1943-03-30

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 11, for the relief of Sheila Joan Milligan Hodgson.-Mr. Abbott.
Bill No. 12, for the relief of John Elliott Cockerline.-Mr. Hill.
Bill No. 13, for the relief of James William McDonald.-Mr. Hill.
Bill No. 14, for the relief of William James Chafe.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 15, for the relief of Nettye Steinberg Litner.-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 16, for the relief of Mollie Jaslow Mitnick.-Mr. Casselman (Grenville-Dundas).
Bill No. 17, for the relief of Eleanore Jeanne Lonn Yanofsky.-Mr. Mcllraith.
Private Bills
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 18, for the relief of Ada Lahn Corber.-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 19, for the relief of Bessie McKenzie Balfour Whiteley Willard.-Mr. Boucher.
Bill No. 20, for the relief of Marion Catherine Bremner.-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 21, for the relief of Feodor Karpenko.-Mr. Fulford.
Bill No. 22, for the relief of Dorothy Platt Vaz.-Mr. Whitman.
Bill No. 23, for the relief of Marion Ellen Topp	Dore.-Mr.	Casselman (Grenville-
Dundas).
Bill No. 24, for the relief of Celia Lazaro-witz Cohen.-Mr. Whitman.
Bill No. 25, for the relief of Frederick Hubert Fairbanks.-Mr. Hill.
Bill No. 26, for the relief of Maude May Frances Adlam Clare.-Mr. Hill.
Bill No. 27, for the relief of Gladys Mae Bond Jarvis.

Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 28, for the relief of Max Shulman.- Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 29, for the relief of Walter Pestun, otherwise known as Walter Preston.-Mr. Tomlinson.
Bill No. 30, for the relief of Sonia Litvaek Shalinsky.-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 31, for the relief of Evelyn Margaret Cooke Phippard. - Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City).
Bill No. 32, for the relief of Muriel Anna Chapman Longmore.-Mr. Maclnnis.
Bill No. 33, for the relief of Joseph Fernand St. Louis.-Mr. Maclnnis.
Bill No. 34, for the relief of Alexander Morgan.-Mr. Whitman.
Bill No. 35, for the relief of Norma Mady Albert Chamandy.-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City).
Bill No. 36. for the relief of Gerald Clarkin. -Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 37, for the relief of Edith Rose Smith Gendron.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 38, for the relief of Alice Bernadette Choiniere Horner.-Mr. Abbott.
Bill No. 39, for the relief of Eva Pearl Gilbert.-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 40, for the relief of Emma Cowsill Hill.-Mr. Fulford.
Bill No. 41, for the relief of David Joseph Kennedy.-Mr. Hill.
Bill No. 42, for the relief of Leopold Boucher.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 43, for the relief of Beatrice Ashwell Dyson.-Mr. Abbott.
Bill No. 44, for the relief of Freda Sybil Nisbet Baldwin.-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 45, for the relief of Sam Hadis.- Mr. Fulford.
^Mr. Hansell.]
Bill No. 46, for the relief of Carmen Hilda Olesker Gold.-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City).
Bill No. 47, for the relief of Leo Rene Dore. -Mr. Hill.
Bill No. 48, for the relief of Mary Sophia Viora St. Pierre Malhiot, otherwise known as Mary Sophia Viora. St. Pierre Mayotte.-Mr. Whitman.
Bill No. 49, for the relief of Violet Victoria Green Auclair.-Mr. Abbott.
Bill No. 50, for the relief of Laurette Jobin Lalumiere.-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City).
Bill No. 51, for the relief of Elizabeth Gunn Sparling.-Mr. Claxton.
Bill No. 52, for the relief of Bella Lerner Efros.-Mr. Whitman.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have an inquiry which I should like to direct to the Minister of Labour. Will he be good enough to give a full statement to the house with respect to the strike of the employees of the Montreal Tramways company, so that hon. members may have full information?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I think it
might be just as well, in view of the inquiry of my hon. friend, to place on the record definite particulars in regard to this matter.
There is an agreement between the company and its emploj'ees which was entered into in July of 1940. The agreement was consummated between the company and a negotiating committee representing the employees. Clause 109 of that agreement reads as follows:
The negotiating committee referred to in this agreement, consisting of Messrs. Elphege Beaudoin, Raoul Trepanier and Osias Neveu, will continue in office during the life of the agreement.
The members of the committee were all officers of local 780 of the Amalgamated Association of Electric Railways and Motor Coach Employees of America.
At the time the agreement was made it can be assumed that the majority of the employees were members of this union because the agreement was confirmed by a majority vote of the employees at that time.
Subsequently another labour organization, the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Employees and other transport workers, entered the field and began to organize the employees of the company, and on March 2, 1943. sub-

Montreal Tramways Strike
mitted to the Department of Labour an application for the establishment of a board of conciliation and investigation under the pro-visons of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act.
It was set out in the application that the cause of the dispute was the claim of employees to be represented by the person or persons of their choice and that such request had been refused by the company.
Following the usual practice an industrial disputes inquiry commissioner was authorized to investigate the nature and cause of the dispute with a view to adjusting it. All the interested parties made representations to the commissioner, including members of the negotiating committee, officers of the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Employees and other transport workers, representatives of the Catholic syndicate and the assistant general manager of the company. While the report of the commission was before the department for consideration it appears that the negotiating committee requested permission of the company to take a vote on the premises of the company, which permission was granted by the company. This negotiating committee, of course, were members of the amalgamated association of street railway electrical employees. The ballot to read as follows:
The National War Labour Board has just been changed. This change gives the negotiating committee the opportunity to make new attempts with regard to wages. Are you in favour of according the negotiating committee all the support it will need to undertake these attempts on your behalf?
Thereupon the company was advised by the representatives of the employees who were members of the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Employees, and other transport workers, that if such ballot were held, all employees, members of the brotherhood, would cease work on Monday, March 29.
So much for the background of this strike. The contract made between the company and its employees was made for a period of three years or for the duration of the war, whichever was the longer. No doubt the company thought its labour relations were settled for the duration; however, the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Employees quite evidently have enlisted the affiliation of, if not a majority of the employees, certainly a very large proportion of them. This is evidenced by the fact that the strike has taken place. The hon. gentlemen will note that the contract covered a considerable period of time.
The threat of a stoppage of work was made known to officials of the department on Saturday, March 27, and was confirmed in a telegram from Mr. D. E. Blair, General Manager
of Montreal Tramways company, to me which was received late last Saturday evening.
Saturday and Sunday were devoted to efforts to reach an understanding which would provide for settlement of the dispute. On Sunday, March 28, I sent telegrams and in order that they may be on record, I am going to read the telegram sent to Mr. Blair:
March 28, 1943.
Mr. D. E. Blair,
Vice President and General Manager,
Montreal Tramways Co., Montreal, Quebec.
Replying your telegram twenty-seventh regarding possibility of strike employees your company occurring to-morrow morning, in view of serious nature of situation it is my intention to establish at once a commission or board of conciliation and investigation with a view to conciliation of the existing dispute. It would appear however that if a stoppage of work tomorrow morning and consequent disruption of traffic is to be avoided company should postpone decision on request of negotiating committee for ballot to be taken to-morrow on company premises. Please let me have your decision on this point by seven p.m. to-day in order that departmental officers may communicate with all parties claiming to represent employees.
Humphrey Mitchell.
I also wired the representatives of the unions concerned as follows:
Mr. A. R. Mosher.
President C.B.R.E. & O.T.W.,	.
230 Laurier Ave. West,
Ottawa.
In connection with letter received yesterday by Mr. D. E. Blair General Manager Montreal Tramways Company signed by Presidents locals 210, 214 and 219 of your organization and your own telegram to him of March 27 relative to strike action to-morrow of members of above locals in protest against ballot proposed to be taken by presently recognized negotiating committee, I have decided in view of serious effects of any disruption of Montreal tramways or bus services to appoint a commission or board of conciliation at once with view to conciliation of existing dispute. In meantime desire to warn you that strike of employees of company members locals your organization referred to above would be illegal and you are urged to take necessary steps to prevent the action contemplated by them.
Humphrey Mitchell,
Minister of Labour.
Mr. Elphege Beaudoin,
Business Agent,
Union D'Employ de Tramways de Montreal,
1153 St. Denis, Montreal.
Have received telegram from D E Blair General Manager Montreal Tramways Company relative to threatened strike of certain employees of the company members of three locals of Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Employees and other transport workers in protest against proposed ballot to be taken to-morrow among all employees of the company by your negotiating committee with permission of company management. In view of serious disruption of tramway and bus services in Montreal which will ensue from strike of any substantial number
Montreal Tramways Strike

of employees of company I have decided to establish at once a commission or board of conciliation to endeavour to conciliate the dispute. Urge your committee in meantime to postpone proposed ballot and let all matters come before this tribunal. Such postponement will not in my opinion prejudice the interests of membership your organization. Hope you can give me an affirmative reply this evening.
Humphrey Mitchell.
To these telegrams the following replies were received:
Hon. Humphrey Mitchell,
Ministry of Labour, Ottawa.
Your telegram has received our careful consideration. As we have indicated we granted permission to the negotiating committee to hold ballot and we do not see our way clear to withdraw permission except on their request. Have spoken to Mr. Beaudoin who refuses to postpone ballot.
D. E. Blair.
Hon. Humphrey Mitchell,
Minister of Labour, Ottawa.
A stoppage of work by employees of Montreal Tramways Company will be as unwelcome by me as anyone. If the government with the authority it has cannot restrain the company from collaborating with those seeking to place its employees in an untenable position it is unreasonable to expect me with the limited authority I have to prevent employees from refusing to report for duty.
A. R. Mosher.
Hon. Humphrey Mitchell,
Minister of Labour, Ottawa.
Postpone ballot only moderate routine. Our members will not stop work. CBRE should be made to understand that this is no reason for a strike. Our local established in Montreal since nineteen eighteen and intends to stay. Executive meeting presently and will take decision during the night.
Elphege Beaudoin,
President Local 790.
As everyone knows, the strike occurred on Monday morning, March 29, and the situation is very serious, mainly because important war productions are seriously handicapped because men cannot get to work.
This condition cannot be permitted to continue. I have already sent Doctor H. C. Goldenberg to Montreal as commissioner under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act to see if he can bring the parties together. I selected him because he was born in Montreal, is bilingual, and an important officer of the Department of Munitions and Supply, which department is vitally interested in this dispute. Doctor Goldenberg is in a position to make strong representations on behalf of both departments. He has had a great deal of experience in matters of this kind.
I feel quite confident that the better judgment of both the management and the men will prevail and that the men will be back to work very shortly.


Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains):: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour when the government will take the necessary- measures to provide transportation facilities for workers engaged in war industries and the civilian population of Montreal, made necessary by the strike of the Montreal Tramways employees.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think that question
was covered in the answer I gave to the leader of the opposition.



CIVIL AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if an interdepartmental or other committee has been set up by his department to consider and study the problems of Canada so far as commercial aviation in the international field is concerned. It would appear from news dispatches from time to time that other nations are giving careful study and making comprehensive plans with respect to this very important problem and it is for this reason that I am anxious that the minister shall acquaint the house with the steps which this government is proposing to take in this regard.


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: The government has established an interdepartmental committee on international aviation which has been at work for some months. It meets frequently and I think is making itself familiar with every phase of the situation. This committee is submitting recommendations to the government from time to time as the situation warrants.



CANADIAN FORCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I should like to ask the Postmaster General when he will be in position to make the statement which he told us last week he would make with respect to the safe arrival of mail directed to those in our armed forces overseas.


Hon. W. P. MULOCK (Postmaster General):: I will make the statement as soon as the inspectors now inquiring into the allegations have completed their investigations. I may say that so far there has been no substantiation of the charges made.

Western Grain Crop



MARKETING OF WESTERN GRAIN CROP-AMENDMENT OF MR. DOUGLAS (WEYBTJRN) ON MOTION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, March 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. Usley for committee of supply.
Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Mr. Speaker, a discussion of the government's grain marketing policy is long overdue in this house. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) made a statement on January 29 regarding the government's grain marketing policy for disposing of the 1943-44 crop. This is the only statement that has been made, and from that time until now no opportunity has been presented to hon. members to offer suggestions or to enter into any discussion with reference to this policy. Therefore I think that the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) has rendered a real service by bringing up this matter and placing it before the house.
A habit has developed in this house of having ministers of the crown make important statements of policy on the orders of the day. There is then no opportunity for discussing them or for asking questions, and above all there is no opportunity to offer constructive suggestions. It seems to me that this house should not only assent to, or dissent from, legislation; one of our functions should be to make suggestions as to how legislation can be improved and to inform ministers how any particular piece of legislation will affect the constituents whom we represent. That has not been done. Again and again hon. members are being presented with a fait accompli. We are told, " Here is the policy; take it or leave it."
Once or twice the hon. member for Melfort tried to get some statement from the minister to the effect that the grain marketing policy of the government would be referred to the agriculture committee. The minister agreed to this, but so far the policy has not been submitted to the agriculture committee, and there has been no opportunity for discussing it. If it serves no other purpose than to have brought about this discussion in the house and to have elicited statements from responsible ministers, the debate will have been worth while.
Not only has parliament been ignored in this matter; organized agriculture has been almost completely ignored. When the minister made his statement on January 29 he said that there had been conferences with various bodies, and he included among them the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. We
were all a little surprised when some of the officials of that organization at a meeting in Calgary appeared to be quite indignant and said that they had not been consulted. We begin to see now why they were indignant. Since that time the brief which the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, presented to the government on January 19, has been made public. This brief was presented to the government ten days before the minister made his statement in this house. Nine points were submitted to the government, and the government has completely ignored them all with the exception of one. Submission No. 1 in the brief submitted by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture asked for an initial price of SI per bushel, basis Fort William. This was ignored. No. 2 asked for a domestic price of SI .35 per bushel. Ignored. No. 3 asked that there should be no reduction in the total deliverable quantity of wheat in the coming year and that farmers should be allowed to deliver grain of the 1942 crop year on the 1943 quota. This submission and this alone was accepted by the government. No. 4 asked the government to pay storage on the deliverable portion of a farmer's grain. Also ignored. No. 5 asked that the guaranteed price for flax should be increased from $2.25 to $2.50 per bushel. This also was completely ignored. No. 6 asked for a system of advances to be paid on that quantity of the farmer's crop which he must hold until the government has sufficient facilities to take care of it. This too has been ignored. No. 7 asked for a comprehensive soil survey. No. S asked for $4 an acre to be paid on land taken out of cultivation and seeded to grass. This too was rejected. No. 9 asked that the Canadian wheat board be authorized to handle coarse grains on the same basis as wheat is now being handled by that board. This also has been completely overlooked.
Here is a marketing policy brought down by the government on the opening day of this session, a policy which neither the house nor any committee of the house has had an opportunity to discuss. Of the nine recommendations made by the leading organized agriculture body of Canada only part of one of the nine has been accepted by the government. Therefore I think it is high time that private members of this house took the only opportunity which presents itself, namely, on the motion to go into supply, of asking for a full discussion of the policy and for a statement from the minister.
I want to cite five things about this policy. First, the grain marketing policy outlined by the minister on January 29 and carried on by the government for the last eight years has been a policy which deliberately sought to

Western Grain Crop

sabotage and discredit the wheat board in the eyes of the wheat producers of western Canada. The Liberal party never wanted a wheat board. They opposed the legislation in 1934 and 1935. They opposed the compulsory features of it. They were responsible for having put back into it the operation of the open market and the continuance of the Winnipeg grain exchange in our grain economy. When they were elected in 1935 they began the long process, which is still continuing, of discrediting and sabotaging the wheat board. One of the first things done was to appoint new personnel. The chairman appointed at that time was Mr. J. R. Murray, the former secretary of the Winnipeg grain exchange and one of the men who had led the lobby against the wheat board act when it was being passed by parliament the year before. I said in this house at the time, in 1936, that putting Mr. Murray in charge of the wheat board was like putting a skunk in the henhouse to raise chickens, and I have never had any reason to revise my judgment in that matter.
What happened? In 1936 one of the first things done was to say that the farmers could not deliver their wheat to the wheat board even if they wanted toas long as the price of wheat stayed above ninety cents a bushel the farmer had to sell his wheat on the open market. Every hon. member from western Canada knows what the result was. What happened was that in the fall of 1936-because that policy stayed in operation for two years- farmers sold their wheat at a price basis Fort William varying between ninety cents and $1 a bushel. The next spring wheat was selling on the Winnipeg grain exchange at as high as $1.47 and $1.48 a bushel. Who made the difference, the spread between what the farmer sold at in the fall of 1936 and the price in the open market in the spring of 1937? The speculators made it. We had the bitter spectacle of the farmers having seed grain advanced to them through this government and the provincial governments, for which they signed notes at SI.45 a bushel-for seed wheat much of which had been bought on the prairies at less than a dollar a bushel the previous year.
In other words the policy with reference to the wheat board seems to have been that on a falling market the wheat board will be rushed in to carry the load, while on a rising market the speculator will be allowed to come in and reap his gain at the expense of the farmer.
In 1940 once more the price was up above the price which the farmer was receiving. At that time we had a general election. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) will remember that the statement was made frequently during that election-
'Mr. T. C. Douglas.]


Mr. GARDINER:: I heard that speech you are now making during that campaign.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is just as true now as it was then. The statement was made then by the Minister of Agriculture and others that because the price that was being paid for the farmer's wheat was considerably higher than the farmer was getting, there would be something payable on his participation certificates. He was getting seventy cents a bushel. The Regina Leader-Post of February 9, 1940, said:
Canadian farmers who delivered wheat to the wheat board, under present price conditions should receive from five to eight cents a bushel for their wheat for participation certificates, with chances of better prices yet prevailing, Hon, J. G. Gardiner, federal minister of agriculture, told an audience of nearly 700 people here Thursday night.
Sale of wheat now held by the board at a price between 82 and 85 cents should make such a further payment possible providing storage charges and other costs can be avoided, he said.
Hundreds of farmers across the prairies hold these participation certificates, and to every farmer they are a mute reminder of the failure of the government to make good that promise. But worse; it makes the farmer feel that these pieces of paper are worthless, consequently that orderly marketing is worthless and that the wheat board is worthless, because, those who sold on the open market got a better return than they did. The net result in the long run will be that unless this policy is changed the farmers who were most anxious to have a wheat board are going to lose faith in the board. That is why I say that if this government had deliberately set out to sabotage and discredit the wheat board they could not have done a better job than has been done by the programme that they have followed over these years.
Now we come to the present situation. The Minister of Agriculture did not hear this in 1940. The situation to-day is, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Melfort yesterday, that wheat and coarse grains are higher on the open market than the price the farmer is receiving through the board. Secondly, the price of wheat and coarse grains in the United States is much higher than the price on the open market in Canada. Who is getting the benefit of the spread between the price on the open market and the price which the farmer receives from the board? There is an 11-cent spread at the present moment on No. 1 wheat; it is SI-01 in the open market and 90 cents on sales to the board. I have here a list of the spreads in the different grades as of March 11 last, varying all the way from 6} cents to 16J cents, while on the tough grades the spread varies all the way from cents to 18J cents.

Western Grain Crop
Who is getting the benefit of that? Is the farmer getting the benefit of that spread? He is not, if we can believe the reports that are coming from the west. I have here a clipping from the Regina Leader-Post, of a dispatch from Winnipeg dated March 12, which says:
Western farmers will shortly be given an opportunity to take advantage of the recent aggressive advance in Winnipeg wheat prices, it was indicated in the grain trade here Friday.
While George Mclvor, chairman of the wheat board, is in Ottawa conferring with government officials, it is known that line elevator association officials had conferences with him on the price situation before his departure. It is understood that the line elevators have worked out a plan and will issue a price list based on open market quotations at an early date. The elevator companies have had to deal with war shipping delays and a shortage of railway equipment, which interfered with normal hedging operations.
From Ottawa it was reported that while wheat prices are running above the wheat board price, farmers could take advantage of this rise on the open market if the elevator company could obtain insurance against shipping delays. There has been an acute shortage of grain cars, and naturally the elevator companies are unable to pay the higher prices if they cannot be sure of cars in which to ship the wheat thus sold.
There is, apparently, a demand in the west that the wheat board should provide guarantees against shipping delays, but inquiry here reveals little support for such a solution. The government, however, has been making extraordinary efforts to obtain more cars, and it is thought the situation will improve steadily. As more cars became available the need of insurance against shipping delays would diminish.
What has been happening? The average line elevator company is not prepared to accept delivery of wheat at the open market price unless it can be sure of shipping it out immediately. Therefore, if he cannot get cars, the farmer must sell to the wheat board at 90 cents. Who gets the benefit of the SI .01 in the open market? For a considerable time now the wheat board has been selling wheat at the head of the lakes to commission men and speculators. These firms now have large surpluses of wheat. They are the people who have the wheat on hand and are able to take advantage of the open market. The farmer cannot take advantage of it unless he can. get cars. I believe the people on the grain exchange who bought this wheat for much less than it is worth to-day are the people who can take advantage of the open market; and they are the people who are getting any benefit that is accruing out of this increased) price in the open market.
Again I would ask, who is getting the advantage of the difference between the Winnipeg open market price and the United States market price? Once more it is not the farmer. A return already has been brought down
72537-108}
showing the number of permits granted for the export of coarse grains. We have not yet received a list of the permits granted for the export of wheat, but I imagine we shall get it in time. Why is not the wheat board exporting wheat and coarse grains? Why is it not carrying on these negotiations and sales, in order to ensure that all the money received for the wheat and coarse grains will go back to the farmers who grew them? Instead I believe the people who stand to benefit by the spread between Canadian and United States market prices are the exporters and commission men, the people who speculate in foodstuffs, in the sweat and toil of the prairie farmer. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough. Surely in war time this government and this parliament is not going to allow any group of people to speculate, to gamble or to profiteer in the foodstuffs that are so essential for the winning of the war, or upon the livelihood of the people who work on the farms of this country.
Therefore, sir, before going on with the remainder of what I have to say, I want to move, seconded by the hon. member for Mel-fort (Mr. Wright):
That all the words after "that" be struck out, and the following substituted therefor:
"This house desires to record its opinion that the grain marketing policy of the government is detrimental to the public interest and that steps should be taken to abolish trading on the Winnipeg grain exchange, in order to prevent speculation and profiteering at the expense of the farmer."
Following, that amendment I want to suggest that the government, through the wheat board, should accept delivery of coarse grains in the same manner that they have been accepting delivery of wheat; and that instead of turning these grains over to speculators, commission men and exporters when they reach the head of the lakes, the wheat board should not only accept delivery of the wheat and coarse grains but should also accept responsibility for the negotiations preceding sale, and the sale of these commodities. If that were done the farmer would be sure that every cent coming from the sale of these products would be returned to him. He would know that no one was speculating, that no one was getting a slice out of his share, somewhere between him and the ultimate consumer. That would mean that the wheat board would have to pay a fair and reasonable price for these commodities; and it is certain that at the present time, as shown by the open market prices in Canada, in the United States and in Great Britain, the farmer is not receiving a reasonable price. He is receiving a price that is far below parity, even for coarse grains, in spite of the fact that the Minister
Western Grain Crop

of Agriculture stated that coarse grains were the limiting factor upon how much live stock we could produce in this country.
The impression sometimes goes out that the farmer has more or less rounded the corner, and that he is well off now because the war is on. As a matter of fact, going over the farm income for 1942, though it has materially improved, I find that the total gross cash income for the average farm in Canada last year was 51,474.09. For Saskatchewan the gross cash income per average farm was $1,36121. That is the gross income. Out of that must be paid the threshing bill, hired help, taxes, insurance, interest on the debt, and farm operating expenses. Often these farms employ two or three persons; that is, the husband and one or more members of his family, all of whom have to get their income and sustenance, as well as their operating expenses, from the figures I have just mentioned.
The argument that has been advanced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) whenever we talk about better prices for farm products is that we are going to puncture the price ceiling. On March 22 he quoted a responsible minister in the New Zealand government, to show that in that country also they were extremely unwilling to alter their price structure. He quoted Mr. Sullivan as saying:
Thus, if stabilization brings about the fixing of wages or farm prices at their present levels, some sections of the community may feel that they are being made to contribute more towards stabilization than others. It may be only rough justice but it will be far preferable to the complete injustice which inflation run amuck would bring about.
I agree with that. But what the Minister of Finance does not tell the house is that in New Zealand a labour government which was elected in 1935 set about in 1936 to bring about a parity between farm prices and the prices of things the farmer must purchase. He did not say that they had been able to establish that parity price in pre-war years, and maintain it. The result was that when they did fix their price ceiling it was fixed on a more or less equitable basis as between agriculture and industry.
But that was not so in Canada. In this country the Minister of Finance took the arbitrary period from September 15 to October 11, 1941. He picked those dates out and said that they would be the base. All hon. members know what the situation was at that time. In 1941 the index commodity figure for field products was 56-5, for animal products 95-8 and for the average 89-9, and the figure for the cost of living was about 114. The last

figure for 1942, the latest we have-and I take it from the Economic Annalist, issued by the Department of Agriculture-indicates that even in 1942, although the situation was somewhat improved, the disparity was still marked. Field products were 66'4, animal products 107-4, the average 81-8 and living costs 118-4.
So that it is not comparable to say that New Zealand is maintaining its price ceiling, and that therefore our price ceiling is fair and that any interference with it is going to destroy our war-time economy. If the Minister of Finance is prepared to make the necessary adjustments to bring a depressed industry like agriculture up to the level of others, and then fix a ceiling, he will have no more hearty supporters than those of us in this group.
Someone quoted yesterday the Searle grain index which points out that on 147 items which farmers buy the figure is 153-7, the year 1913-14 equalling 100. The paragraph continues:
This means that these same things cost farmers of the west at the present time 53-7 per cent more than did similar items of the same quality in 1913-14. The price of wheat is now 19-9 per cent higher than it was in 1913-14. The purchasing power of a bushel of wheat is now, therefore, only 78 per cent of what it was in 1913-14.
We have heard discussions about parity prices. May I point out that so far as this group is concerned our discussions of the subject did not begin within the last year or two. We have been advocates of parity prices for farm products much longer than that. Our manifesto at Regina in 1933 said:
4. The restoration and maintenance of an equitable relationship between the prices of agricultural products and those of other commodities and services.
And our 1936 convention in Toronto passed this resolution:
The C.C.F. believes that similar legislation should be enacted immediately in Canada to provide for adequate returns and a proper standard of living for the Canadian farmer through a guarantee of minimum prices based upon the general level and price standards of other commodities.
When the Minister of Finance takes the stand that any argument about farm prices is an attempt to destroy the price ceiling structure he has set up, he overlooks the fact that already certain important commodities the farmer is compelled to buy have been allowed to break through the price ceiling structure.
Last fall, just about the time the farmer was going to buy lumber to build his granaries, lumber was allowed to increase to the extent of $12 per thousand. Repairs for farm implements have been allowed to go up. The price of newsprint has been allowed to go up $4 a

Western Grain Crop
ton. I am not complaining about these increases; they may have been necessary adjustments. But I am pointing out that some of the things the farmer has to buy have been allowed to puncture the price ceiling. It seems to me the time has come for a general revision of the price structure, so as to bring farm prices into line with those of other commodities.
The third point I would bring to the attention of the house with reference to the government's policy is that I believe it should accept some responsibility for assisting the farmer to carry his crop until it can be delivered. At the present time the entire responsibility of carrying the crop until the government is in a position to dispose of it is loaded entirely upon the farmer. He must finance threshing operations. He must meet immediate current costs. He must find material to build granaries and store wheat. He must look after his family, and at the same time pay interest on his debt. All this he must do without having received any of the cash income he expects from his crop.
In my own constituency last fall, in district after district farmers told me they were selling some of their stock in order to be able to pay threshers. Particularly was this so in the area where cars were scarce. There was a quota of five bushels per acre, and many of them had not been able to get space even for that five bushels. They had to sell pigs or cattle to get enough money to meet their immediate obligations.


Mr. EVANS:: Did they have to sell stock before it was ready?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, in some cases they were compelled to sell before they were ready, and in other cases they had to sell stock they did not wish to dispose of, or the disposal of which hurt their herds.
It is not the fault of the farmer that he could not deliver his wheat and coarse grains; neither is it the fault of the government. But the government has a responsibility in the matter. It has said, "You can deliver only a certain quantity. You can deliver it only as we have space and shipping facilities for it." Therefore it seems to me that some assistance will have to be given the farmer to help him through that period.
We suggested last year and the year before, and we are suggesting now, that an advance should be given on the deliverable portion of the farmers' wheat and coarse grains. It would not be a difficult matter to put it in the granaries, then to seal the granaries and give the farmer an advance of seventy cents on his wheat, basis Fort William. Give him an advance on his oats and barley until such time as it is possible for him to ship.
I certainly say the farmer is entitled to storage. As a matter of fact there is no better place for the storage of wheat than on the farms. That is the cheapest place it can be stored, and the farmer should be encouraged to store on his farm when he has enough room. He should be encouraged even to put up granaries, and the storage should be paid, as was done last year. One of the worst crimes one can imagine is to have wheat poured out on the ground, as I saw it in many places last fall, and covered over with sheaves or enclosed by snow fences to keep the cattle out, in the hope that it would survive the winter. When you consider that, as the hon. member for Moose Jaw very well pointed out the other day, that we may actually be faced with a shortage of grain on this continent, that in addition we may be called upon to feed the liberated peoples of the world, that the Minister of Agriculture has a tremendous programme for the production of beef, bacon, butter and cheese which in turn are dependent upon coarse grains, and that we have no guarantee that we are going to have good crops year after year, that one crop failure that would use up our surplus of coarse grains would mean a curtailment of the minister's live stock and bacon programme-


James Garfield Gardiner: Not at all.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister said last year that we had only one month's supply ahead.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not this year.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No, but if we had no coarse grains in 1943 the outlook for raising large numbers of stock in 1944 would not be very rosy. It would be a crime in my opinion if any wheat or coarse grain is allowed to rot on the prairies simply because the farmer cannot finance his crop until he is in a position to sell it.
I want to make another suggestion to the government in considering its wheat policy. The farmer's crop ought to be free from seizure by creditors. At present there is a great deal of bewilderment as to what the exact situation is. First of all, the municipality says to the farmer: You cannot get a permit to deliver your wheat until you have paid your taxes. That is right and proper. But some municipalities went further and said: You cannot get a permit until you have paid part of the seed grain advances of 1937 and 1938. That is a different story. To start to collect seed grain advances at a time when the farmer can deliver only five or six bushels and has all his obligations to meet was in my opinion a criminal act. But some of the municipalities did that.
Western Grain Crop

Then when the farmer gets a permit and begins to deliver the creditor steps in and says: We have a right to one-third of whatever is left. The quota may be ten bushels. The first four bushels may have gone for taxes and to meet other immediate obligations. Of the remaining six bushels the creditor claims two, leaving the farmer only four bushels with which to meet his threshing obligations and other expenses, rvhich cannot possibly be met out of four bushels.


James Garfield Gardiner: Taxes were not taken out of the first quota.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Out of the first four bushels.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, not necessarily.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the minister knows of any instance in which a farmer delivered wheat without paying taxes, I should like to know where it was.


Mr. TRIPP:: I could name a lot.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Then you are very fortunate.


James Garfield Gardiner: Where the municipalities made provision against it, that was not done.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I will say
this to the minister: I know very few municipalities that made provision for it. A great majority of them needed the money, particularly in the former dried-out areas, and they refused to give the farmer a permit until his taxes were paid. I do not blame them for that. All I am saying is that for a farmer to have to give the creditor one-third of the five or six bushels remaining, leaves him insufficient to meet his immediate obligations and carry on his operations. I suggest that the government take this matter in hand. It should not be left to the municipalities. After the taxes are paid the first ten bushels should be left to the farmer to meet his threshing bills and other obligations.


James Garfield Gardiner: What about the province?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister may say it is up to the province.


Mr. DONNELLY:: It is up to the municipality to say how much.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Donnelly) can make his speech later if he wants to. The municipality has no power to say what the creditor shall take.


James J. Donnelly: The municipalities are the ones who decide in regard to taxes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I was on the question of taxes five minutes ago. The hon. member should speed up his mental processes a little. I am talking now about creditors who have an agreement of sale or a mortgage which calls for one-third of the crop going to the creditor.


James Garfield Gardiner: And in mentioning that you said that the taxes took the first four bushels.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is right.


James Garfield Gardiner: But now you say you did not say that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I had finished with that point. What I am saying now is that the federal government which took the responsibility of imposing this quota has the power, if it wants to use it, to say how the farmer shall dispose of that part of his crop which he is allowed to deliver.


James Garfield Gardiner: The wheat board did that. They took care of the first quota.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Exactly, and after that what?


James Garfield Gardiner: Where the municipality took care of the taxes the whole thing was taken care of in the first quota.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am referring to what happens from there on. The mortgage company steps in and claims one-third of the five or six bushels which the farmer has left, and that does not leave the farmer enough to meet his threshing bills and look after his family and carry on his farming operations. I am asking that the first ten bushels shall be free from seizure by the mortgage or loan company. The first charge will be the farmer's taxes, and I am asking that the remainder of the grain shall be the farmer's to pay his threshing bills and living allowance, and that the mortgage and loan companies shall wait until the quota goes over ten bushels.
I am also asking the government to see that steps are taken to deal with that part of the stored crop which belongs to the creditor. The farmer is required to store one-third of his crop, which is not the farmer's grain; it belongs to the creditor. The farmer has to store in his granary something which does not belong to him and although he is storing the creditor's crop the interest on his debt, for which the crop is payment, continues to grow. I do not think the creditor should have it both ways. Either the creditor should foe compelled to accept delivery or he should pay for storage. The interest on

Western Grain Crop
the farmer's debt ought to be stopped the moment the farmer puts the grain in the granary as payment for the creditor.
I want to suggest one thing more before I sit down. The question of debt legislation enters into the picture because the debt situation has been further aggravated by this grain marketing policy and by the delivery quotas which of necessity have been imposed because of the war. But there has been uncalled for delay. The decision of the supreme court was handed down last July. Since that date two debt conferences have been held in western Canada. Both have made recommendations and suggestions to the government. The provincial governments of the three prairie provinces have also made representations. Yesterday when the member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) what action was being taken he was told that the Minister of Finance was greatly burdened. There is no one in this house who does not know that the Minister of Finance is greatly burdened and carries great responsibility. But the farmers are also greatly burdened; are the farmers supposed to wait until the Minister of Finance is less heavily burdened? Is there not someone in the government, some official, who could give consideration to this matter? We have waited month after month and no action has been taken. Some farmers have been, taken into court. Others are being harried and harassed. Others have signed quit claim deeds. An atmosphere of insecurity pervades all western agriculture. Up until now this government has done absolutely nothing about it except give the matter consideration. That will not do.
I ask this government to do two things: first, take the necessary steps-and it has power to take them-to stop all proceedings in the courts against farm debtors until such time as the necessary legislation can be passed in the house; and, second, to bring down in the house legislation under -which the machinery will be set up for adjustment of these debts at the very earliest opportunity.
These are the suggestions we make. 1. We ask the government that they close the Winnipeg grain exchange. 2. We ask that they accept delivery of all wheat and all coarse grains through the wheat board. 3. We ask them to assist the farmer in the carrying and financing of his crop. 4. We ask them to see that the first ten bushels per acre of the farmer's crop is free from seizure by creditors. 5. We ask them to take immediate steps to introduce debt legislation which will protect the farmer and give him security on his farm.
We have waited long enough for a statement. of policy from the government. I do not think we should be asked to wait any longer. This government's policy has been like a child's jigsaw puzzle; we get a little piece one day and a little piece another day. Every once in a while a minister pops up with another part, and we try to fit it in. Nobody is sure what the picture will be like when it is finished; nobody has any clear idea where the government intends to go. Bit by bit these pieces of the jigsaw puzzle come in. We want a statement of policy. We want to know what the government is going to do and how it proposes to do it. We have had enough of muddling. We have witnessed in the last two years the government blundering like an inebriated elephant on an acre of fly paper. The time has come when the government should place its policy before the Canadian people. If it does not, the tendency for men to leave the farms will continue, the tendency for people to throw up their tasks and go into other forms of enterprise will be accelerated, and this country may well find itself faced with a food shortage in the years which lie ahead.
I suggest to the government that the time has come for action, not for stalling, not for mere consideration. They must take steps now or face a complete break-down in agriculture, with all its consequences to the welfare of the Canadian people and our allies who look to us for their food supply.


Mr. J. GORDON ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I am going to take this opportunity of concluding the remarks I was making when one of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party closed me off the other day at forty minutes.


Mr. COLD WELL:: I understand that Mr. Speaker applies the rules of the house.


Mr. McNIVEN:: It was the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson).


Thomas Miller Bell: The Speaker applies the rules.


John Gordon Ross: Well, it matters little. The one hon. gentleman who objected was the hon. member for Mackenzie, and his objection was upheld-which was proper. However, at that time I was endeavouring to give the house some of my ideas and the ideas of others in regard to the handling of farm products in the future in order that the farmers of Canada may receive more remuneration from their farms than they have in the past. That did not seem to fit the ideas of my hon. friend who stopped me. I do not wonder at that, because I do not think he
Western Grain Crop

knows anything about farming. As a matter of fact there is only one member of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party in this house who is a farmer . I believe he is a good farmer; I do not know how he ever got into the outfit, but he is there, and he cannot very well get out.


Thomas Miller Bell: You are surrounded by lawyers yourself.


John Gordon Ross: My hon. friends do not seem to like that, but I do not mind.


Thomas Miller Bell: We enjoyed it.


John Gordon Ross: I wish however to continue the remarks I was making at that time. I had been speaking of asking this house and this parliament for a sum of money for the purpose of developing agricultural research in Canada; and I had covered the uses which might be made of wheat, and of linseed oil from flax, and of sunflower seed oil from sunflower seed. I had intended to discuss the uses which might be made of the meals left after the oils are extracted from sunflower seed and flaxseed. These meals are very similar, though the one of sunflower contains a much higher percentage of protein than the flaxseed meal.
Some of the things which can be made from these products to-day are being made in the United States from the soybean. I believe that the use of these meals in Canada is an unexplored avenue in agriculture in this country, where by-products may be derived which can be used to great advantage.
For instance, strange though it may seem, these articles can be derived from the high protein meals I have mentioned: milk, butter, cheese, breakfast foods, diabetic foods, infant foods, bouillon cubes, soups, confections, coffee substitutes; Vitone, Ovaltine; a substance similar to the white of egg used in the confectionery business; protein sizings and protein plastic glues; oilless water paints, leather dressings, textile finishes, cosmetics, textile fibres of the rayon, wool or nylon type. Similar meals in the United States are being used to-day to produce plastics going into the manufacture of radios, refrigerators, and many parts of automobiles such as steering wheels, horn buttons, electrical parts, instrument panels, safety glass, plastic coatings for bodies; in fact, about fifty different parts of an automobile to-day aTe made out of this type of meal.
Plastic containers for food, to be used in place of glass sealers or to can foods, can be manufactured from the plastics made from these meals. As a matter of fact since I spoke in the house I have received a letter from the editor of one of our farm papers enclosing an article which stated that the

Macmillan Petroleum Company of California were using these plastic containers made from farm products in the distribution of their lubricating oils, thereby saving something like ten million pounds of metal per year.
Building materials can be made from the stocks and hulls of these two oil bearing plants. These materials have fine insulating qualities and are fireproof and waterproof. They can be moulded to shape in order to permit buildings being constructed without the use of iron or steel. Not only are these things possible; they are actually in use today in some parts of the world.
A great portion of the population of Italy and Germany are to-day clothed in wool made from casein, which is manufactured from milk. Milk casein makes a non-shrinkable wool which is easily dyed, is moth-proof and is difficult for even an expert to distinguish from sheep's wool. From milk casein can be made paints of all colours and fine glues which are impervious to moisture and which can be used in the lamination of wood for the purpose of constructing aeroplanes and aeroplane propellers. Milk casein combined with formaldehyde and heat produces a stonelike substance called galalith, which is used to-day under many names in the manufacture of fountain pens, bathroom fixtures, lamp shades, powder boxes, combs, cutlery handles, synthetic ivory and imitation amber and jade.
These are some of the things which can be made out of the farm products produced in this country. I hope the government will see fit to appropriate the sum I mentioned when speaking before, in order to carry on continuous research to discover new uses for our farm products and thereby create a more balanced economy in this country and give the farmer a better chance to live.
I listened with much interest to the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas), and I should like to refer to some of the statements he made. I shall not attempt to cover them all, because I did not note them all down. My hon. friend apparently does not agree with the appointment of Mr. J. R. Murray as chairman of the wheat board. As I remember, Mr. Murray came in as chairman of the wheat board late in 1935 when we had some 298 million bushels of wheat on hand. Many people in Canada and in other parts of the world thought that we would never get rid of this tremendous surplus-many people are thinking the same thing to-day-yet in a short time Mr. Murray had handled the wheat in an efficient manner and had sold it without a loss.

Western Gram Crop
My hon. friend mentioned prices. I have just forgotten them, but I do not think they were correct. He spoke of low prices for wheat in the fall of 1935.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: 1937.


John Gordon Ross: 1936 and 1937.
Here are some prices that prevailed at that time:
	1936	Per bushel
August	
September	
October	
November	
December	1937	.. $1 02 .. 1 03 .. 1 10 .. 1 08 .. 1 20July	
August	
September	
December	1938	.. 1 45 .. 1 31 .. 1 33 .. 1 374January 	
February	... 1 49 .. 1 44My hon. friend	asked who got	the money.
I know he did not sell any wheat at that time, but I did. I sold my i937 wheat for $1.51 per bushel.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What month?


John Gordon Ross: In the summer time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Most farmers have to sell in the fall. They do not have an indemnity to help to carry them over.


John Gordon Ross: My hon. friend will remember it was an early harvest and the crop was loaded right into the car and sold. I will admit that it was good wheat and I got a premium of from a cent and a half to two cents per bushel. But that is what I got for it, and many other farmers got the same.
I listened to my hon. friend speaking to-day, and also to his friends and some of his enemies, I believe, in this debate, but for the first time they have not said anything about closing the grain exchange. At one time they would talk about that every time they got up to speak, but wheat has gone up about ten cents a bushel and they all know as w*ell as I do that if the grain exchange had not been open no one would dream of wheat going up to $1 a bushel to-day. As a matter of fact my hon. friends are amazed at its being up there. They now blame the speculators. If these prices stay up, any farmer w'ho has wheat to-day or who has given his wheat to the board will get a return.
My hon. friends are blaming the wheat board for not exporting wheat to the United
States, and they intimate that others are doing this and making a profit. Let me say to my hon. friends that when they speak about wheat in this house they should first get their facts right. There is no such thing as exporting wheat to the United States to-day, and there has not been for some time. The quota is only 800,000 bushels of wheat allowed into the United States from all countries. Of that Canada shipped 790,000, and someone else shipped the other 10,000 bushels and filled the quota. When anyone starts to talk about the board or anyone shipping wheat to the United States he had better slip down to Washington and arrange for it; we cannot do anything about it. Hon. members speak about the speculator. Yes, someone is purchasing wheat on the Winnipeg grain exchange for future delivery. It may be foreign governments. But that wheat is not being purchased to go to the United States at the present time, because it cannot get there. If it were allowed into the United States the price would be considerably higher than it is to-day.


Mr. WRIGHT:: Was it not the wheat board' that shipped the 790.000 bushels to the United States?


John Gordon Ross: I cannot say. It may have been farmers hauling across the border by truck under permit. Farmers are allowed at times to haul across the border when that is closer than hauling to an elevator in Canada, but they must get a permit from the wheat board.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon. member does not know. The minister should give us the information so that we do not have to guess.


John Gordon Ross: Well, 790.000 bushels went over, that is all-a pretty small bite out of the Canadian wheat crop.
My hon. friend also spoke of parity prices on farm products. We have no official index of parity prices as against prices paid the farmer in Canada; therefore the only index that can be used is the wholesale index of 1926-29 as against farm prices of 1926-29, and the wholesale index of to-day against farm prices of to-day. Working that out we find that the index of wholesale prices on everything throughout Canada to-day is the exact index it was for the average of 1926-29. Therefore it is a simple matter to work out the parity price in Canada of any farm product. I present herewith a comparison of the average prices 1926-29 and the prices yesterday of certain farm products.
1G80
Western Grain Crop

Wheat, No. 1 N	
Oats 2 CW	
Barley 1 Fd	
Rye 2 CW	
Flax seed 1 CW	
Steers, up to 1,050 pounds at Toronto
Hogs, live, similar to B.l	
Lambs	
Butter, Montreal	
Cheese, Montreal	
Eggs, Grade A Large


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Where does my friend get the basis 1926-29 as 100 as compared with this year? The bureau of statistics gives this year's wholesale figure as 118-4 as compared with the 1926 basis.


John Gordon Ross: I am giving the actual wholesale index figure for 1926-29 and the actual figure for to-day from the bureau.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Do these prices include the bonuses paid on different commodities?


John Gordon Ross: In some cases. Not the farm bonus in the west; but they do in the case of butter and cheese where the bonus is paid.
These figures show that there is not a parity of prices between certain agricultural products in Canada, but they also show that many other agricultural prices are above parity.


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: The hon. member probably has, from the same table, the total for all farm products.


John Gordon Ross: No, I have not. I procured these figures just before three o'clock.


Joseph Henry Harris: How does the hon. member account for the fact that the 1926 basis that he is using now was 100 and that at the end of December, 1942, it was 87?


John Gordon Ross: I am not using the basis 1926; I am using the average of 1926-29. There is a difference. The average for those years is different from the 100 of 1926, but the wholesale index is exactly the same to-day as it was for the average of 192629. Those were the good years in Canada.


Joseph Henry Harris: Thirteen per cent lower than it was in 1926 or in 1929.


John Gordon Ross: On some things.


Joseph Henry Harris: On all farm
products, the grand total.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is a few months ago.


John Gordon Ross: If I may proceed. During this -war our government has asked

Average price 1926-29	Price March 29, 1943	Difference141.1	100J	-40.661	51.2	- 9.873.1	61.8	-11.3103.1	65.8	-37.3196	225	+ 29$ 8.47 per cwt.	$11.50	+ 3.0311.59	12.64	+ 1.0513.83	16.00	+ 2.1741	43.4	+ 2.418.9	26	+ 7.148.2	37.5	-10.7
the farmers of this country to produce certain things. Some people have thought that we should not produce certain other things. I have never thought that; I think we should produce everything we can in the way of foodstuffs while the war is on. But it may be that it is better to produce certain coarse grains than wheat at the present time. I admit that the prices of coarse grains and wheat are lower than they were for the period 1926-29. But the things that we and our allies need most are the finished products of these coarse grains, and the prices of these finished products are all above the prices of 1926-29. There is more than parity for the farmer there, although not to the grain farmer. My hon. friend nods his head.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We are subsidizing the live stock producer.


John Gordon Ross: To some extent. On the other hand the grain farmer is rapidly becoming a live stock farmer. I think my hon. friend will agree, although he was not here all the time, that for many years I have said in and around this house that if proper prices were not given to the grain farmer it would be too bad for the other farmers of Canada. Let me say now that the grain farmer of western Canada has started in the live stock business and he is going to stay there. He is going into the live stock business. He is going into the dairy business in a large way, and he will stay in that business also. He has been asked by this government to produce these things during the war, and he has learned that it pays him well to do so. When the. war started Ontario was the great hog province of Canada.


Mr. CRUICICSHANK:: Hear, hear; it still is.


John Gordon Ross: No; Toronto. To-day the province of Alberta produces the greatest number of hogs; Manitoba is next, Ontario third, and Saskatchewan fourth, and I predict that in another year Ontario will be fourth and Saskatchewan third. Hon. members from Ontario may not agree with that,

Western Grain Crop
but I would remind them that two years ago, I think it was, I told one hon. member who interrupted me when we were dealing with coarse grains, that western Canada would produce more hogs than eastern Canada, and now the west produces a little more than twice as many hogs as the east.
I am getting a little tired of hearing hon. members from my province rise in this house and try to make out that the farmers of the west are all in terrible shape, that they cannot carry on, and that they must always lean on the government. I am a farmer, and I know the farmers pretty well. They have been asked to do a job in this war and they are doing it, especially the western farmers. For many years we as western farmers were chided in this house because we would not produce live stock. It was intimated that our people were lazy, that they liked to go to California in the winter, that they did not want to do anything except put in a crop and take it off, and have a holiday the rest of the time. Some people in this part of the country still seem to think that. I wonder if they think those hogs grow on trees out there. The western farmer is one of the most progressive men in this country, and when I say that I do not mean Progressive Conservative. You show him a job to do during the war and he will do it. You show him a way to make money to enable him to carry on without help, and he will do that too. During this war we have shown him that it is good business to produce live stock and dairy products. The minister tells me I am wrong in my figures as to hog production, but I have been looking at his own reports that come out every week, and from January 1, 1943, the order has been as I have given it, except that two weeks ago, when there was a tremendous storm out west, Ontario got ahead of Manitoba in marketings. That was for only one week, however, and in what I have said so far I am referring to the twelve.weeks period.
My hon. friend also spoke of the handling of coarse grains by the wheat board. Well, I think it was a little over a year ago that several meetings were held in Saskatchewan by the wheat pool at which the policy of the government in regard to wheat was criticized. I was at one of those meetings, which was also attended by the chairman or president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool. He spoke from the platform, and I also spoke. I asked the chairman of the wheat p.ool if these were not the reasons that the pool was formed in the first place: First, for the orderly marketing of wheat; second, to sell through a central selling agency; third, to pay an advance price to the farmer and give a participation certificate;
fourth, to sell the farmer's wheat and to return to the farmer the best price that could be obtained in the world, less the actual cost of handling. The chairman of the wheat pool admitted on that platform that this was correct. He also admitted that, perhaps through no fault of their own, they had failed to carry out that policy. What ha3 been the policy of this government in regard to wheat? First, the orderly marketing of wheat; second, selling through a central selling agency; third, giving an advance price to the farmer with a participation certificate; and fourth, selling the wheat in the world market at the best price obtainable and turning over to the farmer everything above the actual cost of handling. That has been the actual policy of this government. That is what the pool was formed to do. If last fall the pools had wanted to be true cooperatives and pool coarse grains, there was never in the world a better opportunity to do so. A floor was put under barley and oats, below which prices could not go. The pools could have made that floor price the advance to the farmer. They could have pooled the grain for the farmer, had they wanted to carry on as pools, and sold it at higher prices, as it is being sold to-day, turning the money back to the farmer. But they did not do so; they dealt just as any other grain company did. They handled oats and barley for the farmer in the same way that any other elevator company would handle them.
I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), who, as I said before, is a good farmer, who knows a great deal about farming, and who had a right and indeed an obligation to get up in this house and discuss these matters. The hon. member moved an amendment which you, Mr. Speaker, ruled out of order. The hon. member brought to the attention of the house and of the country the position of the farmers and the question of grain marketing. That was perfectly proper. Now this afternoon the hon. member for Weybum moves another amendment. What for? For political reasons only.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: I rise to a question of privilege. The hon. member cannot attribute motives to me.


John Gordon Ross: I did not impute any personal motives to my hon. friend. I said he moved an amendment for political purposes only.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. gentleman should withdraw, because he is casting doubt upon the intentions of the hon. member for Weybum, and imputing to the hon. gentleman something
16S2
Western Grain Crop

other than is contained in his amendment. That is something which I think should be withdrawn.


John Gordon Ross: Well, Mr. Speaker, if that is your ruling, I am glad to withdraw the words.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, and not wanting to take part in this controversy as between the Liberal members on the one side and the members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation on the other, I do suggest that to say an amendment is political surely is not imputing motives. Nearly all these amendments are political.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member suggested that in moving his amendment the hon. member for Weyburn did so simply for political purposes, and suggested that therefore he does not believe in the sentiments expressed in his amendment, which I would say is contrary to the rales and should be withdrawn.
Mr. DOUGLAS. (Weyburn):	The hon.
member has questioned my sincerity.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, he did. He said I am introducing the amendment purely for political purposes. I ask him to withdraw that.


John Gordon Ross: I would have withdrawn long ago if my hon. friend had allowed me. I lost two or three minutes the other day from my time because of a discussion of this kind.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: The hon. member
should be more careful.


John Gordon Ross: Hon. members in the corner are of the opinion, I believe- surely I can say that-that there may be a provincial election in Saskatchewan, Yesterday the hon. member for Lake Centre imputed the motives I speak of to members of the Saskatchewan legislature, but he was not asked to withdraw.


Thomas Miller Bell: They are not in this house, though.


John Gordon Ross: No. Well then, I will say something else-and probably my hon. friends will wish me to withdraw that.


Mr. HOMUTH:: They will not be in the provincial house, either.


John Gordon Ross: As I say, they no doubt think an election is coming in Saskatchewan. And therefore-


An hon, MEMBER:: Is there?


John Gordon Ross: I would not think so. I think the people are perfectly satisfied with the government they have to-day.
Mr. DOUGLAS ' (Weyburn): May I suggest to the hon. member that he may not have been home lately?


John Gordon Ross: I was home about as long as my hon. friend was-although I will admit I was not running around bothering about politics as he was. I had other things to do. As a matter of fact the hon. member held meetings in the provincial constituency of Morse, which happens to be in my federal constituency. I do not blame him for that. He is the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation provincial party, and I know he is afraid to run in Weyburn city; therefore he has to go out to look for some other seat. I know, too, that in all probability the hon. member feels that the policy enunciated by his party in this house in 1939 might find some favour with people in that constituency who are of German descent. But I want to tell him that they are as loyal citizens as any people in Canada, and if he wants to come to the constituency of Morse both they and I will help to see to it that he is out of public life for a little while at any rate.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: My hon.
friend knows there is already a Cooperative Commonwealth Federation candidate in Morse.


John Gordon Ross: I did not know, but I never saw a candidate who would not withdraw for a leader.
The hon. member spoke about some other things, and mentioned New Zealand particularly. I was amazed that he did not mention New Zealand, Australia and the Argentine in connection with the price of wheat. In every other debate those things have been thrown at us every time. Apparently the farmer in Canada who sells wheat is better treated than the farmer in New Zealand, the Argentine oi Australia. I have some figures here from the secretary of the international committee on wheat at Washington. He gives for Argentine wheat the price of 54 cents per bushel as being the equivalent under the official rate of exchange for Canadian money. For Australian wheat the equivalent is 64 cents per bushel.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: On the farms?


John Gordon Ross: No, not on the farms. These are the prices for Australia and the Argentine. I have not the New Zealand figure, but New Zealand is not a big wheat producer. However it is apparent that these

Western Grain Crop
things have been forgotten by my hon. friend, because they are facts which would not show us up in a bad light.
The government of this country from the start of the war has worked out a sound agricultural policy. The farmer has been getting into a better position all the time. I have said previously in the house that we would need all the wheat and farm products that could be produced. I have said also that the only way to raise those prices is for the governments of the United States and Canada to get together and arrange between them to assume their respective responsibilities for the handling of the production of food for the allies. They must arrange for the shipment of that food. When that is done we may have a price structure as between Canada and the United States which does not show the disparity that exists to-day. But let me remind hon. members that while we are down on grain and live stock prices as compared with the United States, the man in the United States who is getting a higher price for his live stock, his butter or his eggs is paying a much higher price for his feed grain. We hear the argument that the Canadian farmer is not being paid enough for his field crops, yet he is not in a disadvantageous position compared with the live stock producer in the United States, simply because that producer pays so much more for the raw products which go into his finished article. The result is that he is not making a bit more money to-day than is the farmer in Canada.


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I did not think I would have an opportunity to speak before six o'clock. However, there are some matters raised in the debate to which I should like to make reply.
The debate has covered a wide range of subjects. It has gone far beyond the marketing of wheat, which is the direct concern of my department. The -hon. member for Mel-fort (Mr. Wright) has complained that the annual report of the Canadian wheat board for 1942-43 has not yet been referred to the committee on agriculture to which, I said, earlier this session, I should be very glad to have it sent. At as early a date as possible it is my intention to ask that the report be referred to the committee in question. As a matter of fact I should be quite prepared to do so now, were it not for the fact that members of the wheat board at this moment are, and have been for some time past, engaged in the serious consideration of vital problems affecting agriculture in Canada. The report to which reference has been made covers operations to the end of July, 1942.
The board has been here to consider various subjects discussed in the house yesterday and to-day. During the two weeks they have been here, interruptions have been caused in part by the discussion of problems facing various ministers of the government who are members of the wheat subcommittee of the cabinet. I am told it would be at the risk of having these problems suffer if members of the wheat board were now called before the committee on agriculture for the discussion of a report which, at the moment, is not of vital importance. I am not just sure how long it may take to straighten out the matters which require the immediate attention of members of the board, but it may be well on in April, possibly not until after recess, that I might feel I could properly ask them to appear before the committee on agriculture.
In this debate much has been said about coarse grains and the advance in price elsewhere beyond the ceiling. This problem has been giving the government much concern. Our anxiety is that the whole increase in price be returned to the producer, with the middle man receiving his ordinary normal profit. I am advised by the wheat board that in our anxiety in that direction they have the full sympathy and cooperation of the dealers in Winnipeg and of the grain exchange organization. The dealers do not want a profit beyond that to which they are properly entitled. As a matter of fact they call such a profit an unwelcome one because they are aware that it would react seriously against them.
A great deal of the oats which have been going to the United States and on which it has been stated that excessive profits are being made were contracted for before coarse grains reached the ceiling in Canada. A very large proportion of the coarse grains which have been shipped to the United States have been shipped merely in completion of purchases and contracts made when this situation of increasing prices did not exist. To avoid any of this profit going to anybody but the original producer the wheat board have handled the problem up to date by a restricted granting of permits. Quite recently the situation developed to a point where it was decided that other steps would have to be taken to control the spread in coarse grain prices. A new policy has been discussed and a submission prepared for council. I may say frankly that I had hoped to submit to council yesterday that submission from the wheat committee of the cabinet and from the wheat board. However, other matters of
16S4
Western Grain Crop

vital concern to agriculture in western Canada occupied council up to almost three o'clock, and to-day exactly the same situation prevailed but for another reason. I hope that I shall be able to get this recommendation for handling the coarse grain situation before the cabinet shortly and get its approval so that I can present it to the house almost immediately.
The hon. member for Melfort referred yesterday to some returns that he had been anxious to get. I understood they were in connection with grain matters, and I interrupted to say that the returns had been tabled that day.


Percy Ellis Wright: I have not received them yet.


James Angus MacKinnon: I have been looking through Votes and Proceedings and I cannot find any record of any return asked for by the hon. member for Melfort that is still outstanding. When I stated that the returns had been tabled I had in mind returns asked for by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) and the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden). There is no trace that I have been able to find in Votes and Proceedings of any information asked for by the hon. member for Melfort that has not been tabled.
Some of those participating in this debate have spoken as if the advance in wheat prices has not been a good thing for the farmers. This advance in the price of wheat is of direct benefit to the producer of wheat in Canada. If he has not yet delivered his fourteen-bushel quota, he can sell within the quota at the price prevailing on the Winnipeg exchange.


James Lester Douglas: If he can get cars.


James Angus MacKinnon: It is not a matter of getting cars, but one of being able to deliver within his .quota to the elevator. If his- elevator happens to be filled at the moment he is in exactly the same position as any other farmer who for one reason or another is not able to take advantage of the price of wheat on that particular day.


Percy Ellis Wright: Are the line elevator companies buying street wheat on the basis of the Winnipeg exchange cash prices to-day?


James Angus MacKinnon: Unfortunately I am not able to answer offhand some of these technical questions. I have 
informed myself by consulting with my advisers, and I am advised that the farmer can sell at the advanced price on the Winnipeg exchange if he is able to deliver within his quota. I do not think there is any question in this house that the quota system has proved an advantageous method of handling wheat and has been accepted as satisfactory by the producers of the west. Even if the farmer has delivered his full quota, he stands to benefit by the returns from sales being made by the wheat board at the advancing prices on the Winnipeg grain exchange, which increased prices will be reflected in the participation certifications that the farmers hold.
I should like to say a word or two in connection with the direct benefit which the Winnipeg grain exchange has been in this situation. If it had not been for the buying on the Winnipeg exchange and for its operations, the only way in which the farmer could have reaped the benefit of an increased price over ninety cents was by the government arbitrarily raising the price of wheat and the initial payment to the western farmer. I think all hon. members will agree that such a policy would have met with resistance in certain parts of this country. The price prevailing on the exchange has afforded to the government an index of the market value of wheat, although we have a tremendous surplus of wheat which we are unable to sell.
The hon. member for Melfort criticized the government for making it impossible to ship wheat to the United States to take advantage of the higher prices there. The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) has dealt with that subject, but I will add a word or two.
What are the facts? The United States has placed an embargo quota against all higher grades of wheat from other countries, including Canada. The embargo applies to all over and above 800,000 bushels, and this quota, as has been pointed out, has already been filled.
It has been asserted more than once in this chamber that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture severely criticized the Minister of Trade and Commerce in connection with his method of announcing Canadian wheat and grain policy for the coming year. Very shortly afterwards, however, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture met by appointment the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and certain members of the government; and in its representation to the cabinet it used these words:
Our organization recently expressed its regret that some features of government agricultural policy for the coming crop year had been announced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce before there was opportunity to lay before

Western Grain Crop
the government expressions of views which were being formulated at that time. From assurances, since received from the Minister of trade and Commerce, it is evident that the occurrence in question was not due to any intention to ignore w'hat our organization might have to put before the government. The fact that this delegation is here to-day is accepted as further assurance that the government will be prepared to give due and full consideration to the representations which we are submitting.
I have been asked as Minister of Trade and Commerce to submit to the house the recommendations from the advisory committee to the Canadian wheat board. Frankly, personally I should like very much indeed to submit these recommendations. The hon. member for Weybum (Mr. Douglas) has asked for submission to the house of these and other documents. The matter has been delayed more than I had intended because I am giving close thought to the possibility of submitting that report to the house. What causes me to hesitate is that at the present time I believe it would be a breach of faith on my part to submit this report, which can, I think, be considered as a confidential or a privileged one, without first at least consulting the advisory committee. I can conceive of these carefully selected men-men who have been selected from the various western wheat pools, agricultural organizations in western Canada, the trade, and other similar organizations-hesitating quite a bit about giving their best advice- and I know that any advice they give is their best-to the government if they knew that this government would, in turn, make that advice public. However, the matter is under consideration, and I hope to make a return to the hon. member for Weybum within a very short time.
In connection with payment of farm storage on wheat, I hope to see the time in Canada, and that shortly, when circumstances will be such that every farmer will be able to have a reserve supply of wheat in storage on his farm. I remember, in the early days in Ontario, in going to my uncle's farm, seeing him with a fanning mill cleaning a load of wheat to take to town in order to buy various necessities. It occurred to me that that operation was very much like a bank account; and I think it would be a good thing for the economy of the country if we could get back as far as possible to each farmer being able to carry a reserve of wheat on his farm.
The trouble about the problem at the moment is not theoretical but actual. Our advisers tell us of the troubles they are facing in operating the wheat policy as announced by the government. Transportation has deteriorated tremendously since that policy was announced. There is also the matter of storage. These two factors, taken together, have led the government to decide that, at least at the present time, it cannot pay storage in respect of farm stored grain, for the reason that there would be a natural tendency to hold back that grain on the farm. In order to carry out our policy of taking 280 million bushels of wheat this crop year, we had to urge the farmers to deliver their grain at the earliest possible time. In this connection, at present we should have from one thousand to twelve hundred railroad cars a day to enable us with safety to accept what we have undertaken to accept within this crop year. After doing everything possible to improve the situation, we have succeeded up to the present time in securing from the railroad companies and other sources something less than five hundred cars a day.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What is the object of moving that wheat when we have a large surplus at the terminals? Why not keep the wheat on the farm and use the cars for moving coarse grains?


James Angus MacKinnon: The purpose of moving the grain is to get it to the lakehead where there is storage space available. If there is a delay in marketing the wheat and the wheat is being held back, and continues to be held back into June or July, it will be physically impossible for us to get it to the lakehead.


Percy Ellis Wright: I happen to know that there is in the elevators a large amount of grain which could be moved.


James Angus MacKinnon: I do not think that comment or rhetorical question has any bearing on the statement I have just made.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: Some months ago
a statement appeared in the press to the effect that the republic of Mexico or interests in that country were prepared to purchase more than 10,000,000 bushels of wheat, or had arranged to make this purchase. However, for some reason or another, transportation facilities were not available. Could the minister enlarge upon that news report?


James Angus MacKinnon: My information is that negotiations were proceeding for the purchase of Canadian wheat for shipment to Mexico. I believe this transaction was not carried out in its entirety because an order was issued refusing passage of this wheat over United States railroads.
Western Grain Crop


John George Diefenbaker: To what extent
was the transaction carried out? As I understand it, it was a completed transaction with a definite price established and a portion of the grain being shipped, but that finally transportation difficulties arose which made it impossible to complete the transaction.


James Angus MacKinnon: I
think that statement is more or less accurate. I do not know the exact quantity of wheat which was shipped, if any, but my understanding is that there was a certain amount. I cannot even say that any completed arrangement was made, but negotiations had been under way for the purchase of a substantial amount of wheat. I think the amount mentioned by the hon. member for Lake Centre is correct. As I said, I believe a certain amount was actually en route when steps were taken to forbid the transportation systems of the United States handling this wheat.


John George Diefenbaker: Who made the
order forbidding the shipping of this wheat to Mexico, and were any representations made to release Canada from the effects of that order?


James Angus MacKinnon: On account of the very nature of the transaction the government of the United States was kept informed by the wheat board of the negotiations that were in progress. When it was found that the transaction could not be completed, as far as I know no further representations were made to the government of the United States.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: The minister said that the fact that the grain exchange was kept open was responsible for the present price of wheat and that, therefore, holders of participation certificates would benefit to that extent. Could he give us any idea as to the degree to which the wheat board participated in these trades and if in practically all cases they were not a party to the trading which has taken place on the exchange and which has resulted in bringing the price up to the present level?


James Angus MacKinnon: I have heard criticism directed at the wheat board for not offering more wheat.


James Arthur Ross: That does not answer my question.


James Angus MacKinnon: I think in the good judgment of the wheat board sufficient wheat was offered to enable the board, acting for the farmers of western Can-

ada, to get the benefit of rising prices. They did not take any action that would tend to stop that rise in price.


James Arthur Ross: They were directly
interested in the majority of the trades?


James Angus MacKinnon: I
believe they were interested in the majority of the trades.


James Arthur Ross: The board were
responsible for present prices.


Mr. PERLEY:: A little while ago the
minister said that the increase in the price of wheat resulted from the purchase of wheat by exporters or grain interests in order to fill contracts which had been made. Did the board release cash wheat to fill the contracts to these firms, or were they just options?


James Angus MacKinnon: I know the hon. member is asking this question in good faith.


Ernest Edward Perley: I took down the minister's statement.


James Angus MacKinnon: I think the point the hon. member wishes to raise is in connection with the nature of the transactions that have taken place. I believe he wants to know whether these are merely grain exchange transactions or whether they actually represent a disappearance of wheat. I can answer my hon. friend by saying that the transactions on the grain exchange will mean an actual reduction in the visible supply of wheat.


Ernest Edward Perley: Held by the board?


James Angus MacKinnon: Held by the board.


Ernest Edward Perley: How about the options?


James Angus MacKinnon: I do not think this is the time and place for a technical argument.


Ernest Edward Perley: Will the minister state whether the board sold options as fast as they took delivery of the wheat in the elevators? Did they hedge by selling options? If they did, did they deliver options or cash grain in connection with these sales? That is all 1 want to know. If they took back the options, there is nothing to it.


James Angus MacKinnon: The hon. member has just said that if they took back the options, there is nothing to it. That is the point I wish to make. This transaction looks forward to the disposal of physical

Western Grain Crop
wheat. The wheat is contracted for on the basis of May delivery, and up to that time the seller pays the carrying charges. From the May contract date on he must make his own arrangements about the wheat, but as far as the wheat board and the government are concerned this represents an actual physical disappearance.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it a firm contract, or is it an option to resell the option?


James Angus MacKinnon: I must ask hon. members to withhold these technical questions at this time. There is no question that the information I have given the house is correct. The transactions represent an actual disappearance of physical wheat.


Ernest Edward Perley: Will the minister permit one more question?


James Angus MacKinnon: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to be undisturbed for a moment? There is another time and place when those well qualified technically will be able to answer these questions to the full satisfaction of hon. members opposite.


Ernest Edward Perley: We did not have that experience last year.


James Angus MacKinnon: The hon. member for Melfort raised a question as to the rights of the landlord and tenant in the fourteen-bushel quota of wheat. I am not sure whether the hon. member has seen the consolidated regulations of the wheat board which were issued in November, but since they carefully and clearly set out this situation I think I should put them on the record. Section 15 reads:
15. The producer actually carrying on the farming operations shall have the prior right to possession of the permit.
(a)	Whenever a quota of the grain produced on any land becomes deliverable, any producer entitled to a definite share of the crop as landlord, vendor, mortgagee or otherwise, shall be entitled to have delivered in his name a share of such quota proportionate to such producer's said definite share of the crop, and shall have full right to make delivery as a producer, and for such purpose the permit holder shall make the permit book available; provided that the actual producer shall be entitled to deliver the first five bushels of wheat permitted to be delivered for each authorized acre shown in the permit book, but such priority for delivery of the first five bushels shall not diminish the total amount of wheat which any other producer is entitled to receive and deliver or have delivered from the land covered in the permit book; this proviso, however, shall not apply
where the actual producer is merely a tenant under lease from a landlord and is not a mortgagor or purchaser.
Provided further that nothing in this regulation shall in any way derogate from, or interfere with any provincial law or enactment.
(b)	The enforcement of this regulation shall be the direct concern and responsibility of the interested parties themselves and no legal obligation shall devolve on the board in respect thereto.
(c)	"Actual producer" shall mean a producer actually engaged in the production of wheat. "Authorized acreage" and "basic acreage" shall mean the acreage for wheat delivery purposes established by the Canadian wheat board for the farm lands described in the permit book pursuant to regulations Nos. 3 and 4 above.
The hon. member for Lake Centre, in dealing with the problem, touched on a matter that is of great importance to many wheat producers in western Canada. That is the problem of damp wheat. It is a tragic thing for a producer with damp wheat who possibly has delivered his fourteen bushels, all he is able to deliver under his quota, to be told that in no circumstances is it likely that anything further can be done for him. He is to a great extent in the same position as the producer of higher grades of wheat in proper condition who has delivered his quota and still finds himself with a surplus to dispose of. The matter has been taken care of as far as possible by the wheat board furnishing cars to elevator points where farmers have damp wheat for delivery within the quota.


Thomas Miller Bell: How successful has that been?


James Angus MacKinnon: I am told that it has been very successful in certain districts where there is space available for the damp wheat.	.
Mr. COLDWELL; I had a letter this morning from a farmer who told me again that the grain in his neighbourhood was damp and that the quota was only ten bushels at his point.


James Angus MacKinnon: Unfortunately we are dealing with a very large number of farmers over a wide stretch of country of very diversified climate and weather conditions. There are these tragic situations with which it is impossible to deal as everyone concerned would like to see them dealt with.
Mr. DIEFENBAKER; Will the minister permit a question?


James Angus MacKinnon: I should like to finish this one point, and then I shall be glad to answer. We must remember that our first duty under our policy is to
16S8
Western Grain Crop

the quota holder. If we attempt to give way here and there and allow overdeliveries and take wet grain, we are prejudicing the position of the man who has a quota to deliver and who looks to us to take that quota from him.


John George Diefenbaker: What I had in
mind is that if conditions in other parts of western Canada are similar to those in my constituency and where I live, millions of bushels of wheat will be lost this spring through dampness. Has the minister taken the question up with the scientific authorities attached to his department so that something will be done now? I realize the difficulty; I did when I spoke yesterday, but I should like to know what is actually being done to prevent what will be a terrible loss unless some action is taken within the next two or three weeks.


James Angus MacKinnon: I
quite agree, and I am sure we all agree with the remarks of the hon. member regarding this particular difficulty that is being encountered in connection with the western wheat crop. All I can say at the moment is that the problem is receiving (he earnest attention of the wheat board and ourselves, and under our responsibility to the wheat producers of western Canada everything possible will be done to handle the situation.
It was suggested by at least one hon. member opposite that the government deserve some criticism for not having a long-range wheat policy. Nothing would please us more than if we were able at this time to formulate a long-term wheat policy. But world conditions to-day make that impossible.
The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Hlynka) spoke of a farmer going to him, being anxious to deliver over the quota in order to meet certain liabilities. I am sure every hon. member who has any connection with western Canada has run across many such cases. He spoke of fourteen bushels. Put in that way, fourteen bushels does not seem much, but fourteen bushels is a pretty good average crop in western Canada. In addition, fourteen bushels an acre may mean, even to a small wheat farmer, two or three or four thousand dollars, and may mean many more thousands to the larger wheat farmers. Out of the proceeds of the quota of fourteen bushels T think any farmer should be in a position to take care of the demands of reasonable creditors. I have been in western Canada for a long time; I have never actually farmed myself although I have owned producing farms, but I have been close to the farmer in his troubles. My experience has always been that any farmer who is a reasonably good moral
I Mr. ,T. A. MacKinnon.]
risk had very little difficulty in dealing with reputable creditors. Deliveries over the quota in cases of that kind would merely make more difficult our problem, as I have already mentioned, in accepting the fourteen-bushel quota as promised.
The question was raised, I relieve by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley), of the advisability of advancing to holders of farm stored wheat money by way of loan, possibly along lines similar to what has been done in the United States. I believe my information is correct when I say that the situation in Canada as regards granaries is quite different from that in the United States. In peace time a granary system was built up in the United States, so that now the farmer has, either on his land or elsewhere, proper granaries which can be sealed when a loan is made. I do not believe that in the great majority of cases in western Canada farm granary storage is conducive to sealing in this way. Of course at the moment there is very little possibility of doing anything by way of assistance in connection with the erection of granaries on farms, having regard to the very great shortage of lumber, nails and so on.
Then there was some criticism because there had not been any announcement of changes in our wheat policy. That wheat policy was submitted to this parliament at the earliest possible opportunity, for I had in mind the criticism in former years in regard to delays in submitting the grain policy to parliament. After very careful consideration, that policy was submitted to this house during the first few days of the session, so that the farmers might know the programme and make their arrangements accordingly. Minor changes in this policy may be brought about by unforeseen circumstances, but I can, assure hon, members that in the main the policy as submitted at that time will be the policy for the coming year.
I should like to join with the hon. member for Moose Jaw in expressing regret that so much talk has come from certain quarters as to the condition of blue ruin and desolation said to exist in western Canada. Our west is a great country. There are localities in which there have been conditions of real hardship, where conditions even now are anything but good, but on the whole the west is in better shape to-day than perhaps it ever has been. I am grateful to hon. members opposite, Mr. Speaker, for the very fair and constructive speeches that have been made on this subject.

Western Grain Crop


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a few remarks on the question now before the house mainly because some statements have been made which might mislead farmers as to the programme for 1943. I quite agree with hon. members who hold the opinion that sometimes thoughts which are expressed by some hon. members may be relied upon by some farmers throughout the country to a greater extent than announcements which may be made by the department, so that I consider it wise to correct one or two of the statements made and to place the facts on the record together with those speeches, in order that they may be read at the same time.
The first statement to which I wish to direct attention was made by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and appears at page 1648 of Hansard for March 29, as follows:
When the Minister of Agriculture spoke in Saskatoon on January 15 he announced certain plans in connection with the production of wheat, oats, barley and rye. There was to be a decrease in the production of all these grains, but an increase in the production of mixed grains.
I call attention to this last statement in particular:
There was to be a decrease in the production of all these grains, but an increase in the production of mixed grains. There was to be no increase in the production of flax, but there was to be an increase in the production of hay and clover and a pronounced increase in the production of alfalfa. According to the news report of the British United Press, the minister went on to say:
"Mr. Gardiner stated that the price inducement to meet these goals and acreage payments will be revealed to-day."
I do not know what report of the British United Press was read by the hon. member for Lake Centre, but I have in my hand a copy of the British United Press report which appeared in the Regina Leader-Post of January 16 and also in a weekly newspaper, the Alameda Dispatch, of January 22. This is what I find:
Here are the percentages of change in acreage required in 1943 as compared with 1942.
Wheat: 14 per cent decrease.
Oats: 12 per cent increase.
Barley: 11 per cent increase.
Rye: 31 per cent decrease.
Mixed grains: 1 per cent increase.
Flaxseed: No increase.
Hay and clover: 8 per cent increase.
Alfalfa: 17 per cent increase.
It will be noted that in mixed grains, which my hon. friend says was the only item in which there was to be an increase, that increase was only one per cent. Oats and barley both show a much greater increase.
Mr. Gardiner stated that the price inducement to meet these goals and acreage payments will be revealed shortly.
That does not say to-day. That was the report as it appeared in two newspapers which I checked, and it is a proper report of what was said at Saskatoon.
I should like to direct attention to the fact that there has been published by the Department of Agriculture this year a pamphlet entitled, "Objectives for Canadian Agriculture in 1943." This pamphlet contains forty-four pages and deals with every product that has been discussed here yesterday and to-day, giving the exact acreages that we wish this year, with the exception of flax with which I will deal in a few moments. It gives a report of what is desired in connection with all meats, all dairy products and all other farm products that are required in Canada this year, and it gives all the details the farmer requires in order to have the proper information with regard to these products. The point I wish to make is that this pamphlet is or will be in the hands of all farm organizations. It is or will be in the hands of all county or municipal councils across Canada. It is in the hands of all provincial departments of agriculture and, I presume, in the hands of all agricultural representatives sent out by provincial departments, and by the federal department of agriculture. There is, therefore, no reason why either hon. members or farmers should not be fully informed in regard to agricultural policies.
While I have been in the house-and I must say I am not in a position to say whether it was said while I was out of the house, and I have not had an opportunity to read all the speeches

the statement has not been made in this debate which was made so often before, namely, that a policy was never announced. Emphasis has been placed upon the fact that one change was made in the policy announced on December 9 last.
In order that hon. members may have the information readily available, I would ask the privilege to have the table appearing at page 6 of this pamphlet, showing the increases and the decreases asked for on December 9, placed in Hansard. It is as follows:
Western Grain Crop



OBJECTIVES FOR CANADIAN AGRICULTURE IN 1943

[Stage Direction]
-		1942 production	1943 objective	Per cent change for 1943
Field Crops-				
Oats	.... thousand acres	13,782	15,388	12% increaseBarley	6,973	7,788	12% "Mixed grain	it tt	1,681	1,700	1% "Wheat	21,586	18,648	14% decreaseRye	1,337	924	31% "Flaxseed	.	1,492	1,492	No changeHay and clover	9,707	10,450	8% increaseAlfalfa	it tt	1,440	1,690	17% "Meat A nimals (commercial marketings)-	Hogs	6,250	8,000	28% increaseCattle	<< <<	1,100	1,197	9% "Calves	u it	780	769	2% decreaseSheep and lambs	u u	802	901	12% increaseDairy Products-	Milk (total)	17,487	18,500	6% increaseButter (creamery)	a u	283	323	14% "Cheese (factorv)	it tt	202	202	maintainedEvaporated milk	tt u	182	190	5% increaseCondensed " 	tt a	24	18	27% decreasePowdered " 	11	16	41% inceaseEggs and Poultry-	Eggs	274	345	29% increasePoultry (chickens)	
" pounds	235	293	25% "Turkeys	a tt	38	43	13% "Fruits and Vegetables-	Potatoes	507	500	11% increaseCanning crops	(maintained or i	ncrease)Truck crops	(maintained or increase)	Fruits	(maintained or increase)	Other Crops-	Field peas	90	90	maintained" beans	tt a	80	61	24% decreaseSugar beets	tt tt	63	90	42% increaseSoybeans	tt tt	47	90	91% "T obacco	tt tt	77	87	13% "Fibre flax	tt tt	47	75	60% "Clover seed (red)	it tt	2,880	6,500	126% "" " (alsike)	1,212	3,500	189% "" " (sweet)	4,959	5,500	11% "Alfalfa seed	tt tt	5,894	9,000	53% "Vegetable and root seeds	tt it	(mostly sharply increased for 19*13)	Miscellaneous-	Honey	(maximum possible)	Maple products	(maximum possible)	Horses (on farms June 1)	2,816,080	(maintain present stock)	
There was only one change made between December 9 and the time this pamphlet was issued. There has been only one change down to the present time. What I wish to announce to-day is that so far as that change is concerned we are going back to the original request made of farmers on December 9 with regard to flax. We are asking farmers this year to grow about a million acres more flax than they grew last year.
May I repeat that the only change made in this announced policy from December 9 down to the present time, either by myself or by any official in the country who has been dealing with the matter, has been the change with regard to flax acreage and the necessary adjustment in wheat acreage. That has been discussed at some length in the house. I need

only mention to hon. members, particularly those from western Canada, one of the difficulties we ran into last year in relation to feed grain in order to emphasize the necessity for avoiding the same condition this year in relation to flax. We thought last year we had an assured market for all the feed grains we could grow in western Canada in any year. Our experience of the past led us to believe that we could anticipate a condition of that kind. We had marketed about 50,000,000 bushels of coarse grain annually, or probably somewhat less than that. And when we were discussing the possibility of marketing 200,000,000 bushels no one anticipated that anything could happen in 1942 which would make it impossible to market all our surplus feed grain. Every hon. member knows what happened in 1942.

Western Grain Crop
Our hon. friends across the way are not prepared to admit that the government showed any wisdom even in that matter, when we asked for a greater increase in acreage of feed grains than had ever been heard of in this country. They like to give all the credit to the fact that we had good weather conditions. I admit again that good weather conditions were necessary. But good weather conditions last year brought forth the very problem which has been discussed for the last two days on the floor of this house, the fact that grain is lying in fields all over western Canada. Not only did we produce the 200,000,000 bushels of coarse grain which we knew we might have a market for, and which we still hope we shall have a market for, but we produced 300.000,000 bushels more than that. And it is those extra 300,000.000 bushels which are the problem of the western farmer to-dav -those extra 300,000,000 bushels, or half of that amount at least.
What I should like to suggest to hon. members is this: Would they have advised in January of this year our going out and insisting on farmers producing another million acres of flax at a time when we were informed that there might be difficulty found in marketing that flax, because crushing facilities might not be available? What would hon. members have been saying to me as Minister of Agriculture in the last few weeks the house has been in session, if that information had been made known at the time the house met and I had not said to farmers, "Go easy in the matter of flax until we are able to announce something further with regard to your crop of this year." I have no doubt the farmers heeded our warning in that connection. But at the same time we stated that if there were to be any change in policy with regard to the acreage of flax, or the amount of flax which could be disposed of this year, that announcement would be made in sufficient time to allow the farmers to seed their flax this year, and have it available.
We did not leave it at that. We continued our negotiations with the United States. We entered into negotiations with the British government; and those negotiations have now advanced to the point where I can say with some assurance that farmers will be safe this year to sow an extra million acres of flax. And if they do, we expect they will be able to dispose of it.
Having said that, I should like hon. members, when they have this table before them,
to look at the two items of wheat and flax. I would ask them to place the wheat item back where it was in December when we asked for an 18 per cent decrease in wheat acreage, and to raise the flax item from "no change" to an increase of one million acres. Then the table will be exactly as it was intended on December 9, 1942, with regard to all farm products.
James Lester Douglas: Will copies of the publication be available to all hon. members?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; they are available to anyone desiring to get them. The table itself will be in Hansard.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, at six
o'clock I had just completed placing on Hansard the policy of the government as announced, asking for production in agriculture in 1943. I had commented that on this occasion hon. members were not stating that no policy had been announced but had been paying some attention to one change which had been made in the policy as announced on the 9th of December last compared1 with what had been stated with regard to flax in January, 1943, and had suggested that we are now announcing that we expect the farmer to go back to the acreage asked for on the 9th of December, or to increase the acreage in flax by 1,000,000 acres. But in this debate, beginning with the mover of the first amendment (Mr. Wright), quite a number of hon. members have suggested that the policy was announced on this occasion without first consulting the farm organizations of Canada. I wish at this time to supplement what has already been said by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) by reading the correspondence between the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture as a result of the discussions which took place at Calgary.
On January 30, 1943, I received the following telegram from Calgary, Alberta, sent by Mr. H. H. Hannam, president of the farm federation :
Hon. Jas. Gardiner,
Minister of Agriculture, Ottawa, Ont.
We register our protest against the action of the government in ignoring the action established in recent years providing an oppor-

Western Grain Crop
tunity for consultation with representatives of organized agriculture before announcing major farm policy. On previous occasions the Prime Minister and members of the government have stated that they welcome the presentation of our views and also the opportunity which this meeting afforded of discussing the position of Canada's basic industry with recognized representatives of primary producers. To-day in the closing sessions of the annual meeting of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture we learn from the press that the government has announced its grain policy for 1943. This has been done without having given an opportunity to this national federation of farm organizations to present their views and recommendations on this vital question. We realize the importance of an early announcement of government policy but delegates attending this annual meeting deeply regret this action of the government. They regard this as an indication of the government's intention to completely disregard the viewpoint of organized farm producers of Canada. For the past two years directors and officers of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture have met with the Prime Minister and members of the government immediately at the conclusion of the annual meeting of the federation. This has provided an opportunity for farm representatives to bring before the government the considered opinion of organized agriculture from coast to coast dealing with its problems. We believe that at no time in the country's history has the need been greater for the closest possible cooperation between government and people. This will be impossible to attain if government creates impression that it proposes to ignore reasonable representations of organized producers. If the 1943 food goals as recently announced by Canadian government are to be met some upward revision of the income from grain should be considered. The annual meeting of the federation completes its session January 30 and will seek an opportunity of meeting the Prime Minister and members of the government at an early date. We desire to present our recommendations affecting agriculture including grain policy for 1943.
H. H. Hannam.
After receiving that telegram, I wrote Mr. Hannam under date of Ottawa, February 1, 1943, as follows:
H. H. Hannam, Esq.,
President,
Canadian Federation of Agriculture,
Toronto, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Hannam:
I acknowledge receipt of your telegram of the 30th January addressed to me from Calgary.
I regret there has been any misunderstanding with regard to the grain policy. I understood the representations made by your delegation as well as the provinces at the December conference were that the government's policy re prices and reduction bonus was to be put out at the earliest possible date. The government considered announcement should be made to the house, and therefore made it at the earliest possible sitting.
All the proposals contained in your Saturday's resolutions as announced in this morning's papers were before us from farm sources when consideration was given to the policy for this year. There are only three variations from
(Mr. Gardiner.]
your proposals. Flax remains at $2.25 instead of $2.50. Wheat remains at 90 cents to farmers with no provision as to what it is to be sold at. You are, therefore, free to make further representations. The payment for grass for wheat acreage reduction has been at the rate of $4 in two instalments until this year. We propose to make it $2' for every acre of wheat reduction -without any complications this year. This had been discussed with western farm organizations.
I am sure a meeting can be arranged at which the government will be free to consider your representations made as a result of your annual meeting.
Yours sincerely,
James G. Gardiner.
I received under date of February 5, 1943, the following letter from Mr. Hannam:
Hon. J. G. Gardiner,
Minister of Agriculture,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Mr. Gardiner:
This will thank you for your letter of February 1st. I have had a wire from Mr. Haskins this morning explaining that you have arranged for our representatives to meet the cabinet on February 9th, when, besides presenting our proposals having to do with other branches of agriculture, we may also make our recommendations in regard to the grain policy.
I do recall now, when you mention it, that the representatives of the -western provinces attending the dominion provincial conference in December did press for an early decision on acreage bonuses in order that they might be in a better position to know what change could be effected in wheat and coarse grain acreage. It happened, however, we had no representatives of the prairie provinces from our federation attending the conference.
We are grateful to you for having arranged for the cabinet interview as we requested.
Yours sincerely,
H. H. Hannam, President.
I think, in fairness to all concerned, that these letters should appear upon the record in order that members will believe what I have told them on two or three previous occasions, namely, that every matter dealt with in the wheat policy announced to this house had already been considered in the conference in December last and that at that conference the federation were invited to send as many delegates as they desired. They did send a number of delegates, and those delegates were present. The Minister of Trade and Commerce will remember that on that occasion both of us were asked to announce policies with regard to wheat acreage and with regard to price, to announce them not when the house met, but on the 9th day of December. When we stated in reply that the matter had to be considered in council before we could make an announcement, we were both asked to make that announcement at the earliest

Western Grain Crop
date possible. There was not a delegate in that conference who objected to that action being taken. Accordingly we followed the direction which we had at that conference, and on the first day on which it was possible to make the announcement after this house was convened, that announcement was made to this house.
I wanted to place that on Hansard along with the criticisms which have been made, in order that hon. members and others who read Hansard from time to time may be fully acquainted with what did happen. I repeat that we considered at the time that farm organizations had been consulted and that we had been urged by farm organizations, in common with those who attended that gathering, to make the announcement at the earliest possible date.
I might say in addition that when I was listening to the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) reading an editorial from the Country Guide, published in Winnipeg, I recalled that the editor of that paper, who must have written the editorial or seen it, was one of the newspaper representatives at that conference in December at which this whole matter was discussed, he having been invited either by the government or the Department of Agriculture to be present and get all the information first hand, so that no misrepresentations could be made by others outside after the conference had been held.
The next suggestion which has been made, and with which I wish to deal for a few moments, is to the effect that the government left the farmer without provision to take care of his costs in connection with this year's crop, and more particularly to take care of his costs in the early part of the next season.
I would call to the attention of hon. members at least one provision which was made, and made at the request of the farm organizations, which has not been emphasized during this discussion, namely, the provision whereby any farmer who grew wheat prior to 1943, and has it in storage on his farm, does not need to grow wheat this year in order to be able to deliver his quota. If he has an amount equal to fourteen bushels to the acre for sixty-five per cent of the wheat acreage which he had in crop in 1940, he is permitted to deliver that wheat as soon as he can get it into the elevators following the 1st of August next. That is an assistance-and I think every farmer will recognize it as such-to the farmer in financing his operations during this summer. He does not need to worry about what the crop condition will be this year and therefore fear the possibility of crop failure if he has this wheat, which he has not been able to dispose of this
year, lying on his land. He can market, in case there is a crop failure, the other fourteen bushels to the acre which he grew, on the average, in western Canada, over and above the fourteen bushels an acre which he may have marketed. That provision was made, let me say, at the suggestion of farm organizations, and I think it is looked upon by farmers as one of the most important provisions which have been made.
Another criticism which has been raised is that this government has had no policy in connection with the marketing of wheat, especially during the war period, and an appeal was made to the house, particularly in dealing with the amendment which is now before us, that some policy be announced. In order to make his point the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) went back to 1935 and beyond, and placed before the house what he considered to be evidence of lack of proper policy in 1935 and improper handling of the wheat crops of 1935 and the years following. In making his criticisms he called attention to the fact that in one year the farmers were not permitted to deliver their wheat to the wheat board unless the price dropped below ninety cents a bushel-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Two years.


James Garfield Gardiner: Two years-the advance which was provided for in those particular years being 87J cents; and wheat had to drop below ninety cents before the wheat board would set up the machinery to take delivery of it. In almost the next breath the same speaker this afternoon called attention to the fact that the advance on wheat is,now ninety cents, and that immediately wheat went above ninety cents it is delivered, not to the wheat board, but to the trade. That is not a new condition. It has been the condition ever since we have had either pools or wheat boards handling wheat in western Canada. When the price has been above the advance which is allowed, the tendency has been to deliver almost all the wheat to the trade; when the price has been below the advance, almost every bushel has been delivered to the board and, therefore, to the government. So that this is no exception.
Having had that experience prior to and during 1935, the government did say the next year that there was no sense in setting up machinery for handling wheat which would not be delivered to the board, and that, therefore, until the price dropped to ninety cents that machinery would not be set up. As a matter of fact the figures quoted this afternoon by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) demonstrate that the price did not drop to
Western Grain Crop

ninety cents. Instead of dropping, it went up during those years, and in going up, resulted in the delivery of the wheat to the line companies or to the pools which were prepared to buy the wheat from the farmer and buy it outright.
Again this year we are experiencing the same thing. That is one weakness of the pooling system which has caused trouble ever since the system was first set up. It was one of the weaknesses which we tried to guard against in the wheat policy which was set up in Canada in 1939, and which has continued to be in principle the same wheat policy down to the present time.
The change which actually has taken place is a change in the advance. It started out at seventy cents; it is now at ninety cents, the highest advance, as a matter of fact, ever paid by any government in Canada on wheat delivered to a wheat board since, or immediately following, the last war. The advance upon wheat is now ninety cents.
When anyone says that no preparation is being made to help finance the farmer, I venture to say there are few countries where wheat is grown in which greater assistance has been given to the farmer, and none in which so small a percentage can be marketed. In spite of the fact that so much must be held, the government says, "We are prepared to give you an advance of ninety cents a bushel on your wheat and you still own your wheat, if you deliver it to the wheat board." And if any such thing happens as is happening now, and wheat runs above that price, as it has during the last few days, the farmer will get the advantage of that advance to the extent that his wheat has been delivered to the wheat board.
There is one other matter with which I wish to deal in the few moments still at my disposal. It is the matter which was raised a few moments before six o'clock by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross), and again by my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Both of them referred to the fact that considerable discussion had taken place in this house session after sesion about the condition of the western farmer. I am sure every hon. member will agree with me when I say that since I took a seat in this house seven years ago I have done as much as any other hon. member to secure assistance for western farmers when they have been in trouble. There are people in Canada who have been kind or unkind enough to say that I am the Santa Claus of western Canada. Be that as it may, I know that people cannot

continue to live in a country which is being talked down continuously by those who represent that particular area.
I remember when I was first a member of the Saskatchewan government in 1922 or 1923 being invited to Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto to speak on a question then being discussed widely in the eastern part of Canada. This question had arisen as a result of editorials which had been running in a Montreal paper under the title "Whispers of Death". At that time there was a certain group of members in this house-none of them is here to-day-who were talking along the same strain as those members who in recent years have been talking down western Canada. They were telling about the terrible conditions we had out west. Sometimes we have had rather terrible conditions, but they were continuously talking about that.
I should like to give the other side of the picture. When I first came to this house seven years ago I was told by members on all sides of the house-I am not talking of any one side, although I am referring more particularly to the then leader of the opposition -that we ought to stop trying to grow wheat in western Canada, that we ought to move many, people out of western Canada, that never again would we be able to produce as we had produced in the years gone by, because the top of our soil had blown off, and so on. I wish to answer that to-night by saying that never in the history of western Canada has it produced a tonnage of food in four years equal to the tonnage that has been produced in the last four years. I am leaving the matter of price out of consideration altogether. We have produced many, many more tons of food from the top six inches of the soil in western Canada during the last four years than have been produced in any preceding four years.	.
That is my answer to those who said that the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act was not worth while in western Canada. That is my answer to those who said that the Prairie Farm Assistance Act was not a proper policy to apply in western Canada. That is my answer to those who said only two years ago that wheat acreage reduction was not a proper policy to apply in western Canada. All these policies have been applied persistently and consistently in spite of criticism, largely from the far comer on the opposite side of the house, some from directly across the house, and occasionally some from one or two members on this side. However, the great majority of members in this house have supported those policies.

Western Grain Crop
They have believed that it is worth while to spend money to teach people how to live in an area as new as the great agricultural area of western Canada. Having taught them how to live, to-day we are appealing to them to produce the feed with which to produce the food in all parts of Canada necessary to feed the people of Britain, to feed our army, to feed our allies; to provide the necessary meat and dairy products. In addition, we are appealing to them to produce live stock products on their own farms. The hon. member for Moose Jaw was able to correct me this afternoon when he said that week by week during 1943 Saskatchewan was second only to Ontario in the marketings of hogs. These were produced to feed the people of this country and of Great Britain.
I come back to the point with which I started. Western Canada has demonstrated to-day, not only to the rest of Canada, not only to the empire but to the world that it is still an area to be. occupied by a prosperous farming population. In spite of some of those who represent our people in parliament, it is necessary to have credit to develop any new country. Western Canada required that credit and western Canada was able to get that credit. It is true that sometimes we found it difficult to pay our debts, and it is true that we are still finding it difficult to pay our debts. I speak subject to correction, and I shall make a correction later on if I find my figures are not exact; but when the delegation was here recently asking for debt adjustment legislation for western Canada it was pointed out that in an area where 156,000 loans are carried, only upwards of 10,000 farmers had asked for debt adjustment. When we so conduct ourselves in this house; when we speak in this house in such a way as to leave the impression that in this new area the farmers are going to rack and ruin because they are not able to pay their debts, I would' point out that while that may be true of a certain percentage of them, taking them at their own valuation, it is not a sufficiently large percentage for us to come to the conclusion that credit should not prevail in western Canada.
I think that to-day the west is fulfilling its mission as the great agricultural area of Canada. It is providing food for Britain and for those areas in Canada which consume more than they produce. It is providing the feed to furnish food. In connection with the matter raised this afternoon by the hon. member for Weyburn, I hope that no provision will be made, either because the government is not able to do so or because it is a matter 72537-107
of choice, to ship more than 200.000,000 bushels of feed grain out of western Canada this year. We have had sufficient experience in that part of the country to know that as nearly as possible we must carry a complete year's supply of feed on our farms until another crop is harvested.
Let me indicate what that means this year. We are told that we may not get another year like last year. I doubt if we shall, because it is the only one like it we have ever had. But it has been our common experience in western Canada that we get two good years, particularly when the first year is so wet in the fall that one cannot harvest all his crop. That is the best sign that we will get a fairly good crop the next year. The complaints which we hear about persons not having been able to harvest their crops last year apply to about fifteen or twenty per cent of the farmers of western Canada. The others got their crop harvested. The very fact that it rained to an extent that prevented fifteen per cent from getting their crop harvested in the three or four weeks of harvesting weather is an. indication that our prospects are bright for another good crop.
Even with that I would say, keep this grain on the farm to an extent to ensure definitely that we can produce in Canada next year the increased quantity of food that we are asked by Great Britain and by the United States to produce. Then, when we are sure we can produce that, we may be asked for more next year, and should keep sufficient in the west to be utilized along with anything we grow even in the fifth year.
I say that because I know farmers in western Canada who have not sold a bushel of grain for ten years; they have fed it all. During the last two or three years they have had to buy feed to finish their stock. On the same farms this year they are growing enough grain to feed all the live stock they have, and they have more than they ever had before. They have grown enough grain on some farms to feed it for four years even if they did not grow any more grain.
That being the case, I say again that this is not a time to be talking western Canada down This is a time to be talking it up; this is a time to be taking advantage of the feed that we have, and the fact that we still have some labour and still have opportunities to produce. I believe that next session we shall be able to come back to this house and say that we have produced more meat and dairy products in western Canada in this fourth year of the war than we ever produced before.

Western Grain Crop


Ernest Edward Perley: It may be a little difficult for one to follow immediately the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). He has posed as the Santa Claus of western Canada, or has stated that that term has been applied to him. I think he is drawing on his imagination to some extent. At any rate there are a great many chimneys out west that he has not come down yet.
He referred to the production in the last few years. I would recall to him and to this house that Providence had something to do with that production. The very fact that Providence sent us the moisture he spoke about, which he says is an indication that we shall have a good crop this year, is evidence that he has not been the only one responsible.
I might say also that no one tries to discredit the producer; far from it. I do not think there is an hon. member who tries to do that. As far as I am concerned I think my record stands as one who has tried at all times-and I have had the support of my colleagues-to put up the case for the producer and to get something worth while for him, because he is always willing to do his part.
Yesterday the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) interjected an amendment that caused a number of speeches to be made. To-day we had another amendment moved by the hon. member for Weybum (Mr. Douglas), which provoked further debate and enthusiasm, and I think both are worth while.
The minister in replying offered certain excuses which indicate that the government may possibly do something. But it is time for action,.and that is what we want. The hon. member for Weyburn covered the whole situation, going back to 1930-35. I recall that in 1935 we passed the Canadian Wheat Board Act. We had a good deal of difficulty in getting that act through the house in the form in which it went through, practically as it stands to-day. This proves that it was a good act. I regret that we did not have at that time the support from all those who sat on this side of the house that we should have had. I recall July 1 of that year when the committee that had the framing of that act in hand met in the evening in the railway committee room, and the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), who was a member of that committee, moved the final motion that that act be not operative after August 13 of the following year. That was strong opposition, and that is what we had.
During the fall of 1935 the government of that day set the price at 87$ eents. The
r Mr. Gardiner.]
Minister of Agriculture says that this government has now set a price which is the highest that has ever been set, making an advance to the farmer the highest by any government in Canada. He might have referred to the fact that as soon as they got into power they set aside the 87i cent price andj we have had 70 cents and 80 cents. He might have mentioned that following the second1 best price they had two years of the lowest prices.
I do not intend to rehearse the operations of Mr. McFarland during the period 1930-35, one of the most serious times we ever had in Canada. The government of that day had a very difficult problem in handling the wheat situation. When the present government came into power they took over a surplus of wheat, and in 1938 that surplus had1 disappeared. We had a good price in 1937, and hon. members will recall that in 1937 the government set the Canadian Wheat Board Act aside. Some hon. members may recall that the Hon. Doctor Motherwell spoke on that matter on a certain very warm day in July, I think it was, and he had a little difficulty with his wearing apparel. However, he finished up by dressing down the government of the day very effectively and charged that they had set that act aside and made it inoperative by an illegal order in council. But it was not very long until this very government had to bring that act into operation again as it is to-day.
Following that, we had an inquiry, headed by Mr. Justice Turgeon, into the grain marketing business. I have here the report, which is very interesting, and in view of this motion I think it would be well to consider some of it. However, I will not take time other than to say that in the report of that commission there are findings to the effect that the Canadian Wheat Board Act be not set aside or wiped off the statute books. Further, there was evidence submitted that the grain exchange could serve no useful purpose in times of emergency. Have we not an emergency to-day, and if that statement applies, what useful purpose can the grain exchange serve? In this time of war I think the government should be in full control. The wheat board is there; they have all the facilities to handle all the grain marketing business which to-day they are controlling by a permit and quota system of delivery, and one might say they have full control. I think the United Kingdom has also some say in the matter, since that is where most of our wheat has to go. I believe there are agents of the United Kingdom in Canada to-day who dictate to the board to whom

Western Grain Crop
they shall deliver export wheat, where it shall be transferred for shipment, and in what ships it will be carried. So that the open market has very little control over the marketing of our wheat. It appears to me that under present conditions the United Kingdom more or less controls the wheat board.
Something has been said about speculators and what has happened recently on the Winnipeg grain exchange, in regard to the price of wheat. We have had a statement from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) to the effect that they have issued permits for the export of wheat and certain coarse grains, and yesterday we learned the number of permits issued and the number of bushels that have been exported. This is further proof that this organization must be controlled, and it would seem that this government and the wheat board are issuing permits for that purpose. I think this afternoon the Minister of Trade and Commerce might have given us a little more information. He referred to the fact that the committee on agriculture will not meet to consider the report of the wheat board for some little time yet; and even when it does meet to consider the last report it will be of very little value, since that report goes only to the end of the 1942 crop year. The minister should have told us exactly where we stand in regard to the wheat that is carried to-day by the wheat board'; the number of options they hold; the amount of cash grain they hold and the position it is in; the amount of advances, and so on. We cannot deal intelligently with this question unless we have that information, and now it seems the minister is taking the stand that we shall be able to deal with the report only up to the end of the 1942 crop year, so that we shall not be able to get any very useful information for this session.
I do not intend to refer at any great length to what the Minister of Trade and Commerce has said. He seldom makes a statement to the house, though on many occasions I have tried' to get him to do so. We did have a statement from him to-day, in which he dealt with certain matters and referred to the problems which the wheat board has to meet. Of course it has problems, but he says that those problems arise at least in part from the recent advance in price. If the wheat board is in full control, it need not worry about advances in price. The export markets are the ultimate destination of our wheat, and the wheat board should control that wheat. The minister referred to coarse grains
72537-107}
and the recent increase in prices, and said he hoped those increases would go to the farmers; but he added these words, "after a fair profit to the middleman". Who is the middleman? With the wheat board in full control, operating for the benefit of the people of Canada and the farmers in particular, why should there be a middleman who must hav.e a profit? And the minister says it must b? a fair profit. What is that profit? That is what we should like to know.


James Angus MacKinnon: The ordinary commission.	'


Ernest Edward Perley: All right. To-day I think the service charges are 3f cents, and they are getting storage on top of that.
Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West) r Nonsense.


Ernest Edward Perley: What is that?


James Angus MacKinnon: Did I understand the hon. gentleman to say that the service charge is 31 cents?


Ernest Edward Perley: No; the complete service
charge the grain men get is 31 cents; but there is part of that service charge which might be included in the brokerage fees which they cannot explain. I recall one occasion when the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) took about half an hour of the time of this house in an attempt to describe the useful' service which was rendered in return for the service charge which is collected in addition to the usual commission.	[DOT] [DOT]
This afternoon the minister said the increased price was brought about by purchases in order to complete or fulfil contracts by grain companies for export. Here again we should have more information as to the operations of thd board. The wheat has been delivered 'to thd board, a great part of it coming direct frond the combine or the thresher. How much has the board sold? Have the grain trade bought options from the board? Are there buying and selling transactions going on to complete trades and balance their accounts in the clearing house? These are a few of the things we should know in order to find out just how we stand. The minister suggested'that there might be a new policy, and yesterday he said it might be brought down within forty-eight hours. To-day he tells us that he still hopes to make an announcement in the near future] perhaps almost immediately. He went to Soriib' little trouble in an' attempt to explain - the benefits of the open'market. I think he-will have a great deal of difficulty in explaining any benefit the open market gives to 'the
Western Grain Crop

ordinary man in western Canada, for if I had time to-night to review this report, I believe I could show that the exchange serves almost no useful purpose.
Early in January the Canadian Federation of Agriculture submitted some nine points to the government. The Minister of Agriculture did not deal with those points in his address to-day, but he has attempted to excuse the action or lack of action on the part of the government and in a roundabout way has suggested that some of the proposals advanced by the federation might be adopted. I hope that may be so, because I think those nine points were very good.


James Garfield Gardiner: They are dealt with in the letters.


Ernest Edward Perley: Well, we hope that before too long they will be embodied in legislation of this house, so that the farmers may know exactly what position they are in. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said something about storage on farms, which I have consistently advocated in this house for the last Awo years. I was glad to hear him say that something may be done in that regard. He was not very definite, but he says there is a possibility.
I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that the whole situation is too indefinite. We want some straightforward policy that can be understood, and there is a great deal that could be done. Here we have the wheat board in control of the whole situation, in complete charge of all the wheat marketed in Canada. I would be prepared to go a little further than most hon. members, and suggest that the government could issue currency on the security of this wheat. I remember that some time ago the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker), who is now in uniform, supported my suggestion that currency might be issued against that wheat, in order to save the payment of interest. Just at this time when money is being made available to industry, I think that is something that could be considered by the wheat board, for I am sure it would bring about a considerable saving. The government put through this house legislation providing for a gift of a billion dollars to Britain for the purchase of supplies, and I cannot see why some of that money could not be devoted to the purchase of wheat, with the government in full control at all times.
The amendment moved to-day by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) is very good as far as it goes, but I do not think it goes far enough. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, JMr. Perley.]
I move the following subamendment, seconded by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross):
That all the words after "that" in the amendment be struck out and the following substituted therefor.
"The policy of the government with respect to the marketing of Canadian field crops is detrimental to the public interest, and that steps should be taken forthwith to provide for the marketing of coarse grains as well as of wheat, by the Canadian wheat board, within the provisions of the Canadian Wheat Board Act of 1935 and amendments thereto; and that action should be taken immediately to abolish trading on the Winnipeg grain exchange in order to prevent speculation and profiteering at the expense of the farmers.
I think that covers the situation. We have the Canadian Wheat Board Act, with the wheat board in control. They should take over not only wheat but also coarse grains, and the Canadian Wheat Board Act of 1935 should have full force and operation.
We have heard to-night from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) with respect to the coarse grains situation. He has pointed out that there will be a considerable carryover. Therefore, in order that there may be full control and that everything possible may revert to the farmer, I suggest that this subamendment should be accepted. Then the government could apply its new policy, which we expect to hear from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon). We have heard from the Minister of Agriculture tonight that something is coming. Let the government review this subamendment and put it into force, because by so doing they will cover the situation and be a real Santa Claus to the people of western Canada.
It is not necessary to speak at further length. I have discussed at considerable length some of the important phases of the whole question. To-day's discussion has been along similar lines. Of necessity it could not be otherwise. I hope the government will see fit to adopt the subamendment.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, as
the seconder of the subamendment I assure the house I shall be brief. Since coming here in 1940 I have taken every opportunity to advance arguments on behalf of western grain producers. I do not intend to repeat those arguments to-night.
First of all, may I congratulate the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) upon the speech he completed this afternoon with respect to agricultural research. I have listened to many such arguments in the past. A few years ago, the Hon. D. G. McKenzie, the provincial minister of agriculture who served under Mr. Bracken, made a study of what might be done with the by-products of

Western Grain Crop
169*
grain or cereal crops. He carried out his studies not only as minister of agriculture, but later as vice-president and general manager of United Grain Growers and again, later, as president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. He was keenly interested in the matter and had dealt with the vast majority of the arguments set forth by the hon. member for Moose Jaw. I am sure all agriculturists in Canada are very much interested in agricultural research, such as suggested by the hon. member.	[DOT]
However, I was not able to follow with the same degree of appreciation some of his other arguments. He told us about the operations of the Winnipeg grain exchange, and tried to create the impression that they were responsible for the price of wheat which prevails to-day. I was happy to think that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon), when he spoke, to some extent contradicted that argument, because he admitted that the Canadian wheat board had been a party to the great majority of trades which had taken place on the grain exchange recently.


James Angus MacKinnon: They gave the wheat.


James Arthur Ross: Yes, they had been
a party to it. And probably they, more than any other organization, were responsible for the price existing to-day, and could have accomplished the same thing by negotiation, without the grain exchange at all.
Speaking this afternoon, the hon. member for Moose Jaw went on to explain the great fire sale of wheat which Mr. Murray put on when he became head of the Canadian wheat board. I do not think I should rehearse the history of those transactions at this particular time.
Then I followed rather attentively the speech of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), in which he set forth his programme for 1943, and pointed out that the only changes made were with regard to flax and wheat. I believe he should have elaborated a little more with respect to hard and durum wheat, because the statement made yesterday by the Minister of Trade and Commerce certainly leaves a bit of doubt in the mind of the wheat producer as to whether he should concentrate on the production of durum or hard wheat.


James Garfield Gardiner: In order that there
may be no misunderstanding, if I understood the Minister of Trade and Commerce correctly -and he will correct me if I did not-his statement was very definite on the point,
namely, that his provisions applied only to durum wheat produced in 1942, and not to
what is produced in 1943.


James Angus MacKinnon: And that for the next year the restrictions will come into force.


James Arthur Ross: That is, that there
might not be any demand for durum wheat next year, as there has been in the past. It is just temporary.
When the Minister of Agriculture was speaking this afternoon he criticized those who credited the prevailing weather conditions for the grain crops, and he suggested that either he or the government should be given some credit. When he spoke I was reminded of a story that is told in my part of the country. I live right next to the Saskatchewan boundary, and I am occasionally informed as to what takes place in that province. The story is told that in one of the drought years a school teacher in southern Saskatchewan, after seeing a little shower of rain come up, quizzed the children as to who was responsible for it. After much hesitancy one little child put up a hand and said, "Please teacher, the Lord is responsible for it." But another child became very indignant, and she said, "You young
C.C.F'er, you should know better than that; Jimmy Gardiner is responsible for the rain." I did not think the story was so original until I listened to the minister this evening.
I do wish to agree with what was said by the Minister of Agriculture about what has been accomplished under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act in the prairie provinces. Working with the minister as a member of an advisory committee, before coming to Ottawa, I had some experience in the matter, and on several occasions I have taken advantage of the opportunity to set forth what has been accomplished under that act, and what still may be accomplished not only in the prairie provinces but throughout Canada. I think there is great possibility in the reconstruction period, provided of course that we win the war, as I hope and trust we will. That board, by spreading out, can accomplish a great deal for the people of Canada. The act was brought in by the Hon. Robert Weir in 1935, and I am glad to see that its operations have been continued by this government. I have no doubt it will continue to operate for some time in the future. It has made a tremendous difference to the lives of many people in the prairie provinces.
We have had many discussions in the house about the price ceiling and parity prices. I
do not wish to repeat the argument as to how
Western Grain Crop

they affect the agricultural producer, but I must say that in my opinion there is no class of people in Canada to-day who would benefit as much by inflation as would the farmers. There is no argument about it. Nevertheless I as a farmer am in favour of the anti-inflationary policy in order to safeguard the welfare' of the salaried people of this country, provided that parity under the price ceilings is granted to all classes throughout the dominion. I think they are justly entitled to that parity.
I remember a grain inquiry which was conducted by Mr. Justice Turgeon. It held sittings throughout Canada, and at its Winnipeg sitting I presented a brief on behalf of the Manitoba Union of Municipalities. The present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) was counsel for that commission throughout its sittings. In presenting his findings, Mr. Justice Turgeon declared that in his opinion the grain exchange would render no useful purpose during a war crisis. I just mention that now on account of the present situation, where we have in the inner councils of the government to-day the man who was counsel for that grain inquiry commission. I think the finding of Mr. Justice Turgeon should be borne in mind.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The Minister of National Defence probably wrote it.


James Arthur Ross: He probably had something to do with it.
In seconding the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley), which I trust the government will accept, may I say that the vast majority of the farm producers in this country want the Canadian wheat board to handle their coarse grains. The initial price to be paid by the board on oats and barley should be the present maximum allowed under the ceilings, and participation certificates should be issued to the producer on the same basis followed in regard to wheat, so that if any profit is made over and above the initial price the producers will share in the returns.
I have cited the finding of Mr. Justice Turgeon that the Winnipeg grain exchange can render no useful service during this war crisis. May I add in conclusion, that the farmers represent one-third of the population of Canada, and a very great percentage of them are grain producers. I believe that the amendment represents their wishes, and I trust that the government and parliament will give it due and proper consideration.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, if I were living in the 
constituency of Qu'Appelle, Saskatchewan, I would undoubtedly vote for the present sitting member (Mr. Perley). I have no prejudices. If I were living in the electoral district of Melville, Saskatchewan, I would vote for the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). But of course I am not a citizen of Saskatchewan. I am an easterner, and may I be permitted to-night to express the views of an easterner with regard1 to the wheat situation.
I have the highest regard for my good friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon), but I have never understood why wheat was separated from other agricultural products and was placed under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, while all other agricultural products come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture. Second, I do not understand why in the last twenty years no easterner has been appointed Minister of Agriculture in the federal government, and I say that without intending to cast any reflection upon any of those ministers. I remember that- in the time of Sir Wilfrid Laurier the Minister of Agriculture in the federal government was doubly an easterner. He came not only from eastern Canada but from the eastern townships in eastern Canada. That was the late Hon. Sydney Fisher. And the first Minister of Trade and Commerce was that great Liberal fighter whose name is not forgotten by any true Liberal, especially in Ontario, Sir Richard Cartwright. I will go further and say that if I were a constituent of Moose Jaw I would undoubtedly be filled with enthusiasm by the eloquence of the present sitting member (Mr. Ross), and would vote for him with my two hands.
Wheat is the food par excellence. When I was a child I was told by my grandmother never to waste bread. I remember also that one of the greatest kings of England told his son never to indulge in wheat speculation because it was.unfair to the poor, and he reprimanded him for doing so.
Listening to the speeches, and1 they have been most interesting, which have been delivered by all those who have spoken on this question, and reading Hansard to become more familiar with the arguments made by each one of my hon. colleagues who have discussed the matter, I feel that one must come to this conclusion, that in the wheat business the great offender is neither the producer nor the consumer; it is the grain broker;

Western Grain Crop
it is the Winnipeg grain exchange. That is the conclusion of the argument that has been made.
I remember that during the last war our western producers were supreme in the British market. At that time they had no competitor in South America. I also remember very well an article that was published in a Toronto paper by the late Hon. Frank Oliver who had been Minister of the Interior in the Laurier government-he was a westerner too-to the effect that the west had killed the goose that laid the golden eggs. He meant by that, that westerners had themselves been responsible to a large extent for the loss of the British market for grain as a result of the exorbitant prices that were charged to British consumers. The authority is good; it is that of a man who knew the west better than perhaps, any one of his contemporaries. I remember that when Mr. Bennett was in pow'er, the then member for Rosetown-Biggar, Mr. Loucks, who had a seat somewhere near here, was laughing and jeering when I was saying that. But it is a fact that the British consumer was exploited by those who were selling wheat to him, and that is precisely the reason why such an amount of British capital has been invested in South America, particularly in the'Argentine republic, for the growing of wheat. Was it the western farmer or the western broker or the Montreal broker or the London brokers who were responsible for that exploitation of the British consumer? It is not for me to tell. The facts are there. But the fact remains that the British consumer has been exploited by the westerner, and this is the reason why new fields of wheat have been cultivated in South America.
We have heard a great deal about markets -markets which were not defined. .What is the market now for our wheat? The first market for Canadian wheat must be our own country. Very few hon. members have mentioned that Canada is our own market for wheat. The second is all friendly countries where Canadian exports are possible. Of course there is a limitation on account of the war. But wheat is not perishable when it is not exposed to moisture; it keeps for a long time. Hon. members must remember photographs which were published in several periodicals showing wheat which was preserved in good condition in King Tut's tomb. Wheat may keep for a long time; and if at the present time we have at our disposal the markets of friendly countries, why not keep a reserve of wheat for the bad days which will follow the war, when Canada will have an
opportunity to export wheat not only to friendly countries with which we can deal now, but also to friendly countries which are now occupied by the enemy, and even to enemy countries?
If my memory serves me aright, I cannot offend the patriotism of any of the Progressive Conservative party or group by saying that, because the very last provincial government of Canada to export wheat to Germany, on the eve of the war, was precisely the government of Manitoba which was then headed by the new chief of the Progressive Conservative party, and he did it under a barter arrangement, exchanging that wheat for some machinery. But that happened on the eve of war. Do you not think, sir, that, as soon as the war is over, the first policy of all governments will be to deal as much as they can with all countries of the world, whether they have been friends or enemies? Therefore, future trad* must be considered, and trade may do a great deal in the fixing of the price of wheat.
I cannot understand the various policies of various governments on wheat; they have been so contradictory that they make one seasick. Think of it! We had every sympathy for the westerner when he suffered from the drought. On the other hand, instead of the farmers of that area being moved to more fertile parts of the province or of the country, enormous sums were spent for irrigation and to restore the fertility of that dry soil. That was done, and after it was done to increase production, what was the next step? ^ Farmers were paid not to cultivate wheat. It is absurd. On the one hand, all the irrigation works to improve that area which suffered so badly from the drought; on the other hand, curtailment of the production of wheat. Each of these policies is in conflict with the other. It shows that if one plan was good, the other one was wrong. This is a thing which I cannot understand.
Another thing which I cannot understand is the picture which the Minister of Agriculture has made of the west without saying a word of the east. According to what he has said, the western provinces are the Garden of Eden of Canada. I do not deny it; it may be true. But we easterners have been told for such a long time that we must consider Canada as a whole as our country, that I find that the speech which was made this evening by the Minister of Agriculture is rather parochial. This is why I would have voted for him if I had been on the electoral list of Melville. According to him, we are doing everything in the west; we are feeding the world; it is the prairie provinces that do that.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.
Western Grain Crop


Mr. POULIOT:: I do not deny that the
prairie provinces are doing their part, and I congratulate them upon that. But, as one comes east, Canada does not stop at the great lakes. Canada is a country that extends from coast to coast. If this speech had been made by a minister of agriculture from the east, the excuse would have been made that he was catering to the west. But it was made by a gentleman who comes from the west and- who is talking only for the farmers of the west. That is not fair treatment for the farmer who toils in the east.
We hear the old story of the feud between the east and the west. We hear the question: Who has done more for the economic life of this country? The westerner says, "We have been, enriching the east," and the easterner says, "We have been paying for the west." That is the whole story. Nobody cares, and the feud goes on and on and on; there is no end to it. We hear the same story every session. I have stated before that the western farmer has received privileged treatment from all governments since I have been a member of parliament. It was worse under the Bennett regime, but it was continued by Mr. Dunning as Minister of Finance. Hon. members will remember what happened. In the first place there was a guarantee. That guarantee then turned into a loan. Finally the guarantee which has a metamorphosis and emerged as a loan, ended up as a gift. To use a botanical expression, it was just like the dandelion which had changed three times.
Why was the same treatment not given to Ontario and Quebec? The reason w'as that these two provinces were too proud to say that they were insolvent. The western farmer went to his municipal council and said, "I need help; I am broke." The municipal council went to the province and said, "We need some help; we are broke." Then the provinces came to Ottawa like the burghers of Calais with ropes round their necks and said, e are all broke; we need something." Because the eastern provinces did not use the same method of trying to get subsidies, they got nothing. It was thought that they did not need it, that they were not insolvent. The open sesame for the exchequer was insolvency. As soon as that was pleaded, all doors were opened and the money flowed into the hands of the western producer. It may look strange, but that is a fact. I asked Charles Dunning about the payment of interest on the loans, and I asked him if any of the capital had been paid' in Saskatchewan. He said none had been paid and also very little interest. Apparently Saskatchewan was the worst
tMr. Pouliot.]
offender. Why, I do not know. That is the way in which the farmer of the west has been aided. He has been given every opportunity, opportunities which have been denied to the easterner.
How long does it take the easterner to get coarse grains from the west for feeding purposes especially for the raising of hogs? It takes a Jong time on account of traffic conditions on our railways. The situation is so bad that our farmers cannot get grain from the west. Then we talk about export trade. How can we export out of Canada when we have not sufficient means to transport this grain to the farmer consumer? There is no reason why the eastern farmer should not be given the same subsidies and the same help that is given to the western producer. We are three thousand miles closer to Great Britain. There aie harbours and ports on the St. Lawrence with every possible loading facility; yet they are not used. There should be an energetic policy drafted and acted upon at the earliest possible opportunity.
I referred to the feeding of hogs, but there are some human beings who need grain more than do hogs. There are many people in the large eastern cities and in other centres of the east who do not have enough to eat. Why does the Department of Agriculture not see to it that rolled oats are made from oats, and flour from wheat, and then send these products to the needy people in this country wherever they may be, whether in the east or in the west. That is a humane policy to adopt. There are many needy cases. During the Christmas season the greatest paper published on this continent, the New' York Times, gives details of many needy cases in the United States metropolis, and eloquent appeals are made for charity.
In my humble view reforms are needed in connection with this wheat question. In the first place the link between the producer and the consumer should be shorter. It should be easier for the consumer to get wheat and other grains produced by the western farmer. We give wheat to other friendly countries; there have been large shipments made to the United Kingdom as gifts. Why not serve our fellow citizens when we can do something for those outside this country? You do not know, sir, how painful it is t-o think that Canada at the present time is a forgotten country. It is a country where the man in the moon lives.
It is a country that is out of the planet where war is raging. Let us not forget that our first duty is to our fellow citizens, that we must think of them first. What was the first thing that that great Liberal, Franklin D. Roosevelt, did in the United States to improve the health

Western Grain Crop
of the American people? It was to feed them, to feed them well, to give them good food. That was his first step for national recovery. In this land of plenty there is no excuse for not following such a wise example, to see to it first that our fellow citizens shall eat flour from the west, eat rolled oats from the west. They should get it very easily. I do not wish to cause any embarrassment, but I could go further. Why do we not make better use of grain? Why is better use not made of grain for liquor, for instance for gin? Some hon. members perhaps find it amusing, but it is much deeper than that, for two reasons. In the first place in a previous session I had an opportunity to mention a certain concoction that is a compound, called compound gin, because it is not gin. The formula for gin is that it is a liquid made of the distillation of grain, redistilled with juniper berries and other aromatic herbs. When I was denouncing the way in which compound gin is concocted, western members did not think at the time that I was fighting their cause.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Can western wheat be used to make gin?


Jean-François Pouliot: No; they can make it of barley and rye, but it must be grain. The formula does not mention any special kind of grain. But to prevent the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) from being poisoned, I will tell him how compound gin is manufactured. After the sugar is extracted from the sugar cane, there is a certain amount of trash left. It is that trash, which formerly was swept away, that they are now redistilling to make a kind of alcohol that is something like industrial alcohol, which is then mixed with a kind of syrup like cariboo, and it was advertised as pure gin at the expense of the western farmer and at the expense also of public.health. I regret that that practice was not stopped and that the department concerned did not stop that false advertising of a compound as genuine gin. I could say much more about it, but I may have other opportunities. It is like a novel; there are some incidents that may have more of the picturesque than words can describe.
Now, sir, is it possible for the Canadian farmer of the east to have equal rights with the western farmer?


An hon. MEMBER:: No chance.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend says, " no chance." I should like to have him as minister of agriculture. I know him; I have been in his county speaking for him, and if I am invited I will go again. I have a great admiration for him. I wonder if it will be necessary to have 72537-108
an easterner as minister of agriculture in order to have fair play for the eastern farmer. I hope the present minister will in due course show that he is wise enough to understand the eastern problem as well as he has the western problem, and since we are giving away millions of dollars to other countries, why not give the eastern farmer as much as has been given in the past to the western farmer?


Thomas Vien: I propose to deal now with the relevancy of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley). If any hon. member wishes to speak on that point, will he do so now?
The motion is that the house go into committee of supply, to which an amendment was moved by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas), seconded by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright). A subamendment was moved by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley), seconded by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross):
That all the words after "that" in the amendment be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"the policy of the government with respect to the marketing of Canadian field crops is detrimental to the public interest, and that steps should be taken forthwith to provide for the marketing of coarse grains as well as of wheat by the Canadian wheat board, within the provisions of the Canadian Wheat Board Act of 1935 and amendments thereto; and that action should be taken immediately to abolish trading on the Winnipeg grain exchange in order to prevent speculation and profiteering at the expense of the farmers."
The subamendment differs from the original amendment. In the original amendment all that is asked is that the house desires to record its opinion that the grain marketing policy of the government is detrimental to the public interest. In the subamendment what is asked is that steps should be taken forthwith by the government to provide for the marketing of coarse grains. That is a matter involving public expenditure as I indicated last night when dealing with the amendment made by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), and I therefore rule it out of order on the ground that the expenditure of public money could not be moved by a private member.
In his new book on Parliamentary Rules and Forms, published by our Clerk, Doctor Beauchesne, which I now have before me, the third edition, 1943, will be found on page 710 a decision given by Mr- George Black, then speaker of the house and now the hon. member for the Yukon. That decision stated:
A private member cannot move, on the motion that the Speaker leave the chair for committee of supply, an amendment to the effect that the

Western Grain Crop

government should proceed without delay with a certain undertaking involving an expenditure of public money.
The subamendment is in almost the same words, or at least the conclusion would be the same. The words are, "that steps should be taken forthwith", whereas in the decision of Mr. Speaker Black the words were, "that the government should proceed without delay." In that instance there was some question in regard to the legality of a claim by the province of Quebec, which of course would involve a certain sum of money, and also a question in regard to the incorporation of the Beauhamois Light, Heat and Power Company. A point of order was raised, and Mr. Speaker Black ruled it out of order. In his opinion the resolution if passed would be a direct order from the house to the government to do certain things which would involve an expenditure of public money. Therefore he held that such a resolution is not in order when moved by a private member.
Further in Beauchesne, third edition, paragraph 461:
On the 20th February, 1926, a member moved that the government be requested to "immediately" introduce legislation granting adequate retiring allowances to all citizens over sixty years of age. The Speaker ruled the amendment out of order on the ground that it involved the expenditure of public money. An appeal was taken from this decision but the house approved the Speaker by a vote of 158 to 2.
In my judgment, therefore, the subamendment involves the expenditure of public money on the part of the government and cannot be introduced by a private member. Therefore I rule it out of order.


Gordon Graydon: In regard to the ruling just given by Your Honour I should like to make this observation. I take it there is no objection to the moving of an amendment to in amendment on going into supply. That principle, I think, is well established and has been followed by this house on many occasions. The point just raised by Your Honour, however, I think might properly be given further review in this case. The amendment to the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) is in these words:
The policy of the government in respect to the marketing of Canadian field crops is detrimental to the public interest, and that steps should be taken forthwith to provide for the marketing of coarse grains as well as of wheat by the Canadian wheat board, within the provisions of the Canadian Wheat Board Act of 1935 and amendments thereto; and that action should be taken immediately to abolish trading on the Winnipeg grain exchange in order to prevent speculation and profiteering at the expense of the farmers.
Mr. Speaker.]
With very great deference I would point out to Your Honour and to the house that with some regret, if I may say so, I find myself unable to agree with your ruling in this instance. While it may be said that we in this house long ago adopted the principle that a private member may not move an amendment such as this which involves the expenditure of public money, at the same time I would suggest that this amendment does not fall within that class. The Canadian Wheat Board Act, which is chapter 53 of the statutes of 1935, contains the following as section 14:
The governor in council may approve of the provisions of this act being made applicable to oats, barley, rye or flax produced in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, if the board recommends that such approval be given, whereupon the provisions of this act shall mutatis mutandis apply to such kind of grain as they apply to wheat.
My point is that under that act the principle actually has been adopted and approved by the parliament of Canada, and that principle having been adopted and approved, then I suggest that Your Honour should not find that this amendment would mean the expenditure of additional public funds, which is the point dealt with by the rules. For that reason I find myself unable to agree with your decision, because in this amendment we are not departing from the rules to an extent which would actually mean the adoption of the principle of expending public money on the motion of a private member, since the principle at issue already has been approved in the act which is mentioned in the amendment itself. If the amendment had not included those words; if it had not specifically mentioned the provisions of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, then I think we might perhaps have been able to accept the ruling Your Honour has seen fit to deliver, but with great deference I suggest that in this instance the amendment to the amendment does not actually involve the expenditure of public money which has not already been approved by the parliament of Canada.
That being the case, I would respectfully appeal from Your Honour's ruling.


Mr. RALSTON:: I do not know whether or not the matter of the appeal is debatable at all, but after the ruling was given my hon. friend raised the point, and it seems to me that if he really means that there is to be a formal appeal, one might have an opportunity of saying just a word in regard to it.
My hon. friend has indicated that Your Honour's ruling is not valid, because, as he suggests, in the Canadian Wheat Board Act

Western Grain Crop
there is provision for the marketing of coarse grains by the board, provided it is so ordered by his excellency the governor general in council. That is exactly the point. His excellency the governor general in council, that is to say his excellency's advisers, may order the marketing of coarse grains by the wheat board and the expenditures which would be occasioned, but that does not involve the principle that a private member of this house, who is not one of his excellency's advisers, has a right to attempt to commit this house, without motion of his excellency's advisers, to such a course. It seems to me that my hon. friend has entirely missed the point, that it is the governor in council that has the power under that act.


Gordon Graydon: The principle has been adopted in the act.


James Layton Ralston: The principle has been adopted of permitting his excellency's advisers to decide whether or not such an action should be taken.


Thomas Vien: I permitted the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) to make his remarks, though I had invited any hon. members who had any remarks to offer to make them before I gave my ruling. It is quite irregular to have a Speaker's ruling the subject of discussion after the ruling has been given. The only reason why I permitted it was to give the leader of the opposition an opportunity to show me how, in his opinion, my judgment or opinion was wrong. Naturally, had it been made clear that my decision was wrong, I should have been glad to be corrected.
Having listened to the leader of the opposition, I did notice that in the course of his remarks he referred to an amendment such as this-and I think these are his exact words- "which involves an expenditure," stating that it did not come within the purview of the principle I endeavoured to apply last night, and in the present instance. The provisions of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935, are subject to the judgment and control of the government operating the act. If there is an expenditure to be incurred under that act, it must necessarily be approved by the government. And if the government feels an expenditure is required, then, of course, according to the principle which is well established, and which has been recognized at all times, the government alone can deal with the question of public expenditure, and private members therefore cannot.
In the decision I quoted of Mr. Speaker Black the same ruling w'as established, and was recognized by the house, Nothing has been said to change my opinion as to the sound-72537- 108J
ness and validity of the ruling I have given. I therefore must rule accordingly.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Speaker, I
am glad of the opportunity which this debate affords me to make some further remarks on agriculture. As stated many times in this house, farming is essential to the prosecution of the war. It supplies the soldiers with food, clothes and lodging. It feeds the war industry workers and the civilian population. Will Canada, an outstanding wheat-producing country, let its government wreck agriculture by depriving it of its best workers? No member of this house can think of the agricultural overproduction which is now so urgently needed without thinking also of the thousands of farmers who are still in military training camps.
What happened last year at wheat harvest time in the prairie provinces? Wheat producers even had to enlist the help of students from the east in order to harvest their crop. Those young men, most of whom had no experience, have done their work with matchless devotion. But how many bushels of wheat have been lost through the labour shortage? In many areas of the west the wheat crop was snowed under before the producer could harvest it. That did not happen only in the case of the wheat crop in the prairie provinces. In British Columbia thousands of barrels of fruit could not be picked. That was also true in the Niagara peninsula and in countless other areas in the eastern provinces.
Should the government not be condemned for having thus failed in their duty to the producer, the consumer and the army?
At a time when we ration the food that is so essential to our hard-working fighters, at a time when Canadian soldiers cannot have the foodstuffs that are essential to their health and sustenance, we are witnessing the sorry spectacle of our wheat and fruit crops being spoiled. Is it to be wondered that sugar, butter and meat should everywhere be so scarce? That is the price paid for the carelessness of a government which has denied to farmers complete and definite exemption from military service. Such are the disastrous consequences of a short-sighted policy which persists in refusing to withdraw from military camps and send back to the land the thousands of farmers who are still in training. Of what use is the short six-week leave announced by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), a leave granted without pay and without travelling allowances to some classes of men, and in such a small percentage that it borders
Western Grain Crop

on cynicism? Will the government never be able once for all to forgo half-measures and face the situation squarely? Opportunism and laissez faire have prevailed for too long under the present administration who, taking advantage of the secrecy of the cabinet, govern by orders in council, over the head of parliament. On March 12 last the cabinet passed an order in council to authorize sending overseas recruits called up for the defence of Canada and of Canada only. This house was not informed of this fact until ten days later. It is alleged that such action is for the defence of -democracy. And these so-called defenders of democracy trample underfoot responsible government and democracy itself. How many farmers are there among these young soldiers *who are sent to Jamaica and to Newfoundland? We shall never know. Secrecy will forever veil this great adventure that history itself will record among the unfulfilled promises.
Speaking in this house on March 23 last, the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Poirier) alluded to the speech I made on March 9 in this house. I am grateful to the hon. member for all the kindness and all the interest he shows in connection with my statements. However, my hon. friend ought to know-as he probably does-that at the time I was speaking on the price of wheat flour, I had in mind the conditions in which not the wholesaler nor the federated cooperative, nor even the small retailer, but the consumer of my locality found himself and who, I repeat, pays almost $4 per 100 pounds for wheat flour, or exactly S3.75 and $3.90.
I would remind my hon. friend that in my constituency wheat sells at $1.70 per hundredweight. I know something about it as I have been keeping poultry' for a number of years. For laying mash the consumer pays $2.90 while Growena or chicken feed sells for as much as $3.10 and $3.15 per hundredweight. I will not accuse my hon. friend, as he accused me, -of deceiving Mr. Speaker and the house. But I do not mind saying that the hon. member misrepresented me and gave my' words a meaning which they have not or never had. Since my hon. friend takes offence because I stand up for the consumer and the farmer against the great millers and the bogus middlemen who have both been exploiting them for many years, I suggest in all good faith that he , himself provide better protection for the fishermen and the farmers of his constituency against the mobilization act. My' hon. friend will recall that, on February 19, 1942, when he voted against our amendment asking for the exemption of his constituents from military service, he accepted in principle the mobilization and conscription of his own people.

Incidentally, I may say that I hold the hon. member in high esteem and I feel sorry if his attitude has forced me to restate this question. I decline all responsibility for the matter. He shall answer for his attitude to his constituents. I decline all responsibility in the matter except I have only discharged a splendid duty to the farmers and fishermen of Bonaventure, Laval-Two Mountains and the country as a whole.
Mr. Speaker, I am no flatterer and I take no part in the vast concert of praise being performed on fiddles big and little. I shall support worthy measures from any quarter and oppose any policy which I consider inimical to the country's interests. Honourable members who take part in this debate are fully justified in condemning the government's attitude toward the wheat producer. When a country spends or makes an outright gift of billions after its government has made bold to subsidize acreage reduction; when a nation rations the necessaries of life and then goes so far as to pay the producer for stopping production, when we think of the sordid bill of fare of the poor whose families are always larger than those of the rich; when we see the Canadian mother's inability to perform the miracle of providing her ten, twelve or fifteen children with the sugar, milk, butter and meat required for their normal growth and development, are we not justified in asking ourselves what sort of country we are living in, what sort of government we have, and if we are not threatened by famine, ruin and disaster?


Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak again in this debate, but certain statements have been made which I feel it is my duty to correct in order to keep the record straight. One of the last offenders was the hon. member for Temiseouata (Mr. Pouliot). He would give the house the impression that the west has received all the privileges, and the east the small end1 of the deal. I cannot agree with that, and for his information I would state that while the west has supplied most of the Ministers of Agriculture in past years since the hon. member has been in this house, the east has supplied the Ministers of Finance, and the Minister of Finance has generally made a very effective job of controlling the policies of the Minister of Agriculture. If the hon. member cares to investigate that statement, I think he will very easily be able to verify what I have said
Practically all the products that are marketed iby the eastern provinces are at or above parity prices if you take the 1926-29 average as a basis. Butter is four cents up;

Western Grain Crop
cheese is 6-1 cents up; eggs are 1-3 cents down; steers are 24 cents up, and hogs are 67 cents up. All of these products are marketed mainly by eastern Canada.
In the west we produce wheat and coarse grains below the cost of production and far below parity, and ye.t the government pays freight on our feed coming to eastern Canada. I will give the hon. member for Temiscouata some figures that he should have heard before this evening. Our wheat is down 544 cents below parity; oats is down 9 cents below parity; barley is down 11-2 cents below parity, and rye is down 384 cents below parity. These figures should be sufficient to indicate to the hon. member for Temiscouata that the east is getting its fair share and a little more. That is what is happening, in agriculture.
But the hon. member for Temiscouata will also realize that western Canada contributes to the loan and insurance companies located in central or eastern Canada. He will also know that war industries are located in eastern and central Canada. So that, on the whole, eastern Canada is pretty well taken care of.
I want to thank the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) for the announcement he made yesterday that soldiers' grain will be taken care of in the case of those farmers who have been drafted into the army or have volunteered for active service. I was very glad to hear the minister make that announcement. I consider it only right that this action should have been taken because these men are already making their contribution without having to worry about their grain crops, which in many instances are lying under the snow at the present time.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) as well as the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) suggested that members should not talk blue ruin. I will admit that. But they will also admit, I think, that members on the whole have stated cases exactly as they have found them in western Canada. Having lived in that province which is today leading the dominion in the production of hogs and other products, I am satisfied that any statement I have made here in connection with farming can be substantiated without any difficulty if anyone wants to take the trouble. Painting the picture as it is, is the only way to bring to the house matters as they actually are. I think that is the way to get these things rectified.
In connection with the prices of our grain, when the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) spoke not many days -ago in the
presence of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), the excuse which the minister gave for the low prices paid for grain was that there is a war on. But I would remind the minister that when he is buying munitions and other war supplies which are necessary, but no more necessary than the food which the soldiers and war workers eat, we are not told that there is a war on, because those who manufacture these articles are all paid cost plus. Why not extend the same principle to the farmers?
Then, the Minister of Agriculture told us last session that every cent which could possibly be taken out of the treasury for agriculture was being taken out; but I consider this a flimsy excuse. Why should the farmers not be treated the same as other groups in this country? They are not getting that to which, they are entitled.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce is too modest to make any excuse, because he does not have one that is good enough for an hon. member from Edmonton to make.
This afternoon the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) in his address, and also the Minister of Trade and Commerce, said it was remarkable that no references were made to elimination of the Winnipeg grain exchange. If these gentlemen will read a copy of Votes and Proceedings which was distributed to-day, they will find there a notice of a bill standing in my name, which I hope will be introduced to-morrow, to amend the . Canadian Wheat Board Act. When that, is introduced they will see that all hon. members are not satisfied to. have the grain exchange operating)	
I think the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) are indebted to me for placing this notice on Votes and Proceedings, for I observe that their amendment and subamendment have been lined up directly with this, and I am glad to know that I shall have their support when this bill comes up to be discussed and voted upon.
At the present time we have very able men at the head of the wheat board. I was most sorry to learn that less than two weeks ago the third member of the board passed out of the picture, but I have every confidence in the two remaining members and in the man who I expect will be appointed in the near future. I believe, as do thousands of other farmers, that the wheat board should handle all our wheat and coarse grains.
We have been told that if the grain exchange were not in existence, we would not have benefited by the rise of price of grain which we have enjoyed during the past ten days or two weeks. In contrast to that opinion,.
Western Grain Crop

I would say that if the grain exchange, and the influence it exerts through its friends, apparently including the government, were not in existence, we would be having a far greater price at the present time and would have had' for many years past. I cannot imagine any other industry in Canada having an auction block or a gambling den to set the price of'its product, such as the grain exchange establishes to set the price of farmers' grain-. Can one imagine an insurance company putting its policies on the block and asking, "What are we offered to-day? What is offered as a premium for this policy today?" so that the price of the policy would depend mainly on the number of suckers that were in the crowd to boost or reduce the price of the premium? The same principle might apply to those who construct battleships, aeroplanes, guns and several other articles which are being used at the present time. I cannot conceive of any group being foolish enough to operate in that fashion, but because farmers are unorganized we are having this deal put over on us. Two commissions which investigated grain futures and wheat marketing in the past obtained sufficient -evidence, to show that the grain exchange [DOT]could very well be dispensed with; and as a farmer for the past twenty-nine years in western Canada*. I am quite satisfied that we can get along much better without the grain exchange than with it.
If there were sufficient time to-night, I could cite a numbeT of abuses which existed in connection with the grain trade before the wheat board was set up away back in 1919. On another occasion when we are discussing this grain situation, and particularly the closing of the grain exchange; 1 may be able to throw a little light on some of the abuses which flourished'at that time. We now have a wheat board, but I am not satisfied that such good results are being obtained as would be secured if everything were free to operate in a natural manner. The price has been artificially lifted during the past ten or twelve days. I ask, at whose expense? Whose grain was being marketed and traded to cause the price to fluctuate in the iway in which it has in the past, and who, after all, will gain the benefit? Who reaps the advantage of the rise in the price of grain and the commissions by which the farmers have been mulcted, in the trades that have been made; and who* after all, has supplied the-commissions whioh have been made by-brokers ob>
the grain exchange, the salaries which have-bees drawn-by their staffs, and other things'in-connection with this gambling den?
iMr. Fair.)


Thomas Miller Bell: In view of certain statements which have been made, I should like to make some comments.
First, the amendment which has just been moved puts again before this parliament the position which we have taken in this chamber on numerous occasions. There is no disposition on the part of any who sit in this group to play down the possibilities of western Canada, and- particularly of the province from which we come. I want the house and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to understand that throughout the years which have gone by we have endeavoured to show the house why it was that western Canada was suffering under the disabilities from which it suffered, and to assure the people of other parts of Canada that, in spite of the dreadful years through which we passed' in the nineteen-thirties, western Canada would again produce abundantly, given one requisite, namely, sufficient moisture, sufficient min, or sufficient water.
I remember very well that in 1937, when I had the privilege of addressing a number of clubs in Ontario and other parts of Canada- Canadian clubs and so on-I thanked the people of the communities in which I spoke for the valuable assistance they had given to western Canada during our time of trial; and on every occasion I made the statement that, contrary to the opinion which was expressed in some of the newspapers and articles we were reading, western Canada would again produce in abundance.
I remember very well a statement made by the former leader of the opposition, the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, years ago, somewhat to this effect, that no similar group of people in the history of the world had produced more new wealth in a like period of time than had been produced by those who settled the western prairies. When we look around we ask ourselves, of course, where has that wealth gone? That is why we constantly urge the government and this House of Commons to see to it that the commodity which is produced in such large quantities in the prairie provinces is given a price which bears at least some relationship to the cost of production and to the prices of the articles which enter into the production of that commodity. That has been our plea all through the years, and we intend to continue to make it until there is some recognition of it.
I submit this to the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) and others: When we are discussing this wheat problem let us not forget that on the prairies of Canada we have produced for years within an economy

Western Grain Crop
in which the producer has had to buy his equipment and supplies at almost the highest possible price and to sell the commodity he produces in a market in competition with the same type of commodity produced under the lowest possible costs of production. The fiscal policies of all governments have militated against the region from which some of us in this house come.
I wish to say to my hon. friends to my right as well as to the government that I hope the day is not far distant when this terrible war will be over, when the world will return to a sane basis of trading, so that we may exchange commodities on a basis of equity rather than within the national financial systems and economies that have been competing against one another in the years gone by. I do not forget that it was during the regime of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett when, in order that the parity of our dollar might be maintained with that of the United States and that Canada might cling to the gold standard, the western producer, as somebody said at the time, was literally nailed to a cross of gold. Wheat fell to below forty cents a bushel on the Winnipeg market. When we make a plea for adequate returns to the people who produce this vital commodity we consider that we are amply justified.
I am sorry to say that some grain is now lying in heaps on the open prairie subject to the weather and in danger of being ruined by dampness when the spring thaws come. But I believe that every kernel of this wheat will be of value in the near future. Why was it that the Minister of Agriculture was able to tell the house to-night that the price of wheat had gone up in recent days? I do not know what the answer is, but I have a suspicion. My suspicion is that there are persons going into the market to buy this wheat because they believe that it will be valuable, not only for food but for other purposes. Those who have been following the experiments being made in the manufacture of synthetic rubber and other commodities know that to a large degree the base is alcohol, and that that alcohol is being distilled from wheat.
It has been said that this year from two to three hundred million bushels of wheat will be used in the United States for the distillation of alcohol. I should like to say to the members of this house, particularly those who come from eastern Canada, that if we had a sane national economic policy at the present time, instead of building distilleries in eastern Canada and shipping back the alcohol when it is distilled, we should establish industrial
alcohol distilleries adjacent to the wheat and be prepared to manufacture in the west those articles whose base is industrial alcohol.


Mr. MARTIN:: You must also be near a corn belt.


Thomas Miller Bell: We have no com belt yet.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, we have; I live in one.


Thomas Miller Bell: I am talking of the
prairies. Even there, the probability is that before very long we shall be producing a hybrid' com, so that even that consideration may be out.


Donald Alexander McNiven: In the Maple Creek
district.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It will not be the size of the com grown in Ontario.


Thomas Miller Bell: I do not intend to enter into speculation to-night. I am simply pointing out that we have the grain which can be used as a base for the manufacture of alcohol, and that alcohol is the base for the manufacture of synthetic rubber and other commodities. We ought to be developing these industries on our prairies.


Donald Alexander McNiven: Are any distilleries being built now?


Thomas Miller Bell: They are being expanded. Distilleries are being converted into industrial alcohol distilleries. Is there not one being built at Sault Ste. Marie at the present time? I believe there has been some expansion of existing distilleries to take care of the need for industrial alcohol. I am pointing out that there are possibilities for the use of grain which we have not explored. We should explore them, and we should utilize western grain to some extent for that purpose, pending the time when we shall be able once more to export our grain to feed the starving nations of the world.
I am not sold on the idea that we should continue the acreage reduction in grain this year. I think in all probability we shall find that although we had an abundant crop last year and may have a good crop this year- I quite agree with the Minister of Agriculture and I must admit that I never saw an autumn that was wetter than last year, which usually means a fair crop the following year.


James Garfield Gardiner: Our acreage has been increased this year.


Thomas Miller Bell: I mean acreage reduction over a period of years. We have been criticized by other countries, particularly our neighbour to the south, because the reduction haa not been greater.
Western Grain Crop


James Garfield Gardiner: We have reduced the wheat acreage, but I was talking about coarse grains.


Thomas Miller Bell: Did I say grain? I meant wheat. I am hopeful that every kernel can be utilized.
There are one or two other matters to which I should like to refer. The minister placed on record the correspondence with the federation of agriculture, and I was glad to hear him read this. But that does not alter the fact that of the recommendations made by the. federation, only one has been adopted by the government, the one with reference to the 280 million bushels delivery quota for this year.


James Garfield Gardiner: And the acceptance of 1942 wheat.


Thomas Miller Bell: Yes, including the delivery of 1942 wheat on the 1943 quota. That is important. May I say to the minister that when industry is financed to the extent that it has been, some consideration ought to have been given to the provision of more storage space for grain, especially in view of the tremendous crop reaped last year. As I interjected when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) was speaking this afternoon, I know of areas in my own constituency where wheat is lying on the ground on account of the abundance of last year's yield. Unless something is done in the quite near future, this wheat will spoil. I realize the difficulty of finding storage facilities now, but I wonder whether it would not be possible to place empty cars at certain points and take the tough quota wheat at- least to the terminals where it could be dealt with and saved. Every effort should be made to save the wheat that lies on the prairies at the present time.
I say to hon. members from all parts of Canada that the prosperity of the Canadian economy depends in no small measure upon the prosperity of the prairie region. Yesterday I had a letter from a gentleman whom I know well, who has a splendid farm and is a very good farmer. He said that all his children had gone and that he could not get any hired help. He said that what distressed him most about it was that in letters he was receiving from his sons and a daughter who had gone from the .prairie region was the fact that they showed no inclination to come back; they did not want to come back to the conditions they had known, the conditions we all knew prior to the war. That is not playing down western Canada, but we must face the fact realistically if- [DOT] we want -to- continue the western wheat economy

and again I would say, what the Minister of Agriculture and others have re-[Mr. Coldwell.}	-	.	*
peated many times in this house, that over a very wide area in western Canada grain, and particularly wheat, must be the staple crop. It is true that under war conditions we are able to go into dairying, the raising of hogs and so on, but we have to face the fact that in a region which is semi-arid wheat is the cereal which will grow best and the one upon which we shall have to rely. If we are to -build up this prairie region we shall have to provide conditions of life that will give the amenities to the younger people. How that is to be done I will not discuss to-night, but I suggest that we ought to be thinking of how, when this war is over, we shall provide community life; how we shall promote cooperation among the producers so that they may escape much of the drudgery that they have known in recent years.
I suppose some of us listen occasionally to the farm and labour broadcasts. I think it was a week ago last Monday I listened to one of the labour discussion groups, when a Saskatchewan farmer from near Meadow Lake, now working in an eastern industry, recounted his experiences, and pointed out that he and his family were to-day earning every month an income half as large as the income the whole family earned in a year on the farm at Meadow Lake. Those conditions cannot continue if we want to keep this country prosperous and rebuild the prairie populations. We should be considering not only the marketing of wheat and commodity prices, but how we can bring water to the land in dry years- I believe that can be done-how we can build up the communities so that instead of the drab villages and the poor homes that so many people have had to live in although producing great wealth, we may bring to them the comforts and amenities of modern life. A great deal depends upon the price that the commodity fetches on the markets of this country and of the world.
I wish to emphasize, as the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) did this afternoon,' that we are no believers in what is called inflation, but we believe that justice must be done to the worker and the farmer all across Canada. As the hon. member said this afternoon, when New Zealand is quoted to us we know quite well that there in 1936 the Labour government began a programme in which they endeavoured to bring about some parity between the farmer producing mutton, wool, cheese, butter and other agricultural products, and other industries, so that when the war broke out, they had achieved a degree of parity, not altogether satisfactory but a degree, and consequently - the government there was in a different position from our own govern-

Western Grain Crop
ment, who in a rough and ready way took a period of time when agricultural prices were low and froze them at that level.
I hope that this amendment will be supported. May I say to my hon. friends who moved the amendment to the amendment which was ruled out of order, that if they will examine the amendment moved by the hon. member for Weyburn they will find that it and the subamendment express the same point of view with the exception of the point to which Mr. Speaker objected and on the ground of which he ruled the subamendment out of order. I think this debate has served a useful purpose, and I hope that the house and the country will see to it that steps are taken to bring a measure of economic justice to the people who, as I said before, have had to buy in a most highly protected market and to sell their products on the markets of the world.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: This
parliament has set up by statute certain bodies, the grain board and the committee on agriculture, and has enacted a grain act. It seems to me they are forgotten agencies. Why this house should seek to set up a political structure for the sale of grain or other commodities, I cannot understand. I am not surprised to see the changes which have come about in the minds of some hon. members regarding this question. It used to be said on the prairies that this industry was a free trade industry, a north and south industry and not an east and west industry for which our best customers are Great Britain and France. We saw how the free traders veered around to nine or ten different methods of protection, acreage bonus, storage bonus and many such matters. There are two or three factors, however, which have been forgotten. Two questions will have to be decided before we can lay down any price for the 1943-4 crop. One concerns the lease-lend arrangement; another, our relation with our best customer, the motherland. Are we to continue the policy of empire preferences or not? That is a most important matter. Britain is losing some of her export trade by the lease-lend arrangement. She cannot get on without exports and imports; without that trade she becomes a second Denmark, and the best days of the empire will be in the past. What is the policy of the government regarding lease-lend? What is the position of Canada in regard to the rebuilding of the devastated countries of Europe? The government of the day have not yet made up their minds. The United States, Britain and Russia know that they will have to come to the support of these countries in rebuilding, not only with food and
grain, but with building materials. These are two important matters that must first be decided.
It is the desire of every good citizen in this country that agriculture should be prosperous. We have not had that condition since confederation; we did not have it in days of peace, and it is less likely to be had in war days. The people of Ontario are very much alarmed because there is no equality of treatment in the measures passed in this country relating to the grain trade or to agriculture. One part of the country is set off against another. I am for the principle of confederation, each for all and all for each. I believe aid should be given to agriculture in all the provinces, if it is necessary; I believe aid should be given to all industries that require it, and that we should not single out the grain industry of the west. There should be equality of treatment. If agriculture on the prairies is to get help, so should agriculture in the other provinces of confederation. Many people in Ontario were greatly alarmed when a deputation came to Ottawa the other day to interview the government and present a brief in which they asked that the principal and interest of farm mortgages should be reduced, no matter when the debts were incurred and apparently without regard to ability to pay. The brief also mentioned the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. If there is one thing that has caused untold trouble in this country, it has been the political administration of that act. The principle may have been all right, but its administration has been one of the most difficult things agriculture has had to face, with debts being reduced, mortgages abandoned and all that sort of thing. Why can it not be applied to industrial workers? Hundreds and thousands of investors in Ontario invested money in mortgages in the prairies years ago. All they had to live on was the interest on their mortgages; now that interest may be wiped out in a day and their investment ruined by legislation.
If we are to have that sort of procedure, what about the industrial workers of this country; what about a brief for them? Will the government consider that, as well as the brief presented by the agricultural interests of the prairies? I say it is all wrong; there should be equality of treatment all over the country. The province of Saskatchewan is mentioned a great deal in this house. In this morning's Globe and Mail I read a long letter by Fredl Williams giving a description of the northwest field force of 1885. We talk a great deal about Saskatchewan in this house; yet We cannot get three minutes of time here
Western Grain Crop

to discuss pensions for those men, in. need now, who saved the prairie provinces and kept Canada together.
I have no doubt other opportunities will be provided to speak on these matters; but on behalf of the farmers of Ontario, British Columbia, and the maritime provinces I say that if one section of the country is to receive preferred treatment, then it will be a sorry day for the people of this country, who are now faced with a five billion dollar tax load. I plead with the government that these matters be sent to the agriculture committee and the grain board. The minister should consult with those bodies and then have the whole thing brought to the house not as a political structure but as a financial structure which the country will be able to
carry.


Gordon Graydon: I was paired with the
Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.
Main motion (Mr. Ilsley) agreed to, and the house went into committee, Mr. Gray in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OP FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
General.
1,17. To provide, subject to allocation by the treasury board, for cost-of-living bonus-further amount required, $745,000.
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Chairman, the reason why I should like to have this item passed to-night, and if possible one or two others, is that unless it is passed I cannot legally pay quite a number of civil servants to-morrow. I therefore ask the house to pass the item.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gray):: Are there othef items the minister would like to have called'?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, items Jfi4 and 425.


Gordon Graydon: In addition to item 4171


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.
The ACTING- CHAIRMAN (Mr! Grky): Is it the wish of the house that we abandon item 417, and turn to the others?

Supply-Finance


James Lorimer Ilsley: Did item 417 pass?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No; we have all day to-morrow to pass it. This is only March 30.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No. Let us understand the situation. This is March 30, and to-morrow is March 31. We have all day to-morrow to deal with this matter; it is not necessary to pass it to-night.


An hon. MEMBER:: A war is on.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, a
war is om, but it is not necessary to rush this through. They will get their cheques, all right. This is an important item, and there are certain questions we shouLd like to ask in connection with the cost-of-ldving bonus, and those whom it affects. I will say this to the minister. If he will undertake that on some other item members can discuss the cost-of-living bonus, I would have no objection to putting this item through, but with all rights reserved. That is a fair enough offer. If this were the 31st day of March, I would not hold the item up for a moment.


James Lorimer Ilsley: What is the undertaking that is required?


Richard Burpee Hanson: That on some other item in the supplementaries we can discuss the cost of living bonus and how it is applied by the government. We certainly should have some explanation from the minister as to how the bonus is being applied among the civil servants and as to its allocation by the treasury board.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will undertake that that can be discussed to-morrow.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not know under what item it could be discussed. There is an item for the royal mint, but that would not be very appropriate.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member for York-Sunbury is asking for an undertaking that the cost of living bonus can be discussed on the supplementaries?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, and I should not like to be shut off by the Chairman on the ground that the discussion was not germane to any of these items. I have looked through them hurriedly to see under what item the cost of living bonus could be discussed, but I do not see any.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There are a number of other items in the same position as this one, ahd there is not" much advantage in putting' this' item through unless the - other salary items go through too.


Gordon Graydon: To which items does the minister refer?


James Lorimer Ilsley: To items 477, 421, 432, 423, 424, 425, 436, 437, 429 and 430. If the committee would put these items through tonight, it would regularize payment to-morrow. If not; if that is too big an order, we can take them up to-morrow afternoon. I do not know just what I can work out about payment. I greatly dislike any irregular or illegal payment of money. I introduced this last Friday afternoon with the expectation that it would be through before this, but we have had a debate for the last two days, and I shall just have to decide whether to let the civil servants wait or try to get the Department of Justice to advise on some way in which the obligations can be met to-morrow. The other alternative would be to put the items through to-night.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think I understand what is in the minister's mind, but I would point out to him and to the house generally that there has grown up a practice in this house for estimates to be held back until the last unholy moment of the session, or until the last moment just before the money is required. Hon. members have not had a chance in the last three sessions, and we are now in the fourth, properly to discuss civil estimates. I put myself in the judgment of the committee if that is not a fact. Then we have the spectacle here in the dying days of a session of voting millions of dollars a minute. That is not in the public interest. I do not know just what difficulty may arise if this vote does not go through to-night, but it is in the general interests of the tax-paying public that these items should be discussed, particularly this one, which is a huge item for three-quarters of a million dollars. We also know that the allocation of the cost of living bonus is arbitrary at the hands of the treasury board. I wish to know something more about that when the time comes. I think to-morrow will be ample time to pass these items. Let us have a discussion on them to-morrow.


John Gordon Ross: Suppose somebody starts another debate on the Speaker leaving the chair?


Richard Burpee Hanson: They must take the responsibility. We have not held up the discussion of these items. We did not precipitate the debate. I had no idea it would go on as loiig as it did. I hoped that we would reach these estimates to-day. We did not' do so, but' that is no reason why we should not' discuss the items. I wish to be reasonable about the matter.
Supply-Finance


James Layton Ralston: I should like to say to the hon. member for York-Sunbury that the Minister of Finance has waited for two days to get into supply. I think everybody has been quite patient; I am not blaming anyone. But it is March 30, and it will be March 31 soon. The Minister of Finance is endeavouring now with his assistant to see if there is not some item on which the discussion which my hon. friend desires could take place so that the items can be put through to-night to regularize payment. I appreciate the consideration of the committee in waiting for a short time.. It will only be a few minutes before the minister can decide.


Thomas Miller Bell: Could the minister
between now and to-morrow not select an item on which the cost-of-living bonus could be discussed? I appreciate the necessity of putting these items through, but like the hon. member for York-Sunbury, I consider that we should have had these estimates before us earlier. We are now faced with a situation. The civil servants ought to be paid, and I am prepared to go on and put these items through, if the minister will give an undertaking that an item can be found on which these matters can be discussed to-morrow.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That will be fair. If that can be done. I will give that undertaking if the Chair will support me.


Mr. HANSON (Arork-Sunbury):: That is the difficulty. Any member can call the attention of the Chair to the position, and the Chair must rule.


The CHAIRMAN:: On that point may I say that I have always allowed a certain degree of latitude to meet the general desire of the committee, and I shall certainly do so again.


Mr. ISNOR:: I would point out to the Minister of Finance and to the hon. member for York-Sunbury that the discussion could take place under item 66 in the main estimates, which is in practically the same wording.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We all know that, but it will be months before we reach the main- estimates.


Gordon Graydon: I have not said anything up to the moment, but I would say this to the minister, that we are very anxious that we or any other member of the house shall not be put in the position of withholding any proper pay from any employee of the government. I do not think any member of the house should be placed in that very unforrMb R. B. Hanson.]
tunate position, because I am quite sure that there is no hon. member who would by design do such a thing. The suggestion of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor) is an impossible one, because these are supplementary estimates for the year ending to-morrow. I must say that it is very unfortunate from the minister's point of view that the particular items he is calling at the moment involve a question of gravity. The cost-of-living bonus is a matter which would normally take some time to discuss. In addition, the whole labour department is involved in a discussion of items Iftl, 422 and 423, and also the legislation items of 424 and 425, to say nothing of the others. Before we as a party will in any way give up our rights with respect to the discussion of these further supplementary estimates, we want an airtight undertaking of some description from the government that we shall have an opportunity to-morrow to discuss these items, which normally would be discussed to-night, under some other item with respect to the further supplementary estimates. I think, with that understanding, we may be able to do some business on these points.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I suggest that, under item 415, "Royal Canadian Mint, including the Dominion of Canada assay office-further amount required", any of the items which I have named-417, 421, 422, 423, 424, 426, 427, 429 and 430-may be discussed to-morrow.


James Layton Ralston: Or at any other time.


James Lorimer Ilsley: At any time while these supplementaries are under discussion. I hope we shall finish by to-morrow night. But my undertaking would be that under item 415 they may be discussed. The mint is in a sense the source of quite a lot of the money which is paid under these other items.


Gordon Graydon: I hope the minister will not pay civil servants in small change to-morrow.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I promise the committee that I will give all the latitude possible, after listening attentively to the conversation on all sides of the house.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Just before the item carries, if the Montreal strike lasts until to-morrow can that subject be discussed under item 4211 I was in Montreal to-day, and had to walk several miles. I found Montrealers everywhere quite "up in the air" and denouncing all and sundry for the strike which is going on there. If that cannot be discussed to-morrow, I do not see, if we want to discuss, it, how we can pass 421-

Meat Rationing


James Lorimer Ilsley: With regard to anything
which can be discussed under any one of these items which I have mentioned, I will offer no objection, and I think it can be understood that it may be discussed under item 416.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
430. Audit of revenue, money order, postal note and savings hank business: issue of postage stamps and postal notes-further amount required, $80,000.
Gordon Graydon: May I make one observation to the minister with respect to these items which have been carried? He intimated that item 416, under Finance, Royal Canadian Mint, would be the item under which these various payments which have been passed can be fully discussed to-morrow; that was his undertaking. I just wish to point out that we shall expect that item 416, because of the fact that the other items have been called to-night first, will be called first on the further supplementary estimates tomorrow.


James Lorimer Ilsley: All right.


Gordon Graydon: In other words, we put
ourselves back to-morrow to the position we were in -when we started this discussion tonight and before these items were passed?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. RALSTON moved the adjournment of the house.
Gordon Graydon: What will be the business to-morrow?


James Layton Ralston: To-morrow we shall proceed with the further supplementary estimates. We hope to call the two other departments, Fisheries and Public Works, and if we finish those we shall proceed with the budget resolutions.


Gordon Graydon: Will more than one
item be called in Fisheries and Public Works?


James Layton Ralston: Yes.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 11.19 p.m.
Wednesday, March 31, 1943