1942-03-13

Hon. J. T. THORSON (Minister of National War Services) moved:: That a select committee be appointed on radio broadcasting to consider the annual report of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and to review the policies and aims of the corporation and its regulations, revenues, expenditures and development, with power to examine and inquire into the matters and things herein referred to and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, and to send for persons, papers and records; and that the said committee shall consist of the following members: Bence, Bertrand (Laurier), Casselman (Edmonton East), Claxton, Coldwell, Douglas (Queens), Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont), Graydon, Hanson (Skeena), Hazen, Homuth, Howe, Isnor, Kuhl, Laflamme, McCann, Mullins, Rennie, Slaght, Telford, Thorson, Tripp and Veniot; and that the presence of at least nine members shall be a quorum of the said committee and that standing order 65 be suspended in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
International Transport


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Munitions and Supply. Has he seen an article in to-day's issue of the Toronto Globe and Mail blaming him for impeding the flow of war materials by United States trucks to eastern points across Canadian highways? If so, will he inform the house regarding the matters complained of in the article?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: Mr. Speaker, I think I saw in
the Ottawa Journal the article to which my hon. friend refers. The subject matter has been outstanding for a long time. A project was undertaken, I think in 1937, to provide for the movement of United States traffic from' Buffalo to Detroit via Canadian highways. The project at that time was and, so far as I know is, at present that a fleet of Canadian trucks would be built and would operate with Canadian gasoline between points across two international boundaries. A bill was introduced in the Senate during the session of 1938 by the sponsors of the project, and the project has been revived from time to time since then. I cannot say why I was selected as the bottleneck, for the matter is not one related to the Ministry of Munitions and Supply, which is my present portfolio, or to the Ministry of Transport, which was my former portfolio. I suppose I figure in the matter only as one member of the government. I may say, however, that the representations have always come from parties interested either in building the trucks or in selling the gasoline or operating a toll bridge or toll tunnel. I have never seen representations from potential users of the service.
We have petitions, signed, I think by every village along the route protesting against this type of traffic on the highways, and I think the reason is obvious: the highways are too narrow for that sort of traffic if the residents alongside are to be permitted to live. The government has not looked upon the proposal with favour. I recall that the gentleman who sponsored the article in question-I have forgotten his name-


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Campbell.


Clarence Decatur Howe: -called me by telephone from Detroit some three months ago and said that if I did not agree to the proposal there would be a blast in the newspapers which I would not like. I said, "Thanks very much" and hung up.



PLEBISCITE ACT

[Stage Direction]
REFERENCE TO EDITORIAL IN TORONTO "GLOBE AND mall"
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. GOLDING (Huron-Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. My question is made necessary by statements in an editorial in the Globe and Mail of March 10 dealing with the Plebiscite Act, statements which are erroneous and which, if not corrected, may do great harm in the taking of the plebiscite vote. I quote from the Globe's editorial headed "Voting Qualifications"-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I do not think this question is one that should be put on the orders of the day. I suggest that the hon. member place it on the order paper.


William Henry Golding: The leader of the opposition must take the responsibility for not having this matter brought to the attention of the house.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Put it on the order paper.


Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish in any way to transgress your ruling, but the hon. member for Huron-Perth (Mr. Golding) notified me of his intention to ask the question. Unfortunately, it is one which I do not think he could put on the order paper; it was merely to correct a misapprehension which has arisen in connection with the Plebiscite Act. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, and because I believe it should be corrected, I would like to make an extremely brief statement.
The suggestion is that in a certain editorial article a statement was carried to the effect that evey person who has applied for postponement of military training, unless it has been refused, is disqualified from voting. I believe that is the question which the hon. member had in mind. I would like to correct this impression. It is not an impression which has been created in any sense wilfully; probably it arose through too brief a reference to the provisions of the act itself.
The only persons disqualified who have applied for postponement are those who have applied under sections 18 and 19 of the regulations made under the National Resources Mobilization Act.
I desired to take the opportunity, sir, to correct any wrong impression which may have otherwise been created.

Wheat Board Act


William Henry Golding: There is another section of that editorial to which I would like to draw attention. It says:
Besides these things, it is provided that any person voting at the plebiscite "shall thereafter be ineligible or incompetent to apply for or to be granted on the application of another, the postponement or exemption from military training" provided for in the national war services regulations or any amendment thereto.
This is very important.


Norman Alexander McLarty: In connection with that question, the answer which I gave previously applies equally. It is only if they apply under the two particular sections of the regulations under the National Resources Mobilization Act-it has been suggested that I amplify this-dealing specifically with conscientious objectors, and with Mennonites and Doukhobors.



READING OF SPEECHES-REFERENCE TO STATEMENT IN OTTAWA &quot;JOURNAL&quot;

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. K. BLAIR (Wellington North):: Mr. Speaker, according to the Ottawa Journal practically every speech delivered in the House of Commons nowadays is read from a manuscript, and the Journal says this is not debating.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Put it on the order paper.


Georges Parent: Order.



INTERNMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. NOSEWORTHY (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In reply to a question put by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) reported at page 779 of Hansard of Monday, February 23, the Prime Minister told the house that he was in sympathy with representations made to him recently by the Civil Liberties Association and indicated that the Department of Justice was considering the extent to which the representations would be acted upon and that an announcement regarding the matter would be made in due course. Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Put it on the order paper.


Georges Parent: I am afraid that this question is in the category of those that should not be asked on the orders of the day.



AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MaoINNIS (Vancouver East): Will the Minister of Pensions and National Health give an undertaking to make a statement in the house before we adjourn for the Easter recess, on the development and progress of air raid precautions on the Pacific coast?
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health): I shall be pleased to do so at the appropriate time, probably next week.
Mr. COLD WELL:: Will the minister call an item of the estimates so that hon. members may have the opportunity of questioning him?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Probably the most convenient place will be in discussion on the appropriation bill when it is in committee.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, March 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacKinnon (Edmonton West) for the second reading of Bill No. 13, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Douglas (Weyburn).
Mr. W. A. TUCKER (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to detain the house very long with my remarks this afternoon. I feel, however, that I should say a few words in view of the fact that some of my friends on the left have seen fit, since I spoke on the motion itself, to mention my name from time to time.
First of all I should like to express appreciation to hon. members from other parts of Canada who have spoken on this question. Although all of them have not entirely agreed with the requests which have come from western Canada, they have shown a desire to examine those requests fairly and to do what they regard as a measure of justice to fellow Canadians who live in the west. I am sure that that attitude is very much appreciated by western members.
I realize, of course, that there is a feeling that when you put the assistance granted by parliament on a bushel basis entirely, you lay yourself open to the charge which is made from time to time by hon. members from other parts of the country, that the larger the scale upon which a man farms, or
Wheat Board Act

the bigger his crop, the more you give him, and the smaller the farm he has, or the poorer his crop, the less you give him. I have heard many hon. members from the east say that they would not mind giving all necessary assistance to a man to live and bring up his family, but they do object to giving large sums of money to people who mine wheat and produce thousands and thousands of bushels.
That brings up something which should always be borne in mind by those of us who come from western Canada. Last fall there was quite a movement to make a further payment on participation certificates which had been given to farmers who had delivered wheat last fall to the wheat board. The suggestion was made that at least another 10 cents be paid, which would have cost the government $20 million. I was one who urged very strongly that, if the government were ready to pay $20 million to assist western agriculture, it would be much fairer to pay that out on an acreage basis than by means of a further 10 cents a bushel on wheat delivered to the wheat board.
In my own constituency, I believe the average yield would not be more than around six bushels to the acre. There was an almost entire failure of coarse grains in some parts of it, which meant that the people in that constituency, after they took out two bushels an acre for seed, provided for their own flour requirements, and kept back wheat for feeding purposes to take the place of the oats and barley which they did not have, would have very little wheat to sell. Furthermore, about half the people in western Canada who did have wheat to sell had sold it on the open market. So, if you had granted 10 cents a bushel, very little money would have gone into constituencies like mine; all the money would have gone to those districts which had good crops.
So far as I was concerned I said, if the treasury of this country is going to devote $20 million to assist the farmers of western Canada, if it puts it out on an acreage basis it is going to make sure that everybody gets something, and that the person with no cron or a poor crop gets at least as much as the person with a good crop. Surely that is not unfair.
But, Mr. Speaker, because I took that stand, and had to oppose the suggestion that that ten cents should be paid out on wheat, I was attacked by those people from the heavy crop districts who wanted the price paid on wheat, and who demanded it, and were ready to try to destroy anybody who would not fall in line with that view.

So far as I am concerned, I have no apologies for the stand I took. I believe that if the money which this parliament is ready to vote for the assistance of western Canada were placed at least in part upon an acreage basis, rather than used in an attempt to run up the price without regard to helping the man with no crop or a low crop, there would be far more support for that proposal in this house than there is for a high price for wheat alone.
As I stated in my speech on the main motion, agriculture is as much entitled to parity prices as is any other branch of industry or activity in this country. There are two ways in which you can grant parity prices. I took 1913-14 as the base and indicated that to give the farmer the same purchasing power as he had in that year he would have to receive the equivalent of $1.20 a' bushel, basis No. 1 northern. In 1913-14 there were no bonus payments. There was nothing of that sort. But if you give an initial price and then supplement it with bonus payments which raise the average amount received by the farmer to the equivalent of $1.20 a bushel basis No. 1 northern, Fort William, you are really giving parity prices although it does not appear so on the surface. As the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) pointed out in his very able speech-in fact there were two of them, and I enjoyed them very much; I hope they will be sent all over western Canada; I intend to do my part to see that they are-


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: They will be.


Walter Adam Tucker: Thank you very much. He pointed out that on the basis of 70 cents initial payment, Fort William, and another $60 million spread over 200 million bushels, the price was brought up to $1 a bushel, basis No. 1 northern, Fort William; that is the average amount received by the farmer. If this motion carries and the initial price is raised to 90 cents a bushel; if the government could see its way clear to make the same bonus payments this year as it made last year, * and if, further, the crop were the same size, 200 million bushels, then it would raise to the parity or basic price, the average price, namely, $1.20 a bushel basis No. 1 northern, Fort William. But by doing it in that way you would be making sure that the person with a low crop or a short crop got something. In that regard of course I will admit that if we grow enough wheat to market the 280 million bushels of which the government considers receiving delivery, the amount of these bonuses spread over 280 million bushels would represent only 22 cents a bushel-not quite that- and so raise the average price received by the farmer to $1.12 instead of $120. That would be only if you continued the prairie farm

Wheat Board Act
assistance payments, .the wheat acreage reduction payments and the prairie farm income payments.


Mr. WRIGHT:: Under the other two bills as they are at present, the payments are cut in half. There would be no prairie farm assistance payment.


Walter Adam Tucker: If my hon. friend had waited, I was going to deal with that. I was going to point out that so far as I am concerned I should like to see the government provide for prairie farm assistance payments as large as were given last year, if not larger. I should like to see the bonus payments, that is prairie farm income payments, made as large as they were last year, if not larger. I think we in western Canada would be doing more good to the people who need it out west if we based our request to the government on that consideration instead of putting emphasis entirely upon price per bushel. My hon. friend says there is no provision for prairie farm income. There was no provision for prairie farm income when parliament adjourned last year; that was provided for by order in council. I sincerely hope that when the government by this bill is providing more money for those who have wheat to sell, it will not give less to the person with little or no wheat. Personally I am prepared to accept the provision in this bill for raising the price to only 90 cents a bushel, if supplemented by at least the same amount in bonus payments as made last year-1941. I wish to impress upoan the government, with all the emphasis I am capable of, that they do consider making the same bonus payments they made last year. If we have only 200 million bushels of wheat, it will bring the price up to $1.20; but even if they make the same bonus payments as they did last year and we deliver 280 millions bushels, then the price that will be received by the farmer will be around $1.12 basis No. 1 northern, Fort William.
One of the reasons why I am prepared to vote for this motion and have the matter referred to a committee is that all these considerations should, I think, be taken into account. On that committee there are Canadians from other parts of the dominion, who, I believe, want to see a measure of justice given the western farmers, and I trust that there will come out of the committee recommendations on the basis of which the government will see fit to make, and will be justified in making, bonus payments that will at least provide for the same amount paid by way of bonus as was paid last year.
This would mean an amendment to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. I hope that
these things will be given consideration. If the members of this house would take that attitude as a united group from western Canada, they would be doing more good for the farmers than by simply laying the entire emphasis on price. I have here a little table which I made up comparing receipts as between $1 a bushel and 90 cents a bushel with 1941 bonus payments. If we get 90 cents a bushel plus the bonus payments of last year, leaving out of consideration wheat acreage reduction-I am assuming in all cases the farmer will retain two bushels per acre for seed and that the price he receives on the farm is 20 cents under the amount received at Fort William-then in the nothing to four bushels per acre category, if the price were set at $1 the amount received by the farmer without bonuses, in that category, would be on the average nothing, because the average yield would be two bushels, which he would have to keep for seed. He would have nothing to sell, and no matter what this government granted as a price, such a man would get nothing at all from them- nothing on acreage and nothing per bushei. On the other hand, if the same bonus payments were made as last year, the average amount paid to the farmer in that category would be $2.75 an acre or $3.25 an acre if he were in a crop failure area. The amount per bushel cannot be calculated. It would be 275 times or 325 times what he had to sell, but he has nothing to sell, and so you cannot calculate the amount per bushel.
In the four to eight bushels per acre category, if you gave $1 a bushel without bonus, the amount he would get would be $3.20 an acre on the average, or 80 cents a bushel. But under the policy of 90 cents a bushel plus bonus he would get $5.05 an acre, which is almost $2 more, or an average of $1,261 a bushel instead of 80 cents. That is the position of the man in the four to eight bushels per acre category. Surely he is entitled to more help than the man with a large crop, and under this system he would receive $1.26i instead of 80 cents, as I have pointed out.
Take next the man with a yield of from eight to twelve bushels per acre. Under the dollar system and no bonus he would get $6.40 an acre, or 80 cents a bushel. But under the system of paying 90 cents plus bonus he would get $8.35 an acre as against $6.40, or $1.04 instead of 80 cents. So that even the man having from eight to twelve bushels to the acre is better off; in fact anybody getting less than twelve bushels to the acre would be better off to get 90 cents plus the same bonus as last year.
Wheat Board Act


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Has anyone in this debate, or the representative of any group, recommended that the bonus should not be paid?


Walter Adam Tucker: No. Apparently I have not made my point clear. It is that the amendment was made on the question of price. I think hon. members would have done better for western Canada and got more support in the rest of Canada if they had put the emphasis on asking for the same bonus or increasing the bonus. That, as I say, would have done more good to the people out west who need it and would have gained more support in the rest of Canada. Instead of that, the opposition moved an amendment based entirely on the question of price. I leave it to the judgment of this house and of western Canada as to why they placed the emphasis on price instead of on what would be in the best interests of our country.


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. member could have moved an amendment to that effect.


Walter Adam Tucker: Yes, but I am not in the opposition. I will deal with that in a moment. The function of an opposition I think is not to play to the gallery but to do the best thing for their people out west.


Major James William Coldwell: I object to that imputation of motives that in doing a perfectly legitimate and proper thing we were playing to the gallery. I ask that that aspersion be withdrawn.


Georges Parent: I think the hon. member should withdraw that statement.


Walter Adam Tucker: I withdraw it. As a matter of fact I would not have said it if I had not been goaded on.
Now take those in the category from twelve to twenty bushels. It is when one gets into that category that he is better off if given a dollar a bushel without bonus. Then he gets an average of $11.20 an acre, or 80 cents a bushel, whereas under the system of bonus and 90 cents a bushel, it would yield only $10.55 an acre.
That is the comparative effect of the two systems. In my judgment my hon. friends would have done better to put a little more emphasis upon bonuses for the benefit of the farmer with the poor crop or no crop at all.
A question was raised about amendments and so on. I spoke Monday last about the effect of the raising of the price to 90 cents on the person in the eight to twelve bushels per acre category. I urged the minister to consider an amendment to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act to make sure the person in that 
category would get $1 an acre on half of his acreage. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how many hon. members of the opposition supported me in that view?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I did.


Walter Adam Tucker: I believe the hon. member for Weyburn did, and I give him credit, but how many others did?


Major James William Coldwell: He spoke for the group.


Walter Adam Tucker: Well, we will give the group credit, but another member of the group did not mention it when he spoke.


Major James William Coldwell: We do not repeat things.


Walter Adam Tucker: Oh, I think if there is any group in the house that does repeat, it is the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group. If they had felt very strongly about this, they would not have minded repeating it- every one of them.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We have not finished yet. There is still the committee stage.	.


Walter Adam Tucker: Well, you might have done it in the house too. I shall be glad, however, if you accept the suggestion and support it in committee for all you are worth.
The question before the house is a simple one of approving the principle that we raise the initial price from 70 cents to- 90 cents. To that the hon. member for Weyburn has moved an amendment, the effective part of which reads as follows:
That this bill be not now read a second time-
That is the bill raising the price from 70 to 90 cents.
-but be it resolved that the disregarding by this parliament of the modest representations made by western agriculture for a parity price for all agricultural products and an initial wheat payment of at least $1 per bushel for No. 1 northern basis Fort William is contrary to the peace, order and good government of Canada.
That amendment is sufficiently comprehensive that if my hon. friends had been much interested in the bonus, they could have introduced a suggestion that they were favourable to its partly being achieved at least by a bonus plan.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The legislation provides that.


Walter Adam Tucker: The foundation is well laid in western Canada for my hon. friends to get a great deal of credit by coming out for dollar wheat. I will not say that was the reason for moving this amendment, but it will be for the people of western Canada to judge when the time comes.

Wheat Board Act
What would be the effect of voting for this amendment? It would be that the attempt to raise the price from 70 cents to 90 cents would be defeated.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


Walter Adam Tucker: Of course it would be. The motion for second reading would be defeated. The bill would be killed. It would not go to committee. Who would revive that bill? Unless the government were ready to bring in another bill, it would be killed and the price would remain at 70 cents.


Major James William Coldwell: That is right.


Walter Adam Tucker: My hon. friend says, "That is right". I will deal with that in a minute;
I will deal with all the possibilities. My hon. friends seemingly are quite excited about it. We hear a great deal about hon. members, once a party policy is decided upon, supporting that policy. I think the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation have had something to say about that. I do not know any group in this house that stick more closely together as a party than the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. The time is coming when they should stop talking like that, because they must look forward to the time-I hope they are not without hope among themselves-when they might form a government, and they never could run this country unless they stick to the policy of party solidarity. So they should stop decrying the only way in which a government can be run in this dominion.
There is a lot of talk about voting for a party policy once it is agreed upon. Supposing this government were to tell hon. members, "Vote as you please on this bill; we do not care whether you defeat it or not". I ask every hon. member to answer honestly to himself this question: If that were done, would there be any assurance that the price of wheat would be raised one 5-cent piece over 70 cents?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is an awful reflection.


Walter Adam Tucker: There are enough hon.
members in this house who do not believe in raising the price over 70 cents that if my hon. friends joined them in voting that way and against the bill, it would be defeated and we would not get another cent over 70 cents. Yet they decry the very policy that makes it possible for us in the west to get a little measure of justice. Again, Mr. Speaker, I leave it to the judgment of the country whether or not they believe those things they have been saying. I am not saying they do not, because of course if I did so I would be made to withdraw it.
Suppose we take another possibility. Supposing the government were to say, This is a question of confidence, of government policy, and we expect our members, the government as a whole having agreed upon it, to back us us up in doing what we think is best for the country as a whole, and to vote for it. And supposing all of us from western Canada, regardless of party, including the Liberal members were to join in attempting to defeat the government and were to carry the amendment killing a bill brought in by a minister; it would bring on an election in this country at this time. Does anyone suppose that if we forced an election on an issue which has to do only with making us in western Canada better off, we would get from such an election as sympathetic a parliament as we have to-day? After all, we must face realities. I know my hon. friends will say, "We can take the stand that you are not doing enough, because the government, having made it a question of government policy, has enough supporters to put it through. The increase from 70 cents to 90 cents will not be stopped. So we can fight it and oppose it; the Liberals will have to take the onus of putting it through. We can move an amendment like this, then we can go out into the country and say that the Liberals have done so and so, and we can read their names." They will read the names of the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner), perhaps; the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. McNiven), and, if you will, the member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker). I have read in the papers over and over again how my hon. friends have suggested that that dirty dog from Rosthern has voted against the best interests of the farmers of the west.


Major James William Coldwell: I rise to a point of
order. The hon. gentleman is imputing language to members of this house which they have never used.


Walter Adam Tucker: No, no.


Major James William Coldwell: "Dirty dog"? No one
has ever heard me, or any other member of this group, refer to anyone in that language. May I say also, on a further point of order, that the hon. gentleman is imputing to this group motives which he has no right to impute.


Walter Adam Tucker: I was speaking metaphorically. I do not think for a single minute that any of my hon. friends really would refer to me literally as a dirty dog, no matter what they might think.


Major James William Coldwell: I object to that, Mr. Speaker; I object to the hon. member saying that we even think he is a dirty dog.


Walter Adam Tucker: Well, I am very glad to
hear from the acting leader of the opposition
Wheat Board Act

that they do not even think it, because sometimes when I hear the way I have been spoken of in the country, I have had my suspicions, and I am glad to be reassured. In any event, I have heard it said often that among others the hon. member for Rosthern voted in favour of the government "because he was under the party whip, because he was hide-bound, while we, the great defenders of the west, voted against it." That has happened in the past. Can I be blamed for thinking that it may happen in the future, perhaps in regard to this very amendment? Of course it may be that the members of the opposition will not act in future as they have in the past; if they do not, I shall be wrong in what I am saying and thinking about this amendment.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone can have any doubt that I believe I shall be doing what is right for western Canada in voting against this amendment and in favour of the main motion.


Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is not for me to enter into the controversy that has been going on, between the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) and the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group; but in my opinion, after listening to his explanation of why government supporters from the west sometimes vote against those things that are necessary for the west, his explanation will not be very favourably received. What it amounts to is this: "On occasion we cannot vote in favour of those things that we believe are necessary because to do so would amount to voting want of confidence in the government, and we would not do that." But as far as the amendment is concerned I believe the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) said the other night that this was not a motion of want of confidence in the government. Therefore this time members from the west need have no fear that they will be voting no confidence in the government if they support a policy that represents the viewpoint of the
185,000	farmers of Saskatchewan who signed the petition, and which has the support of great numbers of farmers in Alberta and Manitoba. The statement made by the hon. member for Rosthern to-day, that those who would support this amendment would do so in order to play to the gallery, is very poor tribute to the great number of western farmers who believe that the only salvation for western agriculture lies in the adoption of the principle set out therein.
This is not a matter of charity. After listening to the hon. member for Rosthern one would almost think that hon. members from other parts of Canada feel that when 
western agriculture is assisted the government is doing an act of charity. I do not think that is their attitude; I have not found it to be that way. The western farmer to-day is not asking for charity but for parity, for equality with all other industries in Canada producing the needs of war, to the end that western agriculture, as well as agriculture generally throughout the dominion, may enjoy the same consideration that is given other industries in Canada to-day.
I am not one of those who contend that increasing the advance to 90 cents a bushel will not be advantageous to western Canada. It will. It is a step in the right direction. But I would point out that the problem, so far as the wheat grower is concerned, consists of two parts. First there is the problem of getting a fair and reasonable price to the farmer who has a crop; and then, there is the problem of giving a fair allowance or compensation to those who by reason of drought or otherwise, have not a sufficient crop. So far as this legislation is concerned, while it increases the initial payment by 20 cents a bushel, it takes away a very considerable amount from those who this year will not have a crop at all. It makes no provision for the payment of a prairie farm income, and it reduces the payment under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, in that those who have a crop of from eight to twelve bushels to the acre will be denied any bonus this year. But what is more serious is that the Minister of Agriculture has stated that when this legislation is passed it will put a ceiling on any further action on the part of this government as far as agriculture is concerned.


An hon. MEMBER:: For this year.


John George Diefenbaker: Not for this year; for any year. Here are the words of the minister, at page 1127 of Hansard:
The action we are now taking is the final step in a policy which was laid down at the beginning of the war and which has been consistently adhered to up to the present time.


Mr. GARDINER:: That was to lay floors, not ceilings.


John George Diefenbaker: It is not the final mile; it was the final step.


James Garfield Gardiner: In laying floors for farm products, not ceilings.


John George Diefenbaker: There is no reference to that in the hon. gentleman's remarks.


James Garfield Gardiner: Read the speech through, and you will find that is what it is all about.


John George Diefenbaker: When the Minister of Agriculture is speaking he very seldom

Wheat Board Act
gives anyone an opportunity to ask a question. Perhaps he will take the same attitude toward me as I pursue my argument. I shall be only too glad to answer any questions he may ask; but his explanations as to why he made the statement, and what interpretation should be put upon it, he can reserve until after I have concluded what I have to say.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will put it in at the right place.


John George Diefenbaker: In order that there may be no mistake about it, we find that at page 1211 of Hansard the minister is reported to have said:
We are taking every last dollar out of the treasury of Canada to deal with these problems which we feel it is safe to take at this present time.


James Garfield Gardiner: "At this present time".


John George Diefenbaker: When we bring
those two statements together, what it amounts to is this: Nothing further is going to be done-that this is the final action the government is going to take in so far as relieving agriculture and the wheat farmer of western Canada is concerned. I find it difficult to understand the change in his point of view which has taken place; for it was only a few short months ago the Minister of Agriculture took the stand that the government had decided-and I shall give him an opportunity now to deny this-that it would not raise the initial payment of 70 cents a bushel, and that it was not a proper thing to do.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not said that since this year's policy was under consideration.


John George Diefenbaker: I say that last fall the statement was made by the Minister of Agriculture, and his statement appears in the Family Herald and Weekly Star of November 12, where he was endeavouring to explain how it was that in a radio speech in Saskatchewan he had been able to show the farmers, by an unusual mathematical formula, that 70 cents a bushel at Fort William, plus nothing, amounted to SI a bushel.


James Garfield Gardiner: And the farmers agree that it was right.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister said this:
Representations have been made to the government to the effect that the farmer must have more. The government has decided that more should be paid, but does not believe the best results can be obtained in distributing further funds through increasing the advance provided for under the wheat board act, and has suggested to the Department of Agriculture that we work out plans under which at least $60,000,000 can be distributed to farmers on an acreage basis.


James Garfield Gardiner: For 1941.


John George Diefenbaker: That statement was made in November of 1941.


James Garfield Gardiner: And the $60,000,000 is
paid on the 1941 account.


John George Diefenbaker: That statement
represented the viewpoint of the government at that time. The situation is that the government has changed its mind since last fall. What is the reason for that change?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is not unusual.


Georges Parent: The hon. member should not interrupt.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the reason for it? Has there been any change in conditions which warrant a change in the point of view of the government? I am asking this: Has there been any change? What has taken place since last fall? Is there anyone who can answer that?


James Garfield Gardiner: We are going to have another crop in 1942.


John George Diefenbaker: May it be that we are going to have an election in Saskatchewan in 1942? Only a few weeks ago the minister announced that the principle of giving an increase in the initial payment on account of wheat was one the government could not accept. Now what could not be accepted becomes the keystone upon which the whole policy is built. Has there been any change in the last six months in the price the government of Great Britain is paying Canada for wheat? That is one question the minister has not answered. Will the minister say whether there has been any change?


James Garfield Gardiner: I was not listening to the hon. member; what was he saying?


John George Diefenbaker: Whenever a question is asked which the minister realizes might be destructive of some of his arguments, he says that he has not been listening. I say there has not been any change, and that the price is almost the same as it was six months ago.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Higher.


John George Diefenbaker: According to what I have been able to deduce from the information issued by the Department of Trade and Commerce, there has been no increase in the price paid for Canadian wheat by Great Britain.


James Garfield Gardiner: We are drawing nearer to the time it is going to be needed.


Georges Parent: Order.
Wheat Board Act


John George Diefenbaker: What is the reason, I ask, for the change in point of view? It seems clear that it is not a question of any increased price being paid by the British government. Throughout the year 1941 the explanation was that the government could not set the price above 70 cents because Great Britain was not paying more. No one asks Great Britain to pay more, even should the principle of the amendment be accepted. Why has there been a change in policy? Was it Donald Gordon of the wartime prices and trade board who asked the government to make the change? The increase will interfere with the price ceiling-a price ceiling which we condemned last fall in this house, because it set the prices of agricultural products at one level and the prices of things the farmer had to buy at a higher level.
Last November, at the very time the Minister of Agriculture was making his statement to the press that the government did not believe in any increase in the initial payment, meetings were being held throughout western Canada asking for an initial price of SI, for a parity price, and for payment over a period of years of the difference between the amount of the initial advance and the amount of the parity price.
The hon. member for Rosthem pointed out-and with considerable force-the reason why hon. members supporting the government could not support some of the amendments moved by opposition members. May I point out, so far as the parity price is concerned, that on March 26 last an amendment was moved by the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn) and seconded by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley). The motion having been dropped, it was again placed on Hansard by myself, and seconded by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon). In that resolution the following words appeared1:
That the government should take immediate steps to create a parity of prices as between agricultural and other products in order to improve the condition of Canadian agriculture and in order that it may receive a just and fair return, and thus be enabled to make that contribution to Canada's war effort which is so desirable, and which our agricultural population so greatly desire to make.
A subamendment was moved by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson). It provided for a minimum price of 85 cents a bushel, a processing tax and certain other terms to which I shall not now refer. A resolution, upon which the subamendment was based, had been adopted by the Saskatchewan legislature unanimously.
When the matter came up for vote in the house why was it that every hon. member on the government side, except the hon.

member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) found it necessary to vote against those two amendments? They voted against the principle of the parity price, and voted against an increase to 85 cents in the initial payment to western farmers.
Hansard reports that the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward) went out of his way last night to refer to me. I cannot say he voted against either of the amendments, because apparently he was not in the house at the time that one of the most important resolutions affecting western agriculture was being voted upon.
The initial payment of 90 cents a bushel apparently represents a compromise between those who believe that western Canada and the western farmer are receiving enough to-day and those who want the government to go the whole length; but I cannot understand why it is necessary for the government in making this compromise to do away in part with some of the bonuses which western Canada has been enjoying during the past year. The Minister of Agriculture has on more than one occasion referred with pride to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, as he is entitled to do, because it represented a very material advance in improving the economic position of the farmer. It has meant much to western Canada and I think it only fair to say that if it had not been for that legislation many of those in my constituency who are able at least to carry on during 1942 would have been quite unable to do so.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: They probably got more out of it than out of wheat.


John George Diefenbaker: As a matter of fact, the yield, as my hon. friend is aware was very low, and so far as certain portions of my constituency are concerned his statement, I believe, is a fact.
I am entering into no political controversy on this question, but when one hears some of the speeches that have been delivered in this house that there was some untoward purpose in the recent historic visit of the western farmers to Ottawa, I want to say that that group of men came down here without regard to party and with but one aim in view, to place before the government, fairly, squarely and honestly the viewpoint of the western farmer. They did not come in any threatening manner; they came in an attitude of compromise because they had been unable to obtain what they have been asking for since 1935. The hon. member for Rosthem said to-day that it was impossible for government members to insist because if they were to stand for certain principles in the way of

Wheat Board Act
bringing together east and west it might defeat the government. We on this side of the house have consistently stood for the things which this delegation of farmers stood for and the essence of what they stood for was a parity price, with an initial payment of $1 per bushel. They are now to receive 90 cents under the legislation, and they should know at the same time that while the government is raising the payment to 90 cents it is taking away from them certain of the bonuses which they are enjoying to-day.
I am not going into any figures to-day in reference to the increase in the cost of living or a comparison of the index of 1913-14 with 1941, because that has already been done. The war has been on for two and a half years. We have pressed for these things in season and out of season, and it is only now on the eve of a provincial election in the province of Saskatchewan that the government has seen fit to introduce legislation to improve the position of the western farmer.
I do not hear any denial of my statement that it is anticipated that there will be a provincial election this summer in Saskatchewan. I am going to say this, and I know it will not appeal to all hon. members in this house, that with the war situation what it is to-day, and with the warning ringing in our ears which the Prime Minister gave the night before last as to the peril in which we find ourselves, no government in any province should find it necessary, particularly when it has still one year and a half to run, to go to the people and divide and separate them and have all the recriminations that necessarily accompany an election at the very time when Canada and the empire will be fighting our greatest battle for survival.
The government of the province of Saskatchewan has still one year and a half to go and if it calls an election this summer it will be calling it in a world situation described by the Prime Minister the day before yesterday in these words:
Never in the world's history has the danger to civilization itself been comparable to what it is at this very hour. Even in the short period since the launching of the loan, the enemy, on all fronts but one, has gained an almost continuous series of military successes. He is continuing to make further and far-reaching gains.
From every continent and from every ocean the call continues to come for more planes, more tanks, more munitions, more ships, more food, more fighting men.


John Gordon Ross: If the hon. member will permit a question, may I ask whether he is still the leader of the Conservative party in Saskatchewan and speaking as such?


John George Diefenbaker: No, I am no longer leader nor have been since October last.
I am speaking as a member of this house, believing that the very existence of this empire is at stake, and I say that in Saskatchewan and in any other province of Canada we can afford to postpone the luxury of partisanship and provincial elections at least until the termination of the period allowed by statute. What is the position going to be in Saskatchewan? 1 fear it. At a time such as this, when we should be mobilizing this country against the enemy at our gates, are we to divide ourselves, to separate with the desire to secure political power?


James Garfield Gardiner: No election has been announced in Saskatchewan.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad to have the assurance of the Minister of Agriculture that there is not going to be an election this year.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say that. I do not know anything about it.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister says he did not say that?


James Garfield Gardiner: I said that no election has been announced.


John George Diefenbaker: I thought he had gone so far as to say that there was not going to be one. Well, he would know. I am making a serious appeal, Mr. Speaker, with respect to holding this provincial election in Saskatchewan, and what I say applies to every province, for this is a time as never before, as members of the house are fully aware, when we are in a position of great peril, with the enemy at our gates.
I shall not take up very much more time. I have a few recommendations and suggestions to make to the minister and I shall give them as shortly as I can. My first suggestion is that he carry out the request of the farm delegation. The recommendations that were made by these western farmers to a solution of their problems represented a minimum, and I would point out that even if $1 a bushel were fixed as the initial payment the farmer would still find himself receiving in purchasing power only about 78 cents a bushel as at the beginning of the war. Reading over the evidence that was given when this delegation was before the government I find that without exception the minister's attitude was that the government was going to do its very best. Then, Mr. Speaker, my suggestion even at this late hour is that the hope expressed by Mr. Wesson, that tribune of the western farmers,
Wheat Board Act

be carried into effect and that in committee the 90 cents a bushel initial payment be increased to SI.
Secondly, I respectfully suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that the Prairie Farm Assistance Act be amended so that farmers this year raising from eight to twelve bushels an acre will be enabled to receive a bonus.
Thirdly, a very striking address was made the other day in this house by the hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Donnelly) in which he set out in detail the levy which is being made to-day by the great storage corporations upon agriculture in general, and the wheat farmers of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba in particular. I am not going to repeat what he said on that occasion, excepting to quote one statement he made, which appears at page 1183 of Hansard:
There is no doubt therefore the elevators will be receiving in the neighbourhood of at least $50,000,000 for the handling of grain this year. On the other hand what does the farmer get? He gets less than 50 cents a bushel for
200,000.000 bushels. He will not receive $100,000,000, yet here is a man who does not do anything except handling the wheat and he is getting half as much as the farmer.
I suggest that, having regard to the tremendous amounts of wheat which are stored, the time has come to reduce storage rates below one forty-fifth of a cent by at least 33 per cent.
To me it is difficult to understand why, when the government has control of practically ill the wheat in the dominion, it has seen fit ;o rent its terminal elevators to private corporations to store Canada's wheat, paying them one forty-fifth of a cent per bushel per day. On the 21st of May, 1941, I asked how many terminal or interior grain elevators in Canada and the United States were owned, leased or otherwise controlled by the government; where were such elevators located and what was their capacity. The answer of the Department of Trade and Commerce was that there are in Canada under the control of that department eight terminal elevators, located at Moose Jaw, Saskatoon, Lethbridge, Edmonton, Calgary, Prince Rupert and Port Arthur, with a total capacity of about 23,000,000 bushels one of which was rented to a private corporation and that the government received the year before as rentals $72,230.98. If one-forty-fifth of a cent a bushel was paid on the full capacity of the elevator-and they must have been full because there was such a shortage of storage- these companies received less of course the cost of administration, $260,000. I might point out too that ten elevators with a tremendous capacity, under the control of the Department of Transport, also are rented to private corporations, enabling those corporations to receive the tolls paid to them by the gov-
ernment for the storage of their own wheat. I think the time has come when the government of Canada should once more take over these elevators for the storage of the Canadian farmers wheat, instead of renting them to the private storage corporations, which are securing in consequence tremendous returns.
I suggest, next, that the time has come when we should again press for utilization of the Hudson Bay railway facilities. They have not been used to any extent since 1935. They have been used less, of course, since the war began-but very little less. My suggestion is that the whole problem of the Hudson Bay railway and the use of this particular route at this time should also be placed before the committee, to the end that the facilities which we have shall be utilized to the benefit of the people.
My next suggestion is this. Some weeks ago a speech was delivered in this chamber by the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Turner) in which he suggested that the government should give consideration to the equalization of freight rates so that the . farmer living in far-off Alberta or northern Saskatchewan would be in an identical position with a farmer living in the province of Manitoba. The arguments that he advanced in that connection appealed to me, and I suggest that they should be placed before this committee when it meets.
Next: Britain closed her wheat exchange directly the war broke out. We on this side of the house without exception since the beginning of the war have advocated the closing of the exchange. There was a suggestion the other day that it was going to be closed, but that has not yet been imported into the terms of any order in council, as I have been able to read those orders in council which were issued on March 9. Let me say in that connection that I cannot understand the attitude of the government in bringing before parliament only part of this problem, and, with parliament in session, passing three orders in council dealing with flax, wheat and so on and empowering the government, in so far as one order in council is concerned, to do that for which they condemned1 Mr. McFarland and the Bennett government, namely, to purchase wheat from others than the actual owners and producers. For the last several years the government has condemned the action of the government of Mr. Bennett, yet now by order in council they ask power to do that which they have condemned.
What of the grain exchange? Is it to be closed? Is it to continue? I was interested the other day in listening to the address of

Wheat Board Act
the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) when he pointed out that trading in flax was to be forbidden. I asked him why, and the answer he gave was that the handling of flax is being made a monopoly of the Canadian wheat board in order to avoid speculative profits by people in possession of flax acquired at very much lower prices.
I ask, is the wheat situation any different in principle? The price of wheat is to be raised to 90 cents. Are there to be any provisions which will prevent those who acquired wheat at lower prices from selling it to-day at a profit. I would be glad to hear what they are.
The minister went on to say that a corresponding procedure has been adopted to prevent speculation in wheat for the same reason, and the house is entitled to details. Mr. Speaker, one thing which can be said for this government is that, if it has not been too favourable to the needs and the requirements of the producer, it has never failed to take cognizance of the needs of the storage and trading corporations. That is one of the major complaints made all over western Canada against this government.
I offer this as a further suggestion. When we are paying out, as the hon. member for Wood Mountain said, about $50,000,000 a year for storage, or half of what the farmer receives who produces the wheat, it is time to utilize the powers under the National Resources Mobilization Act, take over these elevators at a fair rental, or in any event those elevators which belong to the government, and operate them for the benefit of the farmers and taxpayers of Canada, instead of paying toll as at present to those who are the owners or lessees.
My next suggestion is this, that in addition to taking over grain storage facilities the government should, if necessary, also take over the processing and distribution concerns, unless the prices charged are kept to a minimum. They are doing it in other countries. Only recently an investigation took place in the United States, instituted by the American government, to ascertain how much of the dollar that was ultimately paid by the consumer for farm products in that country went to the farmer, and it was found that in 1940, which was one of the best years so far as farmers were concerned, in a list of 58 foodstuffs produced by the farm and bought by the average labouring man's family, for which the consumer paid $314, $182 went to the middle man while the farmer received $132. In other words the farmer received 42 per cent of the price which the product, produced by himself, ultimately realized. That
was stated by Mr. R. O. Been, one of the authorities in the United States government, who said:
Any reduction in marketing charges should benefit the consumer through reducing retail prices, and improve the position of the farmer by increasing the prices which he receives. Reduction of marketing costs could result from breaking up congestion and increasing efficiency at certain points in the marketing process. Improvement of terminal market facilities is a step in this direction.
I come now to one of the most serious situations in agriculture to-day, the assuring to the farmer of a supply of necessary labour in operating his farm. The attractions of industry and of munitions factories in eastern Canada, and in western Canada the armed services themselves, have placed the farmer in the position where he will not be able to carry on unless something is done by the government. A step was taken in the right direction yesterday by the order in council placed before the house by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) whereby any man in the service may be granted leave so that he may assist with spring work and whereby national boards in the various provinces may grant the necessary postponements of men on farms who are called up for service.
The farmer is not asking that discrimination be made in his favour, but he feels that after two and a half years of war it is time that men were allocated to the positions and industries wherein they can do the most good. Allocations should be made of men from industries to farms, where they can better serve in that capacity, under a selective basis whereby all men should be placed where they can devote themselves to the best of their ability to the welfare of the state. In Britain it has been found necessary not only to comb munitions industries, but also to mobilize the young men and women in that nation to assist in agriculture. My suggestion is that the government at this time should consider the question of bringing in under the selective service provision the mobilization of the land army in Canada in order to ensure that the necessary production of food will continue.
It cannot be too often repeated that food is as necessary as munitions. Without food there can be no munitions, without food there can be no soldiers in the field. One of the major duties of the government at this time is to make sure this spring that farm labour shall be made available to farmers all over the dominion to the end that they shall be able to produce as they desire to do and whereby the empire's needs will be satisfied. Food is important. Only the other day I came across a quotation from the Secretary



BEYIBED EDITION

[Stage Direction]
Wheat Board Act
[Stage Direction]
of Agriculture of the United States, Claude R. Wickard, which struck me as being so appropriate at this time that I will quote it, and with this quotation I will close:
Food is a whole arsenal of weapons in this struggle for human freedom. It is the driving force behind high production by munitions workers and top notch performance and strong morale among soldiers and sailors. Our national self-interest and our humanitarian instincts challenge us to do this job of producing food and do it on a scale that will write history. In the day of victory when the nations sit down at the peace table our food stocks will give great force to our views for they will show once and for all that democracy builds for the needs of common men. By winning our American battle of farm production we will help to make it possible once again for men in all parts of the earth to live in comfort, in tolerance and in freedom.
Mr. H. A. MacKENZIE (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, in my view this is a problem that affects agriculture not only in western Canada but in other parts of the dominion as well, and for that reason I should like to make a few casual comments upon the subject. Representing as I do, feebly perhaps but to the best of >my ability, a riding in southwestern Ontario, a farming district, I regard this as a question of vital importance. Let me say at the outset that I am not in any way antagonistic to the people of western Canada or to western farm problems. I remember after speaking last year in the house I received *from western Canada certain communications commenting on what I had said and virtually accusing me of being an opponent of western agricultural problems. That is not true, because I am quite familiar with our own agricultural problems. In fact I have a good deal in common with and a great deal of sympathy for the people who derive their livelihood from farming, and I do not know of any time, apart from the last war, when they received very much for the commodities they produce.
I am not an authority on western problems. I am not an authority on the wheat situation as it affects the west. I was greatly interested last Monday when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) made his statement with regard to wheat and wheat surpluses and markets. He gave a comprehensive picture and put a good deal of information before the house. Those of us who have been around parliament hill for some time were prepared for a statement of that kind. He said that the initial price of wheat would be raised from 70 cents to 90 cents, and it had been generally believed that that was what would happen. When he made his statement in regard to the surpluses of wheat which the four great exporting countries of the world had on hand'-or the estimate of what they

would have on hand on July 31-it was a revelation to me, because the figure he gave was 1,300,000,000 bushels. That is a very considerable surplus.
The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) last night referred to Ontario wheat and said, "We should have a price equal to that paid for Ontario wheat," or something of that kind. Let me point out that Ontario wheat rose last fall owing to domestic markets, the demand that existed, and the shortage there was in wheat for the making of pastry flour. The domestic market forced up the price of wheat, and when it had reached a certain level the wartime prices and trade board put a ceiling on it. There is no ceiling on, western wheat. Western wheat is guaranteed merely a minimum price, and I hope that when the time comes and the price rises, as it is anticipated it will owing to markets for wheat, the board will not put the ceiling on too early.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) also gave a comprehensive statement regarding conditions generally in western Canada. He gave a good report on the plans they have this year for assisting western agriculture. The Prairie Farm Assistance Act has been in operation for some time, and also the acreage bonus policy. The statement he made, together with the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce looked very complete. I do not believe anyone had any serious objection to the statements made or the programme they mapped out for this year. Personally I considered it was quite far-reaching but that probably it was coming to western Canada. I did not anticipate speaking on the matter until one or two speeches were made that were rather provocative. So I felt I should say something in defence of Ontario agriculture.
As to what the future holds for wheat I would not even hazard a guess. Russia will probably be in the market for wheat in the near future. The great Ukraine area of 25 million acres will not be producing its normal crop this year, and it is quite probable that when the war is over, there will be a market in Russia for Canadian wheat. In the meantime Canada will have a big wheat surplus and be ready to meet any demand that may arise.
Wheat, I am sure, has been a major headache for the government. I think it was 1932 or 1933 when wheat in western Canada first became much of a problem. To help the situation the government started with a bonus of five cents a bushel. So wheat can scarcely be regarded as a war casualty. In 1938 western Canada harvested some 400 million bushels, and at 80 cents a bushel, which was a very low price then, it cost the treasury around

Wheat Board Act
$60 million to market that wheat. That was before the war, when all the markets of the world were open to Canadian wheat and wheat products.
I think it was the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) the other night who was comparing conditions on the farms in Ontario and in western Canada, and he made some references which to me were rather amusing. He spoke of the percentage of cars, radios, telephones and houses with running water installed. Comparisons are always odious, and to me that was a rather useless comparison, for it must be remembered that farming has been carried on in Ontario for at least one hundred years. Surely, after a century of farming, no one would begrudge 10 per cent of the farm homes having running water inside. As to telephones, if we had the same conditions as they have in western Canada, telephone subscribers a mile or two apart, I doubt if we would have telephones at all.
Ontario agriculture is not at all prosperous. I do not know what the 1941 census will show, but. the last census showed over $200 million of debt on the farms of this province. This means that around 50 per cent of the farms were mortgaged for approximately 50 per cent of their value. If anyone doubts that, let him get in touch with the farm loan board and he will find that is a fact. Some Ontario farms have been cultivated for two, three and four generations. The occupants have paid their debts and kept off relief, and I do not believe that western Canada begrudges them a little higher percentage of telephones or running water in the houses.
The farmer in western Canada has, we all admit, had difficulties. This is due largely to two reasons-one the loss of markets, and the other, partial, or in some places complete, crop failures. The government has been very generous in looking after the sufferers from those conditions and trying to alleviate the troubles of western Canada. Material assistance has been given through the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. Apparently all parties are agreed that this has actually brought relief to those who were in need.
However, agriculture all over Canada has gone through difficult times. When this conflict is over and we come back to normal conditions again, if we are ever going to have parity prices in any degree-I do not like to talk about parity prices, for seldom can we recall when farm prices were on a parity basis -I believe we shall have to have a new agricultural policy for Canada if agriculture is to survive.
There are many agricultural problems in western Ontario. That is the reason why I am presenting a few thoughts this afternoon.
44561-83i
In southwestern Ontario there is a bean problem. It is only a minor problem compared with problems of the whole dominion, but beans have been grown in western Ontario for a number of years. Until recently they found a market readily in the British empire, but this year, due to war conditions, we have a surplus of beans to sell. The only market is the British empire, but I believe Britain is getting a great deal of her supply of beans from the United States under the lease-lend act and is not so anxious to take ours. They have, however, made a commitment to take ten thousand tons some time during the year. They are not dealing through our Canadian marketing service, but want to deal through the trade; that is, the British Ministry of Food apparently insists on dealing through the trade. That means we have a ceiling for beans in western Ontario for domestic sales; we have no ceiling for export. Therefore the exporters, of whom there are only two or three, are in a position for bargaining for -the beans to supply the British market at practically their own price. I know the Department of Agriculture is working on a plan to help the bean producers, in the hope of dealing directly through the marketing service of Canada. But if the bean producers of western Ontario were getting the same treatment to-day as the wheat producers, they would be -pretty well satisfied. How then can I go back, as representative of a riding like that, and ask the bean producers to be taxed to pay a bonus or subsidy to western wheat, when they cannot sell their own product?
We have also in western Ontario a sugar beet industry, as mentioned by the hon. member for Essex South (Mr. Clark). A sugar beet refinery has been in operation in our riding for forty years. The price of sugar was set at the beginning of the war, and the growers' contracts were -based definitely on the sugar price. On the one hand the growers are faced with a rising labour cost while on the other the price of the product is pegged. The result is that one factory will probably close altogether, whereas in view of the fact that there is a shortage of sugar this year and a prospect of an even more acute shortage next year, we should be producing all we can. So I say, how can I, as representative of a riding which has a sugar -beet industry, go back and tell them that we want to tax them in order to pay a subsidy to the western wheat growers?
I am not very familiar with the wheat situation, but I should like to read a quotation from the hon. member for Wood Mountain
Wheat Board Act

(Mr. Donnelly) as reported at page 2422 of Hansard for April 29, 1941:
The farmer is getting the 85 cents a bushel; that is what this $35,000,000 is for.
That was the vote put through last year.
It will be seen that 230,000,000 bushels at 15 cents a bushel comes to $35,000,000. That is the 85 cents a bushel which the government is giving the farmer of western Canada. That is why the price is what it is, and where the 85 cents comes in.
In addition to that, which according to the hon. member's contention last year would raise the price of wheat to around 85 cents a bushel, after the session had been adjourned the government voted another $30,000,000 for prairie farm income. This, together with the $8,500,000 paid in prairie farm assistance I think would bring the price of western wheat close to $1 a bushel. Whether or not it worked out in that way I am not in a position to say, but that is my information for that statement. A little further on he said something else which was rather startling:
I say that wheat can be raised for 50 cents a bushel, and make no mistake about that. Profit can be made out of it at that price. It is being done and has been done during the past two years. It can he done; but it must be done on a mechanized farm. It must be done scientifically, and it cannot be done in an old-fashioned war. One can farm to-day 1,600 acres of wheat and not pay any more for his labour than he did a few years ago to farm 320 acres. I can grow 800 acres of wheat to-day with as little labour as I grew 100 acres a few years ago.
I am not in a position to say whether or not that is correct, but that was the statement made last year by the hon. member for Wood Mountain. I suppose there are over 250,000 farmers in western Canada, and some of them must have very large farms, for the other day the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) said he knew of some farm bonuses this year as large as $10,000. If that is not correct, the hon. member will tell me so, but that was what I understood him to say. What is the situation this year? The initial price is increased to 90 cents a bushel, No. 1 Fort William. This means an increased cost, in connection with the number of bushels they expect to buy, of around $56,000,000. Then the acreage bonus plan, if it is in the same category as last year, will cost another $30,000,000, and on top of that there will be perhaps another $10,000,000 in prairie farm assistance. Surely this will mean that the western farmer will get over $1 a bushel for his wheat this year.
I am not complaining that the farmers are getting too much for their wheat. I should like to see them get a great deal more, but
[Mr. H. A. MacKenzied
market conditions would not warrant it. The point that worries me, however, is whether they are satisfied with the assistance they are being given; and after having listened to what has been said in this house, I would say the answer was no. The other day the hon. member for Melfort made a statement which seemed very peculiar to me. As reported at page 1222 of Hansard he said:
I can assure you, sir, that is the attitude of western Canada. They are fed up and are desirous of getting a better deal than they have received in the past.
From western Canada we have also four other members of the cabinet-the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon), the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson), and the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar).
I need not read what followed immediately after that, because I think it better not to put it on record again, but a little further on the hon. gentleman continued:
We feel that if those members of the cabinet who represent western agriculture here were determined to get a fair deal for the western farmers, they could get it. In addition, we have thirty-four members supporting the government who belong to western Canada. If those members would stand up for the people they represent rather than for the party, they could obtain what western agriculture wants; and if the three sections together-the Prime Minister, the members of the cabinet, and the members supporting the government, assisted by the members on this side of the house from the west-made a united effort, we could get it *without a doubt.
I wonder whether it has ever dawned on the hon. member for Melfort that members of the cabinet represent Canada as a whole. Surely they must have a-national outlook, and surely they could not present something to the house that would) not be carried. If some of us would endeavour to get a more national outlook, and see beyond our own little domestic problems, we would get along with something really worth while. A little later the hon. gentleman said something that rather startled me. He spoke of some people who had moved from another part of Saskatchewan into his district, and said:
There are many people . . . who have moved to the northern part of Saskatchewan into the constituency which I represent. Many of those people are living on small farms; they took up bush homesteads and have some forty or fifty acres under cultivation. The wheat acreage reduction bonus does not mean a thing to them, neither does the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, because they always grow over twelve bushels to the acre, but their acreage is small. Neither does the other bill, which provides for a payment of 75 cents per acre on the cultivated acreage mean anything to them, because they have so little under cultivation.

Wheat Board Act
It appears that these people have reached the point where, if they cannot come under some scheme of bonus or assistance from the government, they cannot possibly help themselves. Here we have people who cannot come under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act because their crops are too good. They cannot come under the bonus scheme because they do not require that sort of assistance, and they have such a small acreage under cultivation that they must have some bonus or subsidy from the government or they cannot make a living. I should like to compare those farmers with some farmers in Ontario. Our people in Ontario have been farming under those conditions for many years, and paying much higher taxes. When this bill goes to committee I think we surely should insert a clause to take care of that little group of people in the hon. member's riding, who have such good crops that they do not need one form of assistance, in order that they may be given some subsidy or support of some kind. Such nonsense 1
Let me say further that when the income of western Canada was low the Minister of Agriculture-and I give him credit for it- sponsored a move to grant a subsidy or cost of living bonus to increase the income of prairie farms. Under that measure something like 75 cents an acre was paid on cultivated land up to a limit of 200 acres, which meant approximately $150 per farm.


James Garfield Gardiner: Would the hon. gentleman allow me to ask a question? Is he aware that every farmer in Canada who is producing live stock as well as grain is receiving a bonus from the treasury?


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: I am aware of that fact. I am also aware that western Canada produces a great many cattle, and that every year Ontario buys many western cattle. But under that scheme another $30,000,000 was voted. No one is making any complaint about that; I give the minister credit for coming to their assistance. But I want to ask this: Has any member from western Canada risen in his place in this house and said how much they appreciate what has been done for them by the government?


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes.


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: Well, I have not heard of it. I think they should at least give the government credit for having come to the assistance of the farmers of western Canada. I wonder whether they took part of the amount voted for prairie farm income to finance that delegation of two trainloads of farmers who came here to meet the Minister of Agriculture. Let me say that
the minister was in error the other day when he said that there had been no other delegations of farmers or farm organizations to see him. There have been small delegations.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say that. There was one delegation here to see me yesterday morning, so I would not say that.


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: That was what I understood the minister to say. The fact remains, however, that small delegations . have come here to see him, but certainly our farmers could not finance a delegation amounting to two trainloads.
In conclusion, I say to my western friends that I have every sympathy for western Canada. I believe agriculture as a whole should be looked after, and looked after well, because for a long time it has not received its share from the point of view of revenue. I believe the western members who have been complaining so much should thank their lucky stars that the Minister of Agriculture is from western Canada, and has given them a great deal of assistance. They must appreciate, too, that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is a western man. I believe those men are as fair as they can be, but a minister may be a little biased in favour of the constituency he represents.
I believe the whole economy is wrong. In my opinion the Minister of Trade and Commerce should come from one part of the country, and the Minister of Agriculture from another.


Mr. REID:: It was not much different when it was that way, before.


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: Well, it should be different. I believe the ministry must represent the whole dominion. We 245 members of the House of Commons come here with our problems, and those problems may look large to us. We lay them at the ministers' feet, or at the seat of government. We put them all together, and ask the government of the day to draw from that concoction a policy, not in the interests of western Canada, not in the interests of eastern Canada, but in the interests of all of Canada, and1 we ask them to be as fair and as equitable as possible. Sometimes we seem to take the position that because a minister lives in one particular spot he must fight for that spot, must get all the good things in life for it, or withdraw from the government.
I am not sure whether it was the hon. member for Battle "Axe"-or some such place -in western Canada, who placed a real gem in Hansard the other night. He pointed out that it was the squeaky wheel that got the
Wheat Board Act

grease and the crying baby who got the attention. I would change that a little and say that if the wheel which is getting the grease is still squeaking, we had better take the grease away from it, and give it something to squeak for.
Probably I have taken too much time, but may I repeat that I do not wish to be antagonistic. I do not believe I am, because I try to see the picture as a whole. We shall have plenty of time to fight over our domestic problems when this w'ar is over. I have not taken up much of the time of the house, but I believe we are spending far too much time in fighting about our wheat problem and the economics of our country, at a time when the empire is confronted with the greatest crisis in its history and is probably crumbling at this time.


Mr. HARRY LEADER (Portage la Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe) has asked me if I would allow him to take up ten minutes of time before I proceed to speak. I told him I would consent, if it were understood that Mr. Speaker would afterwards allow me my place. With your permission, sir, I shall be pleased to make way for the hon. member, for about ten minutes.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That cannot be done; it is impossible. If that were to happen, the hon. member would lose his place.


Mr. LACOMBE:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Portage la Prairie has permitted me to speak immediately-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Order.


Liguori Lacombe: That is the decision of the hon. member for Portage la Prairie, not the decision of the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie).


Georges Parent: The hon. member for Portage la Prairie is now on his feet, and therefore he has the floor. If the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains wishes to speak, and is not on the list, he should see the Clerk of the House.


Harry Leader: With the consent of the house I am willing to withdraw; otherwise I would lose my position.


Georges Parent: If the hon. member for Portage la Prairie does not speak now, he will lose his place.


Harry Leader: Then I shall proceed.


Liguori Lacombe: I rise to a point of order. The standing orders of the House of Com-

mons mention nothing about the whips of the Liberal and Conservative parties. What authority have they in the house, concerning the list of speakers?


Georges Parent: Order.


Liguori Lacombe: I want to have a decision on this question, because the standing orders do not mention the whips of any party.


Georges Parent: That is not a point of OTder. The hon. member for Portage la Prairie will continue.


Harry Leader: Mr. Speaker, I believe my
years of experience on the farm, and my years of operating an elevator and as a grain buyer give me licence to speak on legislation of this kind. I feel inwardly gratified that my decision many years ago when I entered public life was that I would be more or less independent. After listening to some of the discussions I have heard in recent days I am thankful I made that decision. Therefore if, when speaking this afternoon, I say some things which may seem painful, I believe such statements necessary, and from my point of view I shall have to make them, no matter what party they may hurt.
May I say that I believe the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) would be well advised if he were to withdraw his amendment. In my opinion it is a futile gesture, if I may use that expression, and I suspect there is a little politics in it. Mr. Speaker, I absolutely refuse to play politics. If the hon. member will withdraw his amendment and allow the bill to go to the committee to which the other wheat bills have gone, I will promise him that in that committee I will fight along with him for what he is asking. For three or four years we have been criticizing the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) for not submitting legislation of this kind to the inspection of the committee on agriculture. Now that we have got the minister to the point where he is willing to have the bills submitted to our scrutiny, let us jump at the chance to do so. Then, if we do not like what is done in committee we shall have our chance later in the house to express our opinions. My suggestion therefore would be that the hon. member withdraw his amendment, and I believe when the bill is given third reading we shall reach the same conclusion.
I should like to deal first with a matter which to my mind is serious. I refer to the statement of the hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Donnelly) that the Saskatchewan wheat pools had made dividends amounting to S3,000,000. He called it high finance, and added, "Remember, this is a

Wheat Board Act
cooperative company, and they do not pay any income tax." In my opinion that is a serious statement. The hon. member is not the first Liberal member I have heard express similar sentiments, and I wish to say now that if that is ever the policy of the Liberal party, do not expect to find me with that party.
I am a cooperator, and I belong to the Manitoba cooperative. In the dividends we are now earning we are just getting back the money we put into the stock of an institution which it was thought would help us in our farming, and lower our cost of production. Every dollar that was collected was deducted from some man's load of wheat. When he sold a carload of wheat, perhaps fifty dollars was deducted-which he otherwise would have had in his pocket-in order to build up a reserve to build an elevator. Now, when these men have reached the point where they are making dividends and there is a chance for them to get some of their original capital back, the suggestion is made that we tax these dividends. I do not think that would be right.


Mr. HANSON (Yorlc-Sunbury):: That is not the suggestion.


Harry Leader: Absolutely.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The suggestion was-


Harry Leader: Please, I would like not to have any interjections unless absolutely necessary. When the hon. member for Wood Mountain takes the stand that he is in favour of a reduction in elevator charges, I am with him. He is on solid ground there. The elevator charges are absolutely too high, and both he and I have been fighting those high charges for years. I have stood in this house, Mr. Speaker, session after session and pointed out-it might have seemed small but the principle was there just the same-that when we sell a carload of wheat containing 1,500 bushels we pay a service charge of $15, or 1 cent a bushel. When we sell a carload of barley, containing the same number of pounds, we pay the commission man $18.75. Is that fair? Anyone to whom I have spoken admits that it is not fair, but I never have heard any member of this house representing a farming district or any other district back me up when I made that plea. The barley industry is becoming more important every year, especially at this time. We may produce 200 million bushels of barley next year, and I believe the government would be well advised to have that commission charge- service charge is the technical name for itreduced to half a cent a bushel. It is not the first time that I have offered this suggestion and I am offering it again now.
The grain exchange sets the tariff for the commission charges. I have taken this matter up with the grain exchange. They say that the service charge on barley is a reasonable charge, and they absolutely refuse to change it. I have taken the matter up with the government. I can remember that a few years ago legislation went through this house to appoint a supervisor for the grain exchange with power to compel the brokers to produce their books for inspection. The bill went over to the other' house and was there so amended that it took away the right of the supervisor to scrutinize the brokers' figures. That emasculated the bill entirely, and I do not think a supervisor of the grain exchange has ever been appointed. Even if he were, he would have absolutely no power under that legislation. Why should an institution like the grain exchange be able to set their own tariffs and be able to charge $3.75 more for one car than they charge for another containing the same number of pounds? I say it is time the government stepped in and showed them the rules.
The hon. member for Wood Mountain referred to an article which he saw in a financial paper. I have it here, and I think I should read it and put it on the records of this house. It is an editorial in the Financial Post of February 14, 1942, and says:
Saskatchewan wheat pool profits last year amounted to almost $3 millions after the usual depreciation. Had the pool been an ordinary private grain company the public treasury would have been enriched to the extent of over $1-5 million in income and excess profit taxes. But being classed as a "cooperative", the pool paid exactly nothing.
The prairie wheat pools are competing directly with private grain companies which must and do pay full national taxes. They are performing a service not one whit different from that of their competitors. Long before this the dominion Department of Finance should have stepped in, ended this absurd and unfair discrimination, and stopped a very substantial leakage in taxes.
That really is the serious part of the statement made by the hon. member for Wood Mountain. I am just a little nervous that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) might endeavour to seek a new avenue whereby he would get some taxation. I do not think it would be fair to go to this source.


Mr. DONNELLY:: They have to pay
income tax.


Harry Leader: I am very glad to see my hon. friend back in the house. I missed him from his usual front seat. No; we should not
Wheat Board Act

have to pay taxes because we are only getting our own money back. The hon. member for Wood Mountain also said that he belonged to the pool.


James J. Donnelly: Sure.


Harry Leader: Oh, what loyalty 1


James J. Donnelly: I shall have to tell you something about it.


Harry Leader: I have heard' of people
damning an institution with faint praise, but a man who belongs to an institution and then gives to the house the information the hon. member for Wood Mountain gave the other day-I say that is not loyalty.
I am in favour of $1 a bushel being paid for our wheat. That is nothing new for me; I advocated it here in a speech I made in the house last fall, on November 19, 1941. At that time I believed we could pay $1 a bushel and limit the deliveries to any quantity which the government thought it could sell-if not 230 million bushels, limit it to 200 million bushels. That factor could be absolutely controlled. The bonus I did not like then; I do not like it now and perhaps never will. I must qualify that because I think the Prairie Farm Assistance Act does act as a crop insurance policy, and the other act, the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, has the effect of conserving the fertility of the soil. I think there is some merit in both those acts. But the wheat acreage reduction bonus, and the from income bonus, which was the best of them all, would have been unnecessary if the farmers had received a high enough price for their wheat. Then we could have done without them.
The farmers want legislation that they can understand, and I think the Minister of Agriculture will agree with me when I say that they do not understand this legislation. The minister understands it, but I must confess that I do not.
In my part of the country the farmers do not want this bonus plan. I make that statement positively, believing that I am stating the absolute truth. But they took advantage of It-I am talking of the wheat acreage reduction bonus-in order to get some income which was denied them because the price of wheat was too low. But it upset their whole routine, and they turned all sorts of corners in order to get a little summer-fallowing in here, put barley in there, and so on.
I have a letter here which expresses the mind, I think, of most of the people in my district. This gentleman is of Liberal stock, a very open-minded man. In fact he was a candidate in the last provincial election. He is a man of good intelligence, and since the

intelligence of my constituency is fairly high, I think it well worthwhile for me to read part of his letter. First he expresses his opinion that the initial price should be $1 a bushel. Then he goes on to say:
Of course I won't be greatly surprised at a guaranteed price of less than $1. What I really expect is some complicated plan that no one can thoroughly understand until it is too late to do anything about it.
That is typical of the opinion of the farmers in my district. I have stated that I dio not like the bonus. I think that one of the worst features of the bonus is its inequality. Fifty per cent of the farmers of Manitoba sow less than fifty acres of wheat. The figures I quote are based on the 1935 census. I tried to get them up to date, but the bureau does not have them. I believe that in Alberta the percentage is forty-two per cent. Even in Saskatchewan, twenty-five per cent of the farmers sow less than fifty acres of wheat. There were 187,000 farmers in the western provinces, including, I assume, the Peace River district, who made application for the wheat reduction bonus. I asked the minister a question on -this point during his speech, when he said he would rather not be interrupted ; in any event he did not answer. I just wished to know how many farmers there are in the three prairie provinces. I have since ascertained from one of his officials, although this is only an estimate, that there are 290,000. And 187,000 made application! This means that 103,000 farmers in that western country did not get any of this wheat reduction bonus.


James Garfield Gardiner: Many of that number are market gardeners.


Harry Leader: Many of them are very small farmers. Then the -man who did not produce wheat in 1939 and 1940 was out of the picture -altogether. We have in Manitoba lots of men who have not been growing wheat for five or six years.
Mr. GARDINER; There are also the -ranchers.


Harry Leader: There was no chance for these men to share in the wheat -bonus. So you get -back to the principle that if you pay the higher price for a limited number of bushels you are going to benefit them all- the big farmer as well as the smaller farmer.
We heard rumours that the Liberals from Saskatchewan, headed by our Minister of Agriculture, put up a tremendous fight to have the government recognize this increase in prices and the continuance of the minister's programme. I think -they did pretty well. I believe that every Liberal member from Saskatchewan would put up -the best fight he

Wheat Board Act
knew how; and, knowing the Minister of Agriculture as I do, I am confident that he also would put forth his very best efforts. But I wonder where were the Liberals from Alberta?


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: Hear, hear.


Harry Leader: I wonder where the Liberal members from my own province of Manitoba were?


Charles Edward Johnston: Page them.


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West) :: I
can tell the hon. member where the Liberals of Alberta were.


Harry Leader: These are rumours. I am asking -the question, if the Liberal members from Alberta were there.


James Angus MacKinnon: Not at that meeting.


Harry Leader: Not at this meeting
that I am talking about? Well, then, were the Liberal members from Manitoba there? I was not there. I would have been delighted to be there upholding their hands and battling at their side. Perhaps, if the Liberal members from Manitoba and from Alberta had been there, we would have got $1 wheat. We should have been there.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: That is right.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: You should all have been there.


Harry Leader: It was understood that our Liberal members from Manitoba were going to get together with the Liberal members from the other two provinces and see what could be done.


Mr. PERLEY:: All hon. members should have been there.


Harry Leader: I agree with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson); all the western members should have been there, and all hon. members who were interested. But did the leader of the opposition practise what he preaches? I don't think he ever did. I as an independent member can make these statements, believing that we should get what we are entitled to.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It was the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) who made that observation. I agree with him.


Charles Edward Johnston: Was the grain exchange represented there?


Harry Leader: The government policy is reasonably good. But I do not think they should take all the credit. There is a war on, and that has something to do, it seems to me,
with the increased prices which agriculturists are getting. I say that without wishing to detract one iota from the effort of the government; in some respects I think it has been very good. Now they are granting us 90 cents a bushel for wheat, and, according to the Minister of Agriculture's own figures, that is 57 cents a bushel less than parity price based on the period 1926-29. The barley price on the same basis was 73 cents, and the government is setting a floor price at 60 cents, which means that it is 13 cents less than the parity price of 1926-29. Eor oats the parity price was 59 cents, and the government is putting a floor price of 45 cents, leaving 14 cents of a spread between the parity price and the government price. The floor prices for the coarse grains, are, of course, a consideration; they really do mean something.
Here is where I am going to say something which may be painful but is, I believe, necessary. The difficulty with regard to Manitoba is that our leader is apparently more interested in the grain trade than in the welfare of our farmers. I am very sorry that the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) is not in his seat. I know him better, perhaps, than any other man in this house.


James Angus MacKinnon: He is ill this afternoon.


Harry Leader: I am sorry that that is so, but it is not my fault; whether he is here or whether he is not, I intend to make this statement. I am not actuated by any political motives; I am actuated by the desire to serve my people; and when I look over the years during which the minister has sat in this house and review the attitude he has taken on the grain question, I believe that what I have to say to-day should have been said before. When you make a charge you should be able to substantiate it; that is why I used the word "apparently". I am now going to define my meaning.
When the grain act was being revised, in 1925, the present Minister of Mines and Resources was definitely behind the practice of mixing our wheat. I have not time to go into that, but to me the picture is so familiar that I can almost see the old house as it stood, and hear the discussion which took place at that time. He was absolutely behind the mixing of wheat. He turned round to the other Progressive members and said, "I am sorry I must appear at variance with my colleagues from western Canada, but they do not represent the opinion of western Canada".

Wheat Board Act

There we had the spectacle of our farm leader voting by himself, while all the other Progressive members supported the proposal for the non-mixing of wheat.
Again, he was mainly responsible for the taking away of the right of the farmer to name the terminal of his choice. I do not want to go at length into that, but he was the one man who took away that right from the farmer. He declared at that time, that technically it was not a right, but it was the system which we were working under, an actual right we enjoyed, whether we had the legal right or not. He made it absolutely sure that we could not designate our own terminal elevator unless we released the country elevator from the loss which might be sustained if they shipped the carload of wheat to any other terminal. He had his eye at that very time on the pool elevators, especially the one at the head of the lakes. In recent legislation he has invariably spoken in defence of the grain trade.
I have on this note of mine the pages where this information will be found in Hansard. It will be found on page 2537 of Hansard of 1940. We all remember-those of us who were here in 1939-when Mr. Motherwell named him as the opponent of the wheat board. Then he went to Great Britain and returned with the advice that Britain wanted the grain exchange to function. He was interested in the grain exchange, notwithstanding the fact that the market was closed in Britain and they had sent an agent, and all that they purchased was purchased through that agency. Yet he came back saying that the old country wished the grain exchange to be kept open in Winnipeg to set the price of wheat. He opposed the government in the policy of making an advance on farmer-held grain. We know that he said in this house, when asked by some hon. members whether he was in favour, "If you ask me, it is only moonshine." The Minister of Agriculture knows whether I am right in saying that he went with him to Winnipeg to represent the government, to confer with him on the wheat board, to see whether an advance would be made to farmer-stored wheat, and the decision was made that no government advance would be given.


James Garfield Gardiner: No; he was not sent with me.


Harry Leader: He was there at your meeting.


James Garfield Gardiner: He was in Winnipeg and I came from Regina.


Harry Leader: It was quite a coincidence. Why split hairs?


James Garfield Gardiner: We were both there on the invitation of the premier of Manitoba. There was no arrangement at all other than that.


Harry Leader: Will the Minister of Agriculture say he is jointly responsible?


James Garfield Gardiner: I will say, Mr. Speaker, that I was largely responsible for the decision which was made at that meeting as far as the government is concerned.


Harry Leader: Then I will include the
Minister of Agriculture in this latter charge.


James Garfield Gardiner: I still think I was right.


Harry Leader: What a different policy from what is taking place now in the United States 1 I have here a letter-I shall not have time to read it-from a man in charge there who tells me that the policy of granting advances to farmers in the United States is this, that they store their grain in a granary after meeting the specifications of the government inspector, and that it has had the effect of building many thousands of granaries throughout that country. That is where we want our wheat held-on the farms and not in the elevator, costing us $50,000,000 a year.


James Garfield Gardiner: By far the greater part of that wheat in the United States is in elevators and not on farms.


Harry Leader: I hope, Mr. Speaker, you are keeping track of the time I am losing. Further, the Minister of Mines and Resources declared that the present tariffs were fair to the elevator companies in the face of the demand for lower storage charges. What does the hon. member for Wood Mountain think of that? You will find it at page 2379 of Hansard of 1940. The minister was never friendly to the wheat pool! If you want that information look at page 2268 of Hansard of 1940 and page 2272 of the same year.
Let me now say something about the delegation which presented the brief here in Ottawa. In the first place, I wish to congratulate the people of Saskatchewan upon sending that delegation to Ottawa. They got subscriptions from 1S5.000 signers and the expenses were paid out of the joint collection of 24 cents from each individual signer. That is how it was paid. Their journey to Ottawa, however, was ridiculed by the Minister of Agriculture, who asked, where will they get the money? It was condemned by many of our papers also. But after they came here and presented their brief they were commended by the minister and by the press in general. They made what they thought and what we all thought was a very favourable

Wheat Board Act
impression. The minister himself has told us that it was not a delegation of farmers, that they were reeves of municipalities and mayors of cities. I say it was a delegation representative of the whole of Saskatchewan. After their brief was presented the government promised them consideration. This is what they asked for: The delegation's proposal was that they be paid $1 a bushel initial price for what quantity of wheat the government thought they could take, and that was 41 cents, or, to be exact, 41-7 cents, below the parity price of 1926 and 1929.
Was that not a reasonable request? Do you not think it was a generous compromise? I do. Then they favoured restricted deliveries and said that those surpluses which could not be purchased should be taken care of by the farmers back on their farms. The policy of this government should be to encourage that, because there is nothing that will convince the farmer more than, when he sees his bin full of wheat which he cannot sell, to be told that he should grow something else besides wheat; and you would relieve the taxpayers of the country by not paying storage charges. I am not advocating storage for the farmer. Let him build his own granary to store his wheat, and when it is wanted he can take out the wheat and sell it. If he cannot sell it he will not grow wheat, and that is very good logic.
This higher price of $1 a bushel will not increase the production of wheat. That is a fallacy. You have all the machinery in your hands to control that. Do you think the farmer is crazy enough to grow something he cannot sell? He is not going to grow it.
I come now to the presentation of the farm organization, which represented the whole of the dominion, and in that connection I wish to read this paragraph of their brief:
The general nature of our organization is, of course, known to you. We have made substantial progress during the last year in the consolidation of our provincial units and we now have an affiliated membership of more than
350.000	farmers.
It is growing. We are growing. We shall get to the point where we shall have double
350.000	presenting briefs, and they will be listened to. They listened in this case-I am giving credit for that. They said that their first consideration, their paramount duty, was to use all their efforts in the prosecution of the war, and then, speaking for the whole of the dominion, they said that they would like to have a voice in formulating the farm policies of Canada. That should be appreciated by the government, and I believe it is. May I quote the following:
44561-84}
All of the member bodies of this federation from western Canada are on record to the effect that the basic price for the coming year should be not less than $1 per bushel basis No. 1 northern at lakehead or seaboard terminals. This represents widespread opinion in western Canada and further evidence will be given in the presentation by the delegation from the province of Saskatchewan which is to meet the government this afternoon. We can assure the government that opinion in Manitoba and in Alberta is equally strong and that such a request has also the support of the agricultural interests in other parts of Canada represented by this association.
I believe the government of Saskatchewan endorsed their representations in to to. There, Mr. Speaker, you have the representations as made by the organized farmers of this dominion.
One of the mistakes made last year in the submission to the Minister of Agriculture by the organized farmers of Canada was that they did not propose a definite price. It was generally agreed that the price should be 85 cents, but they did not state that in their presentation. The Minister of Agriculture, taking advantage of that, made a statement which is found on page 1923 of Hansard for March 27, 1941. He said:
_ The fact that neither the Saskatchewan pool in its recommendations, nor the advisory committee in its recommendations, nor the Canadian agricultural federation in its recommendations, was able to insert a price, I think clearly indicates that, while there may have been some sentiment in these organizations in favour of changing the advance provided for in the wheat board act, there was considerable sentiment against it.
I submit to the minister that they certainly 'have asked a definite price this year. They profited by the mistake they made last year. They have asked for a dollar a bushel initial price at the lake head, backed by the organized farmers of Canada, and I think they are entitled to it.
With the exception of the two acts which I mentioned previously, they are willing to forgo the wheat acreage reduction bonus and the farm income bonus if the government will raise the price to $1 a bushel. This would cost the taxpayers less than it would to pay these bonuses and 90 cents.


James Garfield Gardiner: Plus what is required to bring it to parity.


Harry Leader: Why does the government not adopt the policy which would satisfy 90 per cent of the farmers of western Canada? Perhaps I am putting that too strongly-at any rate 90 per cent of the farmers of Manitoba.


James Garfield Gardiner: The suggestion the hon. member is making is that the farmers asked
Wheat Board Act

for only $1 a bushel. But in fact they asked for $1 a bushel plus enough to bring it up to parity. The comparison should be made between those two things.


Harry Leader: They are asking for $1 a bushel initial price. Why hedge it around with these other things? They do not like your bonuses.


James Garfield Gardiner: Seven hundred in your municipality applied for them.


Harry Leader: They applied1 because they needed the money. It upset their whole farming routine. We should not do that.


Mr. RICKARD:: Would they have got the money in any other way, except through the bonus?


Harry Leader: Yes. They were asking for
85-cent wheat last year; that would have provided about as much money as the bonuses. They do not like the bonus. They like the higher initial payment.
It has been said in western Canada that it is because of opposition from Ontario and other parts of eastern Canada that it was not granted. I do not believe it. If the government would come out boldly for a policy of $1 a bushel, those hon. members would be found supporting us. I asked an hon. member from Ontario who was here a moment ago what he got for his wheat in Ontario this year. He said $1.05 at the bam. We have to haul our wheat to the elevator as well as pay the charges. I know that Canadians are willing to grant justice to other parts of Canada. I do not believe that Ontario is opposed to a higher initial price.
Let me quote from a dispatch from Regina of April 9, 1941. It is headed:
Taggart says Eastern Opinion Influenced Government Wheat Policy.
The dispatch reads:
Widespread belief in eastern Canada that the west was determined to "get all we can from the government and pay nothing back" had a definite effect in determining the 1941 wheat policy of the federal government, declared Hon. J. G. Taggart, Saskatchewan Minister of Agriculture, yesterday.
I do not believe that is true. You can hardly speak to a man on the streets of Ottawa who has not a son or a nephew or an uncle or a daughter in western Canada. They are our own people.


Mr. FURNISS:: Does the hon. member
know what he could get for wheat in Manitoba by feeding it to hogs, as we do in Ontario?


Harry Leader: The experience of one of
the best feeders we have in Manitoba is that he can get $1 a bushel for wheat by feeding it to hogs.

* Mr. FURNISS: Yes, at his farm. That is right.


Harry Leader: But you cannot feed to
hogs all the wheat that is grown in western Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: How many hogs would you have if you fed all the western wheat crop to hogs?


Harry Leader: I believe my time has
expired-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Harry Leader: No, thank you; I do not
think I should continue. I have said enough to indicate my position and what I shall do in regard to this legislation when it comes before the house for third reading. I am not particular as to whether I vote for the amendment or against it. I still believe it would be wise to withdraw it. I believe it is a futile gesture, and that it smacks of politics, if that is a proper word.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is not
fair.


Harry Leader: Perhaps it is not, but I have that suspicion, and feeling as I do I cannot vote for the amendment. It really does not make any difference. But I shall be here with both feet if we do not get that $1 a bushel which was asked by these farm organizations and will vote against the government on third reading. I am not going to fail these organizations. That is where they get their bread and butter. The loyalty I owe is not to any political party; it is to the people on the farms, both east and west, whom I represent in this house. I represent not only the constituency of Portage la Prairie in Manitoba, but in this particular case I represent the agriculturists of western Canada.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. MARSHALL:: Mr. Speaker-


Georges Parent: The hon. member for
Camrose.


Liguori Lacombe: I rise to a point of
order. Standing order 35 provides:
When two or more members rise to speak, Mr. Speaker calls upon the member who first rose in his place; but a motion may be made that any member who has risen "be now heard", or "do now speak", which motion shall be forthwith put without debate.
I submit respectfully that I rose from my seat three times this afternoon and according to the rules of the house I must have the floor.


Georges Parent: It is true that the hon.
member did rise, but he knows that I have a list of the members who it has been arranged

Wheat Board Act
should speak to-day, and who are all present. I saw the hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Marshall) when he rose in his place to take the floor, and he now has the floor. If the hon. member is dissatisfied he has the right under the rule he has just cited-or someone may do it for him-to move that he be now heard. If any hon. member rises in his place and requests that the hon. member be now heard, I shall put it to the house and the house will then decide who shall speak. The hon. member for Camrose has the floor.


Liguori Lacombe: I rise to another point
of order. Nothing in the standing orders of the house mentions the lists of the whips of any party. It is absolutely against the rules of the house to follow those lists. I stand upon these regulations and ask that I be allowed to speak.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On the point of order raised by the hon. member, the rule has been established for many years that the Speaker sees a certain hon. member in debate; and frequently in the British House of Commons some members wait for weeks before they get the privilege of taking part in the debate. It is not at all a matter of the whips' lists, but in order to expedite the work of the house some arrangement must be made between those responsible for the conduct of the house. The Speaker has the right to see any hon. member he chooses to see; that has been part of our system for centuries.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What has been said by the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) is in accordance with the practice of this house, and I do not see how we could very well depart from it as a general principle, for the reasons which have been stated. On the other hand, however, there should be a sense of fairness in regard to this matter. If the whips choose to make up lists-which of course are not official in any way-and hand them to the Speaker, who follows the lists and sees only those whose names are contained therein, I could conceive of a situation where an hon. member might never be heard, and of course that would be a denial of justice.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That has never happened in this house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, we had the inception of it right here this afternoon. I hold no brief for the hon. member who is endeavouring to catch the eye of the Speaker, but I have an innate sense of justice which tells me that this is not exactly right. It is near the end of the afternoon, of course,
and in a few moments we are going to adjourn. I do suggest that some arrangement be made by the whips-and this may be a means of expediting it-whereby the hon. member may be able to express his views on the floor of this house in regard to the question now before us.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I point out to my hon. friend that the hon. member already has been told that he can speak in this debate on Monday.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I had not been told that. I do not know why he did not agree to that arrangement.


Georges Parent: The hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe) knows the rules of the house, I am sure. With what has been said by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) I am entirely in agreement. I want to see that every hon. member has the opportunity to speak, as he is entitled to do; but I do think the Chair should not be placed in the position of having to discriminate between hon. members on both sides of the house. With the present composition of the house I should be bound to make mistakes and to discriminate unfairly. The rules provide, however, that if the hon. member is dissatisfied he may, through some other hon. member, ask that he be heard. If that is done I will put it to the house, which will judge as to who should be heard. In this instance no one has asked that the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains be heard; therefore the hon. member for Camrose has the floor.


Liguori Lacombe: Then, following the
remarks of the leader of the opposition, I ask the Chair to give me the floor.


Georges Parent: The hon. member must understand that I have already given my ruling. The standing order is there; it can be taken advantage of by the hon. member. As soon as that is done it will be brought before the house, and the house will decide as to who is to speak. In this case no such request has been made to the Chair; therefore I have seen the hon. member for Camrose, who now has the floor.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Speaker, I appeal from your decision.


James Alexander Marshall: Mr. Speaker-


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Speaker, I have said that I appeal from your decision.


Georges Parent: No one has stood up. Five members must rise, and no one has risen except the hon. member himself. The hon. member for Camrose will now proceed.
Wheat Board Act


James Alexander Marshall: First I should like to pay my humble respects to the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) for the fine courage he displayed this afternoon in championing the cause of the farmer. His splendid exposition was commendable. One thing he does not lack is courage.
I have a little problem, Mr. Speaker, which I should like to share with you. If an Irishman speaks on Bill No. 13 on Friday, March 13, at 5.45 o'clock, does it bode ill for the bill or for the Irishman? I think in checking the time, and considering the difficulty I have experienced in getting the floor, that the Irishman has lost the first round.
When I last spoke in this house, on Bill No. 5, I emphasized the importance of having an objective or goal toward which we must strive with persistence and courage. The solution of the difficulties of agriculture is as vital to Canada as the placing of returned men in industrial positions at the conclusion of this war or an increase in the pensions given to old age pensioners. We must assess correctly the problems of agriculture; for until we do their solution is impossible. Over four hundred people, representing all shades of public opinion and all classes of society, travelled from Saskatchewan to Ottawa a short time ago to present a petition at the seat of government. This petition, signed by over
180,000	people, proposed a new deal for agriculture. It is not my intention to discuss the petition, but similar proposals were advanced by the legislatures of the three western provinces, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, as well as by all sorts of farm organizations such as the National Council of Agriculture, the United Farmers of Alberta, the United Farmers of Canada, various grain companies, many boards of trade and chambers of commerce. Still the wishes of these various bodies and of such a vast number of people engaged in all kinds of agriculture in western Canada have been thwarted. Let me hasten to state that I do not altogether blame the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) for the mess agriculture is in to-day, nor do I absolve him entirely from all responsibility; for after all, he must assume some of that responsibility. Cabinet ministers as a general rule do not frame policies; they are too busy. Policies are framed by the real rulers of this country, the bureaucrats. These bureaucrats are the people who formulate the plans, who draw up the policies, and who submit these plans and policies together with recommendations to the minister. We never get to know very much about these same bureaucrats, because they assume no responsi-

bility; they are never dismissed from office. If their plans turn out to be worthless they are not even admonished.
As I have said before in the house, and as I shall say on many future occasions, these individuals have power but they have no responsibility. They have one eye firmly fixed on the Department of Finance and the other eye on the job they have in hand. They are constantly hedged in by financial restriction. And I say this, Mr. Speaker, that if you are looking for the real saboteurs of agriculture to-day you will find them not in the Department of Agriculture but rather in the Department of Finance. These bureaucrats have not yet given heed to the Minister of Finance who has uttered the words, "What is physically possible shall be made financially possible". This expression, by the way, which we have heard so often, and which has been adopted by the Minister of Finance, was pirated from Major Douglas, the founder of the social credit philosophy.
I believe we are going about this whole problem in the wrong way. We farmers have not yet decided what our objective or our goal should be, and we are suggesting to the government methods whereby some goal might be attained concerning which we as individuals have not yet reached a decision. I say therefore that we must first decide what we want, and then leave the government free to perfect the plan which will make our suggestions capable of accomplishment. Farmers not only in western Canada but in eastern Canada are, in my opinion, faced with two problems; first, debt and its twin evil, taxation, and, second, the exhaustion of the fertility of the soil.
With respect to number one I am not going to say very much. Through a series of crop failures, combined with persistent low prices, in the last ten years farmers have gone further and further into debt. Taxes have steadily mounted, and this has been brought about because municipalities-and I know whereof I speak-have been compelled to accept responsibility for many new things, such as indigent relief, mothers' allowances, old age pensions, hospitalization and the payment of doctors' bills.
With regard to the second problem, namely, the exhaustion of the fertility of the soil, I would say that under present conditions, by ignorant or unscrupulous exploitation and exhaustion of fertility vast profits have been made by financial interests-not by the farmers-in the name of cheap food. The chief characteristic of real farming is that it is a way of life rather than a business. I would therefore say that the goal toward

Questions
which all organizations connected with agriculture should steadfastly strive are these: (1) a complete solution of the debt problem and its twin evil, taxation, and (2) the restoration of agriculture to its proper function, namely, a way of life rather than a profitable or unprofitable industry.
On motion of Mr. Marshall the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre) the house adjourned at six p.m.
Monday, March 16, 1942