was held at Toronto at which were present the provincial ministers of agriculture from eastern Canada and the chairmen of the two great railway systems. After considerable discussion the latter refused to reduce their freight rates to the extent of 25 per cent of the costs of transportation.
The provinces were then put in the position of having to consider paying fifty per cent of the cost of transporting the wheat. That would involve a considerable sum of money. At the same time there was some indication that the price of wheat was going up. The reduction in the cost of transport would have benefited the eastern farmers, but this would have been wiped out almost entirely by the increase in the price in western Canada. The Quebec department of agriculture had to consider this matter before they decided upon expending a considerable amount of money. When I said that the cost of this proposal was high, I meant that the operation of the plan would have necessitated quite an army of employees; and that above the cost of transportation itself.

Supply-State of Agriculture
It would have been necessary to take stock before the plan was put into operation, and another inventory might have been necessary after July 1 when the offer lapses. I understand that the Quebec authorities have examined the situation with a view to bringing help and relief to the class of farmers which would have benefited from this. According to the figures I have, almost ninety-five per cent of the Quebec farmers produce some milk. The provincial government decided that instead of accepting the plan to reduce the cost of transportation, they would give a bonus on cheese of two cents per pound. This provincial bonus was to be in addition to the federal bonus, and it was announced by the provincial minister of agriculture. Final steps have not been taken, but this announcement has been made by the premier and minister of agriculture. This will really help the farmer much more than would have been the case if a reduction in cost of transportation of feedstuffs had been brought about.
The provincial department of agriculture felt that the farmers in each community should be encouraged to grow all the grain they needed for feed purposes. They would then have to buy only the concentrates which they needed. I then realized that the Quebec government acted wisely and in the interests of Quebec farmers. While the federal proposal might seem to be attractive, the fact is that the rise in prices in western Canada, while they benefited the western farmer, prevented a benefit to the eastern consumer. There was also the high cost of operating the plan to be considered. Instead of this, the Quebec government decided to pay a bonus on cheese which will involve the expenditure this year of over $650,000.
Some hon. members have referred to the reduction which has been made in the estimates of the Department of Agriculture. I think it is most regrettable that these reductions have had to be made. I referred to this when I spoke on the address. However, I understand that the reductions have been made -with the greatest care. One of the reductions is in connection with grants to exhibitions and provincial and local fairs. These grants are an incentive to better farm production, but from conversations wdiich I have had with chairmen of cooperatives in my constituency I am led to believe that this expenditure is not indispensable. It is a good thing, but it is not indispensable and we should not complain too much over what has been done. However. T repeat that it is not wise economy to curtail the services provided by this department to farmers throughout Canada. It is important to help to save the world
14873-155i
from barbarism, but it is also important to feed Great Britain, not only with our wheat but with meat, cheese and butter. One thing we can do is to improve our production. That cannot be done by curtailing the services offered by this department. I think it would be better to try to cut expenses elsewhere rather than to reduce the help given to farmers.
I understand that there has been a reduction in the vote for demonstration farms, but we are told that this reduction will not mean that these farms will not be carried on. However, the experience in my own constituency is that this work is being curtailed.
Another point is the accreditation of herds. Now is the time to help our farmers, and yet this work is being curtailed because of a reduction in the estimates. One of our aims should be to help our cattle growers improve their herds in order that they may be able to compete with the Argentine and other south American countries on the British market.
Another matter discussed frequently in Quebec is the minimum price on butter. I know the minister is giving considerable attention to this problem. Opinions vary considerably as to what the price should be, and the representations which have been made to me may be based on too high a price. I state again that I am not an expert, and I do not want to pose as one. It is claimed that a price of between 33 and 35 cents per pound would be fair. Our farmers have had a number of lean years during which they had little chance to earn a living; would we be acting justly and equitably if we prevented them at a time like this from taking advantage of higher markets? Would it not be better to give them a chance and fix a reasonable limit?
I am told that farm products are still being imported from the United States even though these importations were supposed to be curtailed. There may be some reason for bringing in seasonable vegetables, but the importation of new potatoes in the winter and spring is an unwarranted luxury. It would be better to prevent the importation of sueh luxuries than to stop the bringing in of certain farm necessities, such as kerosene stoves and other things of the kind which have been banned from Canada. It has been said that these articles are manufactured in Canada, but I am told that there is a shortage at the present time. The local companies are not manufacturing these articles in sufficient volume or at a price low enough to compare with the previous prices of the United States products. Many of these articles are used mainly on farms or by small wage earners.
Supply-State of Agriculture

There should be more cooperation between the officials of the federal Department of Agriculture and the provincial department in order that the fate of our agricultural class may be bettered. I am sure that if the officials of the two departments get together, good results will ensue. Research should be carried on for opening up new avenues of production, in agriculture, and the experts of the federal department may be able to help those of the provincial departments. The culture of finer tobaccos has been started in Quebec and this might be benefited by research carried on by the federal government. The same is true of the production of flax and of sugar beets. There are many avenues of production which might prove profitable to the small farmer of Quebec.
Another matter which is mentioned quite often in our district is the establishment of tuberculosis-free areas. I understand that this work has been quite extensive and that at the present time more than half of the province of Quebec is under the plan. I believe that quite a larger number of farmers have agreed to come under the plan. I understand that the plan works out in this way. The provincial officials get the signatures of the farmers in a certain area who want to come in under the plan, and once a sufficient number of signatures has been obtained the federal authorities are asked to put the plan into operation. I understand that at the present time quite a number of farmers have signified a desire to come under the plan and that there are quite a number of areas that could be covered. But actually the plan seems to have been suspended for the duration of the war, and the result is that many parts of the province of Quebec do not get as sanitary a milk supply as they would if these tuberculosis-free areas had been established in the districts agreed upon.
Another point that has been made to me in connection with cooperation between the provincial and federal governments concerns the contagious abortion in cattle. Closer cooperation is considered important in many quarters also for a stricter application of the regulations concerning the moving from one province to another of infected animals.
That brings me, Mr. Speaker, to a question I hesitate to mention, and that is the qualifications of the federal officers appointed by the Department of Agriculture to administer these regulations in the province of Quebec. I know this is a delicate question, but in the general interest we might as well face it. Up to now there have been frequent complaints in many parts of the province of Quebec that the federal officers having to do

with the slaughtering of infected animals do not speak the French language. It is true that the farmer gets compensation when an animal is slaughtered, but it covers only part of his loss, and the blow is not softened at all when the official with whom he is dealing cannot make himself understood in a language the farmer understands but has to explain things through a third person. I again say that I appreciate that this is a delicate question, but I think this is the proper time to mention it because we all want national unity, particularly at this time when we are asking our people to defend our country and they are often treated as if they did not belong to that country. I am sure it will be realized how difficult it is for the people of our province when the officials of the federal government with whom they are dealing cannot make themselves understood. I am sure that all members from the province of Quebec desire to help the government all they can but they should at least be also given help by the government in doing away with these irritating annoyances and this is one place where help should be given. I shall not trespass, concerning bilingualism, upon any other field than agriculture to-day, but this is a case where the point is of great importance. I know the fault is not with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) himself but rather with some of his officials who do not give him proper advice.
May I be permitted to mention an incident that occurred a few years ago, when I was told by a perfect stranger that there was a meeting of a certain number of officials and the question of a bilingual appointment in the province of Quebec came up. One of the officials present said, "My people say that we cannot find any French-speaking person in the province of Quebec with the necessaiy qualifications to carry on that work". I am told that the Minister of Agriculture in this government was present and that he said to those present: "Well, you might inquire further because I have had a similar experience. I was told by my department one day that a man of those qualifications and experience could not be found in the province of Quebec, but I went to the Sherbrooke fair and talked to a man there who knew his job thoroughly. I spoke to him afterwards and asked him, 'Are you from the province of Quebec?' 'Yes', he replied. Then I asked him if he was a graduate of Macdonald college, and he told me that he was a graduate of St. Anne de la Pocatiere." Then the Minister of Agriculture went on to say to these officials: "Do not make the same mistake I made then by listening to my advisers, because I really think

Supply-State oj Agriculture
you will be able to find a man in the province of Quebec with the necessary qualifications for the position."
I mention this incident to show the goodwill of the minister and the efforts that he has made at all times. But I must say that the results are not always satisfactory. At the present time we are asking the farmers to spend more and more to improve their herds, and I do think we should appoint officials who can speak the language the farmers understand. It does not put the farmer in any better humour to be told, by an official who cannot make himself understood, to carry out orders. Particularly at this time when it is essential to win cooperation our people in the province of Quebec feel that they are treated so strangely by some of the officials that they begin to wonder whether they really belong to the country. I say that with all due respect to the minister, because as I said before I know his own personal goodwill. I mention the point because it has been brought to my attention, particularly in this matter of tuberculosis-free areas, and because I believe it is of great importance. If this work of inspection is to be resumed I trust that officials will be appointed as inspectors who can speak the language of the people with whom they are dealing, so that they can gain their goodwill and friendly cooperation, which is much better than dictating to them, in a language they do not understand, what they must do.
May I also suggest that the minister and his experts study the possibilities of applying to Canada the Farm Surplus Disposal Act which has been applied in many parts of the United States. I am not sufficiently acquainted with all its details to impose upon hon. members a description of it, but I have read a good deal about it, and where it has been put into operation it seems to have helped considerably. I suggest that further study be given to that act with a view to helping our farmers dispose of their products and at the same time helping to relieve unemployed people by giving them farm products at a nominal price.
In conclusion may I repeat that we in the east are not envious of the western farmers. Kipling's words, "East is east and west is west and never the twain shall meet," should not apply in our country. Rather the east and the west should go along hand in hand, understanding one another better and progressing together. Our agricultural economy should be nationally adjusted and geared in such a way that it may help the country towards a better and a more prosperous future.


Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, to my mind the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker) does not in any sense amount to a want of confidence motion. The motion was brought forward with the best of good-will in order that a thorough discussion might take place of the agricultural problems of this country, and the discussion we have had so far has served a very useful purpose.
I shall come shortly to the subamendment. I should like to draw the attention of the house to a few remarks which were made the other day by the hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Warren). He said:
It is the easiest thing in the world to create a spirit of self-pity in any class. You can create it among farmers or labouring men, and it is one of the worst diseases with which any individual or class could be afflicted. Cancer is bad, but I believe that self-pity is responsible for more unhappiness and discontent than ever could be the case with cancer.
I do not think that that statement was necessary. Back in 1939, as reported on page 2895 of Hansard of that year, we had a discussion in this house about transient unemployed. The point is that at that time we had to face the facts with respect to transient unemployed; and the hon. member for Renfrew North then said:
What gets under my skin is this, that there is a deliberate attempt as I see it on the part of certain members to encourage our young Canadian men to rely wholly on the government for their livelihood.
Well, Mr. Speaker, that was not so at that time. We had to face conditions with respect to these transient unemployed men. There was no way in which they could get relief, and what we were trying to do was to bring the matter to the attention of the government in order that something should be done. The same condition obtains to-day. I do not believe for one minute that farmers are influenced by sentiments of self-pity: suggestions of that kind have no relevance so far as they are concerned. Although I myself represent an urban constituency, I am sure that the farmers around the city of Toronto and north as far as lake Simcoe have at this time one matter in mind, and that is the winning of this war, but they do say that it is pretty difficult for them to make a living at the prices which now prevail. The whole idea of this resolution was to try to obtain constructive suggestions from hon. members as to how, in the words of the motion, you can-
. . . create a parity of prices as between agricultural and other products in order to improve the condition of Canadian agriculture and in
Supply-State of Agriculture

order that it may receive a just and fair return, and thus be enabled to make that contribution to Canada's war effort which is so desirable, and which our agricultural population so greatly desire to make.
That is what the farmers whom I know want-some kind of aid.
As to the subamendment which was moved by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas), from my point of view and that of my constituents, it has some merit; also there are some points about it which I do not care for. On the whole, I feel that I shall have to support it, although there are a couple of things in it with which I do not agree. It seems to me odd that we should be paying some people not to produce, and paying them, too, at the rate of $4 per acre. I have no doubt that there are farmers in the northwest who would be very glad to dispose of part of their farms for $4 or $5 or $6 an acre, and yet they are to receive $4 per acre for summer-fallowing; to my mind it does not quite make sense, especially in a time like this, when we do not know what the future, particularly with respect to Europe's food supply, will be. When the war is over there will be, so far as I can see, a period of starvation or of famine in those overseas countries which will be terrible, and it seems to me that we ought to carry on and produce, not pay people to do nothing.
There is another consideration which appeals to me in connection with this whole wheat policy. Each year as we come back to the house we have the same kind of discussion; there is always the question of how much we shall have to pay in the form of a bonus or something of the kind. What is the difficulty? It seems to me that the government has not had any policy which has lasted more than a week or ten days at a time. Much the same applies to these regulations; every ten days or so new ones are brought out. It would be much better were we to get into mass production of wheat. It is the only industry in Canada which is trying to compete and which is not on a mass production basis. If, say, a group of half a dozen farmers out there have not sufficient equipment, why should not the government help them out by supplying them on a cooperative basis with the tools and equipment which are necessary to enable them to produce in competition with any others? Having done that, there must be something else they can do: they could be employed elsewhere for the remainder of the year. Coming from Ontario, I feel that we must try to do something for the people out west, and especially in Saskatchewan where they have had a pretty tough time. Really it is not their own

fault; a number of other circumstances come into the case, and we must help them out. But something more constructive must be found than this business of bonusing them each year. It is not good enough; they do not want it. I know that farmers in our part of the country are not very keen about bonuses; they want to stand on their own feet. There must be some scheme of helping farmers out west to operate in a cooperative way, and of employing, the remainder of the year, in other occupations, those who are unable to do mixed farming or carry on upon their farms the year round.
As regards the subamendment, the only thing which worries me a little about it is the proposal to levy 50 cents per bushel as a processing tax. If it will make any serious increase in the price of bread I do not think it should be adopted; for we should try to keep the cost of consumptive goods at the levels we have them at to-day. However, I understand that the processing tax would add to the local cost of manufacturing a loaf of bread not more than somewhere between three-quarters of a cent and a cent. That is not very much, calculated over a year. I am looking at this question only from the point of view of my own people. If it is going to help the western farmers by providing them with a little more money for their wheat, I feel that, under the circumstances of to-day, I shall have to support it.
With respect to the proposal to make further provision for storage, that is along the lines on which I have been talking, namely that we should continue to store up wheat even though we have to finance the operation. The point is, let us produce it as cheaply as we can. We must store it so that we shall have it when the war is over.
So far as this resolution is concerned, I think it has been a splendid thing to have the benefit of the discussion and advice from all quarters of the house. I would not have spoken on this question if I did not feel so strongly about it.


Mr. J. SASSEVILLE ROY (Gaspe) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, the terms set out in the
six paragraphs included in the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member foir Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) are so unusual that I could not be content with registering my opposition by a simple vote.
Before quoting these six paragraphs, I beg permission to call your attention to what I consider as a mistake in the first line of the second paragraph of the French translation. The English reads as follow's:
That a processing tax of 50 cents a bushel, etc.

Supply-State of Agriculture
Here is the French translation:
Que la taxe de transformation de 50c., etc.
It seems to me that the English text has not been followed closely enough and that the French should read:
Qu'une taxe de transformation . . .
I now quote from page 2319 of Hansard, session of 1941:
1.	That the minimum price for the 1941 wheat crop be set at 85 cents per bushed, basis No. 1 at Fort William.
2.	That a processing tax of 50 cents a bushel be levied on all wheat processed for consumption in Canada, the proceeds of such tax to be added to the minimum price of 85 cents a bushel.
3.	That the delivery of the 1941 crop be made on an acreage quota, such quota to be determined by the storage space available during the crop year 1941.
4. That the government of Canada make advances to farmers for the purpose of providing funds with which to build essential farm storage.
5. That the government of Canada make provision for advances to farmers on the credit of the quota to be delivered.
6.	That the government of Canada maintain and carry the wheat surplus as an essential part of its war policy.
I want to point out that the imposition of a fine of 70 cents on each barrel of flour bought (15 cents a bushel) is a very poor way of acknowledging the efforts made by the east t.o put the west on its feet; the injustice and ungratefulness becomes overwhelming in this last suggestion of increasing the fine by raising the tax from 15 cents to 50 cents a bushel, that is, $2.25 a barrel of flour, and besides, to request that it be levied on all wheat milled for Canadian consumption.
The terms set out in the other paragraphs are just as improper and unacceptable.
I dare hope that this amendment, which does not originate from the government, will not be carried by the house, as the present tax is unwarranted, and the amounts so far allotted to the western *wheat producers by parliament are out of all proportion to those granted to other provinces or their various producers. However, it is appropriate to point out that the ever increasing demands of the west become more and more unbearable, especially when the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been voted for their benefit of late are taken into account.


Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (Cochrane):: I know I shall be forgiven for taking a little of the time of the house to discuss the important question of agriculture, one of the main reasons being that from the year 1921 to 1931 we had in northern Ontario, particularly in my own section of the province, the greatest agricultural development that has taken place
anywhere in Canada, greater than in any other section of the dominion. I am interested in land cultivation myself. Although northern Ontario is well known for its mining activities, there runs from the province of Quebec westward to Manitoba a wonderful stretch of land known as the northern Ontario clay belt, 700 miles long by 60 miles in width, covering nearly 42,000 square miles, and comprising one of the finest farming lands anywhere in the world. We all realize that to-day Canada is facing a peculiar situation for a country its size. The reason is that, so far as new agriculture is concerned, pioneering will cease within a few years. I mean that we have gone as far southward as we can go; and so far as Quebec, Ontario, the three western provinces and British Columbia are concerned, the day is not far distant when we shall find it impossible to go farther north for farming owing to climatic conditions.
In our section of the country, by reason of our geographical situation, we have always taken a national point of view of agricultural problems in Canada. We are always in sympathy, and we try to work in the closest cooperation, with eastern farmers; and the same applies to the farmers of British Columbia and the three prairie provinces.
Coming to the present motion, which is a vote of censure against the government, I have no criticism to offer. I have 'been long enough a member of this house to realize that it is part and parcel of our so-called parliamentary system. It is very much like the private members' day, which gives a certain amount of leeway to the private member to express his views on different problems that are before the country and, in particular, his own constituents. Personally, I think it is the best way of bringing as forcibly as possible to the attention, both of the house and of the country, the various problems that affect different sections of the community.
As regards the subamendment, I have no quarrel with it for the reason that it falls practically into the same category as the amendment itself. But I do suggest that it would be a splendid gesture if hon. members refrained from taking a vote on these motions, because by the time this debate is over the purpose of the amendment and the subamendment, namely, a thorough and lengthy discussion of the agricultural problem, will have been fully served. The problem is not a new one. It is as old as the world itself. The agricultural problem has always faced every nation in history, and the trouble has been more and more accentuated during the last fifty years, or at any rate the last forty years. It is pretty much like our railway
Supply-State of Agriculture

problem; it has to face new situations. Agriculture is facing a situation which is not of its own creation or volition, but it is a situation that must 'be faced just the same. The problems that affect agriculture are constantly changing; they change so rapidly that it is impossible for any government, federal or provincial, to have a cut-and-dried policy to deal with them. We must solve them gradually and as they arise.
An lion. MEMBER: It is purely a money question.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: More particularly in
connection with agriculture. One of the greatest causes of unrest leading to the present European war has been the position of agriculture in various countries, and the trouble cannot be remedied overnight.
I think it is to the credit of the members who have taken part in this debate that they have contributed their talents and their knowledge to the discussion of the problem with a view to bringing its gravity to the attention of the Canadian people. Farmers from the east and from the west, from every section of Canada, have stated their views, and though some hon. members may have been a trifle partial, nevertheless I believe they all realize the impossibility of legislating on the wheat question or agricultural problems generally to the satisfaction of everyone concerned. It is absolutely impossible. For instance, I would be the last one to doubt the sincerity of the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader). He is a practical farmer who knows what he is talking about, and speaking in all sincerity he says that last fall he told the government what it should do with regard to the wheat policy. But member after member from western Canada stood up and expressed views different from those of the hon. member for Portage la Prairie, and they were just as sincere and just as determined as he was to have the question settled. They are as anxious as the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) to bring about a solution of the problem.
All hon. members therefore will realize how impossible it is for any government dealing with this important question to satisfy all those who are affected by adopting all their viewpoints. But there is one common ground on which we can all stand, and that is cooperation with the government. I have given that cooperation in the past, because I believe this country has been blessed with a number of able federal ministers of agriculture, such as Doctor Tolmie, Mr. Motherwell, Mr. Weir and the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner)

I am speaking only of those I 
have known personally. The province of Quebec is also blessed with a premier who is well versed in agriculture, being a farmer himself.
The premier of Ontario, Mr. Hepburn, also knows the aspirations, the ideals and the problems of the farmers, not onW in Ontario but also in the west; and I believe that several of the western provinces have premiers who are very well versed in the problems of agriculture. So that as far as that is concerned we are on common ground. I sat in the opposition for a number of years, and I never doubted for a moment that the government of that day was sincerely trying to solve the problems that faced agriculture then. Some people may say those problems were not solved. That is true, but if was because they were incapable of complete solution. We must be logical and practical in our approach to these matters. I believe it is up to the farmers, through their representatives, whether provincial or federal; it is up to the agricultural associations and up to the nation as a whole, to make sure that the sentiments of the farmers are voiced, because after all the safest foundation for any country-and this applies particularly to Canada-is the agriculturists, the primary producers.
Anyone who has read or given any study to the Sirois report will 'have noticed how careful those gentlemen were to endeavour to -make the Canadian people familiar with the so-called western economy. To-day it ill behooves any member, whether from the east or from any other section of Canada, to criticize the government in regard to any money that may be spent to assist the western farmers. The opening of the west was of great assistance in maintaining unity within the Canadian confederation. It 'has permitted the Canadian people to widen their geographic and national horizon. We must realize at the same time, however, that the fathers of confederation and later the railway builders considered that the whole economy of western Canada of necessity must be based on the growing of wheat and other grains. They thought, as we thought until a few years ago, that Canada was really the granary, the bread-basket, not only of the British empire but of the civilized world. At the present time, however, we are facing new economies, both industrial and agricultural. To-day our western farmers are experiencing something similar to the disturbances which were experienced in Great Britain at the time steam power was invented, and when electricity was being developed. Only twenty-five years ago in my part of the country, when we were still in the pioneer stage, when there was practically no land cleared in that wonderful clay belt, we were paying as much as $40 or

Supply-State of Agriculture
$50 a ton for bad hay from this part of the country. Now we have an abundance of hay, with no market for it beyond the local consumption or in the raising of dairy cattle and horses. If our chemists and scientists could turn our grain and hay into oil and gasoline we would have no grain problem at all.
We must face these things as we find them. Time and again members of this parliament have stated that farmers, both in the east and in the west, are practically industrialists. They do not use horses; they use tractors, trucks and automobiles, and this is only right. I remember all the trouble we had only a few rfiort years ago with regard to road construction in northern Ontario. There was a time when the construction of colonization roads in the north enabled our settlers, using horses, to earn extra money during the slack season, but only a few years ago the contractors began to use trucks. Our farmers held all sorts of meetings in various parts of northern Ontario deploring the change and asking the government to use horses only. I took it upon myself to hold several meetings with the farmers in my part of the country, at which I told them that they must accept the change that had taken place throughout the country and realize that it was no longer possible to use horses only in connection with road construction. To-day most of our farmers are themselves using trucks and tractors. Whether or not it is a good thing I do not know, but they must keep up with the changes that take place in other parts of the country and face things as they are.
That is why I say that in dealing with the problems of agriculture we must be indulgent and broad-minded in our approach. We must take the point of view that is taken by the farmers of to-day, not that which was taken by the farmers of ten or twenty years ago. So far as agriculture is concerned we have built up an artificial economy and an artificial civilization throughout the world. I say that because in the past we have helped our industrialists, our manufacturers, and to some extent our financiers, without at the same time helping the farmers. Perhaps that was the right thing to do; personally I do not believe it was. In any case during all those years we thought it was possible for the farmers to stand on their own feet. But when you help one section of the population, from either provincial or federal funds, of necessity you must at the same time try to find a solution to the problems facing agriculture; and that is why I do not at all fear the result of bonusing, or whatever you may call it, the farmers or helping them directly from the federal treasury. I have always felt that when we were helping 14873-156
our industrialists or our financial men we should have done the same thing for our primary producers.
To-day the world is facing a new situation. Undoubtedly it is true that we have overproduction so far as wheat is concerned; and since the growing of wheat and other grains is practically an industry in Canada at the present time we must deal with it as we have dealt with our industrialists in the past. In other words we must curtail production, even though this may be against all the laws of nature. There is no doubt that some curtailment of our wheat production is absolutely necessary. The same statement applies just as forcibly to farmers in the east and in northern Ontario when they find themselves with no markets for their hay and other products. In my own constituency I have seen 200,000 tons of first-class hay which you could not even give away. Should we keep on producing more and more hay for which we can find no market? The answer is obvious. The day has come when the economy of the west must be changed from the economy of twenty years ago. Western Canada must have a greater population, though perhaps not many more should go on the land. They must work out a self-sustaining policy, and I believe the step being taken by the government at the present time is a move in the right direction. Oh, I know some eastern farmers feel uneasy when they visualize the time when western farmers may go into mixed farming more extensively; but if that day is to come there is no use in trying to delay it any longer. It is up to us in the east to adapt ourselves to that condition. I say a move of that kind is absolutely a step in the right direction, because it will help the western farmers to realize that they cannot keep all their eggs in one basket, that they must have diversity of production, which is found in every other country in the world.
It is true that this wheat question has not been created solely by this war. We suffered from these difficulties for some years prior to the war; but we hope that when this horrible conflict is over every bushel of wheat in this country will be required to feed the people of Europe. However, we must profit by our experience after the war of 1914-18. At that time we thought European agriculturists could never compete with our western farmers in the growing of wheat, but we saw countries like France, Italy, Germany and many others subsidize the growing of wheat rather than buy it from Canada, thus building up a false economy, and we may have the same situation when this war is over. There is always an element of danger in interfering with the laws of nature, though nature herself is also



Supply-State of Agriculture
wasteful. I say that because I do not believe we should build great hopes, so far as the wheat market is concerned, for the time when this horrible conflict will be over; yet it may be the other way round-wheat may save mankind from starvation.
If anyone will take the trouble to study present industrial statistics he will readily realize that the west is going more and more toward industrialization, more and more toward the development of its natural resources. No doubt we will hear more about a national coal policy, and I hope it will be possible in Ontario to use more Alberta coal than we do at the present time. Using more and more of our own natural resources will help not only people in eastern Canada, but those in the west as well.
Sometimes we in the east become a little impatient with so-called political eruptions in the west. We have seen the development of the Social Credit party and other progressive movements. If an easterner takes the trouble to study those developments thoroughly he will find there is a reason for such political and economic eruptions. We may describe as fallacious and dishonest such things as debt repudiation in the west, but I suggest we cannot throw them out as easily as that. We must look into them more thoroughly. We must study social credit and its cause in our political life, approaching it from the western viewpoint, the reason for its flourishing; and always remembering that it is the policy of one of our great western provinces. The same reasoning must be applied to debt repudiation and other political movements of the last thirty-five years.
I want to believe and the Canadian people want to believe that the people of western Canada are just as sincere and honest in their opinions as we are in the east; and I say to their credit that they have certainly been vocal in their expression of them. If through their legislation they find it necessary to repudiate certain interest payments on their debt, then I say it is not up to us immediately to condemn them. We must study the situation; we must learn why in their primary industry of agriculture they are suffering. We must learn what the farmers of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have suffered. The farmers in my section and in other sections of Canada have not made great profits, but certainly they were living more comfortably than were the people in some sections of western Canada.
Again I make an appeal to my eastern friends. I know they are open and broadminded. They do not want an east and a west; no, we do not want that. Without trying to moralize, may I say that I listened

carefully to what the hon. member for Portage la Prairie had to say. Although I represent a mining, industrial and agricultural constituency, I want to represent every section of the population in Canada. When I took my oath of office I took it as a federal, a national member. I must give my best study not only to the matters affecting my own constituency, but also to national problems which may have to be faced at any time.
This is the duty which confronts also our western friends. I would be the last man to try to moralize or to make any effort to discipline members from the west, but I would ask them, too, to be fair in regard to the agricultural problems of the east. They have studied the problems confronting the eastern farmers. They realize that many farmers in the east are working under heavy mortgages. Some hon. members might be astonished to learn that during the depression years in my own section of the country nearly eighty per cent of the farmers were on relief. Some of them, of course, should not have been there; they had no right to be there. But the majority on relief had to be there, so as to keep body and soul together. I mention these matters so that western members, appreciating the fact that we in the east have problems to face, will the more readily realize that acrimonious and partisan discussion in parliament on this all-important question would seem to be out of order. In other words the Canadian people will not tolerate at this time political discussion in connection with the great agricultural problem. I believe that agriculture has benefited in the last few weeks from what has been said by the Minister of Agriculture and by hon, members from eastern and western Canada.
Perhaps the farmers may blame themselves for part of the problem they have to face. Labour has found it possible to form unions- unions and organizations which were absolutely necessary. The more labour is properly unionized, the better it is for labouring men individually and collectively, and the better for the nation as a whole. Farmers are great individualists-so much so that it is unlikely they will ever organize to the point where they will get the things to which they are entitled, or as labour is organized. If it were possible to have an organization of the farmers from one end of Canada to the other dealing with their individual and collective problems, I believe it would be one of the finest and most practical ways of approaching them. Generally speaking, however, farmers from my section of the country will have practically nothing to do with those from southern Ontario. In my constituency we tried to organize

Supply-State of Agriculture
a settlers' organization. We worked for years and years, going into all kinds of smaller settlements, holding meetings, telling the settlers in our section of the country that for their own sake and for the sake of northern Ontario they must of necessity organize, outside of any political affiliations. At one time we had hope of success, but after two or three years of struggle we had to give up.
Why was that necessary? It was because of the intensive individualism of the farmer. Some time, however, they may realize the necessity of uniting themselves, so that the nation may be fully seized of the problems they are facing. It would not be wise for any hon. member unduly to criticize the financiers or the big corporations for organizing. It is necessary that they organize in order to carry on their activities in the economic life of the country, and in this regard the principle which applies to finance and big business applies with equal if not greater force to agriculture.
I do not wish to deal at length with the wheat situation. I have never doubted for one moment the sincerity of the hon. member for Weyburn. In his subamendment he has made a modest request. It would have been just as easy to ask for $1.25 a bushel, and I believe most western members will say that would not have been too high a price to ask. He asks only for 85 cents. I am sure the hon. member for Weyburn fully realizes what the effect would be on the western farmers in his section of the country if the subamendment were implemented; it would not satisfy every one- far from it.
AYe knew that something had to be done, and the government has done it. Some may not regard the solution as a perfect one, but no human institution can always be perfect. I recall that when a few days ago the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation *was speaking a question was raised by hon. members in the Liberal and Conservative parties. At the conclusion of this speech I sent him a note saying, "When you become Prime Minister you will realize how hard it is to please everyone." We all know that perfection is very difficult to obtain. Even the angels would find it hard to please every section of the country and each individual member.
This is why I repeat the wish I voiced a few moments ago as to withdrawal of the amendments wuthout vote. I know that each one of us is carrying in his heart and soul a heavy load. No Canadian or Britisher can be happy under present circumstances. The hon. gentlemen who moved the amendments must certainly be satisfied with the manner in which this discussion has proceeded. They must be satisfied, too, with the thoroughness 14873-156$
with which the agricultural problem has been discussed, and how sincerely and honestly views have been expressed from all sections of the house. I believe they would be doing a great service if they were not to ask for a vote of censure of the government. First of all it must be remembered that governments are human. Members of the cabinet would be the first to recognize that some mistakes have been made and will be made by this administration. But no good would come from taking a vote, I feel that such a procedure would be resented by the people. Some people ridicule the fact that the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) had to make amendments from time to time in the wheat regulations, but that in my opinion is only natural. They have repeatedly stated in the house that more amendments might have to be brought in, and this is an honest and practical way to proceed; it shows that they are open-minded. It shows how alive and alert the present administration is to the serious situation which faces western Canada.
I do not like to throw any bouquets, but I believe the present Minister of Agriculture is the best man we could have for his position at the present time. We have great respect for him in our section of the country, we appreciate the extent of his experience in agriculture. We know that he wants to solve not only the problems of the western farmer but also those which face agriculture in general. I know he has been working in all sincerity, I know he has been taking advantage of all the advice which has been offered with a view to introducing legislation which will be helpful to our western farmers. This legislation will not solve all their problems; that it is humanly and physically impossible to do, but to some extent it will alleviate their condition at the present time.
I was grieved a few days ago to read an article written by a former member of this House of Commons for whom I have always had the greatest respect. She was asking the farmers to go on a sit-down strike because their present situation is so deplorable, because they are not as prosperous as they used to be. This is not the sort of thing that leads to national unity. Our labour unions are not advocating that labour should go on a sit-down strike. As I know labour unionism, it is ninety-nine per cent loyal and patriotic. There is a place in the internment camps for those who comprise the small minority which is opposed to our fighting the battle of civilization and preach subversive ideas and agitation in labour ranks. I repeat that the farmer will not go on a sit-down strike. No one is more loyal or patriotic. The farmers do not
Supply-State of Agriculture

want to be coddled, but at the same time they feel that their representatives have the right to express their views in this house as forcibly as possible to the end that they may be able to live their lives as they should be entitled to live them, that they may be in a position to support our national activities to a greater extent than they find it possible to do at the present time.
I do not want to enlarge any more upon this subject; it is one of considerable magnitude and could be discussed at great length. It may be a revelation to hon. members to know what is the true state of affairs in connection with our eastern grain growers. I have been in this business in the past. I have also been a dirt farmer, and I have no greater pleasure during my leisure hours than to get behind a plough. For many years I have been a grain dealer, and I believe I speak the truth when I say that southern Ontario has no surplus of these grains.


Mr. MARTIN:: You can use some of our corn.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I do not think southern Ontario can supply all our requirements. Every time we have needed a carload of coarse grain we have had to get it from Winnipeg or some other point in the west. I believe that only about ten times during the last twenty-five years have I been able to get a carload of coarse grain from eastern Canada. Some people seem to be afraid that the western farmer will go into the growing of coarse grains as extensively as he has gone into the growing of wheat. I am not afraid that that situation will develop. After all, the western farmer is a realist. He knows that there is no money to be made from growing too much grain, and he will not do it.
Bonusing is something of which we should not be afraid. We have bonused to a certain extent our apple and tobacco growers. Many times in this house I have heard hon. members ask that greater restrictions be imposed upon the importation of fresh fruits and vegetables from the United States. I should like to say a few words on this important matter.
Ninety per cent of the sulphite and newsprint production in my section of the country is sold to the United States. Every day a trainload of newsprint leaves the mills in this district for the United States. Every ounce of the gold produced in the Porcupine, Kirkland Lake and other districts of northern Quebec goes to the United States.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: Who own the mines?
[Mr. Bradette.l


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I know of one mine in which there are 25,000 small stockholders, so that they really belong to the people. On this question of fruits and vegetables, we shall always be in sympathy with the southern Ontario farmer, but it must not be forgotten that the moment restrictions are placed against the importation of fruits and vegetables, we in northern Ontario will have to pay through the nose. We shall be ready to do that if it is helping our people in southern Ontario. There are fine highways into northern Ontario, and as soon as our own district is able to produce fruits and vegetables trucks by the dozens and hundreds enter the district from southern Ontario and flood the domestic market. We do not want to criticize this practice; these fruits and vegetables come from southern Ontario and we realize that the southern Ontario farmer must live, but some of our farmers are penalized by it.
If restrictions are placed upon the importation of fruits and vegetables from the United States we must consider the position of the 200,000 people gainfully employed in our gold mining industry. What will happen to them if we cannot sell our gold to the United States? What will happen to the pulp and sulphite exports from northern Ontario and Quebec to the United States? What will become of the market for our cattle, to which the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) referred the other day? We must take a national view of these matters. I am not an easterner or a westerner, I am really a central Canadian. I know what is going on in the west and in the east, and I shall always be willing to dig down, with all I have, in order to help the farmers of the west or the east. I am ready to do that in order that our farmers throughout the length and breadth of this country may be satisfied.
You cannot plan for a static solution of our agricultural problems. We must face new situations as they come up from day to day. The fathers of confederation never visualized what would happen to our present extensive system of railroads. Who would have thought twenty-five or thirty years ago that the buses and trucks would have taken so much traffic away from our railroads? Even such an experienced railroad man as the late Sir Henry Thornton did not believe that this would happen. Speaking in North Bay a few years ago he said that the more automobiles and trucks we had on our highways, the more traffic there would be for our railroads. But that prophecy did not come true.
Agriculture is facing a new situation in the dietetic propaganda which has been put forth throughout the country in recent years and

Supply-State oj Agriculture
which will have to be counteracted by our bakers and wheat growers. Because of this propaganda the consumption of wheat in Canada has diminished by fifty per cent per capita in the last fifteen years. After reading the propaganda put out in our daily and weekly press by so-called dietitians, I am almost ready to believe that if I eat too much bread I will be poisoned. Western civilization has been built on wheat eating. As water will eventually work its way through stone, so has this propaganda had its effect upon the consumption of wheat. We have been led to believe that citrus fruits are absolutely necessary and that if we eat too much bread we will get indigestion or our health will be permanently injured. Only six months ago the bakers in Ontario started some counterpropaganda and I understand that this has proven most beneficial, not only to the bakers but also to the wheat growers of the country.
I repeat that agriculture in all civilized countries will for many years to come have many problems to contend with which cannot be fully solved but which any parliamentarian who understands his mandate must endeavour to understand with a view to bringing forward measures that will assist in alleviating the present situation of the farmer, and so that the country will be seized of the exact situation. Everybody will admit that agriculture has been seriously neglected in the past, with the result that there has been built up what is largely a false civilization. This must be rectified. We hope that in a very few months or years from now, when our boys will be coming back victorious from the battlefield, it will be possible at least for those of them who lived on the farm prior to enlisting to go back to the land, and they will go back if their fathers and relatives and friends who have been occupied in farming during the war are comfortable and fairly prosperous. But it would be impossible to drag them back to the land if the farmers were then facing conditions such as they had to face during the great depression. Our agricultural problems are not easy of solution, but they deserve serious study and for many of them at least a partial solution can be found.
Here in Canada we are standing on the highway of the civilized world. If we envision the future that lies ahead of us we shall be able to build up a country which will be great, not only industrially but agriculturally, because we all realize that a large part of our population must of necessity find their occupation in life in the primary industry of agriculture. We shall thus build up in this country a balanced economy and our citizens
will be proud and happy to be Canadians and Britishers and to do their utmost for the advancement and welfare of the nation as a whole in a world that may well look for leadership from our privileged and beloved land.


Mr. L. E. CARDIFF (Huron North):: Mr. Speaker, I have followed with a great deal of interest the debate thus far, and I hope that every farmer member of the house will make his contribution to it because, goodness knows, there are not many of us here. So I hope that every farmer member will exert himself to speak in this debate.
I rise because I can no longer sit quietly in my seat knowing as I do the state of mind of the average farmer and the effect which it may have on our war effort, particularly if Japan enters the war and food supplies from Australia and New Zealand are cut off from Great Britain. Canada would then be the source of supply for the mother country.
What do we find? Our farmers are both dissatisfied with the future outlook and disgusted with present farm policies. In other words, they have lost faith in the federal government because there is no medium between the farmer and the government. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has let us down either because he is no longer interested in our problems or because he has too many other responsibilities. What we most urgently need is a minister of agriculture who will spend his full time in looking after the interests of the farmers. Farmers are planning to carry on their operations on a limited scale owing to the high price of labour, and they are not planning to produce to the maximum because they can see no light in the present inequality between agriculture and industry and labour. This is a calamity, because industry and labour cannot and will not be able to contribute their fair share to our war effort without the farmers.
During the war of 1914-18 a great majority of farmers had a reserve of cash and feed and they were appealed to from patriotic motives to buy victory bonds and to increase production of food products such as wheat. They responded nobly. The farmer is a patriotic and a noble man if given an opportunity. In this war the reaction has been different; farmers cannot purchase war certificates or war bonds or war savings stamps. The reason is that he has not the therewithal,, and he resents finding himself in this position. Naturally, he lays the blame on the federal government for having forgotten him in the drafting of the war policy of this country. Agreements have been entered into by the Minister of Agriculture without giving the farmer any consideration. He is forced by
Supply-State oj Agriculture

labour shortage and price to discontinue production. He feels that the British people should not be aspect to pay more, but he also feels that the difference should be made a national responsibility, to be taken, if you will, from the revenues of the federal government, so that armers may not be asked to sacrifice more than other groups in the country.
There is also the feeling throughout the country that the war effort has bogged down at Ottawa. The farmer feels that the Minister of Agriculture is playing party politics along with his leader. This should not be in war time.


Mr. FRASER (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is it against the rules for an hon. member to read his
speech?


Georges Parent: Objection has been taken to the hon. member reading his speech, and I hope he will desist.


Mr. BENCE:: Members opposite have been doing it right along.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who wrote that
speech?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: These are my notes and I am making the speech. I have been in this house for some time now and I have not interrupted any member making a speech. There has hardly been a member opposite who did not read his speech in this debate, and the only reason I am sticking to my notes rather closely is that I have not had the educational opportunities that most lawyers have enjoyed.
What we need is to produce efficiently more supplies for our army and to equalize matters between the various groups so that all will share and share alike in the endeavour to beat the common enemy. What we need is the confidence and unity of the Canadian people in doing what is required in this war effort.
To give a concrete suggestion, we all know that the dairy industry is a major industry in this country and that butter, condensed and evaporated milk and fluid milk prices are influenced by the price of cheese. We know that Great Britain wants 112 million pounds of cheese from Canada in 1941, and more if possible. The solution seems to me a simple one, and if the Minister of Agriculture wants to do something, the facts are plainly before him. Farmers are not so dumb, but they just cannot keep on producing at a loss. They must have sufficient income to defray expenses and live, if nothing else, and I contend that this government must bolster up the morale of our rural
IMr. Cardiff.]
people if it expects to get the maximum war effort. An increase in the price levels will spur the farmers on to pile up the cheese figure, and that in turn will be reflected in the cream producing industry. The small bonus which the Minister of Agriculture has promised is just like a bone to a hungry dog. It satisfies only for the moment. Why cannot we have a minister who will forget politics in these trying times and give agriculture the attention it deserves? The farmers are waiting for the Minister of Agriculture to come down to earth. Instead of floating along as we are we should be producing to the maximum.
If Japan gets into the war and Australia and New Zealand are cut off from sending supplies to Great Britain, Canada will be required and should be prepared to meet the demand that will arise. We would be in a nice position if we were one year late in our endeavours! If we were allowed to send our surplus to the nations which are now in need we would have a ready market for all we could produce. Dumb as the Minister of Agriculture may think we are, price will be the factor in deciding how much and what products the farmer will produce. Give the farmer a reasonable profit on his main products, his dairy produce, beef, hogs, eggs and grain, and he will pay higher wages to his help and be a steady purchaser of war bonds and war savings certificates and stamps.
The morale of the rural people at present is at a low level. Something has to be done to raise it. The federal government has failed and failed badly so far to promote unity of purpose and effort in the war need. The Minister of Agriculture has lost the entire confidence of the average farmer. Coming from a rural riding and knowing the condition that agriculture is in, I insist that speedy action be taken before it is too late. There is a limit to the endurance of the farmer. There is not a shadow of a doubt in my mind that unless a change is made for agriculture, seventy-five per cent of the farms in Canada will be mortgaged for all they are worth. It will not only cripple this generation but will tend to cripple the next generation as well.
There are a few things I should like to know.
I should like to know from the Minister of National War Services, now that we no longer have an active minister of agriculture, why we farmers in Ontario have to pay $24 per ton for screenings. I understand these screenings are taken as dockage from the western farmer after he has paid the freight on them to the head of the lakes. They do not cost anything when they get that far, and yet when they get down to Ontario they cost us anywhere from $20 to

Supply-State of Agriculture
S24 per ton. I contend that we should be able to buy those screenings, plus freight and handling charges from the head of the lakes, anywhere in Ontario.


Mr. GARDINER:: Tell us in what condition they get down to the head of the lakes.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Then I should like to know why the price of fertilizers has been allowed to increase to the amount of $12 per ton. I find after some study that we have a monopoly in Canada of sulphate of ammonia. Sulphate of ammonia is a by-product of the steel industry in coking plants. It supplies the cheapest form of nitrogen the farmer can buy. All other sources of nitrogen rise and fall according to the price of sulphate. You can readily see, therefore, the viciousness of an ammonia monopoly to the farmer. Canada is producing more steel and steel products to-day than at any previous time in her history, and consequently we have more sulphate of ammonia available. Instead of its costing S12 per ton more to-day it should be cheaper if we had a minister of agriculture who was interested in the farmer's welfare.
There is no question in my mind that there are a great many different ways in which the minister could help the depressed farmer besides pegging the price of wheat, bacon, cheese, butter, et cetera. We have heard a great deal from the government members about unity. How can any country have unity with forty per cent of her people in the condition in which we find agriculture to-day? Unity has not to do with the difference between English and French-speaking people in Canada. Unity means the equalizing of all groups in Canada regardless of race or creed. We have French farmers in Quebec suffering just the same as we are. Don't let this Liberal government pull the wool over your eyes any longer. We have heard enough of this farcical unity talk. What we need is comparative prices; nothing else will satisfy. We are getting sick of everything being bolstered up at the expense of agriculture. What we need is a minister of agriculture who will fight for the rights of agriculture. I lay the responsibility at the door of the Prime Minister. He is the one who is guilty of keeping a minister who is of no use to the farmer. Why does he not appoint a minister of agriculture who would at least take some interest in the welfare of the farmer? It would create more unity in Canada by far than this so-called political drama that has been going on between the French and English, or Quebec and the rest of the provinces. This government has no constructive policy so far as agriculture is concerned.
Let us face the facts. I contend that, if this government had faced the facts, we who are agriculturists would not now find ourselves in the deplorable condition in which we find ourselves at present. How can we have a united Canada, a united war effort, a united anything for that matter, so long as we are labouring under these conditions?
If this government just keeps on ignoring agriculture as it has in the past without giving a thought to our future welfare, we who are English and French, or descendants of any other race, will soon be able to supply the true definition of unity in Canada. We will most certainly disregard the political aspect of the set-up.
According to a statement made by the Minister of Agriculture in his address on Wednesday, March 26, hogs had decreased in value to the extent of less than 50 cents per hundred under the last trade agreement, while the price received from Great Britain was $2.12 per hundred less than a year ago. This would lead one to the conclusion, either that the farmers are now getting too much, according to the agreement, or that they certainly did not get their fair share of the price received last year. Would the minister care to explain where the difference went, and who got the money?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have no objection to the hon. gentleman reading his speech, but when he is asking me questions, I wish he would pick it up and read it so that I can understand the questions.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: The Prime Minister reads his speeches.


Mr CARDIFF:: The minister understands it all right. He is not so dumb.


James Garfield Gardiner: Pick it up and read it.


The DEPUTY SPEAKER:: It is a rule of the house that an lion, member may not read his speech. Furthermore, it is essential that every hon. member should speak distinctly. How can the chair determine whether an hon. gentleman is in order if the Speaker cannot understand what is being said because the hon. member does not speak distinctly, particularly when putting a question?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I quote the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McNevin) when he said, if we were assured by this policy that we would be able to buy cheap grain, it would not be so bad, "but we are not." We know from experience that feed such as screenings which costs less than nothing at the head of the lakes, by the time we get it down in Ontario, costs $24 per ton, or about $1.25 per hundred.
The minister claims that farm prices have improved slowly this last two years. Perhaps

Supply-State of Agriculture
so, but when we consider the price we have to pay for the things we must 'buy, the slight increase does not do us much good.
I should like to take just a few minutes to deal with the generous gift or bonus of $35,000,000 which is being handed over to the western farmer. I wish to deal with the matter in relation to the effect that it will have.
First, a very large portion of this bonus will go to those who are not in need and who have planned to make and are making the adjustments they are now being paid to make by this generous bonus of the government.
Secondly, the bonus in question will give very little help and very little assistance to the small producer of grain. It will force the grain grower of the west into the production of hogs, something he is not prepared to do or does not want to do unless he really has to. It will force him into an overproduction of coarse grains which will be hard to store and hard to get a profitable price for on account of freight charges. So far as I can learn many of these adjustments were being planned and would have been taken care of without such assistance; in fact I have been told that the western farmer never asked for any such bonus, and moreover did not want it.
You would have thought that the Saskatchewan government or the rural municipalities convention would have been the first to be consulted in regard to this new bonus before the Minister of Agriculture and the dominion government would have got into such a generous state of mind, but such was not the case. It came like a bolt from the blue without any consideration whatsoever being given to other parts of Canada.
The fact that the western farmer may be short of revenue, owing to his not being able to sell his wheat, will not warrant the throwing of 30 or 40 millions of dollars to the west without giving due consideration to the question where it is going or the effect it will have on Ontario or other parts of Canada as a whole.
I think the agriculture committee of this parliament should have been consulted in this regard. Here we have been sitting for over a year and the agriculture committee has never had one meeting. Has agriculture become of so little importance to this government that the committee on agriculture is no longer of any consequence? Surely the Minister of Agriculture has not become so efficient that he no longer needs to take advice on any matters pertaining to agriculture, or are the agricultural members in this house to be completely ignored? Surely the Minister of Agriculture should be the medium

through which we should be able to work out our many problems in a manner that would be at least satisfactory in part.
In conclusion, I suggest that we cannot expect much consideration from this government so far as agriculture is concerned, because when this debate started, or fifteen or twenty minutes after it started, only fourteen members out of 180 on the government side were in their seats.


Paul Joseph James Martin: How many on your side are in their seats right now?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Eighteen Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and Social Credit members 'were in their seats, and only fourteen Liberal members, after the debate started, and the other, day, after the recess, only sixteen members opposite were in their seats. How in the name of goodness can you expect the government to do justice to agriculture when members have no interest in the subject? The fact that the agriculture committee has never had a meeting since parliament opened proves to me that agriculture, so far as this government is concerned, is the forgotten industry.


Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: I hope I shall not be accused of reading my speech. I shall endeavour to get along without reading too much of it.
Before dealing with the subamendment, I should like to review the situation with reference to this motion, which came before the house first on March 26, following an announcement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). I think the house will agree with me that at that time the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn) and I, as real dirt farmers, simply wished to have a general discussion, a fair, unbiased and reasonable discussion, on the great problem affecting agriculture to-day, a problem which at the present time is second in importance only to the war. On April 7 the Minister of Agriculture wished to bring before the house, prior to the recess, his regulations with respect to bonusing and assistance to be given to the farmers. We agreed to withdraw the motion that night in order that the minister might proceed, on the distinct understanding that it would again take its proper place on the order paper the next day. I will not accuse the ministry of any deliberate attempt to have the motion omitted from the order paper, but the next day the order paper was printed without it. I make no accusation; far from it. However, as the result of some error the motion did not appear; and then, in order to have it.

Su-pply-State of Agriculture
reinstated-because it was understood that we were to have an opportunity of proceeding with the debate-it was agreed that two other members of the official opposition would bring forward the same motion. They did so, and we had to fall back upon two lawyers. In my opinion, they made a pretty good job of it. Now, however, there is a subamendment, and after having lawyers to plead our cause, we have had two preachers to pray for us.


William Alexander Fraser: You
needed it.


Ernest Edward Perley: Yres, but not as much as lion, gentlemen opposite do. However, they made a good job of praying for us, and then we heard from two doctors, one of them being the hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Donnelly). He also did well, and I wish he would stick to his guns and support by his vote some of the things he said. We have also heard from other lawyers. Yesterday we heard from the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver). Well, he may be a pretty fair lawyer; but if he cannot do better at defending a client in a court of law than he did last night when pleading the case for the farmer, if I were in difficulty I would rather depend upon the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker).
Members on the government side have charged us with playing politics. I resent that charge, because when the motion was originally introduced we had the best intentions; we simply wished to have a general discussion of the whole agricultural problem, and in my opinion it was time for such a discussion. After the proposal was made to the house on March 12 by the two ministers, we heard from some Liberal members; the hon. member for Victoria, Ontario, (Mr. McNevin), the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. MacKenzie), the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Rickard), and the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Blanchette). One would have thought that these gentlemen would oppose the government in the proposal that has been brought down, and some of them came pretty close to playing politics in the statements they made; but it was just so much eyewash, because as soon as the government passed round the word to these boys that this was a want of confidence motion, they all ceased criticizing and fell into line. Therefore they were playing politics.
We are all agreed that it is the duty of an opposition to criticize constructively, and that is what we did.


Mr. CLEAVER:: Not to make a motion of want of confidence in war time.


Ernest Edward Perley: I was going to pay a
compliment to the Minister of Agriculture, if the hon. member would only keep quiet. Constructive criticism has never hurt any government, and I will be fair enough to the minister to say that in my opinion he would invite constructive criticism on this or any other subject relating to agriculture. He would appreciate such criticism. I know the manner in which he has received certain criticism out west, and I am frank in saying that he has received it with good grace, because I believe he wants to know what is wrong.
I recall a statement which the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) made when he spoke. He went all over the lot and finally said that while this might not be the very best solution, if it were not a good proposal then it was up to this parliament and the public to devise something and let the government know. That is what we have been trying to do. Let me say this in fairness to the minister. The great difficulty in which this or any other . government finds itself, when dealing with a problem of this magnitude, is the lack of information, knowledge and understanding on the part of those who are directly affected. That is a difficulty which is common to all governments in a matter of this sort.
While at times in this house, in carrying out what I deem to be my responsibility as a member, I have been critical of the government-and not only of this government but of the government which I had the honour to support-I have always tried to offer constructive suggestions, and I have the satisfaction now of knowing that when criticizing the government for its inaction with respect to this problem I offered in 1938 a suggestion which, since then adopted, the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) ridiculed at the time as moonshine-storage on the farm. I was the first man to propose a processing tax and the principle was adopted by the present Minister of Trade and Commerce and put into operation. I also suggested the quota system which this government has employed. I take satisfaction, therefore, in the fact that while I have been critical I have at the same time offered something worth while which has been subsequently accepted.
It may be true that on March 26 I was critical of this proposal which was brought forward by the two ministers; but I did offer a suggestion as to what the government should do, and I venture to suggest that if this war continues, my proposal will be accepted within a year. I have before me an editorial which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press, making some comments along the lines of my criticism. I said this action was too drastic,
Supply-State of Agriculture

in bringing about the reduction in one year; I referred to the quota system, and this editorial states that had the quota system been in vogue for a number of years we would not have the problem we have to-day. On February 2, 1934, I proposed that the quota system be adopted. Unfortunately I could not sell the idea to my own government; but certainly if that suggestion had been accepted, we would not have been faced with such a huge surplus as we have to-day.
I think the minister will agree that this is far from being a solution of the problem, that it is only a temporary measure. Before dealing with the proposal in detail, however, I should like to make one or two other observations. I think we will all agree that western Canada's wheat 'is Canada's commercial life-blood, and I believe maintaining the price of that wheat on a parity with what the producer has to pay for those things that go into wheat production is the concern of every Canadian and certainly should be the concern of every member of this house. That was what our proposal meant, in the first place. In considering this problem there are two main factors to be remembered. First we have the production end; we have the farmer who tills the soil, does the seeding, harvests the grain and delivers it. Then we have the physical handling and marketing of that grain, which I believe is equally important in the economic life of the western producer. That being so, if we are going to ask the producer to grow that grain, not at cost plus but at cost and, in many instances, at less than cost, it is our duty as members of this house to see to it that the physical handling and marketing are not carried out on the basis of cost and a tremendous plus.
I think every fair-minded man will agree with that statement. This government has done little or nothing to deal with the second factor; it has allowed the grain trade to make a large profit.
We as a parliament have a duty to perform. The Minister of Trade and Commerce made the statement that we have $400,000,000 invested in wheat; and under present conditions that wheat is practically as good as gold.
I wish the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) were in his seat at the moment, because I believe he would agree with what I am now going to say. Having $400,000,000 invested, the government is in the wheat business for at least a few years; so I believe this parliament should amend the finance act or the Bank of Canada Act or some such act in order that sufficient currency might be issued on the security of the wheat held by the board to finance the whole project, so that no interest charges would accrue on the 
money invested in this wheat. That may be a step towards inflation, but I venture to say that in a short time we shall come to that also.
I have another suggestion to make. In the circumstances, with the government in this business, I think they should take control of all human-food grains produced in Canada, whether manufactured or not. That would put a crimp in some of the profit now being made on some of the products of agriculture.


Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford):: Would that be for all time?


Ernest Edward Perley: No. There is a war on.
Don't you know that?


William Ross Macdonald: You
should make yourself clear.


Ernest Edward Perley: 
James Garfield Gardiner: A moment ago the hon. member asked a question. Since I do not expect to speak further in the debate, perhaps I might reply at this time. The suggestion was made that I ought to answer the question why the resolution of the Saskatchewan government was not adopted. If my memory serves me correctly, the resolution of the Saskatchewan legislature was passed as a result of action all of which was taken one afternoon. I believe that was Friday afternoon. The policy of the government was announced at the beginning of the next week. That is, it had been fully considered before any resolution was passed in Saskatchewan.
Then, on the other question, as to the meeting of the Saskatchewan members with the premier, the provincial minister of agriculture and representatives of the pool, those men came to Ottawa after the matter was announced to this house-not before. We did what we always do; we gave a dinner for the premier and the provincial minister of agriculture, and invited the other two men to it. We had an ordinary social gathering in one of the dining rooms upstairs. That was the only meeting of members that was held, which I attended.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What is wrong with holding a meeting?


Ernest Edward Perley: I will just put the minister right. The matter was considered in the provincial house in the afternoon. Then the premier invited Mr. Wesson and members of the pool, and the municipal authorities. Some of them were in the capital, Regina; the matter was discussed thoroughly, and the proposal was drawn up.


James Garfield Gardiner: But it was after the announcement was made here, that they came down and made those recommendations.


Ernest Edward Perley: I was referring to the first meeting, before the proposal was passed. Then it was passed by the provincial house before the announcement was made here.


James Garfield Gardiner: Just the Friday before.


Ernest Edward Perley: Well, that is "before",
isn't it?


James Garfield Gardiner: It was all considered the one afternoon.


Ernest Edward Perley: It was passed before. They thought the Minister of Agriculture might adopt it. I will just ask the minister this question: Did you have any knowledge that that proposal was going to be brought in, in the province of Saskatchewan, and was it not yours?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to answering that question. I did not hear of it until the afternoon it was presented in the house at Regina.


Ernest Edward Perley: All right, that's that. It was presented in the Saskatchewan legislature before the announcement was made here. Then, afterwards, that delegation came down, and the premier of the province asked Mr. Wesson to come with him. I say that we might have had a report on the meeting that took place here. What passed in the provincial legislature was the unanimous proposal of at least ninety-five per cent of the agriculturists in western Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: Does the hon. member report all his private dinners to the press?


Ernest Edward Perley: I did not know there was a custom of giving a premier from a province a dinner.


James Garfield Gardiner: We always do.
Mr. PERLEY': I did not know about that. I say that there is confusion, and that the minister has confused us even more. After his double-barreled announcement of February 12, an order in council was passed on April 2, another one on April 8, and now another one on April 30. Then, when he was out west he sent a telegram, a copy of which I have in my hand, but which I shall
Supply-State of Agriculture

not read. He stated what applications should be in, and advised secretaries of municipalities to organize, and to advise farmers to make their applications before the first of May. That confused all of them.
I might add that I tried to help a few farmers. I attended three meetings, and addressed them. There was confusion in their minds, and I helped them as much as I could in reading the recommendations and regulations as we then had them. We have now a different set, and we have no indication that it is final. I say that because I have before me, in the minister's handwriting, these words, "This may be the final"-he hopes- "with a few minor changes." I say that there will be confusion right along. The government may think they are right in going through with this proposal, but I say that they will destroy the soul of western Canada before they have finished.
Yesterday, when the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) was speaking with respect to advertising products and by-products of agriculture, the minister suggested that the hon. member should read the press to see how those products have been advertised. I hold in my hand an advertisement published under the authority of the dominion Department of Agriculture. In it I find the following:
Help Canada win the war by growing less wheat in 1941.
Get your application completed by May 1, 1941, if possible.
What did that cost? It appeared in practically every western paper, and I suggest that it will be fine fodder or dope for Hitler, when he hears that we are encouraging the farmers to grow less wheat, in order to win the war. It is not long ago that we heard Lloyd George on the radio state that Britain's greatest need is food. Yet we have the government saying, "Grow less wheat in Canada to help win the war." The two statements are conflicting, to say the least.
It is not too late for the government to adopt the subamendment. If the government were prepared to adopt it, I would ask that they accept, too, the suggestion I made on March 26, that for the duration of the war- and I would make it longer, if I had my way- the government should take over all storage facilities in western Canada and operate them for the benefit of the producer.


William Ross Macdonald: Forever, or just for the duration of the war?


Ernest Edward Perley: At least for the duration of the war, and I believe the experience gained would be such that it would continue forever. Certainly it would have to continue for five years following the war.

I wish briefly to review what is contained in the subamendment. I approve the action of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in advertising that the government can take only
230.000.	000 bushels of wheat, based on the fact that it will be able to export only
180.000.	000 bushels, and that it would take
50.000.	000 bushels for domestic consumption. Understanding the present situation, I do not believe farmers object to that provision. Had they been given a fair price, there would have been much more satisfaction. I say that the price should be at least 85 cents.
Why do I say that? I believe I can prove that if the government set the price at 85 cents, there would be no loss on the 180,000,000 bushels exported to Great Britain. I hold in my hand a chart dated April 26, 1941, setting out a monthly review of the wheat situation. At page 6, I find the heading, "Liverpool wheat offers, f.o.b. port of shipment, March 1940 to date, (Canadian cents per bushel)". This chart shows that from March, 1940, to April 26, Liverpool has been offering over 80 cents for Canadian wheat in Canadian ports on the St. Lawrence, and Saint John. At no time has the offer been less than 80 cents. The chart shows that in the last two months, namely, March and April of this year, Liverpool has been offering 89 cents for No. 1 Manitoba at St. Lawrence ports.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce issued this chart on April 26, and I should like to ask him if it is correct. Why did he publish it and give the impression to the people throughout the west that since April, 1940, the government have not sold a bushel of wheat at less than 80 cents? That is what this chart says they have been offered. If they did not accept the offer, what excuse have the government? If the minister wants to answer now, he may.


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: I am sorry, but I have missed the first part of the hon. gentleman's question.


Ernest Edward Perley: I am sorry the minister does not pay a little better attention. He does not generally answer questions I ask from time to time, and I do not like to take up time repeating my questions. The monthly review of the wheat situation dated April 26, issued by the minister's department, states on page 6 that Liverpool has been offering for Canadian wheat every month since March, 1940, up to date. 80 cents or more and the last two months it has been 89 cents. May I say that I was in Winnipeg the other day and was talking to some grain men, and they told me I could come to Ottawa and make the statement on the floor of the house that

Supply-State of Agriculture
they have not sold a bushel below SO cents in the last six months. That is what they told me. If that is the case, then there has been no loss on what has been exported. I have a statement here with respect to export shipments during the last two or three weeks.


James Angus MacKinnon: Should I say something?


Ernest Edward Perley: Yes, you should say something. The minister does not rise in his place unless he gets advice from the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture should be handling this matter. I think he knows more about wheat than almost any other man in western Canada. This is an important matter and he is the man who should be handling it. We have the spectacle of the Minister of Trade and Commerce asking the Minister of Agriculture if he will rise and answer.


James Angus MacKinnon: I
do not hesitate to acknowledge that I am very glad to have the opportunity of looking to the Minister of Agriculture for guidance because of the experience he has had in this and other houses. I have made a statement as to the prices we have received for our wheat at different times. It is quite easy for the hon. member to make assertions as to what has been received for wheat, but he should go the full way and state upon what basis the price is paid, whether it is a cash price or whether the carrying charges should be deducted. I do not propose to be drawn into a discussion of all that that involves, but any statement that I have made with regard to the prices we have obtained for wheat is according to the facts. Following the recent discussion in the house, I took it upon myself to get in touch with the wheat board and suggested to them that they attempt to obtain permission from the British authorities to make public the prices at which we have sold our wheat. This was done through our representative in Great Britain. The wheat board stated that there has been a demand in the House of Commons that the prices should be made public, and asked if that was agreeable. Their cabled reply is as follows:
British government think it inadvisable to make public any price structure.
On that we stand.


Ernest Edward Perley: The minister asks me upon what authority I base my statement. My authority is the publication put out by his own department on April 26, giving the Liverpool wheat offers.


James Angus MacKinnon: I
referred to the basis of the price.


Ernest Edward Perley: The basis was No. 1 Manitoba at St. Lawrence river ports or Saint John, 89 cents. The minister can figure- any farmer can do it-what it will cost to get the wheat from Fort William to Saint John or to St. Lawrence river ports. I based my statement upon the pamphlet issued by his own department. He has not even answered my question.


James Angus MacKinnon: It all depends upon when delivery is to be taken.


Ernest Edward Perley: This is for every month
since March, 1940.


James Angus MacKinnon: My hon. friend surely knows that the carrying charges must be deducted from the price paid.


Ernest Edward Perley: Every month is given, and there has not been a month below 80 cents.


Thomas Vien: I would
remind hon. members, and particularly the hon. member who has the floor, that under the rules of the house it is not permissible to put questions. An hon. member making a speech in the house must make his statement; he cannot cross-examine or put questions to another hon. member. The hon. member can make a statement and then the minister can answer. But we are not in committee, and it would lead to disorderly debate if the practice being pursued at present were allowed to continue. The hon. member who has the floor should make his statement; he can outline the question with which he is dealing, but he should not do this by way of cross-examination or the putting of questions.


Ernest Edward Perley: Mr. Speaker, I bow to
your ruling and I thank you. The only reason why I was doing a little questioning was to see if I could get either one of these ministers to his feet. They have both sat here for two days and listened to some rather good arguments, and I felt it was their duty to make a statement.


James Garfield Gardiner: Ever since the hon.
member has been on his feet he has been discussing the next item that will come up, namely, the marketing of wheat under the $35,000,000 vote. I do not know why I should rise and break the rules simply because the hon. member is breaking them.


Ernest Edward Perley: I was discussing the 85
cent price covered by the subamendment of the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas). I was showing that the government could do this and yet have no loss because they have
Supply-State oj Agriculture

not sold a bushel of wheat to Great Britain in the last year for less than 80 cents. I was sticking to the amendment. Further, the minister, or rather the member-he will be a minister in the government some day

the hon. member for Weyburn, mentioned the processing tax. I have stated that there would be no loss at 89 cents. If the processing tax had been raised to 50 cents, there would be no loss on the 50,000,000 bushels. It is quite easy to see how there would be no loss to the treasury. I am trying to help the minister, I am trying to show him how he can do something, how he can pay the farmer 90 cents for his wheat and yet have no loss to the dominion treasury. That statement will take some little time to refute.
I should like to refer to another matter, also by way of questioning the ministry. What will this government do if a certain announcement is made in a few days across the line? I wonder whether they know about this. I w7as talking to some grain men in Winnipeg, and they tell me that the United States government is thinking of introducing legislation to fix the price of wheat at a 75 per cent parity of the cost of the products which the farmer has to buy. This will work out at $1.13 at Chicago for the top grades of United States wheat.


James Garfield Gardiner: On part of his wheat.


Ernest Edward Perley: This government is taking
only part of the farmer's wheat; the 230,000,000 bushels will be only part. From the minister's statement it would appear that he has some information about this matter. What will this government look like if it is announced that the United States price is to be $1.13 at Chicago? I can exhibit the card of a broker who told me that. He cut his name off, but the firm name can still be seen. This is the card setting out the prices. What is going to happen? We will wait and see.
After my statement wais made in the house on March 26, I received many letters from and had many interviews with different people. I have received letters from California, Vancouver, the city council of Port Arthur, and many others stating that I was on the right track. I have in my pocket a telegram from a member of the Winnipeg grain exchange asking me to meet them. I did meet them and they told me, "Perley, from a patriotic point of view you are right, and it is time the government had the courage to take hold of this thing and stop the racket."
I have a letter here from a grain man. It is from California. I have his name here in his own handwriting. He says:
When reading your debates on the floor of the house relative to the government taking 
over all storage grain elevators, I wondered if the Canadian government elevator at Port Arthur is still leased to the McCabe Grain Company with head offices in the United States.
I have not time to read the whole letter, but the writer goes on to say:
This elevator has a storage capacity of 3,250,000 bushels. ...
At two-thirds of a cent a bushel per month for storing grain, the company is drawing down $260,000 a year from the dominion government. That is for storing wheat in an elevator owned by the dominion, an elevator leased for $51,000 a year.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who is the writer of the letter?


Ernest Edward Perley: I will give the name, but I do not have to. He is a grain man, and if I gave his name he might be boycotted, because that is being done. It is just too bad for any grain man who opens his mouth in criticism of the government.


James Garfield Gardiner: If my hon. friend is
going to read the letter he should give the writer's name.


Ernest Edward Perley: All right. It is Richard Long, a man who is in the grain business. He goes on to say:
One might truly say, a very nice piece of business, and one might be permitted to wonder if the people of Canada who consider it their patriotic duty to give their utmost in time, money and effort, and who in every town, city and countryside are daily making it manifest that they are ready to make the supreme effort for their country, where organizations are working and arranging that all the workers in factories and industrial plants-learn the value and be permitted to purchase war savings stamps, knew that the proceeds of the sale of nearly 100,000 of these stamps at $4 each, which the government is obligated to redeem at $5 each, will be handed over to an American company in return for a few thousand dollars in the rental of this plant.
That is .a startling statement, and it is only one of a dozen I could give.
I see that my time is up and that Mr. Speaker is looking at me. I should like to have just a few more minutes because I was interrupted several times.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Ernest Edward Perley: I wrote to the chairman of the board of grain commissioners in Winnipeg asking whether McCabe Brothers have the government terminal elevator at Port Arthur under lease, and, if so, what rental they paid.
I have in my hand the letter I received from the board of grain commissioners. I shall not read it all because it is too long. The gist of the letter is that -the elevator was leased to McCabe Brothers in 1930 or thereabouts, and the lease was renewed in 1938.

Supply-State oj Agriculture
The first rental was by public tender; the lease went to the highest bidder, which was McCabe Brothers, and the price paid then was $45,000 a year. On August 1, 1938, there was drawn up by this government or by the board of grain commissioners a new lease running for a period of six years with a minimum rental of $51,000 per annum, and the lease was given to McCabe Brothers. The rental had, therefore, increased from $45,000, which was the highest paid before, to $51,000, and the letter of the board of grain commissioners states:
The increased rental was designed to pay off during the continuance of the lease the cost of additional cleaning machinery installed by the board.
There is $51,000 a year paid for leasing an elevator which, if full, with 3,250,000 bushels of wheat, would return $260,000, and I presume that the elevator is full. I could give twenty other cases almost as bad. Now, with a war on, and when the people of this country are to be asked on June 2 to subscribe to a victory loan and with the budget that was introduced here the other day, will any member who is in favour of the government continuing to do this sort of thing rise in his place and show himself to the house?


James Angus MacKinnon: What is the matter with it?


Ernest Edward Perley: Here is a government elevator rented for $51,000 a year, and if it is full of wheat it is paying approximately $260,000 to the company.


An hon. MEMBER:: To the best tenderer.


Ernest Edward Perley: To the best tenderer
originally, yes; the rental is now $51,000, and there is a war on. Under the War Measures Act, what should happen?


Mr. HOMUTH:: Take them over.


Ernest Edward Perley: That is what I say. There is not a member who dares to rise in his place and say that he is in favour of the government continuing to do this thing, and I could give twenty other cases almost as bad. There are 3,000 annexes or more, and some old elevators built forty years ago for $10,000, which are earning $2,500 and $3,000 a year. The government should take the whole thing over for the duration of the war; if this were done, there would be a saving of $40,000,000 a year which should be added to the price of wheat paid to the farmers, and it would not cost the treasury o-ne cent.
I have here a statement of the elevators which I would be glad to put on Hansard if I had the time. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker,
I say that this is a human problem and it requires a big man with a big heart to settle it, a man with initiative, courage, and ability to inspire and do the right thing. The people of Canada are beginning to realize what is going on; and if the government do not take some such action as I have suggested, they will be remiss in their duty. Thousands of people in western Canada know what the situation is to-day; and if the government take the proper action, they will have little trouble in raising the amount required for their victory loan in June. The elevators in western Canada are paying from 25 to 80 per cent on their capital investment, and they are full of wheat. There never was such a racket before. The government should take over the whole thing for the duration of the war. If this matter had gone to a committee of nine members, where sworn testimony could have been taken and witnesses produced, we would have got the facts and appropriate recommendations would have been made.


Grote Stirling: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the government has seen fit to treat this amendment on the motion to go into supply as a want of confidence motion. It was not intended in that way.


An hon. MEMBER:: You cannot avoid it.


Grote Stirling: Oh, yes. In my opinion it is perfectly possible to avoid it. The object of moving such an amendment on such an occasion is to give hon. members from all parts of Canada the opportunity to ventilate this question for the benefit of the farmers. It gives opportunity for the expression of opinions which hon. members have received from the farmers in their ridings and enables the matter to be debated with the hope that out of yet one more discussion of this farm trouble some beneficial methods or alterations of present methods may be adopted.
Following the introduction of the amendment, there comes a subamendment. I have little doubt that the views expressed in the subamendment represent the views of the farmers in the riding of the hon. member who proposed it. While I have no intimate knowledge of the fact, I assume that the views expressed by that subamendment are also supported by the farmers of many other parts of Canada. It surprises me, therefore, that neither the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), nor the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) nor any spokesman for the government has given an expression of the government's views on that matter. It is true that a few moments ago the Minister of Agriculture excused himself, shall
Supply-State of Agriculture

I say, from making such a statement because, when we get into the estimates on agriculture, he will have his opportunity.


James Garfield Gardiner: Might I call attention to one thing, that I did exercise my right to speak on this resolution, when it was first introduced, for, I think, at least fifty minutes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, but not on this amendment.


Grote Stirling: Before the coming of the subamendment. Since the moving of the subamendment the minister had every right and all the opportunity he required to make a governmental statement on the subject. It is not a matter of grave moment to me personally so far as my constituents are concerned, because in my forthcoming remarks I cannot deal principally with wheat. I do, however, draw attention to this fact, that a vote of some importance will be taken shortly, I presume, without any statement of government policy with regard to the matters raised in the subamendment.
This is an opportunity which hon. members have of ventilating this old, old question of the difficulty which faces the farmer in the marketing of his crop. It is not confined to Canada. It is not confined to the British empire. It is a worldwide problem; it is always before us, and maybe it cannot be too often debated. There are difficulties inherent in each branch of agriculture. Certainly there are difficulties inherent in t'he marketing of wheat. It has been said in this house that the difficulties which the wheat producer faces to-day are those produced by the war. I have heard it stated by those who in my opinion are well versed in wheat matters that, had the war never occurred, this wheat marketing problem would have been right before us in Canada to-day and in all the other wheat-producing countries of the world. It is a problem which will have to be tackled, lest destitution and misery come to all that section of farming Canada which is dependent upon grain for its livelihood.
There are portions of agricultural production which certainly are affected by the war. Difficulties have crept into the marketing of those commodities which particularly are associated, even in part, with the export market. Apples are one. The dominion government, very properly I think, has recognized the marketing of apples as one thing which is affected as a war casualty, and has entered into certain arrangements in the last two years, including this one, with those two provinces which are principally affected by the export of apples. It is a perfectly proper arrangement that the taxpayers' money on this occasion should be used for assistance

in this matter, as it has had to be used in the assistance of other people in Canada who have suffered as war casualties. The difficulty -which we are looking at once more is that of closed farms, empty barns, and all those sights which are not only saddening but demoralizing to the people of Canada, whether they are intimately connected with agriculture or not. We are looking on at farmers' sons who so infrequently remain on the land that it seems as though they are ready to try any other walk of life rather than that one in which they have been brought up, and in which they have seen their fathers working long hours, at very hard work, for pittances on which they have endeavoured to raise families.
Those are the difficulties that confront the generation which is coming along, and I know of no more lamentable instance than the inability of farmers' sons to remain on the land and make an adequate living. It is a particular difficulty, which we must tackle. If we do not tackle it; if we do not find some hopeful solution, even in part, those who come after us will most assuredly blame us.
I am sitting in this house as the representative of a constituency in southern British Columbia which, with the exception of mining in the southwest corner and in certain other spots in the riding, is almost wholly given over to agriculture. Besides those who are in a primary way busied in agriculture, there are all those in the secondary industries intimately connected with agriculture, those in professional life, those in business, and those in a secondary way are dependent upon the success of the farmer. I have lived there for thirty years, and in that time, and for, I dare say, ten years before that, there have been many, many attempts to tackle successfully this question of the marketing of produce.
The southern part of the riding is largely given up to the production of fruit. Two-thirds of the riding is given up to the production of vegetables and fruit, and the remainder of it is largely concerned with dairying and forage crops, with three areas, comparatively small in size, in which the grains are grown. I know it will be said that they are such minute areas as to be scarcely worth considering in the measure of the prairie provinces. Yes, there is some truth in that. But let it not be forgotten that, to the farmer who grows that grain, it is just as important to him, whether it is grown in the constituency of Yale or in one of the constituencies of Saskatchewan. It is also not without interest that just to the north of Vernon in the Okanagan valley there is a farmer, a Scotsman, who three years ago grew and marketed

Supply-State of Agriculture
ten thousand bushels of Marquis wheat, all of which graded No. 1 hard, without any dockage for weeds or foreign matter; and that same Scotsman the year before grew and marketed fifteen thousand bushels of wheat which graded No. 1 northern. I believe that hon. members from agricultural ridings will agree that this is a pretty satisfactory record, from whatever part of Canada it comes.
The main difficulties with which the farmer has had to contend have been the problems connected with the marketing of his produce. The cooperative efforts of the last thirty years have followed the usual course of cooperative efforts. They have succeeded; then the faith in them has dwindled; then a terrific year of marketing has come, and cooperation has benefited once more. But there has always been this trouble, that those who were ready to cooperate, to form a cooperative union, had to leave out those farmers who had no intention whatever under any circumstances of cooperating with their brethren, with the result that the umbrella which was laboriously raised and held over the market of this perishable product was taken advantage of by those who did not intend at all to cooperate but who, with perhaps comparatively small quantities of produce, were able to jump into and out of a market and get rid of their produce, leaving behind them a wholly demoralized market in which large volumes of produce still on the hands of the producers had to be sold. It was not wonderful, therefore, that gradually the idea got about that cooperation by itself, based on the voluntary acts of farmers, was not likely to succeed, and pressure was brought to bear on the provincial government with the idea of endeavouring to obtain marketing legislation which would place in the hands of the farmers sufficient power to enable them to carry out the orderly marketing of their produce.
On three occasions the provincial government of British Columbia passed such marketing measures, and on three occasions those measures fell by the wayside after trial, after they had been made use of, because of the old difficulty of the constitutional question as between what the dominion government and the provincial government can properly control. Eventually, therefore, we arrived at the time when there was in office a dominion government that was ready to proceed with a natural products marketing act, which would aim at overcoming that constitutional difficulty. Since I wish to deal for a few moments rather connectedly with that measure and what happened to it, I should be grateful, Mr. Speaker, if you would call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Grote Stirling: At six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, after having made a few preliminary observations, I was advocating the re-creation of marketing legislation, because I am firmly of opinion that under certain circumstances and for some crops there is the probability that considerable assistance may be given the farmer when trying to remove the obstacles in his marketing path. There is one great difference, I think, between the marketing of farmers' crops and the marketing of other commodities. Three things may happen to crops. They may be sold when they are ready for market; they may be stored, at considerable expense, or they may be destroyed. Therefore there is everything in favour of some control which will induce the orderly marketing of these perishable commodities.
The bill that was introduced into this house during the session of 1934 met with a stormy reception. Every conceivable allegation, contemptuous and inaccurate, was levied against that measure by the then Liberal opposition. From the present Prime Minister down, there were things said of this measure which certainly its authors did not recognize as facts. It was said that it was unwarrantable governmental intrusion into business. It was said that the government could set the prices of field crops. It was said that it was regimentation; and with one honourable exception the whole Liberal party went against that marketing legislation. That honourable exception was Hon. W. R. Motherwell, one time Minister of Agriculture, who put his principles above his party. Because he believed that this legislation would provide some solution for the farmers' difficulties, he supported it; he took part in a useful, critical examination of it on the second reading of the bill, and he voted for the measure. That bill received royal assent early in July, and by the middle of September twenty-one boards had been set up under it.
Let me point out what that legislation set out to do. It meant just this, that where in a given area a sufficient majority of the producers of a certain crop were desirous of joining together and electing a board which should direct the marketing of that crop, they should be permitted to do so. A petition could be sent to the Minister of Agriculture, who would examine the situation in the locality concerned. If he were satisfied that a prima facie case for control had been made out, a poll was held; and if a sufficient majority of producers were in agreement with the setting up of a board, that board was set up.
Supply-State of Agriculture

By the middle of September, as I have said, twenty-one boards were set up in this country: six for fruit, five for vegetables, three for fish, three for milk products, two for tobacco, one for jam and one for shingles. The very first board to be set up was the British Columbia tree fruits board, which handled the fruits of the Okanagan valley and the surrounding territory. The headquarters of that board were in Kelowna, in my constituency, and I therefore took a close interest in its setting up and subsequent work. As I shall show in a few moments, that board met with such success that it has continued in existence all these years, although the act under which it was originally set up was later destroyed.
I pointed out that marketing legislation was not entirely new in this country, that there had been provincial legislation. This, of course, was restricted in its character, for it could control only the sale of commodities within the borders of a province. The difficulty arose when the produce of one province was being marketed in other provinces; and it was to overcome that difficulty that the federal act was passed. The principle underlying the federal act was just this, that if it were desirable to have this marketing legislation, there should be a federal act, and that parallel with that act there should be provincial acts. The provincial act could control the marketing of the crop within that province, while the federal act could give the same measure of control to the sale of that produce in the other provinces.
Seven of the provinces set up provincial acts. Obviously it was convenient that the same board should be accepted under both the federal act and the provincial acts; and in the case of the British Columbia tree fruits that board proceeded to carry out its arrangements, not in selling but in directing the sale of all varieties of such fruits. The course that board followed was to issue licences to those shipping houses then in existence which were prepared to cooperate with the board and do its bidding. During that year and into the next year satisfactory results were obtained under this control of sale. Tor one thing it was possible to prevent that undercutting by the man with but a small quantity of produce to sell, the invariable result of which was the smashing of a market. It prevented the marketing of immature fruit, one of the most serious drawbacks to the fruit industry of this country, because there are so few parts of Canada which honestly and honourably support the fruit act in the matter of grading. It also prevented one variety of fruit from being rushed on to the

market before an earlier variety had been cleaned up. All those matters were handled by that board in a way which had never been possible while there were a dozen or a score of shipping houses all selling as and when they might.
But the government changed; and the new government-with vindictiveness, I am sorry to say-decided that this act must be destroyed. Appeals to the government were made in number, not only by Conservatives, to permit the supreme court to examine this matter in the way that courts are accustomed to do such work; that is, not to have the act pitched at the court, saying, "Here; is this good or is it bad," but to have a case brought regarding an infringement of the act, so that the matter might be gone into in the way that lawyers and judges are accustomed to do their wmrk. But no, they were adamant; they were going to destroy that act, and the act was thrown to the supreme court. The counsel who was employed to present the case in all probability was a most worthy professional man, but certainly he was not conversant with this type of legislation. The case of the parallel provincial act which was interlocked with the federal act was not plainly described to the court. The supreme court threw the act out. The next step was that the government decided it would go to the privy council. It went to the privy council, and the privy council upheld the finding of the supreme court. As a result, the act was dead.
But the judgment of the privy council made curious reading for those who had followed this piece of work consistently through its various stages. Naturally it was a matter of intense interest to those in British Columbia who had thrown in their lot under the board which was set up under the act. I was rather taken with the words used by a prominent fruit grower in my neighbourhood who, having read and studied the judgment of the privy council, made this statement: "The privy council seems to me to be saying, 'if you had presented this properly, our decision might have been difficult, and possibly different; but in the form and on t'he facts presented we have no difficulty in arriving at a conclusion, and we are much obliged to you for helping us out of rather a tight corner'
Whether that be a true and accurate description of the finding of the privy council in this matter, I do not know. That is a matter for a lawyer. But I do know this, that whereas the support for this marketing legislation in Canada might have been measured at that time in hundreds, I would say that to-day the support for such legislation might be measured by a thousand, or many more than a thousand. Judging by the corre-

Supply-State of Agriculture
-spondence, judging by utterances, judging by resolutions, judging by articles in the press, if you will, I believe there is an acceptation widespread among the farmers of Canada that until they can be given some power within their own ranks to control their own marketing, they will always be dependent upon the whim and will of the selfish one, usually one with but a small quantity of produce to sell, who can undercut the market, decimate it and leave it as one in which the bulk of the crop will have to take its chance.
It appears to me that if the government were to see fit to tackle this marketing problem along lines similar to the action previously taken, and were to grant marketing legislation, they would do something for which they would receive the gratitude of the Canadian farmer. I believe also that the Canadian farmer would be honest enough to remember and to recognize the courage and foresight of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, who, with his Minister of Agriculture, the late Hon. Robert Weir, was responsible for the presentation of the legislation to this house. I believe the farmers would do well to forget the type of criticism which was used at that time, and which dealt with this legislation as an unwarrantable intrusion into the lives of our citizens; for, Mr. Speaker, you cannot drive your car down Sparks Street when the traffic lights are against you. Is that not restriction of the liberty of the subject?
It has been said that man, from the cradle to the grave, is having his liberty controlled by this regulation and: by that piece of legislation. Why is it being done? It is done because we live in a democratic country, in a country where the rule of the majority holds sway. When it is obviously to the advantage of the travelling public that there should be traffic lights and rules of the road, and that there should be means of preventing the foolhardy from doing damage to the majority, the people of Canada and those of any other democratic country come in behind their governments, lay down regulations and pass laws controlling the liberty of the subject. We shall not overcome this marketing difficulty until, in a democratic way, we provide that the power to control can be given to the farmers when they, in sufficient majority, demand it.


Mr. HARRY LEADER (Portage la Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, I think it desirable and fair not only to myself but to all hoe. members that before the vote is taken I should make my position perfectly clear. On former occasions I have tried to do so, and during the months this question of wheat acreage reduction has engaged the attention of parliament, the government, and the citizens of Canada, I have made my position fairly clear, I believe to most people. That is, I have said we have a surplus of wheat so huge that the nation dare not continue to add further supplies. I took the stand, and still adhere to it, that there was no course for the government to follow other than that of urging wheat reduction. I took the stand that if that were done, owing to the limited quotas the farmers would be allowed to deliver they should have a higher initial price. I have taken the stand that we should have at least another 15 cents a bushel, making a price of 85 cents, one which would really be less than the amount now being appropriated for .these so-called bonuses.
While visiting my constituency during the Easter recess, following my usual procedure I held some public meetings. On this occasion they were three in number. They were not just local meetings; they were held in districts where we have our largest population. At those meetings were gathered farmers from a distance of perhaps 15 miles. The meeting in Portage la Prairie, the largest centre in my constituency, was naturally a large one. After we had discussed the wheat reduction proposals, a resolution was passed, and I am going to read it to the house. It is dated April 19, and it reads:
The members of the Portage la Prairie local, Manitoba federation of agriculture, being opposed to the present government wheat policy offer this resolution as an alternative.
Be it resolved that the members of the Portage la Prairie local, Manitoba federation of agriculture, ask the dominion government to set the price of wheat for the first 230 million bushels at 85 cents, Port William, and let the farmers take what they can get for what they have left. Also forego any acreage bonus for summer-fallow or sowing of coarse grains or grasses.
There was also passed a resolution endorsing my stand in opposing the government's proposals. We had another meeting at Poplar Heights, which was also largely attended. A similar resolution was passed at that meeting and my attitude was endorsed by those present. Then another meeting was held at Warren, just outside Winnipeg. At this meeting, which was the largest of all, the following resolution was passed:
The following resolution was introduced by H. H. McIntyre and seconded by P. Beachell:
Whereas we realize the necessity of limiting the quantity of wheat upon which the government will guarantee a price of 230 million bushels, and whereas the suggested policy is unnecessarily complicated and difficult and expensive to administer, we submit that a guaranteed advance of 85 cents per bushel on 230 million bushels, with no bonus system whatever, would be simpler and would cost the government no more... Carried.
Supply-State of Agriculture

Moved by D. H. McIntyre, seconded by C. Cunnington: "That this meeting endorse the stand of Mr. Harry Leader in opposing the wheat policy as it stands now"... Carried.
I should now like to quote from a press release by the Canadian federation of agriculture, headed "Agriculture is saying." I may say that this is where the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and I dare to differ. I took the stand that the Canadian federation of agriculture had suggested that a higher initial price be paid, and I contended that most of the rest of their representations were subordinate to this one. This was their vital suggestion; it was the essential point in the brief which they submitted to the dominion government. I quote from the subheading "Government policies blast farmers' hope," as follows:
When the delegation from the federation of agriculture met the Ottawa cabinet in January, it was highly commended by the Prime Minister for the constructiveness and reasonableness of its proposals and the fairness of its presentation. We were also told by the Minister of Agriculture that farm prices needed to be raised all along the line and that efforts of the government are designed with that objective in mind. We went home hopeful that a change in attitude and policy toward agriculture would be initiated without delay. We were hopeful that something would be done to remove the handicaps against agriculture and to give encouragement to Canadian farm people.
After waiting and hoping for two months, the government recently announced its new wheat program. And our hopes have been sadly shattered because that programme is disappointing alike to the farmers of the west and the east. It asks the western farmer to continue to produce wheat and sell a smaller quota of it at the depression minimum price of 70 cents a bushel. And it uses public funds to bonus the swing of millions of wheat acres into live stock and live stock products, which is bound to react to the disadvantage of the eastern farmer.
My vote must be in opposition to the government and in favour of the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas). I feel that this is the only opportunity offered to me to make my position perfectly clear as we ring down the curtain on this piece of legislation which I feel must be designated as ghastly. The particular clause of the subamendment to which I refer reads:
1.	That the minimum price for the 1941 wheat crop be set at 85 cents per bushel, basis No. 1 at Fort William.
Speaking humbly, as a private member should, I wish to notify the house that I intend to vote for the subamendment.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in this debate. I made certain

remarks with respect to wheat during the discussion of the estimate in connection with the bonus, at which time I referred to the demand for an increase in the processing tax to 50 cents a bushel. At that time my understanding was that such an increase would have a definite bearing upon the price of bread, which, after all, is the food of the poor man of this country. I felt that such a move should be barred, and I said so. Since then, the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) moved an amendment to the amendment of the official opposition, one section of which subamendment deals with a 50 cents processing tax to be added to an initial price of 85 cents a bushel, basis No. 1 northern at Fort William. I have been in accord with the subamendment with the possible exception of that one section. I made diligent inquiry, and I have learned that the price of wheat plays a relatively small part in the price of a loaf of bread. I have been informed that it amounts to only 14 per cent of the price, and therefore there should be no increase in the price of bread if a processing tax of 50 cents a bushel is levied against wheat for domestic consumption. This government has set up a board to prevent undue enhancement in the price of any commodity, and on one occasion this board has acted in connection with the present processing tax upon wheat. Believing that the government will use the machinery which it has to prevent the price of bread from being increased, I feel that I am now in a position to vote for the subamendment, and I intend to do so. I hereby declare my intention of so doing.
Having said so much, may I revert briefly to the whole question of agriculture. It may be thought that a professional man, such as myself, will have little knowledge of the agricultural problems of this country. I represent two counties in New Brunswick, one of which is wholly rural and the other more than two-thirds rural. I have lived all my life in that province, during which time I have been immediately associated with country people. That is where I was born and that is where I was brought up. During the long years of my life these men have been my chief associates. I have always endeavoured to take an intelligent interest in the problems of the farmers of my constituency. Without wanting to boast, and perhaps to my regret, I may say that I have probably more money invested in farms in York county than any other individual. It has been my constant endeavour to keep on the farm those young men in whom I have invested money. I intend to continue that policy until I shuffle off this mortal coil.

Supply-State oj Agriculture
I am interested in the farmers of my community, and on many occasions I have received a mandate to speak for them. That is my excuse for devoting a few minutes in discussing the situation in which agriculture finds itself after eighteen months of war.
In comparison with the tremendous importance of farming to Canada, the problems of the farmer, and particularly of the eastern farmer, have had relatively little attention from the government. It is trite to say that in a country constituted as Canada is, there can be no national prosperity and well-being, no all-out war effort, on the basis of a distressed agricultural industry, or an agricultural industry which does not receive a fair and reasonable share of the national income. Can it be gainsaid that to-day the farmer is in a distressed condition? He receives a much smaller portion of the national income than is his due. The result is that not only is he unable to participate as he would wish to do in the war effort through the purchase of war savings certificates and bonds, but in many instances, he is obliged to receive government assistance, which constitutes a heavy drain upon the national treasury.
There are many reasons for the situation in which the farmer finds himself to-day. The war has residted in the loss of many overseas markets. The surplus of farm products at home has depressed price levels, while at the same time war demands have increased the price levels of products which the farmer must purchase. That is a statement of fact which has been repeated in this house on man)' occasions and which no one will deny. Therefore, from the point of view of the legislators of this country, in aiding the farmer there is a vital and urgent need for a distinct aggressive agricultural policy to be pursued with vigour, resourcefulness and purpose by the whole nation. The present so-called agricultural policy of this administration is, to my mind, extremely vague and indefinite, and it has ceased to be a major factor in the national policy of Canada.
What is the record of the government in this respect since the outbreak of war? The answer to that question is not given by myself. It is found in the words of a friend of this government, a provincial Liberal cabinet minister, who is reported in the Ottawa Citizen, of February 12, 1941, as follows:
Without fear of contradiction, I say Mr. Gardiner betrayed the agricultural classes of Canada and left them to work out their own problems against insurmountable odds without any assistance from the Department of Agriculture at Ottawa.
The fact is 'that under the present minister the Department of Agriculture has given little or no direction whatever to the average farmer in eastern Canada. The farmer has not been advised how best he may coordinate his activities so that his production will be of maximum assistance to the war effort of both Canada and Great Britain, nor is there any prospect that leadership will be given by the present minister. He has too many jobs on his hands. How can he give direction to the agriculturists of Canada, run a wheat bonus policy and take care of all the national war services? If he can, he is a better man than I think he is.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is.


Richard Burpee Hanson: According to a Canadian dispatch from Regina appearing in the Montreal Gazete of January 24 last, the minister said-I want hon. members to listen to this; I hope the minister was not misreported:
An improvement in the economic position of the producer of agricultural products cannot be expected until this war, which we hope will not last longer than five or six years, is won.
Mr. Speaker, that is the counsel of despair given by the head of agriculture in Canada. If the defeatist attitude represented by these words of the minister is followed, it will mean that Canadian agriculture can survive only on the basis of peasantry.
The survival of agriculture as a national asset demands that this parliament, without delay, take the necessary legislative and other steps to raise the income of the farmer and at the same time to restrict undue enhancement of the cost of the instruments of production which he must of necessity purchase.
The normal approach to the solution of agricultural problems is threefold:	(1) by
the expansion and creation of markets; (2) by the reduced cost of production; (3) by fair and reasonable prices for farm products. I readily admit that at the present time no great hope can be held out for an increase of markets. Britain is taking what farm products she can, and no Canadian farmer is anxious to hold out on hard-pressed Britain.
Certain opportunities for expansion of markets exist in South America, and these should be explored to the utmost. I am glad to know that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) has, during the interval since last Christmas, appointed and sent to the south American republics an active young man from my own community to promote the sale of seed potatoes. I trust he will be successful. He has a rich field to work upon, and he can do a great deal of good. I commend the minister for what he
Supply-State of Agriculture

hag done, and I trust his choice will prove a successful one. But I do say to the minister that the trade mission which he sponsored last year should be resumed at the earliest possible date, and that the appointment of sales officials, whether they be trade commissioners or not, to south American nations should be proceeded with forthwith.
Immediate consideration should be given by the government to the suggestion which I made at the last session of parliament, and again during this session, that Canada should make a gift of foodstuffs to Great Britain.
To me, however, it is obvious that a solution does not lie in the expansion of markets but must rest in the reduced cost of production and the increase of return for farm products.
What is the situation to-day in Prince Edward Island? That little province, purely agricultural, is represented in this house by a minister of the crown holding one of the most important portfolios in the government, by an eminent gentleman from the city of Montreal, and by two local members. The plight and the problems of Prince Edward Island have never been given voice to in this House of Commons during these two sessions of parliament, and I wonder why. Be that as it may, let me tell the house that the farmers of Prince Edward Island have had an advocate in the person of the premier of that province. In a return brought down to this house on April 4, on the motion of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw), with regard to the processing levy on wheat, will be found two letters of great interest and importance. The first letter is dated December 13, 1940, from the premier of Prince Edward Island, and addressed to the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King); and the second is dated January 2, 1941. I invite the house to listen to these communications: Charlottetown, P.E.I.,
December 13, 1940.
The Right Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. King:
I find that there seems to be a considerable undercurrent of feeling among the farmers of this province, which is kept under the surface only by their intense political sentiment, but which may at a later date seriously react against their productive effort.
That is certainly a note of warning, and I hope that the Prime Minister and his colleagues, if they ever read this letter, will give some heed to it. If they do not, there will be some vacant seats over there after the next election. The letter proceeds:
Our farmers had no expectation or desire to receive the inflated prices of the last war, but 
they did hope to share to some extent in the improved markets resulting from increased wartime activity. _ They have therefore been greatly disappointed to find their situation worse this year than it has been since the trough of the depression. Prices of farm products seem to be going down, while prices of instruments of production, such as fertilizer, machinery, equipment, et cetera are steadily advancing, as well as the cost of such necessaries of life as the farmer requires to purchase. While there is not yet any scarcity of farm labour, it is becoming practically impossible for the farmer to procure, owing to the relatively high wages paid for labour on construction work. The farmer certainly cannot afford to pay anything like competitive wages with the present prices of farm products.


An hon. MEMBER:: They never could.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, I agree that usually they are not able to do it. But I am repeating the remarks of the premier of Prince Edward Island, and my hon. friend has endorsed them.
Potatoes have been exceptionally low this fall and have been selling at little more than half the cost of production. Pork products, which the farmers claimed to be producing at a loss last year, have also gone down in price. The fisheries had an extremely bad year. The market for oats has been very low, although I admit that this feature has the compensation of inducing farmers to retain larger quantities of oats for home feeding. Dairy products have been low, with the exception of cheese, but Prince Edward Island has been practically out of the production of cheese for several years.
I believe that is true.
There now seems to be a prospect of improved prices for fox furs, but this does not benefit the ordinary farmer or fisherman, and in fact seems to add to their dissatisfaction. They cannot see the logic of rising prices in London for luxury products, while their lobsters are prohibited as a luxury, and pork products are pegged below their cost of production. This apparent anomaly is probably explainable by re-export or some such course of transaction, and it is extremely agreeable to the fox breeders of the island, but it only irritates the lobster fisher and hog farmer.
I am inclined to believe that these difficulties of the farmers will be automatically remedied to a large extent in the next year or two-
Well, that is wishful thinking, if nothing else. -as agricultural markets are always slower to respond to stimuli than industrial ones. The difficulty, however, is that the farmers of this province have entered the present phase only partially recovered from the effects of the depression. Many of them have already been forced under water, and I fear that the present adverse conditions will continue to force a great many more out of the productive field. Actual conditions will be greatly aggravated by the undercurrent which I have mentioned.
This undercurrent takes principally two forms:
(a) Dissatisfaction of the farmers at their present conditions as compared with that of other industries whose condition is greatly improved by the war programme;

Supply-State of Agriculture
(b) The feeling of resentment at the dominion overnment's treatment of western wheat armers as opposed to maritime producers.
It is, of course, very difficult even to suggest appropriate remedies for the loss complained of, and it is probably still more difficult to get the farmers to agree as to the benefits of such suggestions. There are, however, several points which seem to be universally agreed upon here, and which I may briefly mention:
1.	The potato market should be stabilized.
There should be marketing legislation such as that for which my hon. friend to my left, the member for Yale (Mr. Stirling), has pleaded.
It is, unfortunately, too late to do much in this direction for the present year. Nobody anticipated such a disastrously low price for potatoes in October and November, or steps would undoubtedly have been taken earlier in the season. The very farmers who needed assistance, namely those who had not the facilities or were not financially able to keep their potatoes, were forced to sell them in October and November at a ridiculously low price, and far below the cost of production and were thus deprived of any advantage from their principal cash crop. I am in hopes that the more prosperous farmers, who were able to retain their potatoes, will obtain a better price for them through the winter and spring. I should strongly recommend, however, that steps should be taken in good time for the stabilization of nest year's potato market.
I ask the minister to note that suggestion, and if it is now too late for this year, to heed it for next year.
This matter should be given early consideration, as it might possibly involve the giving of instructions in the spring as regards limitation of acreage. Probably a mandatory limitation would not be desirable, but the intimation should probably be given that a limitation would be put on the number of acres whose production would be stabilized.
2.	In regard to pork products, the farmers complain that they are obliged to produce these commodities as a war-time necessity at a loss on the cost of production. This being the case, they claim that the dominion government should accord them two forms of relief: (a) through the bacon board or some such agency the government should insist that the farmers of this province should receive a better price from the packers. There would seem to be considerable ground for this claim, owing to the contention that the prices paid at Moncton for goods to be shipped to Halifax are really lower than the prices paid for the same goods in Montreal. The purchasing packers in the maritimes seem to charge our producers up with imaginary transportation charges from Moncton to Montreal and return, instead of giving us credit for the actual savings in transportation;
I investigated that claim, and I believe it is substantiated by the facts, although I am bound to admit that I have not the proof before me to-night. But if that is so-and the Department of Agriculture can soon ascertain whether it is-it is a crying outrage on the producers of Prince Edward Island.
(b) that the dominion government should arrange reduced freight rates on the hog feeds which are necessarily imported to this province from western Canada.
I may say that so many conferences have been held on these points and so many maritime delegates have gone to Ottawa in the past year that it is difficult to imagine any way in which our claims can be more strongly presented. Apparently, however, no results have been obtained, and the disappointment and resentment of the farmers continues to smoulder.
3.	The alleviation of the wheat milling tax to the extent suggested by my letter would remove a considerable source of annoyance and indignation on the part of our farmers.
May I say that all of us, irrespective of political party, put our shoulders to the wheel, and we forced-I believe that is a fair term to use-the w'heat board to alter the interpretation of the statute. I am not going into that point at length, but they were only authorized to charge the processing tax on wheat purchases. Can anyone tell me that, when a farmer took his grist to a mill and waited for it to be ground, paid his toll and brought it back, that was a purchase? I threatened the ministers; I threatened the wheat board with an injunction. I did not have to go that far. The matter was not really of sufficient importance to take to the courts, but I believed that the rule of reason would win, and it did win. The position was quite unlike that in western Canada, where, I understand, there is a barter, which may possibly and probably be interpreted as a purchase. That little source of irritation has, after a good deal of struggle, been removed.
Here is the fourth suggestion of this Liberal premier of Prince Edward Island:
4. The farmers of the central and eastern portion of the province have been deprived of the expected benefits of the Wood Islands ferry, which would have given them a greatly improved transportation to the mainland, particularly for produce trucks. The province has cheerfully submitted to the loss of this service in so far as it was considered to be bona fide necessary war purposes. But, unfortunately, our people cannot be persuaded that the requisitioning of the two very ships which were provided for this service was altogether due to yvar necessities, nor has the procedure regarding compensation commended itself to those in this province who have been familiar with the detailed steps followed. After the requisitioning of the first ship, the provincial government felt obliged to come to the financial assistance of the ferry company, as this appeared to be the only way in which the second ship could be provided. The second ship was purchased with the full knowledge and approval of the dominion authorities, and seven or eight months and a great deal of money spent in reconditioning her, practically every step being taken in consultation with dominion departments. But curiously enough, just at the moment she was ready for service, it was suddenly discovered
Supply-State of Agriculture

that she was absolutely necessary for naval purposes. The resulting loss of the service and the seemingly unnecessary difficulties encountered in obtaining compensation have placed both the ferry company and the provincial government in an embarrassing position, which has not yet been resolved.
I should add that I understand it has been remedied so far as compensation is concerned.
Local enterprise has apparently been completely discouraged from any attempt to provide a third ship for the service, and in the meantime the only method of transporting produce trucks is by the Borden ferry, where exorbitant and almost prohibitive rates are charged.
I referred to this matter at some length last year, but that situation has not been remedied.
An agitation for the lowering of these rates has been carried on for many years, but without avail. I am inclined to think that the holding up of the Wood Islands ferry project is a strong argument for the reduction of the present exorbitant truck rates on the railway ferry service. I have no doubt that you would be astonished to learn the figures of the rates charged for ferrying even the slightest of trucks across the straits.
If the Prime Minister has any curiosity with regard to this matter, he will find that I myself put many of the facts on Hansard last year. The letter proceeds:
I do not wish to refer to these matters in a critical way, as we all realize the great complexity of the problems now confronting the dominion government and the admirable manner in which your government is handling these problems. This is, however, primarily an agricultural and fishing community, and the provincial government is greatly concerned at finding our primary producers so depressed and downhearted. Business seems to be fairly good in Charlottetown-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, the mayor of Charlottetown was in my office last week, and he told me that there were as many people on relief in Charlottetown during the winter season as there had been at any time during the depression.


Mr. GRANT:: He is the worst Tory in Canada.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He is a pretty good Tory. The hon. member does not say that the mayor is not telling the truth. He is sticking up for his own city. To continue:
Business seems to be fairly good in Charlottetown and Summerside but this briskness appears to be largely attributable to earnings from air port construction, and to allowances paid to dependents of enlisted men.
These people in Charlottetown are on the dole.
The farmer considers his lot all the more deplorable by comparison. This is naturally a very unsound state of affairs in an agricultural and fishing province.


James Garfield Gardiner: Apparently the hon. member does not agree with the premier.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not altogether, but I am not the complainant.


Thomas Vincent Grant: What is the hon. member reading it for?


Richard Burpee Hanson: To prove my case. I could not expect the hon. member to understand it.
As stated, I am in hopes that the agricultural market situation will improve, but I strongly urge that the dominion government should do whatever is within its power to accelerate such improvement before serious damage is done to the finances and morale of our farmers and the productivity of our farms.
Thanking you . . .
And so on.
The Prime Minister replied to that letter on the 2nd day of January, and at great length. I will not read the whole of the letter. He begins by saying that he has had an opportunity of discussing with his colleague "the representations of your letters of December the 13th", and "I propose to set out the position of the government on each of the questions you have raised."
First, he deals with the processing tax. That has already been dealt with. Second, he refers to the difficulties experienced by the potato farmers as a result of the poor market "this season". Then he goes on to deal with the situation in the United States, and he says, "It is difficult to see how low prices could have been avoided." Then he states:
The present surplus of potatoes, unlike that of apples, cannot be attributed to the effects of the war, since Canadian potatoes do not ordinarily go to European markets. Potato marketing problems are largely domestic, and it may be that some voluntary limitation of production might help, though experience would indicate that a reduction usually follows naturally after a season of low prices. Copera-tive marketing, of course, might offer some possibilities by enabling all producers to do the sort of orderly marketing that the more prosperous farmers in Prince Edward Island are evidently attempting.
Then he offers the service of officials of the federal department in helping to organize marketing machinery. He then discusses the question of hogs and so on, and winds up with a defence of the increases in fertilizers, discussing the law of supply and demand. This is his conclusion:
There can be only one satisfactory solution of the problems which face our farmers. That solution is the defeat of the aggressors and the destruction of the totalitarian order. No section of our community has so direct an economic interest in the defeat of nazi Germany as our primary producers of foodstuffs. That, alone, will make possible the opening of the channels of trade, and the restoration of

Supply-State of Agriculture
markets for our exportable surpluses. Without world markets, there can be no prosperity for our great primary industry.
The farmer of Prince Edward Island is told, expressly and by implication, that if he can hold on until after the war he may possibly get some relief. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the house that the farmers of Prince Edward Island, the farmers of New Brunswick, and the other farmers of Canada, the hog producers and the potato growers, simply cannot wait until that happy day arrives.


Mr. J. A. ROSS (Souris):: During the Easter recess I had the privilege of holding a couple of meetings in my riding which were attended by every municipal official and by the officials of agricultural organizations in that riding. While some hon. members may not believe it, I endeavoured to keep the discussions non-political, pointing out to those people that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) had said that this wheat reduction scheme was to be the policy and that we should discuss the regulations on their merits. I can assure him that many of those officials there who have staunchly supported this government protested whole-heartedly against the scheme.
Since my return to Ottawa, I have received from other municipalities in various parts of Manitoba resolutions commending the stand taken by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) and by myself on April 4 in this house. Furthermore, the Minister of Agriculture stated on that same day that the farmers of the west knew that the policy was not putting money into their pockets but was making available for the treasury or from their pockets, an amount equal to $100,000,000, which would go to assist in financing the war effort at this time, or which they might have had were they treated on the same basis as other people in this country.
Anyone from the west will realize that these farmers had many difficulties in providing a livelihood and carrying on their affairs from the returns they received last year. I am sure I do not know what they will do this year on the reduced income-and the minister himself has admitted that it will be reduced. Moreover, setting the price of wheat at 70 cents under the scheme distinctly helped to reduce the price of wheat in the country. On March 13, the day following the announcement of the policy, May wheat in Chicago was only eight cents higher than the price of May wheat on the Winnipeg exchange. Yesterday the spread between Chicago May wheat and May wheat in this country was sixteen and a fraction cents.
This afternoon the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) pointed out what was likely to happen in the near future; he said that farmers in the United States would probably receive a much greater price than it is proposed to pay our own producers. Hon. members will remember that when the President of the United States brought down his war budget in March, farm commodities were placed second on the list; and of that appropriation of some seven billion dollars, one dollar of every five was to be spent for the welfare of the farmers. Contrast that with the situation in Canada. We have voted an appropriation of some $1,450,000,000; and at the rate we are going now, we propose to spend only one dollar out of every $180 to help our farmers. That might be kept in mind, particularly in view of the repeated references by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), when introducing his budget the other day, to what they were doing in Washington. It is not only we in western Canada who are having great difficulties. I have had the privilege of visiting many farmers other than wheat producers in other parts of Canada, and certainly the agriculturists of this country from coast to coast are up against a most difficult situation. We should endeavour to give agriculture greater consideration during the trying times that lie ahead.
I do not wish to take any more of the time of the house. I must vote for the subamendment, in the interests of my own constituents and of all the other people in the province from which I come, who otherwise probably will not have their views fairly represented.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Fulford). Had I voted I would have voted for the subamendment.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I was paired with
the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Fulford). Had I voted I would have voted for the
amendment.
Main motion (Mr. Ilsley) agreed to, on division, and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Vien, in the chair.


[Stage Direction]
J22. Special. To provide for payments on reductions in wheat acreages, under conditions prescribed by the governor in council, for administration expenses in connection therewith, and for temporary appointments that may be required notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act, $35,000,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I should
like the minister to explain the changes in the regulations as finally tabled, and will he be good enough to lay on the table, or perhaps, better still, put on Hansard, the opinion of the Department of Justice as to the position of members of parliament who may be eligible for the bonus. While I have a view on the matter myself-it is not a matter of contract covered by the Independence of Parliament Act-I think it would be advisable, if there has been an official opinion given by the Department of Justice, to have it put on Hansard for the protection of hon. gentlemen on both sides of the house.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, the
leader of the opposition has suggested that I should explain to the committee the changes which have been made in the regulations since the beginning of the recess, and that I should also lay on the table the opinion of the Department of Justice as to whether or not members of the house can collect under the bonus provisions. Just before the Easter recess I placed on Hansard an opinion from the Department of Justice.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What
day was that?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think it was the last day before the house adjourned for the Easter recess. It was one of the last things we did, in answer to a question asked, I think, by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley). It is a typical opinion. It advises members to consult their counsel, and goes on to say that while the department is not bound by any opinion it gives, it would appear that a member would probably be able to collect under the regulations.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is the
old story of when an opinion is not an opinion.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is as far as
they go.
Mi'. PERLEY:	I think that is too indefinite. It is putting it up to the member himself to interpret the regulations. If we have officers of the crown to do that, I think the matter should be dealt with by the legal officers so that there will be no misunderstanding. There are forty members of the house who may be affected, and we should have something more definite than just leaving the matter to the conscience of the individual member.
2486	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages


James Garfield Gardiner: Is the hon. member
referring to the statement I have just made or to the opinion that is on Hansard?
' Mr. PERLEY: Was the minister not referring to the opinion that was placed on
Hansard?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, there is an opinion placed on Hansard. The information I received from the justice department is that that is as far as the justice department ever goes in giving a legal opinion. After all, it is a matter for the courts to decide finally.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Let us state it specifically in the estimates themselves.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think there is any doubt about it, but I will go back and try to get something further from the justice department.
I have been asked to explain the changes made in the regulations. There has been no change made in the principle involved in the regulations as drafted prior to the Easter recess. The hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) has stated that while he was at home he held three meetings. While I was home I had twelve meetings, and they were all well attended. At those meetings we had a discussion of the effect of these regulations. As a result of these discussions, some of the details in connection with the administration had to be cleared up in a rewording of the regulations as they were before the Easter recess.
The first section which is affected by that rewording is section 2.
2. (1) For the purpose of these regulations the wheat acreage reduction on any farm shall be computed by deducting the number of acres sown to wheat on such farm in 1941 from the number of acres sown to wheat on such farm in 1940.
That is, the first act which is necessary to the collecting of money under these regulations is that wheat acreage should be reduced. In order to determine what that reduction is, it is intended under these regulations that the acreage of 1940 shall be taken as the definite starting point. The reason for that is that there is no way of determining what a person's intention was for this year, so we go back to the last actual year for which we have the records, and begin with 1940.
It is found that there are a limited number of farms on which there was no wheat in 1940 but which usually grew wheat. In those cases we go back to 1939, and we check the acreage of that year.


George Hugh Castleden: What do you use as your basis?


James Garfield Gardiner: The question is, what is used as a basis for 1939? The basis is, the answers given on the applications filled out by the farmers. They are now being filled out. On the application form the farmer is asked to fill in his acreage of 1939 in wheat, coarse grains, grasses, and all cereals, and then he is asked to fill in the same information with regard to 1940, and also to indicate his intentions with regard to 1941. If there is nothing unusual about the acreages in 1939 and 1940, the 1940 acreage is taken; but if there is anything unusual about 1940, the 1940 acreage is computed upon the basis of the sections which I am about to read.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Has the minister copies of these forms available?


James Garfield Gardiner: I believe they have been placed in the mail. The regulations were to have been mailed to-day. I am told that hon. members received them in their mail to-day.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am asking about the forms which the farmers have to sign.


James Garfield Gardiner: If hon. members will
permit me to continue with my explanation, I think they will understand the matter better than if I am to be questioned at this moment from all directions.
(2) For the purpose of computing the wheat acreage reduction
(a)	in respect of any farm

(i)	on which no land was sown to wheat in 1940 . . .
It is provided that we will examine the amount sown to wheat in 1939, and unless the wheat acreage is greater than 60 per cent of the cultivated total acreage, we take the 1939 acreage; if it is more than 60 per cent, it is reduced to 60 per cent of the total cultivated acreage. The reason for that is that if there is no wheat in 1940 and there is wheat in 1939, it is presumed that we should not go very far beyond 50 per cent of the total acreage, and we have set that at 60 per cent.
Subparagraph (ii) of section 2 deals with an alternative type of farm:
(ii)	on which no land was sown to wheat in 1939 the land sown to wheat in 1940 shall be computed to be the land sown to wheat in 1940 unless it exceeds 60 per cent . . .
The same principle is written into the acreages of 1939 and 1940, the reason being that some farmers in western Canada summer-fallow all their wheat land in one year and put it all into wheat the next year, growing no wheat in each alternate year. In order to meet these conditions, these two clauses have been drafted.

Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages


Ernest Edward Perley: How about the man who happened to have his wheat land in summer-fallow last year and had no wheat in 1939?


James Garfield Gardiner: If a man had no wheat in 1940 and none in 1939, we assume that he is not a wheat grower, and we are not doing anything to encourage him to become one.


Ernest Edward Perley: Well, there are a number of men in that position.


James Garfield Gardiner: (iii)	on which 80 per cent or more of the cultivated acreage in 1940 was sown to wheat in 1940 and on which 80 per cent or more pf the cultivated acreage was sown to wheat in 1939, the number of acres sown to wheat in 1940 shall be computed to be 80 per cent of the total cultivated acreage on such farm in 1940.
There are some farmers in western Canada who had all their land in wheat in 1939, and all of it in wheat in 1940, and this subparagraph is intended to indicate that they cannot start at a higher acreage than 80 per cent of their total.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Does that
apply only where they have 80 per cent of their cultivated acreage in wheat both years? If a man had 90 per cent last year, and 70 per cent the year before, would 90 per cent of his land be taken as a basis for last year?


James Garfield Gardiner: No. It is not higher than 80 per cent on any of them.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It cannot be higher than 80 per cent, even though over 80 per cent was in wheat last year?


James Garfield Gardiner: No. The next section covers other cases.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The subparagraph really does not say that. As it reads, it would appear to apply only where in both years the acreage is over 80 per cent.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, no payments will be made on over 80 per cent of the actual acreage. If you check back from 1940 into 1939, any of those who are over 80 per cent will be corrected down to 80 per cent.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is, the man who has sown all his land to wheat will not be able to draw the bonus on that basis.


James Garfield Gardiner: Then we come to section 2, subparagraph (iv):
(iv)	other than any farm covered by any of paragraphs (i), (ii) or (iii) of this subsection on which there has been a variation of one-third or more between the number of acres sown to wheat in 1939 and the number of acres sown to wheat in 1940, the number of acres
sown to wheat in 1940 shall be computed to be the average number of acres sown to wheat in 1939 and 1940, provided-
This is the only change in this particular subparagraph.
-that the acreage added under subsection (b) of this section shall not be computed as having increased the 1940 acres sown to wheat.
It is provided in paragraph (b) that if a man breaks up new land, 80 per cent of the new land is computed -as wheat in 1940, and 20 per cent is computed as coarse grains. Paragraph (a) states that the 80 per cent which has been added on is not to be taken into consideration when you are computing that there has been an increase of more than one-third. Paragraph (b) is as it was before; it provides the 80 per cent for breaking. Paragraph (c) is as it was before.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Except that it adds 20 per cent for coarse grains.


James Garfield Gardiner: Twenty per cent goes to coarse grains. It was inferred before, but it is indicated more clearly here. Then subsection 3:
(3) For the purpose of computing the number of acres sown to coarse grains or grass or summer-fallowed in 1940-*
While this was inferred by what was stated before, in that it was the only way in which it could be computed, I found, in the questioning at meetings in the west, that many people did not fully understand it, and I thought it was better to state, in as plain English as we could, exactly what they were expected to do:
(a) in respect of any farm on which the number of acres sown to wheat in 1940 is computed under section 2 of this regulation to be reduced below the number of acres actually sown to wheat on such farm in 1940, the number of acres sown to coarse grains, or grass or summer-fallowed on such farm in 1940 shall be computed by adding the number of acres by which the wheat acreage is computed to be so reduced to the number of acres actually sown to coarse grains or grass or summer-fallowed in 1940 proportionally to the number of acres actually so sown or summer-fallowed.
The next one is just the alternative of that. I do not think it is necessary to read it. One is where increases are made; the other is where deductions are made.
(c) in respect of any farm on which the number of acres computed to be sown to wheat in 1940 is the average of the number of acres sown to wheat in 1939 and 1940, the number of acres summer-fallowed or sown to coarse grains and grass in 1940 shall be computed by averaging the number of acres so sown or summer-fallowed during 1939 and 1940.
As the regulation was formerly worded, it simply stated that you averaged the wheat. If you average only wheat and then compute
248S	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages
the coarse grains and summer-fallow, you will find that you have either too many or too few. You have to average all in order to get the exact acreage on the farm. Then:
When computing any number of acres in respect of any farm for the purposes of these regulations, a fraction of less than half of one acre shall be dropped and a fraction of one-half or more of one acre shall be taken as one acre.
That is merely to make computing easier.


Ernest Edward Perley: May I bring a particular case to the minister's attention. This man is a neighbour of mine. The minister answered rather bluntly when he said that a farmer who did not have any wheat in 1939 or 1940 was not considered a wheat man and would not get consideration. The man to whom I refer is one of our good farmers. In 1939 he did not seed anything to wheat, but in 1940 he summer-fallowed his whole farm-and it was a first-rate summer-fallow. Here is a man who is trying to get along. His farm is in good shape. He cultivates his soil well-[DOT] as well as any farmer in Saskatchewan-but he has been discriminated against and will be again unless the minister can make some provision to meet his case. He may seed to coarse grains, but he did not have coarse grains in 1939. I suggest that some provision should be made for him.


James Garfield Gardiner: Different types of cases have arisen. There are many instances of people who in the drought period went out of wheat in sub-marginal areas. We do not wish to do anything under the regulations to induce these people to seed their land to wheat this spring, or for that matter to seed submarginal land to anything. They have been out of crop for a number of years, and we do not wish to have someone tear up such land and start to put in a crop.
Then there is another type. Certain persons took up land in 1938 or prior to that and left it in 1939, and there was no crop. The people who owned the land got someone to go on it last year, summer-fallow it and get it all ready for crop, and this year they cannot get the benefits under this act. I took that up with the wheat board when I was passing through Winnipeg. The basis of anything which is going to be done will have to be the setting of a quota for such people for the delivery of wheat this year. We shall have to leave that matter until we have gone a little further on in the season. We do not want to announce any particular line of policy in connection with it which will bring back into crop land that should not be cultivated. I should like to have the wheat board given an opportunity to look into actual cases before
[Mr. Gardiner.!
deciding definitely what we ought to do in the matter. We will follow pretty much what the wheat board does.


Ernest Edward Perley: This man was discriminated against last year on the acreage bonus, owing to the fact that he had no acreage under wheat. The treasury board held up payment because it was based on acreage seeded to wheat, and although he was in the area in which the bonus was paid he was not paid anything. It seems to me that it should be made clear that this man will have some consideration this year inasmuch as he was discriminated against last year. There are other cases which I might bring to the minister's attention.


James Garfield Gardiner: That was under the Prairie Earm Assistance Act?


Ernest Edward Perley: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: Those cases are still
before Justice.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: In reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, I understood the minister to say in the first place that this man would not be able to sell any wheat and would be out of luck, but later the minister said that the matter would have to be left until the wheat board could consider it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I probably did not make myself clear. As everything stands at the moment, if nothing is done about it there will be no quota for the man who had no wheat acreage last year, because the wheat board's provisions are based on the acreage of last year even for the quota. The first quota is five bushels an acre on 65 per cent of last year's wheat acreage. If there were no wheat acreage, there will be no quota. That question, together with the one asked by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, is under consideration at the moment, and we do not wish to do something different from what the wheat board may do. The matter is under consideration between the two departments. I said also that we are not in a particular hurry about it at the moment, because we should like to have a sufficient number of cases to be able to arrive at some conclusion which would be just in all instances.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The farmer should know at once whether he will be able to sell an3r wheat off his land or whether he will not have a quota. I know of a case similar to the one described by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, and I promised to get information as soon as possible. This man has no intention of seeding wheat if it seems that he cannot sell it. My advice to him was that,

Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages
as the regulations stood, I did not think he could sell. In my opinion the position should be made clear.


James Garfield Gardiner: Anyone who does get a quota will have to have a very good case. It is not the intention either of the wheat board, as I understand it, or of the Department of Agriculture to encourage people who have not grown wheat for the last two years to do so this year. We - are undertaking to spend several million dollars for the purpose of trying to get people not to grow wheat this year, and nothing will be done to encourage anyone to grow wheat who has not been doing so for two years.
Going over the west, however, one will find occasional cases. One case I found illustrates the situation very well. A woman at one of my meetings stood uip in the front row and said to me that last year she had no wheat, and had no crop the year previous. She gave a very good reason for it, a reason which any court would have accepted as reasonable. I inquired afterwards, and I was told that her land was not sub-marginal but was one of the best farms in the district. This woman was a widow who had gone away, having left the farm, and then in 1939 the person who was on the farm picked up and left it. She was not able to get back to the farm until last year, and then she had to summer-fallow because it had not been under crop before. This year she is out of luck with regard to both quota and to this particular legislation. That, I think, would be admitted to be a case that should be taken into consideration with respect to both quota and this legislation, and it can be taken for granted that 'between the wheat board and the Department of Agriculture we shall work out a method of dealing with such cases. Those people will go ahead and crop very much in the same proportions as other people in the area, and we shall not experience much difficulty with that type of case.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I had a case similar to the one described by the minister, but I had no authority to make any statement to the person concerned. I have no authority to offer suggestions, and in my opinion either the minister or the Minister of Trade and Commerce should give some lead to these people before they seed.


James Garfield Gardiner: The municipal secretaries and others have been instructed to take a record of these cases, and when we have a sufficiently long record so as to be able to draw up a regulation which will take care of legitimate cases, that regulation will be prepared. I do not think any great difficulty
will be experienced. Some people may put in more wheat than otherwise they would have done, but if that happens I think we shall have to make some provision to meet the situation. Two suggestions have been made. One is that we do it by limiting the amount of acreage; the other is that what is to be done be done by means of a quota. There will be a limited number of cases which might be allowed a little larger quota as an alternative to mixing up the two pieces of legislation, but something will be worked out to provide for such cases.


Mr. COLD WELL:: Before the minister
leaves that point, there is another type of case. The minister said it was the desire not to have farmers grow wheat on sub-marginal lands. I happen to have before me a letter from a district in the minister's former constituency; this letter is from Handsworth. As I recollect it, the land there is not at all submarginal; but owing to drought and shortage of seed, these people have sown very little land in the last few years. This letter is from a man who represents about twenty small farmers. I wish to read what he says, because I think it has a bearing on this point; and since these regulations are being presented merely for consideration and may be amended later on by order in council, I submit this case directly to the minister because I do not believe any of us wishes to see the smaller farmers driven off the land or forced on relief. I am perfectly sure that the government's wheat policy will force some of the small farmers on relief and will create a new relief problem in some of the agricultural areas of western Canada. This man says:
I have been asked by at least twenty farmers in and around this district to write you about the acreage bonus. All of these are living on a quarter section and feel there is an awful injustice being done them and others that are only farming a quarter. There is about 125 acres broken on my own quarter. Last year I had thirty-five acres of wheat in, twenty of oats and eight of barley. I summer-fallowed the other sixty-two. When this policy was announced, like many others I decided to sow no wheat to get the $4 per acre, but have been told by the secretary of the municipality that every acre I summer-fallow in excess of sixty-two I will get $4 per acre. I was putting the summer-fallow in oats and barley, so in reality I like many others will only get $2 per acre for every additional acre of coarse grains we sow this year in excess of last year.
Surely something can be done for the small farmer. I have one acre of summer-fallow more this year than last. That is $4; and thirty-four acres more coarse grains than last year. This will net me $80 to find clothing, footwear, fuel and food for a family of seven. This is a very urgent matter, so please take it up at once.
2490	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages
That is a type of case, not only in the district to which I have referred but also in some of our northern areas. It can be argued, of course, that the northern district really is a mixed farming country, and that perhaps the farmers there should be encouraged to go into mixed farming. As, however, the minister knows, in this southern Saskatchewan area, and in this district in particular, where there is little if any shelter and, in many places, a shortage of water, mixed farming is out of the question. Therefore it seems to me that some consideration should be given cases of this kind. I do not quite know how it can be done under the policy we are discussing. As I have said before, I do not think this is a good policy, although it has been approved by the government; but perhaps even under this policy something can be done for the smaller farmers. The minister has said many times in this house that he wants to keep the small farm, the family farm, in operation; and of course, if we do not keep the family farm in operation, undoubtedly we shall find that our churches, schools and other community facilities in the rural parts of the west will go to rack and ruin.
I am bringing this matter to the minister's attention-it will be on Hansard-in the hope that some additional consideration can be given persons farming a quarter or even a half-section, in districts where they have not been able to sow much wheat in recent years because of a shortage of seed or money, or because of weather conditions, but where the soil is of a type suitable for the raising of wheat and indeed, because of the climatic and shelter conditions, largely unsuitable for producing anything else. I mention this in the hope that something may be worked out under the regulations.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I should like to support what has been said by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. Prior to the Easter recess I asked the minister if he would not consider amending these regulations along that line, and my trip home convinced me more than ever of the difficulty that I pointed out before Easter. In the drought area, not for only two years-if it -were -only for one year or two years one could take an average- but for a period of four or five years the total cultivated -acreage on most of these farms has been considerably reduced, and the wheat acreage has been drastically reduced. I knew there were odd cases like that, but when I went home I was deluged with them. A man came to see me and said he had four hundred acres under cultivation, of which only seventy acres were in wheat. Normally

that man would have 250 acres in wheat. A letter came to my desk this morning from a man who has 600 acres under cultivation, with only sixty-five acres in wheat. Normally he would have 300 acres in wheat. People like these did not reduce their wheat acreage because of the wheat surplus; they did so because for the last four or five years they have not had moisture, or have not had seed; or, if they had seed, they did not think it worth while putting it in the ground. They just carried on as best they could. These people will be penalized by this policy unless some adjustment can be made.
I think it was yesterday morning that I received a copy of a telegram which was sent to the minister by Councillor Keill -of Froude, Saskatchewan, which is in the Handsworth district where they are faced with this problem. It is not an easy matter with which to deal, but since in subsection 3 of section 2 of regulation 2 the minister inserted a provision that, regardless of whether a man has all -of his land sown to wheat, only eighty per cent will be assumed to have been sown to wheat, it occurred to me that this provision might also be reversed. Why should we not say that even if a man has sown very little wheat, perhaps only ten or fifteen per cent of his cultivated land, it will be assumed that thirty or forty per cent has been sown to wheat? If you are going to establish a maximum and say you will recognize only eighty per cent, no matter how much has been sown to wheat-and perhaps that is a good idea-why would it not be equally just to set a minimum? Why not say that a man who last year had only ten, fifteen or twenty acres in wheat will be assumed to have had thirty or forty per cent of his cultivated area, or whatever percentage the minister may consider fair? If, because of drought or lack of seed, a farmer's wheat acreage has dropped below thirty or forty per cent of his cultivated area, I see no reason why we should not set a certain figure below which he should not go. I hope the minister will consider something like this, because, if he does not, I know these people will lose any benefit they might obtain under this proposal.


James Arthur Ross: I have a case of that kind next door to me. My neighbour is a man with a large family. On account of financial conditions, as much as anything, he has not been growing much wheat for the last few years. He rents a quarter-section in addition to his own half-section, and he has summer-fallowed a great deal of that land. I think last year he had only forty acres of wheat on his own farm, and when I was at home he questioned me closely as to how he could carry on next year. He was thinking

Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages
he might sow his land to wheat and take a chance. I noticed in one of the daily newspapers that extreme cases might be looked after by the wheat board. I wondered whether an individual like this should communicate with the wheat board, or whether he should simply place his application with the municipal clerk. I should not like one of these men to have his application ruled out, through no fault of his own, simply because it was received after some particular date. This is an extreme case. I quite agree with the minister that a great deal of land should not be cropped in wheat, but this is very good land.


Mr. GRAY:: Why not let the minister answer the question?


James Arthur Ross: That will be satisfactory.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Yes, quite.


James Arthur Ross: I am asking the minister for an answer.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is what we are asking for, but he cannot answer it while the hon. member is popping up.


James Garfield Gardiner: During the Easter
recess I was in that section of the country which is now under discussion. I was at Estevan, and met representatives from the section roundabout. Some of the people up north, as far as Proude, were not able to get down, because the roads were not yet open. However, they sent down their resolutions, one . of which was to the effect that on every quarter-section of land we allow 80 acres as a definite base from which reduction was to be made.
I pointed out to them the difficulty of that. I said that these regulations apply all the way from the southeastern part of Manitoba to the northeastern .part of the Peace River country. Those of us who have farmed north of the Qu'Appelle river, for example, in the northeastern section of Saskatchewan, grow about eighty acres of wheat on a half-section. If one were going to say that there was an allowance of eighty acres of wheat per quarter-section in all that area, many of us would start to reduce from an acreage which we did not have at any time. That would have the effect of doubling the acreage on most farms in the area of which I am speaking. It would greatly increase the acreage in many other places to start from any percentage which would be helpful. Many quarter-section farms in that section of the country were in earlier years operated as part-time farms; that is, the men who were there in the early homesteading days homesteaded a quarter-section, and worked in the coal mines.


[Stage Direction]
An effort has been made to operate some of these farms on another basis since, and it is rather difficult. In the first place, while the land is not sub-marginal, it is still on the light side, and there is a little difficulty in operating one of those farms as a wheat farm. It is difficult in any part of that country to operate a farm as a wheat farm, on a quarter-section. I think that will be admitted by anyone.
Anyone who has been growing from thirty-five to fifty acres of wheat has been depending upon something else for a living, besides the growing of that wheat. I do not think it would have been possible to carry on without conducting some mixed farming on a quarter-section, with that amount of wheat. After it was all discussed, I think the people pretty well came to the conclusion that this legislation could not be the solution for all the difficulties. Some of the difficulties involved in connection with farms of that kind and areas of that kind are difficulties which we have to have some support in taking care of, not only from the municipalities but also from the provinces. In connection with reestablishing men on farms of that kind, there are certain matters involved which cannot all be dealt with from here.
I point that out because that is the way in which I dealt with it when I was out there with them, and I wish to say the same thing here. They accepted that view. Then, on the other question, I am not sure whether the hon. member for Souris was in the house when I was answering the hon. member for Qu'Appelle.
James Arthur Ross: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: The cases referred to
in the press were cases such as those referred to by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. I do not think they had in mind dealing with cases where people actually did grow wheat in the last two years. It was where there was no wheat in the last two years. It was where there was no wheat in the last two years, and therefore nothing upon which to base their action in this coming year. Ever since these regulations were brought down, we have been consistently taking the position that if a person has not been cropping to wheat in the last two years we assume he is not a wheat grower.


Mr. DONNELLY:: I have in mind a district which had no wheat in 1939 or 1940, either. There is a legitimate reason why they should not have a crop of wheat. In the dry years we know that in the section of the country which I represent, some of the farmers became discouraged, and as a result they left and

2492	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages
neglected the land. The land has been lying idle. In 1939 we had rain, and some people thought we were going to have a good crop again. That land has been bought up by another party, in some way or another. Last year the land was strip-farmed, and half of their land was in cultivation or summer-fallow. But there was no wheat there in 1939 or 1940. There must be a quota, and consideration must be given in some way.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: The minister has given a perfectly valid argument as to why there should not be eighty acres per quarter-section in wheat. But that does not answer the question I have put to him with respect to setting a minimum, on a percentage basis. That is, there is no reason why the board can set an eighty per cent maximum, but can not set a forty per cent minimum of whatever is considered to be a fair percentage, so that a farmer could be assumed to have a certain minimum percentage of his total cultivated acreage considered as wheat acreage. That would take care of a man with 600 acres cultivated, who would normally have 300 acres in wheat, but last year had only seventy acres.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is a difficulty, if you go much below. The figure used was thirty-five acres to the quarter-section. Thirty-five acres to the quarter-section is only seventy acres to the half-section, and that is just about what the half-section farmer does grow. Someone says he cannot get along on a quarter-section with thirty-five acres. Supposing we say forty per cent-and there are many farmers in northern Saskatchewan, up in the Peace river section, who never crop forty per cent of their land to wheat. I would say that many of them do not crop twenty-five per cent. If you start to draw the percentage higher than that and you let them deliver their whole quota on a certain acreage, you encourage those farmers who have only ten or fifteen acres each, to increase their acreage, and you will get far more wheat than you can take. In other words, the figures used the other night by the hon. member for North Battleford, I believe it was, when discussing the matter, are of some importance. It was stated that there are 9,000 farmers at the top who are growing so many thousands of bushels, and 17,000 farmers at the bottom who are growing a few acres of wheat. But that leaves out the 250,000 farmers in between. They are really growing the wheat. It is neither that small number of big farmers at the top nor that small group of small farmers at the bottom which is growing most of the wheat; it is the 250.000 farmers in between. You cannot bring down regulations
[Mr. Donnelly.J
to take care of that limited number of cases, without so affecting all that mass in between that you raise rather than lower the production of wheat.
You cannot settle all these problems on a basis of wheat alone. For example, a person in crop district No. 5, which is north of the Qu'Appelle river, gets from live stock an earning, based on each acre of wheat land, of $2.29. But down in the southwestern part of the province, the part about which the hon. member from Wood Mountain has been speaking, they get forty-nine cents an acre on their wheat acreage. The problem of solving one person's difficulty through wheat is entirely different from that of trying to solve the other one through wheat. The people who are in the area where there is mixed farming now are more likely to reap benefits from this policy than the people in the large wheatgrowing areas. They would just go on doing what they were doing, although they would do it to a greater extent than before. They will feed more hogs or milk more cows and get a little more money in that way; they will grow the coarse grains to feed them.
This whole question came up at every meeting which was held in the west. Some one would make the statement that he had reduced his wheat acreage. I agree that there must have been many people who 'have reduced their wheat acreages, but the number must be comparatively small when the whole picture is considered. Our total wheat acreage was increased last year by more than 2,000,000 acres. We had the highest wheat acreage in the history of western Canada, so the percentage of those reducing could not have been very high. I am informed

I have not Checked these figures myself, but they have been checked-that every single grain district in western Canada showed an increase in wheat acreage last year. There may be local situations where people have reduced their wheat acreages an unusual amount, but generally speaking that is not true. This will be found to be the case when the figures for last year's crop are considered.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not think the minister has grasped one of the points I was making. I am not asking that the minimum wheat acreage should apply to the delivery quotas or to the delivery regulations; I am suggesting that it should apply to the regulations we are now discussing. If the minister thinks twenty-five per cent would be a fair percentage, let 'him make it that, but there ought to be some minimum. Take the case of the man I mentioned with 400 acres under cultivation but with only seventy acres in wheat. If we had a twenty-five per cent

Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages
minimum, he would be considered as having had 100 acres last year; and if he reduced his acreage below that, he would be entitled to a bonus. That would be fair to him. But to take seventy acres as the basis on a cultivated acreage of 400, is not fair. I am not asking that the twenty-five per cent should apply to the deliveries of wheat because that would be covered by another set of regulations altogether.
While what the minister says may be quite true, that our wheat acreage was increased last year, I think he is taking cognizance of that by setting a maximum and providing that where a man had all his land in wheat last year, he will not get credit for twenty .per cent of his acreage. Quite properly it is being assumed that twenty per cent should have been in summer-fallow or coarse grains. But for any reduction below eighty per cent of that acreage he will be eligible for bonus. On the other hand, would it not be just as fair to provide a minimum of twenty-five per cent? We should assume that twenty-five per cent of the land under cultivation last year was in wheat, and any reduction below that will be entitled to bonus. This would help those people who, through no fault of their own, have been compelled to reduce their wheat acreages over a period of years. There are many people in this class.


Mr. QUELCH:: A few minutes ago the Minister of Agriculture stated that the department and the wheat board had not definitely arrived at any decision as to how a farmer's individual quota would be decided. Before we left for the Easter recess on April 8, I stressed the need for some clarification of this matter. I do not see how any farmer can make an .intelligent adaptation of this programme unless he knows what the basis of the quota will be. I asked the minister to define this, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce stated at that time:
-there will be a five-bushel general quota, and the succeeding quotas will be based on the yield at the shipping point, on 65 per cent of the wheat acreage of 1940.
That statement received considerable publicity in Alberta. The farmers had the definite understanding that their quotas will be based u.pon a percentage of the yield, on sixty-five per cent of the wheat acreage of 1940, and they have been adapting their operations to that basis. I may say that the wheat pool has sent out a circular entitled "The Budget" containing this information:
The following table gives an example of how the graded quota operates on a farm which had 200 acres in wheat last year and can thus deliver on the basis of 130 acres in wheat this year:
Yield	Total quota
per acre	per acre
bushels	bushels
10			 8-06
15			 11-89
20			 15-71
25			 19-54
30			 23-37
35			 27-18
40			 31-03
Yet we have had the definite statement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the quotas will be based upon the yield at the shipping point, on sixty-five per cent of the wheat acreage of 1940. I have before me a pamphlet issued by the Minister of Agriculture which states that this quota will be on the basis of twelve bushels to the acre. This gives an example of the cultivation of a half-section farm with 300 acres improved, and then goes on to say:
The above farmer would likely be receiving a considerable portion of his income from live stock. He would only be able to market twelve bushels to the acre from sixty-five acres in 1941.
If that is correct, then a great injustice will be done to those farmers who operate on the basis of the declaration made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Could the minister clarify this? Many farmers will be penalized if they follow one announcement, while other farmers will be penalized if they follow the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The statements issued by the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce seem to conflict.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know upon
what authority the pool put out their bulletin, or upon what authority anyone else has published a table. I think it will be found that the statements which have been made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and by others are to the effect that the first quota will be set at five bushels to the acre on sixty-five per cent of last year's acreage. That is the only thing that I have seen anywhere; that is the only thing that I have heard stated as a definite decision. The statement has been definite that the only decision up to the moment is that five bushels to the acre will be allowed on sixty-five per cent of last year's acreage. No one knows what the yield will be until the crop is ready for harvest. If the yield is average over the whole west, there will be no difficulty; if it is not average, there may be some difficulty. This will not be known until the month of July, and no one can judge definitely before then what the situation is going to be.
With that in mind, what I said was that you must make some estimate as to what you are going to be able to deliver. The only way in which that can be done is to take
2494	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages
sixty-five per cent of last year's acreage. Taking the whole acreage as 27 million and some odd, sixty-five per cent figures down to 19 million acres. If you are going to put 230 million bushels of wheat into the elevators next year from about 19 million acres, you will require about twelve bushels to the acre.
In other words, the only way in which you can start to estimate now before the crop is grown is to assume that there will be an average of twelve bushels to the acre on sixty-five per cent of last year's acreage taken from the farmers of western Canada. If you take an average higher than that, you are running the risk of not being able to sell the wheat you grow. Some people have found it difficult to get that in their minds. They had the idea that we wanted only to reduce down to sixty-five per cent. But we are desirous that some should take their land out of wheat altogether; some will, and they will be paid if they take their whole acreage out on the basis of the allowances set out in the regulations. We wish to encourage them to take out all they think they can take out and still get by this year.
I stated it to them in this way. If you want to make certain that you are going to have enough to make your delivery under the quota on the basis of twelve bushels on sixty-five per cent, take your whole acreage of last year and figure it at nine bushels to the acre. That will cover all that you are likely to be able to sell and what you need for seed. If you grow nine bushels to the acre, you will get 900 bushels on the basis of 100 acres; but if you grow twenty bushels to the acre, you can get 900 bushels from forty-five acres. Therefore he can take fifty-five acres out of wheat, put it into summer-fallow and get the $4 an acre bonus, and he can grow wheat on forty-five acres of good summer-fallow and be further ahead in that way than he could in any other way this year. That is the picture we are attempting, in the pamphlets, to get in their minds. It puts the farmer in a position of being able to calculate somewhere near the amount of wheat he will be able to deliver next fall provided he gets a crop. If he does not get a crop he will collect on his reduced wheat acreage anyway.
That creates, of course, some uncertainty in the mind of the farmer, but no more uncertainty than is always in our minds when we sow a crop. We have the prospect before us all the time of a crop of 2| bushels or of forty bushels. There is not really as much uncertainty in this calculation.


Mr. TUCKER:: There are two things I should like to bring up briefly. One is the question that is raised by paragraphs (2) (a) 
(i) and (2) (a) (ii) of clause 2 dealing with wheat acreage reduction. I realize the difficulty of drafting any provision that will wholly meet the situation, but I wish to draw this inequity to the minister's attention, and if something can be done about it, well and good. Paragraph (2) (a) (ii) states:
On which no land was sown to wheat in 1939 the land sown to wheat in 1940 shall be computed to be the land sown to wheat in 1940 unless it exceeds 60 per cent of the cultivated acreage on such farm in 1940, in which case the number of acres sown to wheat in 1940 shall be computed to be 60 per cent of the total cultivated acreage on such farm in 1940.
That is, if there is no land in wheat in 1939 and sixty per cent or more of the cultivated acreage in wheat in 1940, your basic average is sixty per cent. But perhaps a man has just come through a period of struggling with drought and is beginning to get his land under cultivation again in 1939. He may have ten per cent in wheat in 1939. Then there is this sixty per cent rule for 1940, and the rule of averaging would apply, so that his basic average would be thirty-five per cent. If, however, he had no wheat in at all in 1939 and sixty per cent of his acreage in wheat in 1940, his basic acreage would be sixty per cent, or twenty-five per cent more. It seems to me a terrible discrimination to say that if a man has no wheat sown in 1939, his basic acreage shall be sixty per cent, while if he had ten per cent in wheat in 1939, his basic acreage shall be thirty-five per cent. That is a definite clause which will cause a tremendous amount of hardship in a few cases where the farmer is just beginning to get his land back into cultivation in 1939.


James Garfield Gardiner: These two paragraphs would not apply to that man at all.


Walter Adam Tucker: No, you would take the average of the section. If he had ten per cent in wheat in 1939 and sixty per cent in wheat in 1940, the averaging section would apply; your basic average acreage would apply. The basic average would be thirty-five per cent. Therefore the man who had ten per cent in wheat in 1939 would have his basic acreage cut down to thirty-five per cent, although he might have just put in enough in 1939 to provide himself with seed and flour and be trying to get back into growing wheat. If he has any wheat in at all in 1939, the averaging clause would apply. I ask the minister to consider that discrepancy which is going to be raised by this clause. I submit that something should be put in there instead to reduce the discrepancy. You might say: "Farms on which less than thirty per cent is sown to wheat in 1939'', instead of "no land sown to wheat

Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages
in 1939." That would reduce the discrepancy a little. If he had twenty-five per cent in wheat in 1939 and sixty per cent in wheat in 1940, then the sixty per cent would still apply. But as it is now, even if he has only one per cent in wheat in 1939, the averaging rule applies, and he is averaged down to 301 per cent. Therefore I think this is a consideration that might well be taken into account.
The other question I wish to mention is summer-fallowing. It was raised at the meetings I held, and I did not really dare to answer the question they asked. They said that some of them had not enough power to be able to increase their summer-fallowing materially and be sure it was done well enough to pass the test of summer-fallowing. They were afraid that if they undertook to increase the amount of summer-fallowing and did not have sufficient power to do the summerfallowing in a good manner, the inspector might say that none of it was summer-fallowing under the regulations. In the meantime they would have out their wheat acreage and then find that they could not collect for their summer-fallowing. That fear is no doubt in the minds of many farmers. They have already had unexpected difficulties in collecting money under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. They are, therefore, a little bit afraid that if they cut their wheat acreage and do not grow as much wheat, objections may be taken to the kind of summer-fallowing done, and they may not be able to collect the bonus.
What I said in reply was that I did not think the inspector would go over the summerfallowing with a microscope to find out if there were any weeds in it; but if they took their land out of wheat and did a reasonably good job of summer-fallowing, I thought they would collect the bonus, but every man was required to do as good a job as possible.


James Garfield Gardiner: The definition pretty
well settles that. It is about as loose as it could be.


Walter Adam Tucker: That is what I said, and I am glad to hear the minister say so because I have been a little nervous lest I might have misled some of those who asked me the question.
The other point I wish to mention-and I think it is important to clear it up-is the question of what deliveries are going to be accepted. Some people think that if there is a crop of less than 230,000,000 bushels, there will be no quotas at all. Some people, in fact all of us, are always trying to figure out how we can do the best for ourselves. If some farmers hear that their neighbours are cutting their wheat acreage down to almost nothing,
and that this was happening all over western Canada, so that there was bound to be less than 230,000,000 bushels of wheat to be delivered this fall, they might figure on putting in as much wheat as ever, because they would argue that there will be less than
230.000.	000 bushels grown, and be no quota, and that, therefore, they will be able to sell all the wheat they grow. If that idea gets into the minds of enough farmers, it would, of course, defeat the government's whole policy of reducing the wheat acreage. Some people might think a crop failure might again occur in Saskatchewan, and the farmer in Manitoba or Alberta might suppose that there would be less than 230,000,000 bushels grown, because crop failure together with acreage reduction might cut the total crop to less than 230,000,000 bushels. On this assumption he might say, "there being no quota, I can grow more, and I can sell it all". Unless it is made plain that there will be a quota, no matter how large a deliverable crop is grown, there will be this danger of the plan being upset by farmers figuring in the way I have suggested.


James Garfield Gardiner: It cannot be otherwise. There is no room in the elevators to do anything else.


Walter Adam Tucker: But what I am getting at is the idea which is in some people's minds. It is this: Suppose you have a crop failure in all Saskatchewan and Alberta, then Manitoba could not possibly grow a deliverable crop of
230.000.	000 bushels. The Manitoba farmer might say to himself, "There is a chance of that happening. I will grow all the wheat I can, and I will be able to deliver it all". Farmers in other parts of the west might have the same idea, with the consequence that the benefits of the scheme might be cut down to a certain extent. What I suggest is that it should be definitely understood, whether there be a deliverable crop of 230,000,000 bushels or not, the quota that any farmer can deliver is to be based on sixty-five per cent of his acreage, and to be based, on the yield of his marketing district, and that even if that means that only 50,000,000 bushels is deliverable, that is O.K., 'because it would mean that you would begin to use up your 1938 and 1939 carryovers and make some space in your elevators for your 1942 crop. It seems to me that, if this be the intention of the government, it is important that it be made plain as soon, as possible.


James Garfield Gardiner: I believe that the matter has been made as plain as it could be made, that is, with regard to the last point. I do not think there is any possibility of this crop being delivered without quotas. It has been definitely stated that the first quota will not be
2496	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages
more than five bushels to the acre on sixty-five per cent of last year's acreage, the reason being that the elevators are practically filled to the roofs at this time, and considerable of last year's wheat is still on the farms. If that wheat has to be delivered before the end of July in order to collect the storage on it, most of it will be delivered, and when it is delivered, the elevators will be full when we start to thresh this crop. Under those conditions that crop can be delivered only as wheat is taken out of the elevators because it has been sold, and I do not see any chance of our selling wheat during this coming summer other than to the mills in Canada for our own supplies, and for British consumption, and a little to the West Indies. In other words, the 230,000,000 bushels sold will have to be distributed over the whole year, whether it is grown this year or not. For that reason there will have to be a quota right through the year. If the farmers do not grow any more than 230,000,000 bushels, no matter how it happens, it is assumed that that wheat may all be taken into the elevators. But if it is not properly distributed over western Canada, it will be very difficult to take it all in. That is the reason why I have said that I do not think anyone can say at this stage that we are going to take nineteen bushels to the acre out of certain areas in western Canada. If you were to take nineteen bushels to the acre out of certain areas of the west, in some years there would not be any wheat taken out of any other areas if all you are going to take is 230,000.000 bushels. It stands to reason that you have first to distribute that 95,000,000 over the whole of western Canada, which would amount to five bushels to the acre over nineteen million acres. When it is distributed-and it will take some months to distribute it, even to get it through the elevators-you have to start and increase the quotas just as you did last year; but whether they will go up more in some districts than in others cannot be determined until we have seen the crop. We have put a pamphlet in the mail to every person in western Canada, and in order to make absolutely sure that the scheme will be understood we have sent out another, which explains it in another way. Therefore, I believe that every farmer in western Canada, if he reads his mail, knows what the position is and what is likely to happen.
Of course certain things may occur. It may be found that in one-third of western Canada there will be no crop next fall, and we may have to do something a little different from what is now proposed, but I do not suppose that at the present time anyone can foresee or foretell such a contingency. The farmer

is told definitely that there is going to be a quota, and the only quota he can be assured of is five bushels on sixty-five per cent of his last year's acreage, which is between three and four bushels to the acre on last year's acreage. If he can get his quota by sowing less than sixty-five per cent of his last year's acreage, there is no reason why he should not reduce it even to forty per cent, although he will get a five bushel quota on the sixty-five per cent. But he will have to wait until there is some room in the elevator before he can deliver any more than his first quota of five bushels on sixty-five per cent of his 1940 acreage. The pamphlets tell him that if he wants any more cash than that, he can arrange his acreage otherwise than it was last year, by sowing acreage to coarse grains, and putting himself in a position to produce and feed coarse grains with which to produce other commodities which we require.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I must differ from the minister when he says that the farmers are clear about the matter.


James Garfield Gardiner: They were not clear
when the hon. member wTas out west, but they have had pamphlets since.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Well, I have the pamphlets here, and I doubt whether hon. members themselves or even the government are clear about it. We are clear about the fact that there is to be a maximum delivery of 230,000,000 bushels and that there is going to be a quota of five bushels to the acre. But what no one is clear about is, what will be the maximum amount which the farmer will be allowed to deliver.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, if he wants to
be safe he had better make it twelve bushels to the acre on sixty-five per cent of last year's acreage.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If we can be
sure of that! That is exactly the point.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Is the hon. member clear
about it?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We are not
talking about seed grain, or pickled grain or anything of that kind; we are talking now about summer-fallow and the bonus. If we can be sure about what the minister said as regards the ttvelve bushels, that would be clear. I explained the policy exactly the way the minister has done, and I hope now that I am not wrong. The minister ss ys in this pamphlet:
The above farmer would likely be receiving a considerable portion of his income fi'om live stock. He would only be able to market 12 bushels to the acre from 65 acres in 1941 or 780 bushels.

Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages


James Garfield Gardiner: To each 100 acres of
last year's wheat acreage.


James Lester Douglas: That is, he
can assume that-


James Garfield Gardiner: If he assumes anything
else, he may make a mistake. I do not think I can make it any plainer than I have made it, but if my hon. friend wants to talk about it further, there is nothing more I can say about it, than that if a man does not follow that, he is running his own risks and he must run them.


Ernest Edward Perley: The hon. member for
Moose Jaw says that he is going to take a chance anyway.


James Lester Douglas: The minister
says that if a farmer grows more or less than that, that is his fault. If you will say to him, "You had a 100 acres last year; you can figure on being allowed to sell 780 bushels this year"; but the way the minister puts it is totally different from the way I find it explained on page 1464 of Hansard, where the Minister of Trade and Commerce is reported as saying:
The quota system so successful this year will be maintained and these quotas will be based on the production from 65 per cent of the 1940 acreage. The first quota will be a general one and will allow the delivery of the same amount of wheat per acre from every farmer. The second ancl following quotas will be certain proportions of the 1940 yield for the farmer's shipping point; that is a high yield point in 1941 will have a higher quota per acre than a low yield point.
The point I am making to the minister is that, if a man happened to be in a district where the average was ten bushels to the acre, no matter how good a crop he had, and on this interpretation the quota were set at 8-6 to be his minimum quota, he would not be allowed to sell 7S0 bushels of wheat on the basis of 100 acres last year; he would be allowed to sell only about 520 bushels.
If I should go and say to a farmer, on the basis of this scheme, "You can figure on being allowed to sell 780 bushels", and next fall the regulations say to him that on that basis he can sell only 540 bushels, he will say to me, "That is not what you told me last spring". He will say the same thing to the minister. It ought to be made clear as to what will be the minimum delivery which the farmer can be assured of being allowed to sell. He may be allowed to sell more. As the minister says, if it turns out that less than 230,000,000 bushels is grown, or if some farmers cannot fill their quota, the amount may be higher. But what is the minimum? Is it twelve bushels?


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand What the hon. member is getting at. As a matter of fact, a thousand people told me the same thing out west. It does not need to be explained. It has been gone over time and again. It has been gone over with the wheat board. It is the recommendation that was made, which my hon. friend read into the resolution the other day and which was voted on>
to-night. It is the recommendation that came from the wheat pool and from other western organizations. But that does not make it absolutely sound, and I am a little afraid that some people will get into trouble if they follow it. The only thing one can absolutely depend on at this time of the year is the same thing that every farmer has to depend on. The farmer does not know what the weather will be like; he never does when he puts his crop in. He always has to make an estimate, and the only safe estimate he can make this year is twelve bushels to the acre on sixty-five per cent of last year's wheat acreage. He may find ultimately that he has not grown that much on the acreage he estimates he can grow it on. Someone else may find that he gets thirty bushels to the acre, compared with an estimate of only twenty, so that he gets too much. I will not attempt to say to-night that if the wheat board find that over twenty-five per cent of western Canada there is only five bushels to the acre, they will not take more wheat from any one. All I say is that if there is an average crop over western Canada, one is safe on figuring on twelve bushels to the acre on sixty-five per cent of last year's wheat acreage, and I do not think anyone can say anything else.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Like many western members, I have been explaining this policy during the recess. The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) has been explaining the wheat policy on the basis of the remarks made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in the house on April 8, and I have made an explanation along the lines suggested by the Minister of Agriculture. I am clear about his explanation. But at page 2269 of Hansard there is a table which the hon. member for Acadia placed on the record, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who I regret is not here to-night, made this statement:
I have seen the statement to which the hon. member refers; as a matter of fact, a copy was sent to me by the Calgary board of trade. I did not go into it very thoroughly, but I did read it, and I can say that the figure quoted with regard to the average yield of 25 bushels is correct. I have not compared that figure with other suggested or possible yields, but as I have already stated there will be a five-bushel
2498	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages
general quota, and the succeeding quotas will be based on the yield at the shipping point, on 65 per cent of the wheat acreage of 1940.


James Garfield Gardiner: If you want to take that, take it. I will not argue further.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: But the point is that this table suggested that the man with a 25-bushel yield can market 19-54 bushels to the acre. I have told the people in my constituency that all they can hope to sell will be twelve bushels on sixty-five per cent of the 1940 acreage. If the Minister of Trade and Commerce tells friends of those who heard the hon. member for Acadia that they can deliver nineteen bushels in my constituency, I shall be in difficulties, and I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce should make a statement to-morrow to indicate that either the Minister of Agriculture is wrong or that he was wrong on April 8.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think I understand
what my hon. friend is trying to do. He is trying to get it absolutely on the record that if they can deliver more than twelve bushels next fall, the Minister of Agriculture is to blame for saying they could not. It is proper to say that, I suppose, after it is all over, but I have said all I have to say.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Stop being
suspicious.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I resent the suggestion made by the Minister of Agriculture.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have been through it so often I know pretty well what the hon. member has in mind.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I had a dozen meetings while I was away, and I explained these regulations to my constituents, who are busy on the land at the present time. If I have been mistaken in my explanation, I am anxious to correct it so that they may have a chance at once-


James Garfield Gardiner: I will not correct mine.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Well, the Minister of Trade and Commerce should make a statement to-morrow.


Mr. GERSHAW:: I have one question to ask with reference to the definitions. In southern Alberta quite a number of farmers are growing mustard, and in one district at least fifty are going in for soya beans. Would mustard and soya beans be considered coarse grains?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, not under the
definitions as they are, and they will not be changed.


Ernest Edward Perley: Many hon. members have something more to say and a few questions to ask. I was going to come to the minister's rescue in connection with this quota delivery, but it is eleven o'clock.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I hope that to-morrow we may pass this item, but I cannot speak for others. I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce for some definite information with respect to the wheat board, which I think the country is entitled to know-that is, with regard to the amount of cash wheat being carried by the board, the amount of wheat carried in other ways, the obligations of the board to the banks, and what-not. The true position should be put on the record. The Minister of Mines and Resources shakes his head. There is no such situation existing to-day as there was at the time of the McFarland operations, and there is no similar reason why we should not have the information. There is no question of competition or of price cutting or anything else. There is only one buyer, and the situation is known. Parliament is entitled to have that information, and I give notice now.


James Garfield Gardiner: With regard to that, to-night and ever since this item has been before the committee, I think that both the chairman and I have allowed far too much latitude in the discussion. As a matter of fact, the information asked for has nothing whatever to do with this estimate. It comes under trade and commerce, and I do not know why I, as Minister of Agriculture, in getting an estimate through, should be asked for information having to do with trade and commerce. I shall have to ask the chairman to see that the matter is not discussed until this item is through.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If that
is a threat, the minister will not get his estimates through very quickly.


James Garfield Gardiner: The threat came from the other side of the house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Let us
approach this in a spirit of good-will, and the minister will get his estimates through much sooner. I suggest to him that there is a first-class argument as to why the position of the wheat board with respect to wheat should be given to the committee under this estimate, which relates to wheat.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no argument whatever that I know of as to why we should discuss the estimates of trade and commerce

British Columbia Telephone Company
under the estimates of agriculture. There is no argument at all, and no rule that permits it.


Ernest Edward Perley: The first order in council stated that you were taking only 230,000,000 bushels of wheat, and that is the reason for these regulations.


James Garfield Gardiner: But that has to do with trade and commerce; it has nothing at all to do with agriculture.


James Arthur Ross: It was presented to the house by the two ministers as a joint policy.


James Garfield Gardiner: Hon. members will have an opportunity to discuss that when the other matter comes up.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, May 2, 1941.