1941-04-04

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to
inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, April 4, 1941.
Sir:

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Hon. Sir Lyman P. Duff, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber to-day at 3.15 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be Sir,
Your obedient servant,
F. L. C. Pereira, Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition) :: Mr. Speaker, as the house is already
aware, a motion has been passed for the adjournment of this house at six o'clock on Wednesday for a substantial period. I understand the date of the adjournment was fixed on the conditional understanding that possibly the budget would be brought down the first of the coming week. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) has announced that this is not now physically possible. It has been represented to me from both sides of the house that a large number of hon. members would desire, if possible, to have this house adjourn to-night at six o'clock for the Easter vacation, thus anticipating the adjournment by three days.
I understand a large number of hon. members have either departed or are about to depart by afternoon or evening trains. I would ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) if the government would consider making a motion that when the house do adjourn at six o'clock to-night it shall adjourn for the Easter vacation, rather than having the adjournment on Wednesday next.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I interject that until five minutes ago I had no knowledge that this suggestion was going to be made. I should like it to be clearly understood that, so far as our group is concerned, we are not asking that this be done; indeed, we are opposed to it.
We consider that the wheat regulations require a thorough discussion before we leave this house for the Easter vacation. We have
Easter Adjournment

had no opportunity to discuss these proposals and regulations. The policy was announced on March 12, and it was discussed briefly on March 27. The regulations were distributed in our mail-boxes on the afternoon of April 2. So far as my own constituents are concerned, this is the gravest problem which confronts them, and I am absolutely opposed to leaving this house until we have had an opportunity of discussing this matter thoroughly, in order that, before they put their seed in the ground, they may know exactly where they stand.
One other suggestion I would advance is this:	Owing to the economic circumstances
brought about by the agricultural situation in western Canada, the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba particularly, and probably the other prairie province of Alberta, are faced with a grave relief situation which has not yet received any consideration at this session. Therefore we do not feel that we can consent to such a motion, if it is introduced by the Prime Minister.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I am of the same opinion as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). I have not been at all satisfied with the way in which we have been able to deal with the problems which face us this year. I do not think anyone is to blame for this, but I believe that several matters which are vital to this country at the present time should be discussed. Not only is the *wheat situation a grievous one, but the agricultural situation generally throughout the country is precarious. I see no reason why we should not stay here for three or four more days in order to let hon. members express their opinions concerning these problems, even though we do nothing about them.
When it was proposed that we Should take a recess from April 9 until April 28, I raised no particular objection, but the thought passed through my mind that we were throwing away a great deal of valuable time. When we come back on April 28, the time left to discuss vital matters will, in my opinion, be altogether inadequate. Therefore, I am inclined to disagree with the suggestion that we lengthen the recess, although I have no desire to be an obstructionist in this regard. I merely express the feeling which, I am sure, prevails throughout my constituency and province.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as Your
Honour has just announced, the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General will proceed to the Senate at a quarter past three o'clock to give the royal assent to the bills which

have passed both houses. The proceedings of this house will be interrupted at that time. As has been mentioned, this matter of adjournment has come up rather suddenly. I think it has come up as the result of a feeling which is general with respect to the desirability, all circumstances considered, of extending by two days and a half the vacation which has been arranged for Plaster. It really means an accommodation of more than two days and a half because hon. members will be able to take advantage of Saturday and Sunday.
As the proceedings of the house may be interrupted at any moment, I was going to suggest that this matter might stand until after the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General has given royal assent. Possibly in the intervening period one or two of my colleagues could hold a conference with the hon. members who have spoken and, if thought advisable, I could, later on, introduce a motion which would permit adjournment to-day until the time fixed for reconvening after Easter. May I point out to my hon. friends who have taken some exception to a longer recess, that by the rules the matters which would come up for discussion next week would be the motion of the hon. member for Haldi-mand (Mr. Senn) in the nature of amendment to the house resolving itself into a committee of supply. In all probability the debate on that particular motion would not be concluded by Wednesday afternoon, and there would not be a chance for the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to go on next week with the matters to which my hon. friend has referred. The minister is, I understand, quite prepared to go on with those matters this afternoon. So far as the government is concerned, we have no desire to press consideration this afternoon of the other bills on the order paper. By having the Minister of Agriculture go on immediately with his estimates, by having a full discussion on the matters referred to, I would hope that it might be possible to meet the objections which hon. gentlemen opposite have raised and bring about a general agreement as to adjournment at six o'olock to-day. I shall have something more to say on this after the royal assent has been given.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Fournier (Hull) in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Special
422. 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 tem-

Supply-Agriculture

Wheat Acreages
porary appointments that may be required notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act, $35,000,000.


Mr. LEADER:: I am sure that my constituents will expect me to have something to say on this vital question of reduction in wheat acreages. Having spent all my life on the farm, for over half a century working and tilling the soil, I should know something about farming; and so far as the wheat problem is concerned, I have solved that problem for myself. Years ago we decided to curtail our wheat acreage and to go into more diversified farming, and I am glad to be able to say that after twenty-two years in the cattle business, the wheat problem does not worry me at all. I believe that the same thing could be said of thousands, yes thousands, of farmers in the Canadian northwest, that those who have taken up diversified farming have been able to stand up in the trying times that we have endured in the last ten years.
The memories of hon. members may go back to November 21 of last year to the speech I made in this house outlining what I thought the government should do with regard to the wheat problem. At that time I took the stand'that we had come to the position where the farmers themselves must realize that we cannot continue to raise wheat in this country to the same extent that we have done in late years. This huge surplus must be reduced if we are to have any hope of ever getting the price up to where it should be.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour, the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the house went up to the Senate.
And having returned,
Mr. SPEAKER informed the house that the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the royal assent to the following bills:
An act to authorize an agreement between His Majesty the King and the corporation of the city of Ottawa.
An act to amend the Meat and Canned Foods Act. (fish and shellfish)
An act to amend the Precious Metals Marking Act.
An act respecting the appointment of auditors for national railways.
An act to amend the Trans-Canada Air Lines Act, 1937.
An act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1942.
An act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1941.
An act for granting to His Majesty aid for national defence and security.
An act for granting to His Majesty aid for national defence and security.
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed in committee of supply, Mr. Fournier (Hull) in the chair.
Mr.   Fournier. Hull@Acting Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: When the proceedings were interrupted for the royal assent, we were considering item 422.


Harry Leader: Mr. Leader: Eighty-five.
Mr. McNevin: We will discuss that suggestion later, but for the purpose of this illustration I will say 75 cents.
I believe-and I am now talking right at the Minister of Agriculture-that if the government had been bold enough to say, "We will pay 85 cents a bushel on 230,000,000 bushels," that proposal would have carried in this house. I firmly believe the Ontario members, realizing our disabilities out west, with their desire to help, would have said, "We will support that suggestion." I wish now to ask why the government did not bring in that recommendation. That is what the people of this country asked for; and I believe-I speak subject to correction-that every member of this house would have supported it. It is only right and just that the western Canadian farmers should have this concession, if that is the proper term for it.
May I now discuss the proposed bonuses. I contend, Mr. Chairman, that they will not benefit the average farmer. They may be of assistance to the man operating a large, mechanized farm; but, do you know, sir, that is the very guy who brought this problem upon us. I say that without intending to be disrespectful. I have just as much regard and good-will for the large farmers as I have for the smaller ones; they have just as much
right to live in this country, but they are the people who have heaped up this huge surplus. The smaller farmers and their families, living on the land, are the greatest asset of the nation. Many hon. members representing rural constituencies have said to their electors that the farmers are the backbone of this country. I have made that statement; and I have declared that agriculture is the basic industry of the country. Therefore the smaller farmer and his family, making a living on the land, is really the one who should be considered. What percentage of the population of this country live on the farms? I am informed that it is at least one-third.
In that connection I should like to repeat some figures which I placed on Hansard on a previous occasion. According to the table which I placed on record at that time, thirty-five per cent of the farmers in the three prairie provinces sow less than fifty acres of wheat a year; that is according to the 1935 census. Those farmers have a slim chance of reaping any benefit from this bonus, after having, had no wheat for perhaps three or four years. Why, I know several farmers who have not sown wheat for the last ten years, and they do not come into the picture at all, although I believe some regulations will be drawn up to take care of them. Further than that, sixty-two per cent of the farmers of the west sow less than one hundred acres of wheat a year. Therefore I think there is truth in the statement that this policy will not benefit the smaller farmers of this country.
I should like to give an example of how this policy will work. When some people speak of summer-fallowing, and being paid a bonus for it, it occurs to me that they think we can summer-fallow for nothing. It costs money to summer-fallow. As a rule, in farm leases in Manitoba they allow $5 an acre for any summer-fallow the tenant has not done, but I am going to be conservative and place the figure at $2 an acre. That is not all velvet. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that it costs a great deal more than $2 in my district if you do the summer-fallowing right, but we will put it at that figure. The bonus on one hundred acres of wheat at $4 an acre will be $400. The cost to the farmer would be at least $200, which would leave him a net revenue of $200 from his summer-fallowing.
This is what I would do; this would be my alternative. ' I would take that one hundred acres and sow it in wheat if the government had a policy that would allow me to do so. It is a poor field of summer-fallow that will not produce at least twenty bushels to the acre. That would give me two thousand
2174	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages
bushels from the one hundred acres. Of that two thousand bushels the government will take only two-thirds, or 1,333 bushels, which at 15 cents a bushel would amount to $199.80, or almost equal to the summer-fallow bonus. This will leave me 666 bushels, which the government does not want. What is the farmer going to do with those 666 bushels of wheat? Well, he will just put them in his granary. Can you think of any form of crop insurance, Mr. Chairman, that would stand a man in better stead than a binful of wheat; and can you think of anything that would bring this problem to the mind of the farmer more vividly than to find himself with a binful of wheat which he could not deliver? The next year he would hesitate before putting in much more wheat.
The coarse grain bonus is, I think, the most attractive of the three proposals. If I have to make a decision between summerfallowing, sowing to grass or sowing to coarse grains, I will sow to coarse grains. If I take one hundred acres of summer-fallow, I can produce forty-five bushels to the acre. We usually sow barley on the second crop, some of it on the poorest land we have; but if we sow barley on the good summer-fallow, we can just double the bushelage of barley in this country right under this very plan. If we do that, what will be the result? We are just going to have the wheat problem transferred to a barley or some other coarse grain problem. That result is inevitable.
I believe the bonus relative to pasture land has some merit, but it is a long-range programme. It is something which cannot be of much benefit to the farmers this year, beyond the $2 bonus which is to be paid. There is certainly room in Canada for more grass land; that is where diversified farming comes in. We could develop our cattle industry and our sheep industry away beyond its present size, if that development were permitted. The other evening and afternoon when I listened to some of my good friends on the Conservative side of the house arguing that there should be more restrictions on trade with the United States-they referred particularly to fresh fruits-and when they were told by the Minister of Finance that such restrictions would endanger the Canada-United States trade agreement, I could not help thinking they had not realized what that agreement meant to western Canada- yes, to the whole of Canada.
In these days, statesmen do not talk about restrictions in trade. The tendency is altogether the other way. Men are talking about cooperation, and the possibility of removing 
barriers of trade between nations. The United States trade agreement of 1936 and again renewed in 1939, proved a godsend to the cattle raisers of Canada. Where would we be to-day, with our markets across the ocean shut off, were it not for that trade agreement? Now that we have not the market in the old country, where would we be if we did not have that outlet to the south? Some will argue, "You cannot even fill your quota." No, we cannot; but that outlet is removing the surplus from the domestic market, and assures us of a higher price all round. There is no doubt about that.
It is wrong, therefore, for us to suggest anything which would interfere with the Canada-United States trade agreement. That arrangement stands out as an oasis in a desert, so far as the legislation of this government is concerned. The farmers' position is not good, and I am satisfied it is not going to be any better under this new policy. The farmers are willing to shoulder their responsibilities in this war. They are willing to pull more than their weight, and, indeed, they are doing so. But why should farmers be asked to be the shock-absorbers of the whole nation? That is what has happened. All other prices are rising. Look at the profits being paid by every company in Canada, and then look at the position of agriculture, the basic, backbone industry of the country.
Farmers cannot do other than keep on tilling the soil; that is their occupation. We cannot pull up stakes and go somewhere else. We just have to keep on going, whether we do or do not receive a fair price, and take our chance on the next crop. I find, upon looking into figures received by farmers in recent years, that although those living on the land comprise one-third of our population, they enjoy only ten per cent of the national income. Nevertheless, while agriculture is not prospering, many secondary industries, founded upon the work of the agriculturists, are making money.
I shall mention some of those industries. Take the meat packers, the milling companies, the farm machinery companies and the grain trade. Each of those industries is dependent upon agriculture, and to-day each is prospering. Why? Because they can transfer their energies to something else.
I have before me figures showing that in 1939 Canada Packers had a net surplus of $1,238,736, and, in 1940, a net surplus of $1,667,809. In 1939 Swift Canadian had a net surplus of $376,598, and in 1940, $394,109. Lake of the Woods Milling company is a firm which has suffered in recent years, but,

Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages
on account of the war, its business is improving. In 1939 that company had a surplus of 8596,691, and, in 1940, 8476,601. The Massey-Harris companjq too, suffered in past years, but now they are making money, and they made money for several years before the war. In 1939 they had a surplus of 8705,337, and in 1940 they had an operating surplus of 83,132,158. But through their method of bookkeeping, which no doubt is a correct one, they show, in 1940, a net income of 8805,568.


Mr. MARTIN:: Have they paid dividends recently?


Harry Leader: Just to the preferred shareholders, I believe. If hon. members wish, I could give the source from which I have obtained these figures.
I should like now to say something concerning the grain trade. Before dealing with that trade, may I correct a statement I made in the speech I delivered last November. At that time I said that the storage paid to the line elevator companies was three-quarters of a cent a bushel. That was an unintentional mistake, and I am glad to correct it at this my first opportunity. Instead of stating that it was three-quarters of a cent, I should have said it was two-thirds of a cent. This amounts to one cent a bushel per annum. This does not look like very much, but on hundreds of millions of bushels on which storage is paid, it can be readily understood that the total amount involved will be considerable.
The grain trade have been pretty well looked after by the parliament of Canada. I refer not only to recent years. They have been looked after as long as I can remember, and they are being well looked after to-day. They are making money; in some departments they never made as big dividends as they are making at the present time, right in the midst of this war. The charges the nation will have to pay the line elevator companies-and in that I include the pool elevators and the United Grain Growers-to carry the surplus will amount to approximately $65,000,000 a year.
When the Minister of Trade and Commerce made his announcement he said, speaking of the surplus and the problem of taking care of it:
To meet this situation the government entered into an arrangement with western elevator companies for the construction of approximately
50,000,000 bushels of temporary terminal storage space at Fort Willian-Port Arthur. The arrangements made were approved by order in council of February 19, 1941. I am assured a large part of this new space will be ready by July 31 of this year and the remainder in August and September. These facilities are being constructed by the elevator companies. The government has agreed to maintain all elevator tariff charges now prevailing without reduction until July 31, 1943. and to allow the companies to write off as depreciation for income tax purposes 50 per cent of the actual cost of construction in each of two successive years.
The point I make is this, that the government of Canada have guaranteed to the elevator companies two years' storage, whether we get rid of this surplus or not. Someone has said that the old country will be bombed, that the wheat fields will be set on fire, that the grain will be destroyed and that this wheat will be needed. If that comes true, it means that we have entered into a contract, if not written, at least oral, by which we undertake to continue paying these storage elevators for the next two years at the rate of approximately $65,000,000 a year. The minister goes on to say:
It is further agreed by the companies that after the 31st day of July, 1943, they will, upon request, each enter into agreements (upon the basis of payment of reasonable remuneration for each operation) as may be mutually satisfactory in the light of the operating experience gained during the jjeriod up to July 31, 1943, for the operation of its temporary facilities during the balance of the time such facilities are needed.
There are hon. members who will argue that it will be four years before we can get rid of our surplus wheat, so this will be rather an expensive proposition for the government and the people of this country. A meeting was held at Portage la Prairie and a resolution was passed asking the government to provide some means of assistance, even if only to aid us in providing storage facilities on the farm where this is needed. Of this $65,000,000 that we are paying out to the elevator companies, not one dollar is going to the farmer. There was a time when we hoped that we were going to get another ten cents a bushel on our 1939 crop, but we did not get it. Why? Because it had been eaten up in the payment of these storage charges. I know this may be something the government cannot help at the present time, but they seem to have slipped a cog in this connection by not paying attention to the necessity of providing more storage facilities on the farm where this is needed. We need these granaries, and we need them filled with grain as a security against crop failures.


Mr. WOOD:: Does the farmer of the west really believe that it is an obligation of the government to build granaries on the farms?


Harry Leader: No, he does not, but the
suggestion was made that loans should be made to the farmers or they should be provided with lumber for that purpose. Then
2176 ^	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages
storage charges could be paid to them instead of to the line elevator company, and the government would get their money out of the storage charges when the wheat was sold. That is all we are asking for.


George Ernest Wood: It is a wonderful thing if
you can get it. We in Ontario do not take eagerly to having the government provide granaries for the farmers in the west. We have had to erect expensive buildings to carry on our operations, and we are always glad to have a little wheat in our granaries. We do not expect the government to lend us money. We find it somewhere.


Harry Leader: I am sure the hon. member for Brant is one of those who would be willing to cooperate with western members in order to try to understand our problems and to arrive at some solution which would be beneficial both to the east and to west. We do not want the government to build our granaries; all we ask is that it be made a little easier for us, especially when they are ready to pay out this money to the line elevators.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Is it not true that wheat is the only commodity which the farmers of Canada have been denied the right to sell? Consequently there is some obligation to the farmer.


Harry Leader: One could make a whole
speech on that question. There is no doubt there is something in what the hon. member has said.


George Ernest Wood: That is not so.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What other
commodity is there?


Harry Leader: 
The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Fournier, Hull):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but he has spoken for more than forty minutes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Harry Leader: I thank the committee for listening to me. and I shall conclude right away. I have been speaking as a farmer and as a representative of farmers. I am speaking not only for myself, but also for my constituents. On several occasions I have found it necessary to oppose the government. That is not because I wanted to; it was 6imply because I believed honestly that I am here to represent my people before supporting the government or any other party. That is my honest belief. I am simply trying to discharge the duty which has been imposed upon me.


Mr. FAIR:: 
Mr. TRIPP:: We have had dollar wheat since that circular was issued.


Robert Fair: If the hon. member in
the eorner will keep quiet, he will have his chance to say all he wishes when I have
finished. I was going on to say, Mr. Chairman, that dollar wheat is exactly what we are recommending. The circular continues:
Dollar wheat will run your farm and pay your taxes.
Dollar wheat will pay the hired help and pay your repair bill.
Dollar wheat will pay your insurance and buy your wife a new dress.
The circular ends with the words in large type, "Vote Liberal."


Jesse Pickard Tripp: They did vote Liberal.


Robert Fair: And they have been sorry ever since. I may say, in answer to the hon. member who interrupted, that it is a good thing we have an election every few years because, while the people may make a mistake once we remember the old saying, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time."


An hon. MEMBER:: You have done it twice.


Robert Fair: I have represented fairly-and I say "fairly" advisedly-the people who sent me here, and I shall continue to do so for as long as they see fit to send me here.
The group with which I am associated recommend that the government take immediate steps to pay one dollar a bushel at the local elevator for the first 2,000 bushels of wheat. Again, this may be claimed to be impossible. According, however, to the figures just given by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie, 35 per cent of our farmers sow less than 50 acres, and 62 per cent, less than 100 acres. We cannot expect a number of these farmers to raise 2,000 bushels, and if they do not raise it, naturally they cannot deliver it. Quite a number of them will not deliver more than one or two hundred bushels. I believe that our proposal is fair and will give agriculture a chance to pay its way; and if agriculture prospers, I believe that the rest of Canada will prosper as well, because, as I have pointed out on several occasions, when the west is prosperous, eastern Canada is prosperous also. I have on former occasions quoted figures in this house showing that in 1926, when wheat averaged SI.40 a bushel, western Canada purchased from eastern Canada approximately $82,000,000 worth of farm machinery. That was just one item alone. Then in 1932 and 1933 when wheat was away down in price, to the lowest price in three or four hundred years, the west's purchases of farm implements dropped to around $8,000,000, or only ten per cent of what we purchased in reasonably good times.
2180	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages
I think any sane, sound business man must take cognizance of facts such as these, and act accordingly.
The government, I believe, should continue to pay storage on the balance of the quota of wheat on the farm, as is being done at the present time. I also believe that the government should pay an advance on that part of the quota which the farmer holds on his farm because he cannot deliver it. The farmer must get a living anyway, and if the wheat is there to be delivered, the government would not be taking any great chances in making an advance.
The question of storage was brought up by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie. If we allow something like ten per cent for working space, the elevators have a storage capacity of 582 million bushels, and paying eight cents a bushel on their full capacity means that somebody will have to pay $46,560,000 a year for storage. As we are now in a war period, I think the people of Canada should pay this charge rather than that the farmers themselves should be made to stand this expense.
Agriculture is pretty well wrecked now. If this is allowed to go on, complete wrecking of the industry will be the result. I do not think Canada can afford to have agriculture in any worse plight than it is at the present time. Do not forget that there are war debts to pay, and that all taxes are paid either directly or indirectly by the agricultural industry.
In addition, I believe the government should continue where it left off, with international cooperation with the wheat producing countries. This has been advocated for the past three or four years by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), myself and others.
I should also like to see the grain exchange closed. We have been told that it is being kept open at the request of the cereals board in England. That argument does not appear to me to have any force, because seemingly the British government has closed the exchanges over there since the war started, and if that course is good for England, why is it not good for Canada? Perhaps we are yet capable of being skinned a little more. That skinning should cease, and cease right away.
In conclusion, may I allude to that old theme, Canadian unity. We have heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King),several of the cabinet ministers and private members plead for national unity. We have been told by others that unity is impossible while one part is slave and the other part free. I suggest that it is about time to free a very large percentage of our people who have been and

are slaves, and I make this plea to the government now, that they take into consideration this group's recommendations which I have just placed on record.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Like the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader), I am probably not so much concerned personally about the wheat problem because, as in his case, cattle has solved my problem. As a Canadian citizen, however, I am vitally concerned about this very important matter of wheat.	.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), speaking on the floor of this chamber on Wednesday, March 26, in reply to the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn), attempted to place the blame on the opposition in this house for the fact that we have not had an opportunity to discuss agriculture, and all its difficulties, at a much earlier date. He stated that when he first attempted to bring in his estimates, on February 27, I asked him to make a statement. I did ask him at half-past ten on that evening, as he stated, if he would make a statement in order to give some lead to the agricultural producers of the country as to what might be expected of them, in the matter of agricultural production, to assist in the war effort during this coming year; and I suggest that that request was very much in order. Then, on March 5, the hon. member for Haldimand rose to introduce an amendment to the motion to go into supply. He was not allowed to complete his speech until March 26. During the interval, on March 12, the Minister of Agriculture announced this acreage bonus scheme which we are now discussing.
May I say that, as a result of my experience as a member for three or four years of the advisory committee under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, I, speaking on November 14 last in this chamber, advocated a scheme somewhat similar in principle to this one, but on a much broader basis. I am convinced that something must be done to reduce the wheat acreage of this country, but, like other speakers, I also am convinced that the producers, on the quota which they are allowed to deliver, must receive somewhere near a parity price for what they are allowed to deliver. I spoke several times last year and, I think, proved conclusively that the parity price at that time was approximately $1.25 a bushel, Fort William-certainly a great contrast to this allowance of 70 cents.
I am opposed to handling this matter in the manner proposed by the government. I was disappointed that the minister did not introduce a bill covering these regulations or the operation of this scheme. Such dictatorial

Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages
powers as are involved in a matter of this kind should not be given to one individual by order in council.
May I also point out that, notwithstanding the difficult plight of agriculture from coast to coast, the agriculture committee of this house has not met once during the last two sessions of parliament. It is hard to understand why that committee has not been called together to discuss the serious condition of agriculture, about which the government professes to be so much concerned.
Under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act the Minister of Agriculture is almost a dictator, but only farmers producing under twelve bushels an acre have come under his rule. Under this new scheme all the farmers of the prairie provinces will come under his dictate. I am certainly of opinion that this authority should not be given one who enjoys the reputation of a great partisan administrator. As some evidence of what may happen, let me quote from the report of the auditor general for the period ended March 31, 1940. Referring to the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, he states on page 61-to cite just one case- Commitments of approximately $1,315,575.20 were incurred in excess of the amount appropriated without certificates of the comptroller of the treasury being secured in the manner provided for by sections 26 and 29 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931. These overcommitments, by group classifications, are made up of: land utilization, $22,036.47; water development, small projects, $909,553.00, large projects $384,185.73.
By an amendment to the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act (chap. 7 assented to 5th April, 1939), the minister may, subject to the approval of the governor in council, enter into agreements with provinces, cities, towns, persons, etc., for projects or schemes for the conservation of water. Payments during the year were made in several cases on ministerial authority only. . . .
The report goes on to quote examples. I would point out that this was taking place during the latter part of 1939-not so many months prior to the general election of March, 1940.
Turning to page 66, we find, with reference to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act:
Regulations made under the act and approved by order in council dated November 23, 1939 (P.C. 3820) provided for the establishment of a committee of review, the duties of the committee to be to examine data, to review yield categories, to consider applications open to question and to report its findings to the Minister of Agriculture. Under the statute before it was amended in 1940, the determining of the acreage yield, which formed the basis of acreage awards, rested with the Minister of Agriculture and the law officers expressed their opinion that the non-concurrence of the committee did not preclude the minister from awarding assistance. Several awards were made by the minister covering yields not accepted by the committee.
Farmers were not required to make applications for assistance. While section 5 of the act gives the power to make regulations to require farmers to furnish information and section 11 makes it an offence if any person falsely claims assistance, the farmers filed only acreage reports and the value of the certification to these reports was often negatived by changes unsigned by the farmers.
There are many other similar references on these pages, all illustrating the great extent of the authority which is vested in one minister under regulations brought in as these have been. I am very much of the opinion that there should be a minimum clause in these regulations in order to protect the small producers. It was pointed out by one of the previous speakers that the average number of acres of wheat produced by the farmers is fifty. Throughout a large part of Manitoba a minimum of eighty acres would not be too much for the farmers, and I do not think any farmer should be compelled to reduce below that acreage. There should also be some restrictions on the large farmers with an opportunity to cash in on this scheme. Moreover, when this scheme was being considered by the government, the Minister of Agriculture, I believe, invited the provincial departments of agriculture and municipal officials to Ottawa. They were amazed to read on the train, coming to Ottawa, the announcement of the policy before they had been consulted.
The three provincial governments have taken the stand that the initial payment on wheat should be at least 85 cents. The western union of municipalities, after due consideration, recommended that the payment should be 95 cents a bushel on this quota basis, and I believe the quota they advocated was approximately that which has been arrived at.
The Sirois commission in their report point out that from 1896 to 1913, under a vigorous immigration policy carried out by the government of that day, assisted by the railways and the real estate companies, a vast expansion took place in western Canada, and land ranging from 10,000,000 acres to
70,000,000 acres was settled, with the result that wheat acreage expanded accordingly. The officials under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act contend that there has been conducted throughout a considerable part of that area a soils survey by the soils experts of the three provincial governments, and they suggest that 6,000,000 acres of land should be taken out of grain production. Some headway has been made in this direction. A large part of that land lies within the boundaries of Saskatchewan. The statement is often made that, from patriotic
2182	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages
motives, this great expansion, in wheat production took place during the last war. On going over some of the records, I find that wheat acreage in 1914 in the prairie provinces was 9,335,400 acres. In 1918, at the conclusion of the war, it was 16,125,451 acres. In 1939 it was 25,813,000 acres, and in the last year, 1940, it was 27,750,000 acres. Therefore, by far the greatest expansion has taken place since the last war.
In the last two years, when international prices were tumbling because of oversupply, Canada has increased acreage by 11J per cent, while the rest of the world has been reducing acreage by 10 per cent. We must, therefore, face, in some manner, the issue of wheat production. More than that, while the peoples of the world procured their wheat requirements from an average of seventeen acres out of every 100 cultivated acres, we in Canada have been attempting to produce wheat on every sixty out of 100 cultivated acres in the prairies. That should convince us that we ought to cease burying our heads in the sand and face the situation.
Whether we like it or not, the economy of western Canada is facing a radical change at this time, and we must give some thought to what lies ahead of us in this regard. In the four-year period from 1925 to 1928 inclusive, we produced in the prairies 1,745,000,000 bushels of wheat. At that time the index purchasing power was 96 compared with 100 in 1913. In the recent period, from 1937 to 1940, we produced 1,511,000,000 bushels, and the index purchasing power was 50-2. In other words, in the previous four years, 1925 to 1928, we produced a quantity in excess of this year's quota requirements, and the price was still considerably more than the index is now at this particular time. Moreover, in 1928 Canada was supplying 40 per cent of the world's exports of wheat, according to the Sirois report, book I, page 144. Therefore, at that time, before people were preparing for the war-and they have been doing it for the past ten years-this unusually large surplus threatened a slump in the prices. Germany, Italy and France began to erect tariffs of $1.62, $1.07 and $1.85 a bushel respectively, which added to our difficulties during that time.
The hon. member for Portage la Prairie suggested that the chap who operated the tractor was more responsible for our difficulties than anyone else to-day, and there is some truth in that statement. I would point out, however, the great transformation that has taken place in agricultural production in

recent years. Mechanization has affected that production to a considerable extent. The following extract is illuminating:
It is stated on good authority that in 1830, unaided by machinery, it required about 57 hours of man labour to grow and harvest an acre of wheat yielding 20 bushels. The introduction and use of machinery brought the hours of labour required to grow an acre of wheat down to 3-3 in 1930.
It has been accelerated since then.
Having once made the change from horses to tractors, land formerly used for forage, pasture and coarse grains is converted to wheat production to obtain a larger cash crop, and one which can best be depended upon where rainfall is scarce.
I quote still further:
Notwithstanding criticism to the contrary agriculture has kept pace with industry so far as efficiency is concerned. In the United States between 1910 and 1930, output per worker increased 39 per cent in manufacturing and 41 per cent in agriculture. A long-range contrast shows that 150 years ago it took 19 persons living on farms to produce enough for themselves and for one person in town. To-day 19 persons on farms can produce enough for themselves and for 66 living in towns. That condition is undoubtedly comparable with the situation which obtains in this country as well.
People have been forced into mass production by machinery owing to the necessity of having to reduce cost of production. According to the Canadian Cooperative Farm Implements Journal, a binder in 1913 sold at Regina for $167, and it took 261 bushels of wheat to pay for it. In 1936 the same binder sold for $281, and required 319 bushels to pay for it. In 1940 it sold for $340 and required 637 bushels to pay for it. That is conclusive proof of the position into which producers have been forced, to some extent perhaps against their better judgment.
Since the outbreak of war, labour in this country has been placed in a highly protected position. Those in industry are protected by the government of the day, but agriculture is left to look after itself. The farmers would be content with the prices that prevailed before the great depression. They would be more than content; they would be delighted if returns from farming were on the basis of 1929. This government has seen fit to place labour on the basis of the wages prevailing from 1926 to 1929, plus any increase which may be brought about during this war effort. The yearly average of agricultural prices on this basis, taking Winnipeg as the index, would be as follows:
Wheat	 $ 1.20
Hogs, live weight	 11.00
Cattle, best killing	 9.20
Butter fat	40

Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages
I would point out that cattle is the only agricultural product to-day on anything like equality with the prices prevailing before 1930. If we take the index of all farm products for the period from 1926 to 1929 as 100, the figure for 1940 would be 69. Costs are down, but not to anything like the same extent, and those costs have increased considerably since the beginning of the war. The exchange situation alone has automatically increased the price on important machinery such as tractors.
The situation, the'-l, is that labour is in a sheltered position; industiy is booming; finance is thriving because industry is active, but agriculture is left to look after itself. According to the Searle index, labour in 1939 received wages 91 per cent higher than those of 1913-14. Further than that, we have the statement of the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) on Februray 25, that some $307,000,000 has been supplied by the government to industry in this country by way of capital assistance. Of that total, approximately $10,000,000 went to British Columbia; $16,000,000 to the three prairie provinces, and by far the greater part of the remainder to Ontario and Quebec.
I had the privilege of visiting the city of Hamilton not long ago. I was amazed at the work being carried on there, but I was later surprised to learn that that city, with a population of approximately 160,000, had received something like $26,000,000 by way of capital assistance to industry. Why, even the city of Niagara Falls, which is not very large, received $14,000,000 for this purpose. So, Mr. Chairman, you see how all this money which has been put into circulation by the government has intensified the difficulties of agriculture at the present time. It was pointed out by the hon. member for Haldimand that even before the outbreak of this war, agriculture, which includes approximately one-third of the population of this nation, received only about one-twelfth of the national income, and this great disparity has been increased since the war.
I believe farming should be considered, first, as a way of life and, second, as a business; that is, the farmer should be encouraged in every way to produce a livelihood for himself and his family. In this regard I should like to make some reference to the processing tax. Last year this matter was discussed; and, if I remember correctly, the Minister of Agriculture expressed the opinion that the producer who took his own grist to the mill should not have to pay this tax. On September 3, however, 1940, order in council P.C. 4387 was passed setting up the regulations
governing the payment of this processing tax and, after some protest by producers throughout the country, on February 1, 1941, order in council P.C. 134/813 was passed, rebating this tax to the producers of Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.
In Manitoba, from which I come, we have forty-three flour mills, two of them located in my own constituency. The secretary of the provincial millers' association is also one of my constituents. I communicated with the various millers through the province in order to ascertain what they had collected from the producers and turned over to the government during the first six months of the operation of this tax; and after having received that information, I am satisfied that, if this policy is continued, these local grist mills will be forced out of business, which will be an added hardship on those farmers who normally have their gristing done in this way. I have here the information from fifteen of these mills as to the amount collected by them from July 20, 1940, to February 1, 1941, as follows:
Turtle Mountain Milling Company-
Deloraine	 $ 3,200 00
Steinbach Flour Mills-Steinback..	4,333	70A.	W. Snider-Wawanesa	
1,012	20Treherne Flour Mills-Treherne....	585	22Holland Flour Mills-Holland....	459	40Morden Milling Company-Morden.	1,527	15
Somerset Flour Mills-Somerset. .. .1
B. P. Kent Milling Company-Virdenf	6,000 00
Harrison Milling and Grain Company-Hoilmfield	
1,200	00Winkler Milling Company-Winkler	1,700	00Morris Milling Company-Morris..	5,331	55Gardenton Flour Mills-Gardenton.	3,318	00lloblin Flour Mills-Roblin	
889	65
Hamiota Flour Mills

Hamiota....	4,445	54
Pine River Milling Company-Pine
River	 1,452	45
Total	 $35,454 86
Average per mill tax paid on gristing, July 20, 1940, to January 31, 1941, $2,363.
I do not know why there should be this discrimination as between these four eastern provinces and the rest of the country; and I think some consideration should be shown those producers who wish to have their own gristing done. They should not be taxed for having their own flour produced for their own consumption.
I am convinced that somebody must endeavour to create a plan for agriculture in this country from coast to coast. During the early years in western Canada, such a plan was not needed, but to-day the situation has entirely changed. On those prairies we have some three million people, many of whom were born and raised there and who desire to
2184	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages
continue living there. We have many scientists of one kind and another, experts in agriculture, and I believe the government should get these people together and evolve some policy to assist in that new economy which is coming to this country whether we like it or not. The other day it was pointed out by one hon. member that seldom was a war lost by a country having a surplus of foodstuffs on hand. We are fortunate in having the great surplus that at present exists in this country. I should like to quote what was said by Mr. Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of England, on August 20, 1940:
Wheat for Victory
We shall do our best to encourage the building up of reserves of food all over the world so that there will always be held before the eyes of the people of Europe, including-I say it deliberately-the German and Austrian peoples, the certainty that the shattering of nazi power will bring to them all immediate food, freedom and peace.
Mr. David Lloyd George, speaking quite recently, has made statements along similar lines. It is interesting to note that when Canadian farmers are endeavouring to better their conditions, one of their spokesmen in Great Britain, no less a personage than Mr. David Lloyd George had this to say, speaking as one farmer to others at a meeting held recently in Carnarvonshire:
We must see that the farmer gets a reasonable return; it is no use thinking you can compel him to cultivate his land to the utmost, you can't; you must make it worth his while, you must bring him along as a willing helper.
That is essential, for the security of the nation, according to Mr. Lloyd George. Furthermore, as proof of the fact that in Great Britain they consider agricultural products as munitions of war, I believe the British Minister of Agriculture puts in requisitions to the government of Great Britain, which are forwarded to the Minister of Munitions and Supply at Ottawa, for all agricultural implements required from Canada to be delivered in the old land. That is significant proof of the fact that they consider agricultural production as being in the same category as all other munitions of war.
I am much of the opinion that in these times, in connection with storage on grain surpluses, we are paying altogether too much to the grain trade. On February 19, order in council P.C. 1125 was passed permitting the grain trade to erect storage facilities at the head of the lakes for an additional
50,000,000 bushels of wheat. In that order in council they guarantee a certain period of storage, and also point out that the cost of construction may be written off in a period of two years. There is an additional provision

whereby they may deduct 50 per cent a year in the filing of income tax returns.
May I remind the committee that when a farmer wishes to erect facilities for grain storage on his own farm, he must, when filing his income tax returns, spread the cost of that construction over twenty years. He is allowed a deduction of only 5 per cent, whereas by this government the grain trade is allowed 50 per cent. Certainly that is not very much encouragement for the producer to erect his own storage on his own farm.
Concerning what the grain trade has cost us in the handling of grain, I would quote from a speech delivered by the hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Donnelly) at the last session. His speech is recorded in Hansard of July 25, at page 1960, as follows:
I should like to say a word with regard to the handling charges on wheat. These charges, to me, particularly this year, are absolutely ridiculous. I believe the handling charges during the past year were far too high. They may be all right with wheat at $1.50 a bushel; they may be all right in ordinary years, when our elevators may be only partly full for a few months and almost empty for the rest of the year. But in a year like last year, when they were three-quarters full all year, and next year, when they will be full all year, these charges are absolutely ridiculous. Let me give the committee an example of what I mean. We are told that the amount paid by the board to the elevators for storage alone was something like $14,612,000. That was on 318,000,000 bushels of wheat. There was an additional 100,000,000 bushels or so not handled by the board, so the total amount paid for storage alone by the grain trade and by the board must have been well over $16,000,000. But there is something else in addition. The other day the statement was made that only one-third of the income of the elevators came from storage, the other two-thirds coming from other, additional charges. So there must have been another $32,000,000 received from other sources, making in all something like $50,000,000 paid for handling our wheat last year. If anyone tells me that is a reasonable amount to pay for the storage and handling of our wheat in one year, all I say is that he does not know the condition of our farmers. We sold something like 400,000,000 bushels, for which we received approximately 50 cents a bushel, or in round figures about $200,000,000. But we paid $50,000,000 or one-quarter of the selling price, just for the handling of that wheat.
Then, at page 1961 he is reported as follows:
All the act says is that the board of grain commissioners shall fix the maximum rates that may be charged for the handling, cleaning and storage of grain. If that board does not cut this price to the bone-I say it should be cut in two-then we should amend the Canada Grain Act in that respect, because I do not consider these prices either reasonable or right. I say that the cost of handling our wheat was $50,000,000, not only on the authority of the statements I have mentioned but because of other statements I have heard to the effect that the

Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages
grain people received in the neighbourhood of 13 or 14 cents a bushel on all the wheat they handled. I can give the committee those figures if necessary, because I know what they are.
Mr. Crerar: Does that include freight?
Mr. Donnelly:	No, that does not include
freight at all. That is something else which the farmer has to pay. This is just for elevation, storage, cleaning, loading into cars, service charges, diversion charges and matters of that kind.
That is, I' think, proof enough for this committee that the grain trade have been well looked after by the government of the day. I well remember looking over the contract the grain trade received the year prior to this from the wheat committee. In that contract the trade was allowed storage from the time the wheat was dumped in the pit, irrespective of the fact that the farmer is entitled to two weeks' free storage, and usually for some thirteen days while it is in freight cars en route to terminals. Irrespective of these facts, that contract allowed the grain trade storage for those two weeks, and allowed storage while the grain was in freight cars in transit to terminals. That is something which I do not think can be justified under present conditions.


George Ernest Wood: With regard to the cost of storing wheat in elevators in western Canada, is it a fact that the major portion of the holdings is held by United Grain Growers and pool elevators? Is it not also a fact that the great majority of the stockholders of those two companies are farmers, and that the 866,000,000 paid for storage, or a large portion of it, would go back to the farmers who are the shareholders in those companies?


James Arthur Ross: Not to my knowledge. I have not the figures before me to answer that question properly. However, it is not so, to my knowledge.


George Ernest Wood: That is a pertinent question, when the hon. member is speaking about farmers' incomes.


James Arthur Ross: My time is almost up, and I should like to finish what I have to say.


George Ernest Wood: Perhaps the committee would give the hon. member extra time.


James Arthur Ross: I have not the figures before me. I will say, however, that I am opposed to the deal which has been given the grain trade, although I have not time to go into it in detail at the moment.
As I said earlier, I am firmly convinced that if we are to deliver this wheat on a quota basis, then we should be guaranteed somewhere near the parity price which, it has been admitted elsewhere by many people, is approximately $1.25, basis Fort William. The
provincial governments, the municipal unions, the pools-all organizations on the prairies connected with the welfare of the farmer are practically in unison that the farmer should have what would be the equivalent of at least 95 cents a bushel. As I said, they asked that the initial payment be at least 85 cents a bushel, other amounts being taken into consideration to reimburse them as time went on.
I have said I am firmly convinced that what is needed more than anything else in Canada is a great national agricultural policy. We have anything but that at the present time. Throughout Canada we have a great economic disunity. I hate to think of what might happen in the countiy were it not for the fact that Canadians are determined to win this war, irrespective of whether or not they are given leadership. That is one factor which is saving the great economic difficulty in our midst at this particular time. There is no doubt in my mind as to that fact.
The Sirois commission report makes fine reference to agricultural conditions in Canada. I was very disappointed that more did not come out of that conference which was held on January 14 and 15. There has never been a greater lack of leadership displayed in the history of Canada than was displayed at that conference by the Prime Minister. Much good would have come out of that conference if the federal and provincial authorities had sat round this table and discussed the economic situation. I think we might, after further consideration, give an advanced price to the producers of this country on the quota which they will be forced to deliver this year.


Mr. ROWE:: It is not my intention to keep the committee at any great length at this time; in fact, from the appearance of the committee it would appear that it is not its desire that I should. I wish, however, to conclude what I was saying the other evening. Since receiving the regulations which were brought down by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), I feel more alarmed than ever over this new fantastic type of policy which is being enunciated in this proposed vote. I realize, as does every hon. member, that for some years the wheat problem has been of grave concern to everyone interested in the welfare of this dominion. It has interested those of the banking profession; it has certainly interested those of the bond and mortgage houses, and it has interested those who are dependent upon the wheat fields. On the other hand, there are those in the country who believe that bonuses and subsidies are vicious in principle and should never be applied to agriculture.
I feel that we have long since adopted the principle of bonuses and subsidies in our

2186	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages
present organized society from coast to coast. As a supporter of the party that sits to your left, Mr. Chairman, while I have been interested chiefly in agriculture, I have also been strongly in favour of a reasonable protective policy in order that industry may develop and thus increase our home markets. There are those who still cling to old free trade ideas, but this is not evidenced so much by the party that sits to your right. It may be said that by our support of a protective policy we have given bonuses and subsidies to industry. I have heard this argument advanced in the house on many occasions.
At times there has been great difficulty in connection with our iron and steel industry, and bonuses have been paid. A much greater percentage of bonus is paid to the iron and steel industry. We have given bonuses or subsidies, whatever you may wish to call them, to the coal industry.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Subventions.


William Earl Rowe: The leader of the opposition says that "subvention" is a more modest term. This principle has been long since established. The labouring man who carries a dinner-pail to his work is given something in the way of security. While we may not call this a subsidy or a subvention, he is given the assurance that he will have to -work only so many hours for which he will receive so much money. We recognize the principle of collective bargaining so that his labour may not be exploited for the advantage of those who hold stock.


Mr. GOLDING:: What assurance has he of a job?


William Earl Rowe: His union will be ready to tell you whether or not you can fire him. I am merely referring to the principle, and I doubt if even my hon. friend will disagree when I say that is the situation at the present time. I have referred to the protective policies in connection with industry. Such a policy was encouraged by the party that sits to your left, Mr. Chairman, and it has been followed by the party that sits to your right. Labour is given this security; but when this principle is applied to agriculture, there are many people in the country who hold up their hands in holy horror and say that it is unsound and vicious and should not be applied.
Why? Evidently the farmer is not organized sufficiently to carry out collective bargaining. The payment of bonuses and subsidies to agriculture under depressed conditions is just as justifiable as the payment of any other bonus or subsidy. It may be that we have too many of these artificial supports for industry; it may be that wages paid to labour

are too high, but the fact is that this is the present trend of society. It is the result of the effort on the part of all governments to equalize the conditions of all classes of our people. I do not wish to repeat what I said the other night, but I have been in favour of the payment of bonuses and subsidies when agriculture is depressed. Hon. members on the other side will recall that I was among the first, if not the first, to propose the payment of bonuses to agriculture some years ago. I urged that on different occasions on the government of the day, of which I was a supporter.
At that time I proposed bonuses for cheese, for bacon, for beef and for poultry products. This was at a time when the price of sterling meant that we were receiving low prices for our bacon, cheese and other products. Our farmers could not meet their obligations, and I made the suggestion I did at that time. It would have been a sound policy to follow, much sounder than the fantastic type of policy being presented to this committee. I suggested that, in addition to a grain commission, there be set up a live stock commission. I suggested also the establishment of an export marketing board to consider the securing of overseas markets and to supervise the inspection of grades in order to make sure that producers of live stock products were not exporting a poor class of product to the market upon which they were dependent and thus automatically forcing down the price.
I think it would be a sound policy to pay a bonus only for high grade products. This bonus could be secured from the producer, and when the price rose to a certain point it would be eliminated automatically. Such a policy would have some tinge of soundness, some tinge of permanency and some tinge of economic advantage for this country. As the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) has said, for a long time this country has been pleading for a national agricultural policy. I think we have tended too much toward being wheat-minded, and I say that with all respect for those who are struggling with the desperate problem of a surplus which is costing this country millions of dollars a year to carry.
I have had some experience in the growing of wheat, but I have not been fortunate enough to grow it in a district where I was paid for growing it or paid for not growing it. Wheat has been an important part of the crop of old Ontario, but I suppose we shall just carry on as usual. This $35,000,000 is to be paid to people for not growing wheat, but there is no particular indication in this legislation that we shall not have a drought and that wheat will not go up again to $1 a bushel. I suggest that what we need in this country

Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages
is a policy which will encourage farmers to produce what they can sell, rather than to try to sell what they produce.
We know that this year the Department of Agriculture will spend from nine to ten millions in order to protect our animals from parasites, and to develop more scientific methods of production, in order to increase production and lower costs, all of which the industrialist might consider was a bonus. A great deal more can be done, and certainly the farmers of this country will have to learn to produce more cheaply. I think it will be generally agreed that farmers should be encouraged to produce other products than wheat. Take, as an example of what can be done, the development of soya beans by the Ford Motor Car company. The manufacture of alcohol and several other lines of production which have not so far been given much consideration might well be opened up. I know it might be said that it is no use mentioning other lines of activity in which the farmers might engage, because that still leaves the problem of the wheat crop. I realize that diversification would not be the whole solution; but undoubtedly we need more research, more expansion of production and more support for the diversification of agriculture so that we can produce the things we can sell, rather than trying to sell what we produce.
In connection with these proposals of the government, we find members who have formerly criticized any form of bonus or subsidy as the most vicious form of policy, actually supporting a policy which does not subsidize or bonus the farmers to do something but bonuses them to do nothing, and that at a time when the nation is pleading for an allout war effort, at a time when there will very soon be a shortage of labour. At this very time we are inaugurating a policy embodying a vicious principle similar to the dole, giving people something for nothing. I feel that in this policy we have the greatest political gunshot prescription for agriculture that I have ever seen brought before the house. When one thinks for a moment of what the Minister of Agriculture can do with it-he smiles, and I would smile too if I could see any hope ahead for agriculture in these policies-


Mr. GARDINER:: I see a lot of trouble
ahead for me.


William Earl Rowe: The minister says he sees a
lot of trouble ahead for him. I can see in the far distance-I do not like to state it in advance-


James Garfield Gardiner: Say it.


William Earl Rowe: The minister says, "Say it." I can see plenty of possibilities for political corruption in it too, in western Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh.


William Earl Rowe: Some hon. members say "oh". Here is the government bringing down its proposals for agriculture, and the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) says that he does not want to have anything to do with the baby. The hon. member for Wellington North (Mr. Blair) also said that he did not want to have anything to do with this baby. No wonder that, as I said the other evening, neither the Minister of Agriculture nor the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) was courageous enough to father this child alone, so they introduced it jointly. I do not know which of the two might best be called its father, but it looks to me more like the Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Does the hon. member want to adopt it?


William Earl Rowe: No, I would not want to adopt it, because I think it will prove the most difficult child that has ever been raised by this house.


An hon. MEMBER:: You would bring it up a Toiy.


William Earl Rowe: No, there is nothing Tory about it. It is a wild political idea framed to get votes in western Canada and to strengthen the machine that has been built up in Saskatchewan. It is useless so far as being any solution of the wheat problem is concerned. I am not surprised that it has been said that this is more of a ministerial child than a party child, and I am not surprised that it was more or less introduced to the public before being introduced to parliament. The minister shakes his head, but his henchmen in western Canada had certificates printed-


James Garfield Gardiner: The certificates are not printed yet.	.


Mr. PERLEY:: The applications then.


James Garfield Gardiner: The applications are not printed yet.


William Earl Rowe: The western papers, the Regina Leader Post-I do not have it here, but no doubt the minister has seen it-says that the machinery is all set up.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is not even one of the forms drafted yet, let alone printed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The secretaries of the municipalities said that the scheme was all arranged.
2188	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages


James Garfield Gardiner: They said that they were going to carry out the plan. What I have stated is the absolute fact, that not one of the forms is even drafted yet, let alone printed.


William Earl Rowe: I am glad that parliament has had something to do with the matter, because, after all, parliament is in session.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is absolutely right, and parliament has something to do with it.


William Earl Rowe: Certainly I am right. That child is going to be handled like other children have been handled in the past. The hon. member for Souris has told the committee what happened in connection with some of the other expenditures. I notice by page 66 of the auditor general's report that, under the old assistance act, several awards were made by the minister as to yields which were not accepted by the committee.


James Garfield Gardiner: I should like to add that thousands of them were made before the committee was even set up.


William Earl Rowe: I would expect that, and thousands were made just before the election in 1940.


James Garfield Gardiner: They were made before the election was even heard of.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Someone has to make the decision.


William Earl Rowe: I am not taking the word of the Minister of Agriculture; I take his word, of course, in a general sense, but I am not taking his word as to the soundness of the awards.


Ernest Lapointe: What an evil mind for a nice fellow!


William Earl Rowe: I thank the Minister of Justice /or his compliment of even assuming that I am a nice fellow, but, after all the evils I have seen-


James Garfield Gardiner: If I might be permitted, for I am sure my hon. friend does not want to be unfair, I should like to point out that everything stated either in the auditor general's report or in the discussion this afternoon was provided for by legislation. I understand that my hon. friend's objection is that something is not being done by legislation, but everything referred to there was done by legislation.


William Earl Rowe: The letter killeth and the spirit giveth life. We were told that awards were to be made on acreages that would be assented to here. We know there were regulations. I am not suggesting that the minister has done something that he did not have power to do. As a matter of fact, he gets

power to do almost anything he likes with this type of farm expenditure. But I ask, what is the use of setting up a committee if you are not going to take its recommendations? Does the minister mean to tell this committee that he knows better than a committee on the ground what Tom Jones is producing in a garden that always grew potatoes?


James Garfield Gardiner: Under the act as it was at that time, no committee was provided for. I set up the committee myself by virtue of having power to make regulations.


William Earl Rowe: Surely the minister does not think the committee is so dumb as not to understand that. Let me quote from page 66 of the auditor general's report. It reads:
Regulations made under the act and approved by order in council dated November 23, 1939 (P.C. 3820) provided for the establishment of a committee of review, the duties of the committee to be to examine data, to review yield categories, to consider applications open to question and to report its findings to the Minister of Agriculture. . . . Several awards were made by the minister covering yields not accepted by the committee.


James Garfield Gardiner: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend a few moments ago threw out the insinuation that there had been some corruption in connection with this act. As I understand parliamentary procedure, any member who makes a charge of corruption in connection with anything having to do with the administration of a department places his seat at the disposal of the house.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


James Garfield Gardiner: I should like to suggest to my hon. friend that if he is prepared to do the only thing which is called for under the circumstances, we can settle the question whether there is any such corruption.


William Earl Rowe: That is pretty cheap. On a point of order, let me state to the Minister of Agriculture that if we were to stake our seats upon the mercy of the public at the present time, I would take my chances with his popularity in the country at this time.


James Garfield Gardiner: On a point of order-


William Earl Rowe: No, Mr. Chairman, I am speaking on a point of order.


James Garfield Gardiner: -I ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw the word "corruption."


William Earl Rowe: Speaking on the point of order, I did not use the word "corruption."


James Garfield Gardiner: The word "corruption" is not parliamentary, and I ask the hon. gentleman, if he does not want to make a charge, to withdraw the expression.

Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages


William Earl Rowe: I do not withdraw a statement I did not make. If you, Mr. Chairman, in your good judgment consider that by my saying I can visualize in the far distant future the possibilities of political corruption, that is a charge of corruption, I withdraw it. But I made no representation in this particular instance that there is any political corruption reported in the auditor general's report. I leave it to the committee if I did not say this,-I do not think he wants to do me an injustice, and I believe he misunderstood me-


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not misunderstand the hon. member, and I wish to state the point of order again. My hon. friend referred to these particular regulations, and inferred that they made provision for corruption.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, no.


James Garfield Gardiner: Then he proceeded to read this report to prove that such things had been done before.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What the hon. member said was that, in the vote now before the committee, he could visualize political corruption in the future. That is what he said.


James Garfield Gardiner: And then he immediately proceeded to illustrate it by what he is going to read from this particular report.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He is
referring to another topic altogether.


James Garfield Gardiner: So long as my hon. friend agrees that he is not trying to prove any such thing, that is quite satisfactory to me.


Richard Burpee Hanson: All right.


Ernest Lapointe: All right.


William Earl Rowe: I notice that the Minister of Justice says, "All right." I know he heard it the right way. I do not want to charge the minister with being hard of hearing; but with being too keen. It has not been my practice to charge corruption across the floor of the house, and I had no thought of charging corruption as such.
I wish to say that, in reading this further, I found that farmers were not required to make applications for assistance at all. I quote:
While section 5 of the act gives the power to make regulations to require farmers to furnish information and section 11 makes it an offence if any person falsely claims assistance, the farmers filed only acreage reports and the value of the certification to these reports was often negatived by changes unsigned by the farmers.
Under the act, farmers are paid awards when their yields are in excess of 12 bushels to the acre. . . .
That has been mentioned.
Awards have been made on summer-fallow acreage where in many cases the summer-fallow exceeds the seeded acreage. A limited test audit showed that of the total cultivated acreage approximately 35 per cent was in summer-fallow. In this respect, the levy on grain sold has no relationship to the award.
I merely wish to say, Mr. Chairman, that this was not the impression which was left in this house at the time the bill was passed.
That is to say, the levy is collected on grain harvested from 65 per cent of the acreage while the award is based on 100 per cent.
Awards have been made on the basis of wheat yields in districts where wheat represented but a small percentage of seeded acreage. In one town in Manitoba awards were paid on 113 cultivated acres, of which 25 acres were seeded to wheat. The act provides for regulations covering this feature, but no regulations have been made.
Payments have been made in many cases where the cultivated acreage was too small to put persons in the category of farmers. These cases ranged from 25 acres to 2 acres.
Payments have been made to persons who, in no sense, were grain farmers, i.e., persons who owned small plots and eked out a living by selling milk, cutting wood, et cetera.
And they got the bonus.


An hon. MEMBER:: The preachers could get the bonus.


William Earl Rowe: My hon. friend says that the preachers could get the bonus. I should be glad to see some of them get the bonus if it is to be passed all round.
Farmers have received awards on dry land acreage while they may have garnered crops from irrigated lands so long as the latter did not exceed 300 acres.
Awards may be paid where hail is the cause of the low yield and consequently hail insurance is also payable.
Awards have been made covering land for which rent is paid from the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act vote. Under this arrangement the farmer is paid $5 an acre for land to be put in small plots and $1 an acre for other land.
I remember that when that was up in the house I assumed it was for strip farming, to avoid drifting. This farmer was to be paid $5 an acre in those cases, and SI an acre for the larger areas. I remember that being discussed in this chamber. What do we find is happening under these regulations?
The farm is supervised by the department and the farmer retains his crop.
That, I assume, was under the regulations, and is quite justified. But in one case, $640 was paid under this arrangement for a section of land rented by the government, and the farmer was paid $500 because he did not grow any crop.
2190	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages
I point out these instances merely to indicate what can happen under this prescription which is now employed to cure the ills of the wheat farmers. Am I in order when I say that I can visualize the possibility of the greatest political racket which has ever been carried on in any part of Canada? Every other man is to be an inspector, with a long list of regulations. When we did have regulations, the minister had the power, he said, to do what he liked with them. When we had a committee to find out who was entitled to collect, he still had the power to pay, whether the man was a potato farmer, whether he sawed wood, whether he grew wheat, whether he got rent from the government, or whether he got hail insurance.
Thirty-five million dollars is a great deal of money, and we have no assurance that that is all; for this is the lowest possible estimate in order to put it through this house. It may go to seventy million dollars. The Lord only knows where it will go to. Somebody said that it should go to a hundred million dollars. Yes, probably you get so accustomed to taking it, you feel you had better keep it. I submit, however, that this kind of thing is no solution. It is a retrograde, defeatist type of policy. The kind of bonus that I suggest to my hon. friend is a bonus for the production of the highest class of products rather than a bonus for reduction and no production of anything, by summer-fallowing at $4 an acre. We find that summer-fallowing means the cultivation of fallow land before August 1, 1941, in such a way as to conserve soil moisture and prevent soil drifting. Is there an hon. member in this chamber who would rent a farm on a lease drawn up as loosely as that? What is to constitute a summer-fallow? Any one who has farmed knows what a summer-fallow is.


James Garfield Gardiner: What is it? Just what is it?


William Earl Rowe: I am not going to take the time of the committee in defining it, although I know what one is, probably better than the Minister of Agriculture, and have summer-fallowed just as much land as he has. I wish to say, however, that this leaves an opening for a man to run over a large tract of land with a wide spring-tooth cultivator, hitting it here and there, so that from over yonder you can call it "all black and $4 an acre."
It is not a question of assistance to western Canada. It is not a case of a policy' dividing east and west. It is not a question of doing something for those who, I know, require help. I do know, I think, the posi-

tion of the farmers, at least throughout my own district in Ontario, and I have some idea of what conditions must be in western Canada. I have seen hardships, and I submit that the farmers of Ontario are having their difficulties. I know of many people who have lowered their standards of living, many who have broken their health, many who have lived in a condition of privation such as they never before experienced until the last few years, and who are struggling with their backs to the rvall to try to support the Red Cross, the war services drive, and doing their level best. I know women who are knitting provided they can get the yams, and people who are humiliated because they cannot contribute to these worthy causes as they did in the past, on account of the fact that they are struggling, with their heads up, trying to solve their own problems.
Talk about national unity 1 This sort of thing divides us province from province across the dominion. We set up a vote and we loosely draw the regulations. It leaves it wide open to all sorts of manoeuvring and twisting, which the Minister of Agriculture would not do, but probably some of his friends or my friends might do if they had the opportunity.


Jesse Pickard Tripp: Is the hon. member questioning the good faith of the western farmer?


William Earl Rowe: I cannot help it if the hon. gentleman does not understand my speech, but I can say that I have never questioned the good faith either of himself or of his supporters in western Canada, because, I too, am a farmer. Why should I question the good faith of farmers? I do, however, question the soundness of this as a farm policy, because it is ridiculous on the face of it. As the hon. member for Souris has pointed out, this is a time of war, and the Right Hon. Mr. Churchill is pleading to this country for ships and more ships. He is asking that every man should go to work. He is asking ever}' working man and working woman in England to help. He is asking old men who have not worked for years, to bend their energies to the prosecution of the war. Even boys are engaged in putting out fires. He is pleading with the people of every part of the empire to produce and produce in enormous quantities so that when the postwar days come, we can point out to the nazis, the Italians and every other nation in the world that we, under a democratic system, have a bread-basket big enough to give a lunch to every man who is hungry.
What are we doing in the face of all that? We are bonusing our farmers to stop growing wheat, simply because it is difficult to get it across the seas. Well, Britain is eating

Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages
wheat; Europe would like to eat wheat, and Britain is eating wheat from foreign countries at this very time. The countries of Europe, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, the Scandinavian countries, are all pleading for bread; and even under the Red Cross, with the help of the United States, they cannot get it. I ask, is it not a good time for us to prepare for a full breadbasket? Would it not be better to spend even 8100,000,000 instead of 835,000.000, if P were necessary for the purpose, so as to keep these farmers going, to keep body and soul together, and to give them a reasonable price for their wheat?
As the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) well said the other night, this is not the policy that Joseph followed when he built storehouses. This is a short-sighted political policy, which has very little merit in it except to please some people in the industry by saying to them, "In a few years when people are short of bread and the children of Europe are in crying need of it, the farmers will be able to collect a big price." Our boys are flying over the English channel; many of them are risking their lives at this very moment, and as I said last year, this country might well give 100,000,000 bushels away and pay for it out of the treasury. I would as soon feed the children of Europe when the proper time comes, and vote in support of such a proposal, as I would vote for the shells that will win the war, because it is all in the larger scheme.
When we are voting $1,300,000,000, why stop at $35,000,000? You will not stop there anyhow. It is a paltry sum. For the sake of Britain, for the sake of our own country's future prestige, I appeal to the government and say to them, "Do not let it be said that we summer-fallowed while our boys were dying for their country. Do not let it be said that while the Prime Minister of Great Britain was pleading for huge supplies of foodstuffs, we actually paid our farmers to refrain from producing, paid them to do nothing, so that there might be a shortage of wheat in a few years and they might get higher prices."
When did a surplus of foodstuffs ever lose a war? Far from having a surplus, we will have a huge shortage; we will have an empty treasury in this country. We are wondering what we are going to do. AVe are going to tax our people to the limit; we are, perhaps, going to increase the income tax. AVe may increase other taxes and almost strangle industry. AVe are going to change the standard of living of the people, and on top of all that, before the war is over we may have to borrow a billion dollars from another country.


An hon. MEMBER:: Where from?


William Earl Rowe: "Where from?" some one asks.
I am not going to enter into that question now. The hon. member knows we can get it, because this country is rich, and it will not hurt our credit even if we do borrow a billion dollars so long as we have our granaries full. It will not hurt us to have our granaries full of unsold wheat; it will not hurt our credit to build storage facilities, but it will hurt us if we cease producing and face the possibility of an ensuing drought. In another country they killed pigs one year and paid exorbitant prices for them the following year, and the same with cattle. We have seen countries plough under cotton and burn coffee; we have seen them deliberately destroy foodstuffs, and this fantastic new policy is no different in principle from the ploughing under of wheat. I urge upon the government that, with a view to meeting post-war needs, they do not persist in this policy.
AVho knows what the weather will be next year? AA'ho knows but we may face the most terrible drought we have ever had in this country? We have in this bill a provision for paying 84 to summer-fallow, $2 for sowing oats and barley, and $2 for sowing grasses. Well, that is what the farmers should do anyhow. That is what we do in old Ontario, and if it is good for one province it ought to be good for another. AVe grow coarse grains in Ontario and produce live stock and live stock products in vast quantities, and what is sound for one part of the country ought to be sound for another. Under this bill a man can make twice as much for doing nothing as for doing something. After all, oats and barley are little different from wheat, regarded as feed. I have fed hogs and dairy cattle on wheat, and this grain may be classified as a feed product. I would as soon grow wheat for feed as barley. In Ontario they get sixty pounds to the bushel, and hogs will fatten on it. We can make animal fats. If the minister is anxious to help the farmers, then I assure him that the farmers in Quebec and Ontario would be very glad to feed a great deal more wheat. They could produce animal fats to take the place of vegetable oils that are now entering Canada. The treasury would make a great deal of money, and the farmers would collect $12,000,000 or $15,000,000 more. That would be something constructive.
We are told that we should not go to the United States except on business; that our wives and daughters should not go there. They are not going there to any great extent, but we are trying to encourage tourist traffic to Canada. Our United States friends are coming to this country, and they will be helping us in that regard. We are saving money, or we are trying to save money, with a view to conserving exchange; and yet this
2192	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages
government will bring in millions of dollars' worth of vegetable oils that might be produced out of surplus wheat.
What Canada needs is some constructive policy with regard to agriculture instead of the most destructive type of policy one could well imagine. The policy at present before us not only will result in a reduction of wheat acreage but will encourage reduction in many other lines. I say again, the government might well reconsider this fantastic type of policy. As a member from Ontario, I am prepared to support the government if they bring down a bill for $100,000,000, even for western Canada, and have the older provinces carry on as they are, provided it is a constructive bill. I would suggest that the two foster parents of this strange, imbecile child should study the matter again and bring in something else. I do not know where they got their advice, but this afternoon the hon. member for Portage la Prairie said they did not get it from their own members and that they did not get it from the farmers of western Canada.


An hon. MEMBER:: How do you know?


William Earl Rowe: The hon. member for Portage la Prairie knows as much about the matter as my hon. friend does.


An hon. MEMBER:: But he speaks for
only a small part of the west.


William Earl Rowe: He may not speak for the
hon. member, but the hon. member cannot speak for him, nor can he speak for me. I say, however, that this matter should be reconsidered and that these two hon. gentlemen should take into their confidence some of the stalwarts in the front row opposite, with all their administrative ability. They might even consult the hard-pressed Minister of Munitions and Supply, or the Minister of Justice, who knows something about agriculture. Get them all together and talk it over with them; see if you cannot get a child that you will all be willing to adopt, rather than one that will be opposed by half your supporters.


Ernest Lapointe: Will you be godfather?


William Earl Rowe: I do not know; I am afraid the child would still look like my hon. friend.
In all seriousness, Mr. Chairman, I say this is no solution to the problem. This will only add to the confusion; it will be detrimental to the agricultural interests of the older parts of Canada and a hindrance to the greater development of western Canada. It is destructive and defeatist, instead of being constructive and adhering to the principle in force in these days, when every man

should do his duty and produce something. If he cannot produce where he is, a place should be found where he can produce. The relief rolls have been almost eliminated.
Someone may say that the relief rolls were established years ago by the party I supported in this house. But between that government and this one, we have paid a billion dollars in the last ten years in order to give men something for nothing. Unfortunate and terrible as this war may be, with all the young lives that will be lost, it has changed our whole outlook. Before this war is over, we believe, as the Minister of Munitions and Supply said the other day, that every man able to work will have work to do, and our relief rolls will entirely disappear. In the post-war period, let us start from scratch. Then we expect a development in Canada such as no other great country has ever seen, with millions of people coming from war-ridden Europe. Let us have something with which to feed them, and let us have food to send their friends at home. Let us start a constructive policy; let us give men employment in order that they may produce something, and let us stop this policy of the dole.
If we can do that, the wheat problem of Canada will disappear like snow on a spring day. I am not such a defeatist as the Minister of Agriculture. I know he has struggled with this problem; but if we have the development in Canada that many people visualize already, we shall see this country changed from a great agricultural land to what perhaps the Lord intended it to be, with our cold winters- a manufacturing and mining country. There are other interests than agriculture in Canada, and it is high time that this government, and the government that will follow when this government is defeated after the war is over, should discard the old policy under which every man who sought to enter Canada had to be a farmer. Let us bring in artisans, mechanics and other people who will keep abreast of the times and help bring about steady progress, with an equalization of conditions as between the city and the country. In that way we shall develop a home market which eventually will consume almost everything we can grow. We should have thirty million people in Canada. The late Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in his great vision which was, indeed, different from that of the present Minister of Agriculture, visualized the time when this country would have that population. The late Right Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald, who was also well known by the Minister of Justice, believed that in another forty years Canada should have a population

Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages
of fifty million. These great men were looking ahead. They were not wonying about whether or not we might have a little surplus of foodstuffs. They had no fear as to our potentialities as a great industrial nation as well as a wheat growing country, a great producer of live stock as well as of flour.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the committee for having listened so attentively. In all seriousness, and not in a political sense at all, I say this government should stop, look and listen. Look at the signs of the times and ask yourselves again if you think it is wise to provide an amount of $35,000,000 which amount may be increased to $100,000,000, in order to pay people for doing nothing, while this empire is pleading with us to fill up the bread-basket and be ready to receive those hungry people who will be anxious to come here after the war.


James Garfield Gardiner: Before moving that the committee rise and report progress, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word in reply to the latter part of the remarks of the hon. gentleman who has just spoken, which were in elaboration of statements made earlier in the hon. gentleman's speech. There is no one on this side of the house, least of all the Minister of Trade and Commerce, or the Minister of Agriculture, who believes that this policy is putting anything into the pockets of the people of western Canada. When the hon. member makes a plea to the effect that someone in Canada should give up something in order that those engaged in fighting the war might have more with which to fight, I think he might choose a much better Subject than the one on which he has been speaking for the last half hour. The farmers of western Canada know that this policy is not putting money into their pockets, whether the money comes from the treasury of Canada or from any other source. They know that this policy is taking money out of their pockets and making it possible for this dominion to finance the war to the extent of at least $100,000,000 more than would be the case if the government did for the wheat growers of the west what they are doing for most of the other people of Canada.
We are not begging for the west. We are not asking members from any part of this country to put money into the pockets of the western wheat growers. The wheat producer of the west is denied the right to sell his wheat to Japan, Russia, Spain and many other countries with which we are not at war, in order to assist Britain in carrying out the blockade which, if it were not carried out, would result in the destruction of the empire and of democracy. That being so, we do not feel that we are asking this house for money to be distributed among the people of western
Canada. We are asking the people of this country

and we believe we have the support of at least ninety per cent of them-to help the farmers over one of the most difficult years they have ever experienced; and, in helping them, to lessen the need for the government to pay storage on large quantities of wheat. I quite agree with what was said the other day by the hon. member for Moose Jaw. This is the cheapest method of storing wheat that can be evolved. Under this method, moisture is stored in the ground, making it unnecessary to protect grain against mites and other kinds of damage; making it unnecessary to build storage facilities in order to keep the grain, and making certain that wheat can be grown when wheat is needed.
On this occasion, as on previous occasions, we in western Canada are not begging. With regard, however, to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, I should like to say that during the six sessions I have been in this parliament I have never known -him to support anything this government has proposed for western Canada. He is always prepared to do something else; never the thing that is proposed. He is prepared to spend $100,000,000 to help the farmers of western Canada, but he has never suggested how he would like to spend that amount. He has only said that the way we were proposing to spend money was not the correct way, that he would like to have it done by some other method.
There is not time to say more this evening. In due course I shall deal with the remarks that have been made concerning the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and other criticisms which have been made. I shall, however, select another day, when there is sufficient time to deal with those matters.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Richard Burpee Hanson: Wha-t is the business on Monday?


Ernest Lapointe: I understand there is an agreement -that this debate will proceed on Monday.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not know of any agreement; the right hon. gentleman had better state his programme.


Ernest Lapointe: If not, we shall go into supply, and of course the motion of the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn) will be taken up. There seems, however, to be a feeling that this debate should continue, and we are absolutely in agreement with that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That
suggestion was made.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East) the house adjourned at 6.05 p.m.



END OF VOLUME II