1947-03-13

Mr. ROCH PINARD (Chambly-Rouville):: I rise to a question of personal privilege. As a matter of fact, sir, I consider it the most precious privilege any hon. member can have, the right of exercising his vote in the house. Although I voted yesterday afternoon against the amendment proposed by the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Bracken) my name is not recorded in the report which may be found at page 1315 of Hansard. I should like this omission to be corrected.
Questions



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved:
That the name of Mr. Wright be substituted for that of Mr. Castleden on the special committee on canteen funds.
That the name of Mr. Smith (York North) be substituted for that of Mr. Mcllraith on the standing committee on banking and commerce.
Motion agreed to.

Hon. H. F. G. BRIDGES (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce that after March 31. 1947, no Canadian canned fish will be subject to international allocation. Similarly, allocation of salted cod and other salted groundfish of 1946 production will come to an end on June 30 of this year, and there will be no allocation of salted fish from 1947 production. Examination of the world situation by the international food emergency council at Washington this week has shown the world supply is coming into approximate balance with effective demand, when all fish products are taken into consideration; hence this decision has been made to discontinue the allocation schemes relating to canned and salted fish.
Most Canadian canned fish has been subject to international allocation since the mid-war years. Chief among the products concerned have been canned salmon and canned herring, but the list has also included such others as canned sardines, mackerel, groundfish and pilchards. All of them will come out from under this control at the close of the present month.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)	.

Mr. McMASTER:: 1.	Who are the persons or corporations included in the twenty highest-paid entertainers for the C.B.C. in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1946, and what was the amount paid to each?
2.	What large sums entered into the total of:
(a)	$1,160,674.80 for engineering; (b) station networks, $971,441; (c) press and information, $145,183.73;	(d) commercial division, $130,903.47;	(e) international shortwave service,
$577,809.07?
[Mr. Pinard.3


Mr. McCANN:: 1.	Production of this information would be detrimental to the position of the corporation in obtaining professional services and staff in a competitive field and would therefore not be in the public interest.
2.	(a) Light and power, $91,431.96; maintenance-transmitters, studios, technical equipment, offices, etc., $114,222.10; rental of buildings or floor space, $21,386.14; salaries (including superannuation), $808,091.35; improvements to leased properties, $35,73459.
(b)	This covers expenditures for wire lines only provided by C.N.T., C.P.T., Bell Telephone Company and others.
(c)	Advertisements, $23,947.44; printing and stationery, $36,461.01; salaries (including superannuation), $60,070.16.
(d)	Salaries (including superannuation), $78,114.89.
(e)	Artists' fees, $93,898.29; news-press service, $38,217.02; recording blanks, $20,060.77; rental of buildings or floor space, $40,920.92; salaries (including superannuation), $201,672.81; station line-studio to transmitter, $40,072.08.


DEBERT CAMP
Mr. STANFIELD:: 1.	What has been the total cost of demolishing Debert camp to date?
2.	What is the estimated value of material salvaged?
3.	What is the total value of material actually sold and by whom was it sold?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	As of January 31, 1947, invoices have been received from the contractor carrying out demolition at the Debert camp in the amount of $247,760.42. In addition to this, it is estimated that War Assets Corporation has, to the 14th of February, 1947, incurred direct and indirect costs in the amount of $48,000.
2.	Estimated total present day sale value of materials salvaged from Debert project as of February 14, 1947, is $337,464.24.
3.	Total value of material sold from Debert project up to and including February 25, 1947, $76,110.75. Sales were made by War Assets Corporation on the direction of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Further allocations are expected as the building season opens up.


TIMBER CONTROL
Mr. HODGSON:: 1.	What are the names of the members of the timber control board?
2.	What salary or/and expenses did each receive in 1946?
3.	What is the name of the timber controller?

Questions
4.	What salary or/and expenses did he receive in 1946?
5.	What are the names of the lumber inspectors employed by the timber control board?
6.	What salary or/and expenses did each receive in 1946?
7.	Are the lumber inspectors working full time for the government?
8.	If not, what other position does each hold and with what firms?
9.	What was the total cost of timber control for 1946?
10.	Does the timber control board assume any responsibility for the demurrage on cars of lumber held under seal awaiting arrival of the lumber inspectors?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	There is no timber control board.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	T. F. Flahifif, OR.E.
4.	From date of appointment, August 15, 1946 to December 31, 1946: Salary, $2,842.74; travelling expenses, $1,629.25.
5.	Mr. S. Jarman is the only inspector employed by the timber control. The balance of the work is carried out by inspectors of the wartime prices and trade board.
6.	Salary of Mr. Jarman, $2,819.77; travelling expenses, $3,246.05.
7.	Yes, in so far as Mr. Jarman is concerned.
8.	Answered by No. 7.
9.	$414,477. This figure includes the cost of operating, for 1946, timber and lumber control, fuelwood control and pulpwood control.
10.	The timber control does not assume any responsibility for demurrage on cars. Demurrage is paid by the wartime prices and trade board in cases where there is reason to believe that the contents of the car are not in accordance with the invoice.


HOUSING-WELCOME, ONT.
Mr. STEPHENSON:: Re: the 4 houses being built under the V.L.A. at Welcome, Ontario.
1.	What price will the veterans be asked to pay for these houses if and when completed?
2.	What did each house cost the government to build?
3.	What was the cost of the 100 acres bought at Welcome, Ontario, to build small holding houses on?
4.	What has been the total cost to the government of the 100 acres and the 4 houses up to the present time?


Mr. TUCKER:: 1.	Providing the veteran earns his conditional grant of $1,400 by complying with the terms of his contract for a period of ten years, he will pay, for land, house and services, for the four properties respectively: $5,624.62; $5,329.42; $5,644.57; $4,771.62 with interest at 3i per cent.
2.	$8,105.69; $8,042.12; $8,132.17; $7,154.73. (High costs were encountered due to material, labour and weather conditions.)
3.	$7,850.
4.	Actually expended to present time: $35,791.34; commitments not yet paid covering drainage, balance of water system, driveways and landscaping will bring total cost to $42,101.59.


HOUSING-VETERANS LAND ACT-ARCHITECTS
Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	How many architects were commissioned to prepare floor plans and specifications, or either, for homes under the Veterans' Land Act?
2.	What are the names of the architects so employed?
3.	How were such architects chosen to prepare plans?
4.	What was the fee paid?
5.	What was the fee received for each plan or specification, or either?
6.	What was the total amount received by each architect for preparation of above?
7.	Was a fee paid to the above architects for further use of these plans or specifications, or either?
8.	If so, how many times were said plans or specifications, or either, used and what was the total amount paid to each architect?
9.	Were the above architects required to make inspections of homes under construction?


Mr. TUCKER:: 1.	2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. The information sought by these questions was supplied in a return tabled in the House of Commons on February 27, 1947; see Votes and Proceedings No. 21, page 135.
8.	Plans were used 2,588 times. Certain plans were used without payment on other occasions on individual houses constructed within the Toronto district but information available does not reveal the number of times. Total amount paid to each architect shown in return tabled on February 27.
9.	No.


HOUSING ENTERPRISES LIMITED
Mr. TIMMINS:: In respect to the building project known aa Housing Enterprises Limited, 1. What proportion, if any, of such housing units are required to be rented to veterans?
2.	Does the government have any part in fixing the rental rates in respect to the various types of units? If so, what are the rates set?
3.	What proportion of the cost of the project is financed by the government and what proportion by Housing Enterprises Limited?
4.	What amount has been advanced by the government to date on this project?

Questions


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	Veterans are given full preference in the renting of all housing units managed by Housing Enterprises of Canada Limited.
2.	Yes. Rentals are established by Housing Enterprises of Canada Limited on an economic basis and at as low a level as is permitted by conditions involved in each project. The rentals proposed must be approved by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and must be below the maximum rental fixed by the wartime prices and trade board.
3.	Ninety per cent of the cost of each project is financed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation under section 9 of the National Housing Act by a loan for 50 years at 3 per cent. Ten per cent of the cost is financed by Housing Enterprises of Canada Limited as its equity investment on which earnings are limited to not more than 5 per cent per annum.
4.	The answer to this part of the question is contained in part 2 of the answer to a question by Mr. Zaplitny, to be found at pages 466-67 of Hansard of February 17, 1947.


RATIONING OF NEWSPRINT
Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	Is newsprint rationed in Canada?
2.	If so, what is the basis on which the quota for publishers is based?
3.	Has a request been received from the Vancouver Sun at Vancouver, British Columbia, for an increase in its quota because of increased circulation?
4.	If so, what action has been taken?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3 and 4. Requests have been received from the Vancouver Sun for an increase in supply but since newsprint is no longer allocated, no action has been taken. The Vancouver Sun has been told that this is a matter entirely between that newspaper and its suppliers.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION-MRS. LAURETTE AUGER
Mr. LENNARD:: What remuneration was paid by C.B.C. to Mrs. Laurette Auger (Jean Desprez), monthly, for 1946?


Mr. McCANN:: Production of this information would be detrimental to the position of the corporation in obtaining professional services and staff in a competitive field, and would therefore not be in the public interest.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION ANNOUNCERS
Frank Exton Lennard: On the C.B.C. network for stations CBF, Montreal; CBV, Quebec; CBJ, Chicoutimi (a) what are the names of the announcers; (b) their addresses; (c) what is their individual remuneration as such?


James Joseph McCann: (a) Name-(b) Residence Address.
CBF, Montreal-M. Couture, 4715 Queen Mary, Apt. 10, Montreal, P.Q.
R. Baulu, 3068 Lacombe, Montreal, P.Q.
L. R. Lecavalier, 5175 St-Hubert, Apt. 1, Montreal, P.Q.
G. Berthiaume, 8432 A. Chateaubriand, Montreal, P.Q.
J. M. Bailly, 7149 Chambord, Montreal, P.Q.
J. N. R. Laplante, 2014 Metcalfe, Montreal, P.Q.
P. Chayer, 4340 Pie IX Blvd.. Apt. 1, Montreal, P.Q.
J. C. Chapais, 1802 Rosemont Blvd., Apt. 4, Montreal, P.Q.
J. P. Nolet, 3588 Jeanne-Mance, Montreal, P.Q.
J. Morin, 3450 Berri, Montreal, P.Q.
CBV, Quebec-
L. Cote, 17 Belvedere Ave., Quebec, P.Q.
R. Belanger, 168-10th Street, Quebec, P.Q.
C. Garneau, 48 Sheppard St., Sillery, P.Q.
R. Lelievre, 651-8th Street, Quebec, P .Q.
J. Cimon, 87 Park Ave., Quebec, P.Q.
CBJ, Chicoutimi-
L. Raymond, 2-A Savard St., Chicoutimi, P.Q.
L. Campagna, 122 Jacques-Cartier, Chicoutimi, P.Q.
J. L. Morin, 809 5th Street, Arvida (Chicoutimi) P.Q.
(c) Production of this information would be detrimental to the position of the Corporation in obtaining professional services and staff in a competitive field, and would therefore not be in the public interest.


RURAL MAIL ROUTES
Mr. FAIR:: 1.	How many rural mail routes are established in each province?
2.	What is the average rate per mile paid in each province?
3.	How many couriers in each province made application for war bonus under order in council 4960, June 47, 1943?

Questions
4.	How many of those applications have been granted?
5.	What is the average bonus granted in each province?


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: The hon. member has agreed to drop paragraph 3 in view of the difficulties involved in obtaining the information requested. The remaining paragraphs may be answered as follows:
Postal District	1	2Charlottetown 	
177	$38.94Halifax 	
249	46.49Saint John	
351	42.17Quebec 	
515	40.75Montreal 	
723	40.32Ottawa 	40.32North Bay 	
100	44.97Toronto 	44.19London 	41.41Winnipeg 	
151	49.37Moose Jaw 	
55	52.51Saskatoon 	
121	49.26Calgary 	
82	49.68Edmonton 	
162	52.11Vancouver 	54.18Postal District	4	5Charlottetown 	.... 115	$196.33Halifax 	
47	174.65Saint John 	
66	192.53Quebec 	.... 259	243.51Montreal 	.... 315	219.29Ottawa 	
239	211.56North Bay 	.... 18	175.03Toronto 	.... 148	186.18London 	.... 283	208.35Winnipeg	.... 37	191.54Moose Jaw 	.... 9	94.72Saskatoon 	.... 27	113.62Calgary 	.... 15	138.60Edmonton 	.... 26	142.36Vancouver 	.... 35	307.74
Note: The information is furnished by postal districts as the departmental records do not provide the information by provinces.


RENTAL OP OFFICE SPACE IN NEW GLASGOW, N.S.
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	From whom does the unemployment insurance commission and the national employment service, New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, lease office space, and what is the (a) square footage of same; (b) date of lease and date of termination; (c) amount of yearly rentals, including taxes and electric services?
2.	Were the quarters previously occupied by the above-mentioned vacated?
3.	If so, for what reason and when was notice given to owners?


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: 1.	The Department of Public Works leases for the accommodation of the Unemployment 83166-85J
Insurance Commission the second floor of building, corner of Archimedes and MacLean streets, New Glasgow, from Frank H. Sobey, having an area of 5,300 square feet at a rental of $6,000 per annum, for a period of five years from February 1, 1947, to January 31, 1952. The lessor pays taxes and water rates. As the Unemployment Insurance Commission did not occupy the premises until February no electric light bills have been paid.
The following space is also occupied in the Maritime building, rented from Robert C. Grant: rooms C03 and 604, having an area of 427 square feet at a rental of $756 per annum, on a monthly basis. The lessor pays taxes, water rates and lighting.
2.	Yes.
3.	The Unemployment Insurance Commission required larger accommodation. The lessors were advised on January 14 that the premises would be vacated on or before February' 28, 1947.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION-LARMONT TILDEN
Mr. HEON:: For^the year 1946, and the first two months of 1947, what were the amounts paid by C.B.C., in salary and extra-compensation to Larmont Tilden?


James Joseph McCann: Production of this information would be detrimental to the position of the corporation in obtaining professional services and staff in a competitive field, and would therefore not be in the public interest.


VETERANS LAND ACT-SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. McKAY:: 1.	Have officials of the Veterans' Land Act taken steps to classify and list land suitable for veteran settlement in Saskatchewan?
2.	If so, what area or areas have been classified and upon what basis has the classification been made?


Mr. TUCKER:: 1.	During initial operations under the Veterans' Land Act, a reserve or backlog of suitable lands was built up and lists of such lands were made available to qualified veterans.
2.	It has not been and is not the practice to classify whole areas, but to determine the suitability of individual parcels by detailed appraisal on the ground.


TRAN SPORTATION-ACCIDENTS
Mr. KNOWLES:: What is the rate of fatalities (a) for Canada; (b) for North America, or whatever portion thereof for which figures are available, per million passenger miles travelled (or other available base) for each of the following modes of
Questions

transportation: (-1) by train; (2) by commercial air services; (3) by commercial bus routes; (4) by automobile?


Mr. MacKINNON:: Passengers killed per 100,000,000 passenger miles.
1	(a and b) Trains-
1945, Canada, -157; United States, -155.
1944,	Canada, -116; United States, -260. ,4943, Canada, [DOT] 138; United States, -291.
2	(a and b) Civil Aviation (Commercial Aircraft)-
1945,	Canada, 1-303; United States, 2-31. 1944, Canada, nil; United States, 2-48.
1943, Canada, 1-989; United States, 1-66. Passengers and drivers killed per 100,000
motor vehicles registered (no data on passenger miles)*
3	and 4 (A and B)-
1945, Canada, 43-42; United States, not available.
1944, Canada, 35-94; United States, 32-52. 1943, Canada, 35-45; United States, 30-13. *No division between bus and passenger cars.


WAR ASSETS CORPORATION-BUILDING OPERATING EXPENSES
Mr. FRASER:: 1.	What was paid by war assets corporation during fiscal year ending March 31, 1946, for building operating expenses?
2.	What items are covered in these expenses?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	$65,729.96.
War Assets Corporation Offices at 4095 St. Catherine St. W., Montreal
Guards provided by Canadian corps of commissionaires	
Salaries and wages of cleaners and office maintenance staff
(carpenters, movers, etc.)	
Coal for heating building	 [DOT]
Painting offices, repairing offices, general electrical repairs
including wiring, installations of linoleum	
Miscellaneous services and consumable supplies (including elevator inspection service, window cleaning, fluorescent lights and
small ware	
Cleaning materials and washroom supplies


$ 8,378.17 32.0S2.35 6,925.36 11,932.58 6,258.25 4,209.28 $69,785.99
[Stage Direction]
Less
Rental revenue (citadel merchandising)	 5,959.46	$63,826.53
War Assets Corporation canteen and snack bar at 4095 St. Catherine St. W., Montreal
Painting and decorating	 S 420.00
E.G.M. Cafe and Company-	 365.63
Carting and transportation charges	 215.22
Installation charges	   760.04
Hardware	 15.00
Supplies and consumable equipment	 826.i0
Service repairs and equipment	 236.48
[Stage Direction]
Less
War Assets Corporation's share of operating profit	 1,689.28	$ 1,150.59
Ottawa Offices: (No. 4 Temporary Building)
Cleaning and painting offices	 $	483.18
Moving office furniture	 255.50
Supplies	 14.16	752.84
Total	 $65,729.96
[Stage Direction]
Orders for Returns

Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	How many office desks and chairs have been declared surplus since the cessation of hostilities by any department of government?
2.	How many of these have been (a) sold; (b) stored, by war assets corporation?
3.	What contracts have been given by the various departments of government for new office desks and chairs since the cessation of hostilities and how many desks and chairs were involved in the said contracts?
Mr. GRAYDON; I would like to have this question dropped in view of the minister's explanation given on the last day when questions were before the house, on the distinct understanding that it is without prejudice to my putting the question on the order paper again in reworded form.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Dropped.


WHITEHORSE PUBLIC BUILDING
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BLACK (Yukon);
When is the federal building for which plans were drawn by the government in 1896, to be constructed at Whitehorse, Yukon?
Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: The construction of a public building at Whitehorse, Yukon, is under consideration.


REPAIR OR RECONDITIONING OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT, SOREL, QUE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LENNARD;
1.	How many military vehicles or weapons were overhauled, repaired or reconditioned at Sorel, Quebec, during the year 1946?
2.	What firm or firms did this work?
3.	What was the cost?
4.	What disposition was made or is to be made of these vehicles or weapons?
Mr. LAPOINTE;
1.	Military vehicles-none; weapons-274 together with spares and ancillaries were modified and overhauled.
2.	Sorel Industries Limited, Sorel, Quebec.
3.	$514,719.87.
4.	These weapons are being issued to active and reserve force units of the Canadian army.


Mr. FLEMING:: 1.	How many houses has Wartime Housing Limited completed for occupancy up to December 31, 1946?
2.	(a) What expenditures have been made to December 31, 1946, by Wartime Housing Limited; (b) has any portion thereof been expended otherwise than on houses? If so, what portion and on what?
3.	(a) How many houses are under construction by or for Wartime Housing Limited; (b) in what municipalities are they located?
4.	(a) How many other houses has Wartime Housing Limited contracted for; (b) in what municipalities are they to be located?
5.	When is it estimated that all such houses will he completed and ready for occupancy?
6.	(a) How many of the completed houses have cellars, and how many have no cellars; (b) how many of those yet to be completed will have cellars and how many will not?
7.	What quantities of building materials of all kinds has Wartime Housing Limited on hand?
8.	(a) How many persons are employed by Wartime Housing Limited; (b) who among such persons are in receipt of salaries of
83,000	per annum, or more, and who are they, and what services do they perform; (c) what is the monthly payroll of Wartime Housing Limited?
Mr. MelLRAITH: Return tabled.


HOME CONVERSION PLAN-APARTMENTS IN VANCOUVER
Mr. FLEMING:: As to each of the following buildings: (a) on St. Jean street in the city of Quebec; (b) on Burnaby street in the city of Vancouver; (c) on west 14th avenue in the city of Vancouver, which were the subject of agreements for conversion into apartments on the home conversion plan-
1.	With whom as owner was the agreement made for conversion of the building into apartments?
2.	If the owner was a corporation, who are its officers and directors and where is the head' office located? If the owner "was a partnership,. who -were the partners?
3.	What was the estimate of the cost, and who' prepared it, and wThat were the shares agreed to' be borne respectively by the government and the owner ?
4.	Who checked the estimate on behalf of the
government?
5.	What was the actual cost of the conversion and in what shares has it been borne by the government and the owner?
6.	What payments have been made pursuant to the said agreement and on what dates?
7.	What record of progress had been made and submitted at the date of each such payment, and by what government inspector or inspectors was the same made or provided in each case? Are all such inspectors in the employ of the government or Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?
8.	What investigation of this agreement, and of the estimate of cost and of the actual cost of conversion, has been made by or on behalf of the government?
Mr. MelLRAITH: Return tabled.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	What -was the total amount of the levy by the sugar administration in lieu of duty since April 1, 1942?
2.	What was the total amount of the loss in revenue to the dominion treasury through the reductions of the sugar excise tax on (a) cane; (b) beet refined sugar?
Orders for Returns

3.	What does the sugar administrator show as his profit or loss for the year ending August 31, 1946 and the four months ending December 31, 1946?



DEPUTY MINISTERS

Mr. BERTRAND (Terrebonne):: What are the names of all deputy ministers and all those who have by law the rank and standing of deputy ministers?


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: Return tabled.



EXPORTS OF NEWSPRINT

Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	For the calendar year 1946, what was the total export of newsprint from (a) Canada; (b) the province of British Columbia?
2.	How much newsprint was exported from (a) Canada; (b) British Columbia, to the United States for the calendar year 1946?
3.	Is newsprint rationed in the United States?


Colin William George Gibson: Return tabled.



WAR ASSETS-STE. ANNE DES MONTS-RIVIERE AU RENARD TELEPHONE LINE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. HEON;
1.	During the last war, did the government build a telephone line from Ste. Anne des Monts [DOT]to Riviere au Renard, on the Gaspe coast?
2.	If so, what was the cost of same?
3.	Has this telephone line been sold either directly or through war assets corporation?
4.	If so, to whom and at what price?
Colin William George Gibson: Return tabled.



NEWSPRINT

Mr. ASHBY:: 1.	What has been the total production of newsprint in Canada for each of the years 1939 to 1946 inclusive?
2.	What has been the amount of newsprint exported to the United Kingdom during each of the years .1939 to 1946 inclusive?
3.	Has the United Kingdom been supplied with all the newsprint requested by the trade in the United Kingdom?
4.	Are there any orders for newsprint from the United Kingdom still unfilled?


Colin William George Gibson: Return tabled.


Mr. McKAY:: 1.	How many pounds of nickel were produced in Canada in each of the years 1938 to 1946 inclusive?
2.	What was the quantity of nickel exported for each of the above named years and to what countries were exports made?
3.	What was the value of the nickel produced in Canada in each year 1938 to 1946 inclusive?
4.	What was the relationship between Canadian production of nickel and world production for each of the above named years?
Mr. MaeKINNON: Return tabled.



FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES IN SASKATCHEWAN

Mr. McKAY:: 1.	How many persons are employed by the federal government in the province of Saskatchewan?
2.	By what departments or branches of departments of the federal government are these persons employed?
3.	Are any persons employed by the federal Department of National Health and Welfare in the Province of Saskatchewan?
4.	If so, what is the nature of their work?


Colin William George Gibson: Return
tabled.



GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES


[Stage Direction]
Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to provide compensation to government employees who have suffered death or disability by accident arising out of or in the course of employment or by reason of an industrial disease due to the nature of the employment and to the dependents of such employees: such compensation and costs as may be awarded and the costs of administration to be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund. With provision also empowering the Minister of Finance to require employers to pay the compensation awarded their employees together with expenses of administration.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That when the house adjourns on Wednesday, April 2, it stand adjourned until Monday, April 14 next.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Mr. A. L. SMITH (Calgary West):: I will not detain "Little Chicago" very long. I spoke to this question yesterday as a matter of privilege. I do not intend to move an amendment, because clearly if the house is not in favour of this motion it will be in favour of the alternative which the Prime Minister suggested, namely, from the 2nd until the 8th.

Easter Recess


An hon. MEMBER:: The 14th.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I still think I am right.


An hon. MEMBER:: I think you are, too.


Arthur Leroy Smith: That settles it-the 2nd until the 8th. I am not putting this on any personal basis, because if there is anything one dislikes it is discussions in the House of Commons which are sectional. I put it on the ground that we can do the country's business much better with a short adjournment than we can with a long time. I am sure hon. members will agree that last year after we left here the casualties among people who were simply worn out were greater than any of us knew, if a census could have been taken. There is a further reason. We have here a hard-working civil service and many of them are quite unable to get away for a natural and proper holiday until the house adjourns. Vacation time for these people is in the months of July and August. Last year they were unable to have any proper holiday at the proper time. I may add one other section of our people, the press gallery. They must stay here as long as we do.
I have been told by senior members that it does not matter how long vacations are, the session will be just as long. I do not agree with them, but if they are right it is a sad commentary on our way of doing business, and there should be a change.
I suppose the financial aspect of it is neither here nor there, but I am quite sure that many of us will come back fully revived after a week's vacation. We shall have been sitting for only two months when we leave here on the second. I am asking the consideration of the house for my suggestion; in fact I am inviting hon. members to vote against the resolution, knowing, as the Prime Minister assured us, that there are two alternatives, and that the other would then be adopted.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, if I were moving an amendment to this motion, I would move one entirely different from the suggestion of the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith). It is a well-known fact that of all the members of parliament none make greater sacrifices with respect to business and family life than the members from the far-off Pacific coast. They are here sometimes as long as six and a half or seven months. If I had my way I would move for an adjournment of a weekend, or for the period from Thursday until Tuesday. If any hon. members think that those from distant places like to sit around
Ottawa until members from Ontario and Quebec return, they had better give a little more consideration to members from British Columbia coming back on the fourteenth. I ask the hon. member for Calgary West to consider those of us who come from the Pacific coast. The time he is suggesting will not be sufficient to enable us to go home.


Mr. J. A. ROSS (Souris):: Mr. Speaker,
it is not very often that I differ from my good friend the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith). I am not yet one of those who have become full-time parliamentarians, and I think there are many others like me. I agree with the hon. member who has just taken his seat. I suggest that these recesses be arranged so that members from great distances may do their travelling over the week-ends. That is an important point to those who come from a distance. Many hon. members in the east are privileged to be able to go home on week-ends and look after their businesses. Recently special arrangements have been made to get them home on week-ends so that they can stay here the full week.
I am very serious about this. I think we should have at least a reasonable recess for Easter so that those who are farmers or business people can go home. Farms or business undertakings do not just run themselves throughout the year without some little supervision at times. In the last parliament the Prime Minister spoke about the difficulty of getting candidates for this House of Commons. If persons who retain an interest in business of one kind or another are to run for parliament they must be given some consideration so that they can look after their businesses or farms as well as attend to the business of the country here. Over the last seven years since I have been a member of the house we have been spending the greater part of the year in Ottawa. In arranging these recesses in the future, consideration should be given to the matters I have mentioned, with particular reference to members who live a long way from the capital. Another suggestion I might make is this. In view of the transportation arrangements which have been made for members from the two great central provinces, consideration might be given to those who come from great distances, both east and west, to the extent of permitting travel by air every so often throughout the year.


Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said yesterday that his desire was to have the adjournment to suit the convenience of the general member-
Easter Recess

ship of the house. I am sure he meant that. The adjournment which is proposed, from Wednesday, April 2, until Monday, April 14, is an adjournment of eleven days. That is not a long enough time to allow those who live a long distance from Ottawa to make the trip home, spend any time there and come back. They would be travelling most of the time. I think all members will agree that it is the desire to get through the business of the session as early as possible. I suggest, with all due respect to the Prime Minister, that the adjournment begin on Thursday, April 3, and extend until Tuesday, April 8. That would be five days. No one who has to stay in a boarding house or hotel wants to spend a long adjournment in Ottawa at this season of the year, when the ground is covered with several feet of snow. There is nothing attractive about it. I suggest that five days is ample.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I was going to suggest the quickest and at the same time the most certain method of settling this question; if a sufficient number of members rise to have a division, let us have a division at once and the government will abide by the will of the majority. A standing vote might be taken. I do not think names need be recorded. However, I should like to have it understood that all hon. members, including members of the government, are free to vote as they please. I know some of my colleagues would prefer the shorter holiday, while others would prefer the longer one as proposed. As I say, everyone would be perfectly free to vote as he pleases. There must be this further understanding, however, that if the government should not get a majority on this particular motion, it would not be regarded by any means as an expression of want of confidence in the government, but rather as a further recognition of the fact that the government is always willing to follow that well-known democratic principle of being prepared to abide by the will of the majority of the House of Commons.


Mr. BRACKEN:: If the Prime Minister will advise us whether or not the government favours this resolution, we shall then be in a position to help him save the life of the government.


Mr. BURTON:: I was going to ask the Prime Minister whether the statement he made last year with respect to travelling by air still stands.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thought by speaking, I had closed the debate, and nothing further can be said until after we have voted.


James Horace King: Will the house be satisfied with a standing vote?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.
And a standing vote having been taken:


James Horace King: Yeas, 144; nays, 35. I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport) moved:: That a sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government be appointed to consider the accounts and estimates and bills relating thereto of the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, and Trans-Canada Air Lines, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys; and that the said committee be empowered to send for persons, papers and records and to report from time to time, and that, notwithstanding standing order 65, in the relation to the limitation of the number of members, the said committee consist of Messrs: Belzile, Bourget, Chevrier, Clark, Em-merson, Gibson (Comox-Alberni), Harkness, Hatfield, Hazen, Jackman, Kuhl, LaCroix, Lockhart, Maybank, McCulloch (Pictou), McLure, Moore, Mutch, Nicholson, Picard, Pouliot, Reid, Warren.
He said: The object of this motion, Mr. Speaker, is to establish the special committee on railways and shipping, to which are referred the annual reports of the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited, and Trans-Canada Air Lines. To the committee are also referred certain items of supply, taken from the committee of supply, and the motion is in the same form as last year.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I should like to ask the minister one or two questions about the functions of this committee. When it was first appointed, about fifteen years ago, the understanding was that it would make an examination along certain lines, not only of accounts but of matters of policy. It is contended that the committee of supply loses all its functions through the appointment of this committee. How many meetings did the committee hold last year? Very few. They sat around a table and discussed certain features, but forgot all about improvements to
[Mr. G. Black.1

Railways and Shipping
the system. They discussed the spending of money on subsidiaries in the United States, while the Canadian service was neglected. It seems to me that in connection with the Canadian National Railways, charity begins at home. Is this the best system we can devise for administering a property worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and ocean services, hotel services, and last but not least the work of Trans-Canada Air Lines? As far as I know the members of this committee have very little knowledge of transportation or financial matters; and through the appointment of this committee we are losing the whole jurisdiction of parliament over the administration and financing of this great corporation, which gave such splendid service in Canada and on the oceans all during war.
Last year this committee forgot one important matter, that is, the work done during the war by' employees of the railway of all ranks. Some of the conductors and others engaged in handling the trains worked eighteen hours a day and the great success enjoyed by the Canadian National and our other transportation system all during the war, their efficiency and the safe manner in which they operated in all kinds of weather, handling the demobilization of troops and transporting them from the seaboard right across Canada, was due in no small part to the work of these men. It seems to me the committee forgot all about that last session, and about a war bonus for them, too.
I believe the time has come when some further examination of this system should be carried out. If it is a public ownership venture let us have real public ownership, not the brand we are getting at the present moment. They have moved their offices from the province of Ontario, where they make most of their money, to another place. The auditor general, I might add, has nothing to say about this system, though he does have something to do with some other public ownership ventures. Now we are removing this system from the control of the committee of supply; and. parliament, which came into being to exercise jurisdiction over the tax rate and the expenditure of money, has practically ceased to function in this regard. This system has its own auditors, who are changed practically only when the government changes. I have read the reports of these auditors, but have failed to find1 any improvements recommended in connection with this great public utility. I believe the time has come when the minister should give some explanation as to the functions of this committee, and what it does; what changes it has advocated, and whether
the minister thinks this is a proper policy. I believe some experts should be engaged to find out what is going on in that system. These committees do not know what is going on, but when their report is presented it will be too late the last day of the session for us to do anything but concur in it. It seems to me the committee of supply has ceased to function, and I believe a better policy should be recommended by the system itself to the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. CASTLEDEN (Yorkton):: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance what consideration has been given to the serious effect on the production of essential food of the action of the wartime prices and trade board, first in removing the ceiling on gasoline and tractor distillate, effective April 1, and second in allowing an immediate increase of $7.50 per hundredweight in the manufacturers' list prices on binder twine.


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: The usual careful consideration.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why all the frivolity?



ELDORADO MINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply arising out of a report in yesterday's press that proceedings had been dropped against two men charged with conspiracy in connection with Eldorado Mines Limited. In view of the extraordinary nature of the investigation into the matter and the statements made in the house during the fall session of 1945, will the minister advise whether or not those charges were withdrawn on his instructions?


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: I was advised by the Department of Justice that the counsel who has been handling the investigation advised that the proceedings should be in the nature of a civil action rather than a criminal prosecution, and action was accordingly entered in the civil courts of the state of New York. That action is proceeding. The
Inquiries of the Ministry

Department of Justice concurred in the opinion of their counsel that after thorough investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, by the officials of the department and by the special investigator, the charges brought in the criminal courts could not be sustained.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to thank the minister for the statement he has made, and to ask a further question. What is the amount of the claim for damages against these parties?


Clarence Decatur Howe: While I cannot say to the cent, I believe it is in the vicinity of $2,000,000. That would be a general approximation of the amount.


Mr. SKEY:: May I ask the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply whether he has had a report from the investigators in the Eldorado Mine incident?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have not received the report. My understanding is that it has been held for the verification of certain information essential to it. I expect however that it will be sent forward shortly, and when it reaches me I shall be glad to table it.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Will it be made public at that time?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be glad to table it.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ALISTAIR STEWART (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Mines and Resources. In view of the many requests for information many of us have received concerning the new immigration regulations, can the minister give a full interpretation of the term "farm labourer"?


Hon. J. A. GLEN (Minister of Mines and Resources):: The hon. member sent me a copy of his question. I do not know that I can add much to the interpretation. "Farm labourer" is interpreted by the farmer as a person who is experienced in farm labour work.


Mr. GRAYDON:: A man might be a farm labourer and still be inexperienced.


James Arthur Ross: And often is.



ALASKA HIGHWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. G. ARCHIBALD (Skeena):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of

National Defence, of which I have given notice. A telegram from Prince Rupert states that General Eisenhower has a letter in the press with regard to Canada's proposed closing of the Haines road to the Alaska highway. Can the minister give us any information on this subject?


Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the letter said to have been written by General Eisenhower, and therefore I cannot tell what he said. Any reference to the "proposed closing" of the Haines road would not be a correct way of putting it, as my understanding is that the road was never completed.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the third reading of Bill No. 23, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the house may find it a bit strange that I should want to take part in this debate. But if I do, it is first of all to approve the principle of the bill as set out, and secondly because I am keenly interested in the method of transportation of wheat and other grains.
Since the bill has been under discussion some criticism has been levelled at the government, with reference to the movement of grain and this criticism has been of such a nature that I believe a reply should be made at this stage. If in Canada there has been some difficulty with reference to the transportation of grain, it is, as the house knows, due particularly to the acute shortage of box cars. I believe hon. members will be interested in the position with reference to box cars generally, because the matter has been discussed in the press on more than one occasion, and again in the house.
The present box car situation in Canada is acute. Summing up as briefly as I can, I believe the situation can best be stated by saying that at this time there are some 117,000 box cars in Canada. Of that number 26,000 are in the United States, about 44,000 in western Canada and approximately 47,000 in eastern Canada. Of the 44,000 in western Canada about 11,000 are used for the transportation of grain, and the balance for other commodities. However, for the transportation of wheat and other grains there are required a far larger number than 11,000. In fact there are required some 8,000 or 9,000 more box cars for this purpose than is available at present in western Canada.

Canadian Wheat Board Act
The situation in eastern Canada is substantially the same. About 47,000 box cars are used for the transportation of various commodities, including feeds, from lake ports and bay ports to Atlantic seaboard ports. There is an acute shortage here, as well, of somewhere in the neighbourhood of 15,000.


Mr. HACKETT:: To what extent is the shortage, arising from cars being in the United States, compensated by United States cars which are in Canada?


Lionel Chevrier: I was going to deal with that in a moment, but to answer the hon. member immediately-and of course I am speaking only from memory on the point- while I stated there were some 26,000 Canadian box cars in the United States, there are approximately 18.000 United States box cars in Canada. So that there is an adverse balance against Canada on this score of 8,000 box cars. This, however, is offset by the large number of hoppers and refrigerator cars which belong to United States companies, 'but which are in Canada.
I return now to the general position respecting the shortage of box cars. Why is there a .shortage? I have said that there is an acute shortage in eastern Canada, to the extent of some 15,000 cars. Dealing now more directly with wheat, let me say that early in January of this year an understanding was reached as to the number of box cars required for the wheat movement. Had it not been for the extreme weather conditions in western Canada I do not think the situation in that part of the country would have been as serious as it was for a time, and as perhaps it is now to some extent.
The position was fairly satisfactory until about the middle of January, when, because of storms in western Canada, it became more acute. At that juncture, in conjunction with the railways, the transport controller issued a priority order in favour of grain, and that order had the effect of diverting from eastern to western Canada some 2,400 to 3,000 box [DOT]cars. This procedure met with a large measure [DOT]of success in meeting the situation for the time being. Industries in eastern Canada, however, felt the shortage, and many of them pointed to the fact that unless something were done to give them assistance they might have to close their doors. After further consideration of the whole picture, again in conjunction with the railways, the transport controller decided to do away with the priority -order for grains, and the position today is that the matter is placed squarely on the ;shoulders of the railways.
Another reason for the shortage points to the coal strike in the United States. One effect of that strike was that most of the canalers used for the transportation of grain were commandeered during the navigation season for the purpose of transporting coal. Every one knows how serious the coal situation was at one time. Had it not been for the measures taken by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) and the coal control, which existed at that time, I do not think the position with reference to coal during the winter season 1946-47 would have been nearly as good as it was.
Over and above that the railways had the added burden of having to move grain as they normally do during the winter season. They had the additional task of transporting grain from the lakehead and the bay ports during the winter season. This added greatly to their problems and brought about a position which has led to some complaints. It has been stated in a certain editorial that grain is being diverted from Canadian to American ports. That is not so; it is not an accurate statement. Grain has not been diverted from any Canadian port to an American port. Grain has always been moved through American ports. For instance, in normal times grain moves through Baltimore, Philadelphia, Boston, Portland, Buffalo, and Erie. Canadian grain has always moved via the Erie canal and down the Hudson river. During 1946-47 the movement of Canadian grain through American ports has been fifty per cent lower than in any other season.
Some charges have been made with reference to the port of Saint John, and it has been said that grain was diverted from Saint John to Portland. I was aware of the editorial which appeared in a certain Saint John paper on March 8; it came to my attention on March 11.'I have read it carefully, and there are many inaccuracies in it. I should like to deal briefly with that for a moment in connection with the situation generally. There has never been a tie-up of ships in the port of Saint John because of a lack of grain. Take March 11, for instance, the day on which this editorial came to my attention. That is a typical day because the position on March 11 is the position which has obtained in that port during the whole season.
On March 11 there were 31 ships in the port of Saint John. Four ships were unloading; fourteen were loading other commodities; five were ready to take on grain; six were fitting and awaiting berths, and two were being repaired. Here is the position with reference to grain in that port on that particular day. There were 348.000 bushels loaded on two
Canadian Wheat Board Act

steamers, and as I say there were five ready to take on grain. There were 608,980 bushels in the elevators and there were 502,000 bushels loading in the three steamers at the berths. That left a favourable balance of wheat in the elevators of 96,980 bushels. Over and above that there were in transit east of Monk
1.200.000	bushels of wheat, making a total of 1,297,180 bushels. For the six steamers which were waiting berths, there were required
1.024.000	bushels, which left a favourable balance of wheat of 273,180 bushels in the port of Saint John.
It has been stated that at the very hour when wheat was being diverted from Canadian ports to American ports there were ships in the harbour of Saint John unable to get grain. May I reply to that by saying that at no time were there ships in the harbour of Saint John unable to get grain. On the contrary the ships there were ships unable to get berths because there was too much business. Business was so good at the port of Saint John that certain American companies, becoming tired of waiting for berths, transferred their ships to the port of Halifax.


Mr. ISNOR:: The hon. member for St. John-Albert stated that the press report to which he referred was one week prior to March 11, which would be March 4. I do not see how the minister's remarks would apply.


Lionel Chevrier: I have not the details for March 4, but I am informed by the transport controller that conditions on that day were practically the same as on March 11. If the house will permit me I should like to deal with the port of Halifax, and I am sure the hon. member who has just interrupted me will be interested in the position there. On the same day, March 11, there were 110,000 bushels of grain in the elevators at Halifax, There were 82,000 bushels in box cars. This made a total of 192,000 bushels. There were required for the steamers in the port ready to load a total of 197,000 bushels. The house will note therefore a deficit of some 5,000 bushels, but there were in transit east of Monk a total of 204,000 bushels of wheat in some 120 box cars and west of Monk there were 174 box cars in transit carrying wheat to that port.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Is that the same wheat the minister referred to as being en route to Saint John?


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, no.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: The minister said east of Monk.


Lionel Chevrier: One was via Canadian National and the other was via Canadian Pacific. I thank the hon. member for the correction. It follows that so far as the port of Halifax is concerned there was an ample supply of grain for incoming steamers.


Mr. HAZEN:: May I interrupt the minister to ask one question? Were ships diverted to the port of Portland as the editorial states?


Lionel Chevrier: The editorial I have
before me refers to the diversion of ships from the port of Saint John, and from what my hon. friend has said I take it it refers to a diversion from the port of Halifax as well, although I do not recall reading that. Ships were not diverted from the port of Saint John or the port of Halifax to Portland. I repeat that grain moves normally to United States ports and ships were diverted from one American port to another. Instead of going via Buffalo or via Erie, it went via Portland. Why? Because the haul to Portland is much shorter. I am informed that the distance from Montreal to Portland is 295 miles and that it takes from twelve to sixteen hours for a box car movement to that port. The distance from Montreal to Saint John is 488 miles, and it takes three days for a box car movement to that port. The distance from Montreal to Halifax is 800 miles, and it takes four days for a box car movement to that port. The Canadian National Railways have a line operating directly from Montreal to Portland. When they make the movement to Portland they use their own box cars all the way. They can be earmarked so that they come back the next day, whereas if they go by other ports they may be lost and held up for some weeks.
As I said to the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) a moment ago, there are a large number of United States box cars in Canada, but there are a larger number of Canadian box cars in the United States owing to the fact that it is often almost impossible to earmark them once they get south of the border.
To the charge that workers were being deprived of work and wages because of this diversion, I say that is not so, because in the first place there has been no diversion from a Canadian port to a United States port. That is not so because the operation took place on the lines of the Canadian National Railways. Many of the workers who were employed on these lines are Canadians, and all of the profit and money derived therefrom enures to the general benefit of Canada.

Canadian Wheat Board Act
I should have said that the normal cycle for a box car is twelve days-that is, from the time it leaves its point of departure until it returns equals a period of twelve days. The average movement from Montreal to Portland is four days; therefore the saving so far as box cars themselves are concerned was a great one in that instance.
With reference to the movement of box cars generally the transport controller, in conjunction with the railways, has a most difficult task to perform. I can assure the house that because of the storms, because of the position which I outlined at the beginning of my remarks, it is difficult to satisfy all the requirements. There is grain from the country to Vancouver which must be moved; there is grain from the lakehead; there is feed from the lake and the bay ports down to Ontario and Quebec; there are other commodities such as pulpwood and newsprint which must be moved south of the border, and there are commodities of industries which require attention as well. My colleague points out to me that feed to the maritimes is also an important matter which I should not have overlooked.


Thomas Reid: Has the minister any information as to Pacific coast ports?


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry, I have not. The editorial dealt only with the ports of Saint John and Halifax, but I shall be glad to get the Vancouver figures for my hon. friend.
I think the house will agree with me when I say that the railways have a most difficult task with reference to the movement of grain. I believe they have done a good job under all the circumstances. They feel that if all priorities are removed they will be in a better position to handle the grain than if there are priorities. I have figures for the movement of wheat in western Canada. I do not want to put these on Hansard because I have them not to March 13 but only to March 7. They indicate that there has been a movement all along the line from March 1 to March 7, on the average of 752 cars to 800 cars a day, which under all the circumstances is pretty fair. I therefore submit to the house that the railways have done a good job under the circumstances, and if the matter is left to them with the assistance of the transport controller, I think grain will move freely throughout the country.


John Bracken: Before the minister takes his seat, will he answer one question if he has the information? Can he give the house the relative amount of freight in the form of western grain which passes through the Canadian ports, say at Montreal, Saint John and Halifax, as compared with United States ports such as Portland, Boston, New York, and others? Has the minister those figures?


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry; I have not that.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister permit one more question? Has he any record of the amount of demurrage which the British government had to pay or was charged on shipments of wheat, caused by the hold-up of ships at our ports in Canada during the past fall?


Lionel Chevrier: I would not have the information to reply to that question in any event, because the transport controller has nothing to do with demurrage. But my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) has drawn to my attention the fact that generally speaking we do not pay demurrage-at least the wheat board does not pay it.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not my question. I want to know how much the British government had to pay.


James Angus MacKinnon: We have no information on that point.


Mr. GARDINER:: A more important question is why they had to pay.


John Bracken: I am sure the house has listened with interest to the statement of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) as to the shortage of box cars and its effect on slowing up the shipment of grain. In my remarks at this time I do not propose to deal with that matter. I am rising to do two or three things. I wish to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce to answer certain questions which we asked in previous stages of the debate on this bill, and to ask certain other questions with respect to the negotiation of the prices to be paid on next year's crop, and before I sit down I propose to move an amendment, that this bill be not now read a third time but be referred to the committee of the whole to reconsider sections 20, 21 and 22 for the purpose of trying to have the government pay the participation payments on the 1945 crop.
At previous stages in the consideration of this bill certain questions were asked. I think I am correct in saying that these particular ones were not answered: First, how much of the farmers' money the government is holding on the 1943 crop, the 1944 crop and the 1945 crop. It is not so important about 1943; I imagine that is largely paid out by this time,
Canadian Wheat Board Act

I do not think the minister answered these questions when I asked them; he did not at that moment have the information available.
Then I asked the minister what was the average rate of interest to the government or the wheat board on these moneys which are being held back and not paid out to the farmers.
I want to know the balance in the government's hands for the 1945 crop particularly, because the crop of that year was sown and harvested and nearly all sold before the British wheat agreement was signed. The British wheat agreement was signed early in July of 1946 and applied to the four following years, 1946, 1947, 1948 and 1949 crops. When the government came to making the pooling arrangement they included with these four years the balances held for farmers on the 1945 crop. I do not know that the house fully appreciated that fact in earlier stages of the debate. The wheat agreement applied particularly to the crops of 1946, 1947, 1948 and 1949, but when the government came to make the pooling arrangement they said they would take in the balances due on the 1945 crop and add them to any balances in the other four years; then if there was any left at the end of 1950 they would pay it out at that time.
I want to know what these balances are, because, whatever certain growers or organizations may have had in mind with respect to the balances due on the 1916, 1947, 1948 and 1949 crops, it was never in their minds that any balance due on the 1945 crop should be included in that pooling arrangement. I want to know the amount held back for that year because the organized farmers desire to have that balance particularly paid back to them without waiting until the year 1950.
Hon. members will recall that in committee of the whole I moved that, instead of keeping all these balances until 1950 and paying out whatever may be left at the end of 1950, the balance should be paid each year. The committee did not accept that amendment. By a vote of 88 to 31. if I remember correctly, that amendment was turned down. I do not therefore intend to waste the time of the house by asking for further consideration of that particular proposal now. I expect that, since the government members and certain other sections of the house opposed it, it would be turned down again. But I wish to raise the question with regard to the payment of the balance for the 1945 participation certificates. In that connection I wish to read from the representations by the Canadian Federation of 
Agriculture in its presentation to the dominion cabinet on February 28 with respect to agricultural matters in general.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) read certain sections of that report in support of certain aspects of the bill before us, but I want to read what that organization, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, had to say with respect to this particular matter of the payment of the balance on the 1945 crop. This crop, as I said, was sown and harvested and nearly all sold before this agreement was entered into. This is what the federation had to say to the government in its presentation for this year:
. . . We protest the action of the government in not retiring participation certificates on wheat delivered to the Canadian wheat board during the crop year 1945-46. We cannot but regard the withholding of these payments as contrary to the understanding which wheat growers had with the government during the whole of that crop year. We strongly urge that any surplus on hand resulting from the operations of the crop year, 1945-46, be paid to producers now and not pooled with the operations of subsequent years.
That is (he one thing I urge particularly in asking that the government permit this measure to go back to the committee of the whole in order to reconsider the matter.
There are also some other questions which I wish to ask the minister. These have to do with the price to be paid under the British agreement for the 1948 crop, next year's crop. Under the British agreement, the British government undertakes to pay not less than $1.25 for next year's crop. But in that agreement there is also an undertaking that the actual price to be paid on next year's crop shall be negotiated before the end of December of this year. It is with respect to the attitude of the Canadian government on the price which will be set before this house meets again. It is the attitude of this government towards the price to be negotiated on that 1948 crop, that I wish now to direct some questions to the government.
In order to make clear my position let me read first of all section 2(a) of the British wheat agreement:
The actual prices to be paid for wheat to be bought and sold within the crop year 1948-49 shall be negotiated and settled between the United Kingdom government and the Canadian government not later than the 31st December, 1947.
It is clearly set out in a previous section of the agreement that the price shall not be less than $1.25. In this section it is set out that the actual price shall be negotiated before December 31 of this year. I think this

Canadian Wheat Board Act
house and the Canadian people should know something of the attitude of the government toward the price which the government will attempt to secure when they negotiate the matter some time before December 31.
I would like the government to answer these questions as specifically as they can. Does the government propose to sell the 1948 crop below the world price? That was done for this year's crop. We know something of what the world price is today. We know what the quotations are for September next, though we do not know what they will be in December. The September price quoted now in Chicago is $2.25 per bushel. Does this government propose to sell the 1948 crop below the world price as it did the present crop? If so, how much below the present world price does it propose to get in that agreement? It is now known that this year's crop was sold at a figure that is probably S100 million less than if the world market price had been obtained. Does the government propose to sell the 1948 crop at any such reduction below the world price ?
In that connection I want to refer to another section in this British wheat agreement; as a matter of fact it is part of the same section I have read. It is section 2(b), the latter part of it:
In determining the prices for these two crop years-*
Namely, the 1948 crop and the 1949 crop. -the United Kingdom government will have regard-
I hope hon. members will note these words carefully.
-the United Kingdom government will have regard to any difference between the prices paid under this agreement in the 1946-47 and 1947-48 crop years and the world prices for wheat in those years.
I should like the government to tell me what the clause means. Does it mean that in negotiating these prices before December 31, the British government is expected to pay more than world prices at that time because of the fact that it has gotten this year's crop at, say, S100 million less than the world price? Does it mean that? If not, what does it mean?
In answering that question I suggest the minister have in mind an answer given by the British Minister of Food, Hon. Mr. Stracliey, to a question in the House of Commons at AVestminster on December 11 last. It can be found in the Parliamentary Debates of the United Kingdom. The question was:
Can the right hon. gentleman explain how this policy of buying agricultural products below cost of production in the country of origin, squares with the Hot Springs resolution which
this government supported?
This is Mr. Strachey's answer:
We buy agricultural products at the lowest prices we can get them in the world, and if we deviated from that policy I am sure the house would censure us very severely indeed.
I have read the section of the British wheat agreement which says that, as to any advantage the British government now has with respect to this year's crop, the British government will have regard to it in negotiating the price to be paid for the 1948 crop. I have also read the answer made by the British minister, who, I understand, negotiated or helped to negotiate this agreement. I want now to make a brief quotation from an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press with respect to this particular matter. The editorial is from the issue of February 27, referring to an address made by Mr. Strachey to the Canadian club in that city. I quote:
"We (the British government) do not feel that the long term interests of the United Kingdom and the British people will be served by once again seeing the prices of wheat drop to almost nothing and the wheat farmers of the world go bankrupt, one after another."
The editorial goes on:
It is hard to reconcile this with the same Air. Strachey speaking in the British House of Commons on December 11 last (Hansard, column .1156):
"We buy agricultural products at the lowest prices we can get them in the world, and if we deviated from that policy I am sure the house would censure us very severely indeed."
And in London he proceeded to argue-which should interest the farmers of the west-that bulk of state purchase-which is exemplified in the wheat agreement-is the best method of obtaining low prices.
The editorial ends with this comment:
The facts in the present case support Mr. Strachey's position at London, but not in Winnipeg-
Let me put my questions again. Does this government intend to ask the British government to pay more than the world price for the 1948 wheat crop, in view of the fact it has sold a large part of this year's crop to Britain at scores of millions of dollars less than the world price? If not, what does that section 2 (b) in the British wheat agreement mean? And what does it mean having regard to the answer given in the British House of Commons by the Hon. Mr. Strachey?
I have one other aspect of this matter to deal with, and then I shall be through. I refer to the general policy of vesting in government-appointed boards practically all the powers possessed by parliament. Under wartime powers and under the transitional powers act this government was given power to possess
Canadian Wheat Board Act

the farmer's wheat, power to sell it, power to do everything necessary to commandeer it and to direct it into certain channels. These were very wide powers. We granted them fully during the war. But in peace time parliament is placed in an invidious position. The Minister of Trade and Commerce made a long-term agreement covering wheat not yet grown. He made it nearly a year ago, for four crops. The Minister of Agriculture makes various long-term agreements about other agricultural products that are not yet produced. They are agreements to deliver farm commodities in specified amounts, and at prices fixed by the government in the agreements. The government makes the agreements and then comes to parliament and says in effect, "You must either repudiate these agreements or else give us the wide powers of compulsion that we ask for in order to carry them out."
If the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) had been in his seat today, I should have asked him if as a general principle he subscribes to legislation of that kind. I should like to have asked him, whether if he sat in the opposition instead of over there, if he were sitting here he would have let legislation of that kind be passed without protest. Almost any day now-perhaps today-we shall be discussing another bill in which similar powers will be asked for with respect to other farm products.
I should like in this connection to make our position clear. We do not recommend that any agreement already made be dishonoured. I stated that the other day. There can be no respect for governments if an international agreement entered into by one government is going to be kicked over by another, or even by itself. We do not recommend that any agreement already made be dishonoured, but we are opposed to what is rapidly becoming a general practice, namely, a minister of the crown committing this country to agreements without the approval of parliament. We are opposed to granting to a minister or to the government the power to make agreements that may change the whole face of our agriculture-that are in fact doing that-agreements which make it necessary to come to parliament and ask that unheard-of bureaucratic powers of compulsion be vested in government boards in order to carry them out. The least the government should do is to follow the practice which is followed in trade agreements, namely, to bring the agreement to parliament before it is finally ratified by any board or by any minister.
I want to read just three lines from a newspaper which, whether we agree with it or not

in all matters, has had definite views and, I think, very good views with respect to trade. On this particular matter, the Winnipeg Free Press of March 7 says:
In years to come, when Liberals recover from this kind of power madness, defacements of our statute law, like this one, will rise up to shame them.
That is all I had intended to say, Mr. Speaker, at this time. The amendment I desire to move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Miller) is as follows:
That the said bill be not now read the third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of reconsidering sections 20, 21 and 22 thereof.
My main purpose in referring to these particular sections is to have consideration given this one point: That the balance due on the 1945 crop, which was sown and harvested and largely sold before this agreement was entered into, be paid out now rather than included in the pool for the whole five years. I am assured that the resolution is in order. In case it should not carry, however, I should like to ask the minister or someone on the government benches to give all the information he can with respect to the balances held on the 1944 and 1945 crops, ana such information as can be given with respect to the attitude of the government in negotiating the price for next year's crop. I ask that because this session will be prorogued in midsummer and this particular business will be completed before we come back.


Mr. P. E. WRIGHT (Melfort):: While I do not agree with the latter portion of the remarks of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken), I find myself pretty much in agreement with respect to the clause he wishes to have amended. As a matter of fact that was the position taken by this group in the discussion of the bill. We felt that the 1945-46 crop had been included in the agreement without the consent of the wheat producers, and that because of the rising production costs the government have permitted, which are creating a hardship at this time, the government should give serious consideration to paying out the 1945-46 participation certificates.
With regard to this matter of rising costs, we in this group have supported this bill largely because we believed the government were sincere in their intention to maintain the ceilings on the costs of production in this country. That was the undertaking the government gave this house and the country when this agreement was initiated. But we do not find that being done today. Only recently we saw the ceiling taken off gasoline and the ceiling on binder twine raised to

Canadian Wheat Board Act
permit the wholesalers to increase their prices on binder twine to the trade in western Canada by $7.50 a hundredweight. Today when the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden) asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) a question in this regard he was given a flippant answer, which shows the extent of the minister's anxiety as far as the farmers are concerned. We certainly did not appreciate that answer, and I do not think it should have been made. I do not believe he gave very much consideration to his words at that time. An increase of S7.50 a hundredweight in the price of binder twine to the western farmer means an increase of 33J per cent. That is an additional cost in the production of grain in the west, and I must say we in this group are very much disappointed in the actions of the government over the last six months, in allowing agricultural costs to increase at the rate they have increased. If this continues it will destroy the value of the whole stabilization programme as far as grains are concerned. Unless some attempt is made by the government to maintain present costs of production it is going to become a serious matter.
With regard to the amendment that has been moved, as I have said already during the discussion of the bill we suggested that this matter should be given consideration. Therefore we intend to support the amendment.


Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: I do not consider it necessary to make a long statement at this time; I did not kiss the blarney stone when I left Ireland, so my remarks this afternoon will be brief. I simply want to say that this bill will not entirely meet with our approval, particularly in the matter of the failure of the government to give an undertaking that the wheat board will accept, at the guaranteed minimum price of $1.35, all wheat offered to it during the pool period to July 31, 1950. We feel that such a definite undertaking, expressed in plain English in this bill, should be given to the Canadian farmers. They were asked to make great sacrifices during the war. These they made with no protest whatever. They are now being asked to make further sacrifices to make possible the fulfilment of the government's agreement with Britain. It is only right, therefore, that they should be made to feel secure in the knowledge that what wheat they do raise and offer for sale during the period to July 31, 1950, will be accepted, and that at no time during the period will they be left with quantities they themselves cannot store, nor at the end of the
period with substantial quantities they may have to sell at greatly reduced prices. I listened carefully to all the arguments both for and against the proposition made from this corner of the house, and I must say I was not much impressed by the arguments of the members of the government, all of whom failed to make a valid case for their failure to give in the bill the undertaking requested by us.
Had I been a little nearer Mr. Speaker, or had his eyesight been a little better, I might have had an opportunity of moving an amendment in the following words:
That bill 23 be not now read the third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for consideration of amendments designed to commit the government to the acceptance of all wheat offered for sale during the period to July 31, 1950, to settle for the 4945 crop when sold, and to raise the initial payment to $1.55 per bushel on the four remaining crops.
Those things are what we had in mind; they are the points that were emphasized continuously during the debate, both on second reading and in committee. I hope the house will see fit to support the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) and send this bill back to committee, in order to help the farmers get a square deal even if only on this one point.
Mr. GORDON B. ISNOR (Halifax): Mr. Speaker, in rising to say a word or two in connection with this bill I wish to make it clear that I am not doing so in order to support the amendment, but rather because of the remarks made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier). I listened carefully to the discussion of this bill both in the house and in committee of the whole. Hon. members advanced arguments for and against it, and coming as I do from the east, where perhaps we are more particularly interested in fish than in wheat, it seemed to me the government was to be congratulated on having made such an agreement as this.


James Arthur Ross: You probably know a lot more about fish than you do about wheat.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: It is probably true that I know more about fish than I do about wheat. But after listening to the hon. member discourse for hours about wheat, I must confess I am more than ever confused as to what policy would meet his wishes, and at the same time meet those of the rest of the country.
However, after listening to arguments on all sides, it is my belief that the government has made an exceptionally good contract. I would associate myself with what was said
Canadian Wheat Board Act

oy the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Hazen) who, the day before yesterday, brought to the government's attention the fact that wheat was being shipped through United States ports. We in the east were conscious of this as early as last October. As a result, at that time the Halifax board of trade, acting in conjunction with the board of trade of the city of Saint John, brought to the attention of the government, and particularly the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon), their fear of a shortage of wheat on the Atlantic coast, thereby making it almost impossible for the government to carry out its commitment.
I would repeat that it was as early as last October that we brought this matter to the attention of the government, and particularly to the attention of the Department of Transport and the Department of Trade and Commerce. Today the Minister of Transport has given figures showing the number of box cars which were in the United States, and also in eastern and western Canada. I shall not deal with this in detail, more than to say that had the railways been alive to the situation, as it was brought to their attention last October, and in the following months of November and December, the shortage of 8,000 box cars in Canada today would not exist.
In support of his contention the minister has urged that it was necessary to ship through the United States port of Portland, and has stated that, while the box car turn-back from Portland was four days, it was eight days from Halifax. In stating that, however, he forgot an important fact in his picture of the transportation system. I refer to the shipping distance from Halifax.
At this point I should like to place some figures on record. The sailing time of a 16-knot vessel from London to Montreal is 203 hours, while to Saint John it is 182 hours and, to Halifax, 172 hours. Halifax is thus ten hours shorter than Saint John and thirty-one hours shorter than Montreal. Then, it need not be repeated that Halifax is open all the year round, so far as shipping is concerned, and at all times is entirely free of ice.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Can the hon. member tell us the number of hours from Portland?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: There is no question in my mind that grain shipped through Halifax would reach London much faster than if it were shipped through Portland.


John Thomas Hackett: About six hours.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Thank you. In addition to that I have in mind the additional employment resulting from shipment through Cana-

dian ports. Last year, when export-import legislation was before the house I pointed out that at the port of Halifax we have 1,600 longshoremen, 1,000 freight handlers and 1,400 others more or less directly connected with the handling of cargo at our port.
Then, it is not only grain with which we are concerned. The bringing of ships to our ports to handle grain has the effect of creating other cargoes, thus adding to the number of ships entering our ports, and to the amount of business derived from those ships by way of repairs and other employment in connection therewith. Every time a ship of 5,000 tons is loaded or unloaded at Halifax it means that an average of $12,500 is paid out in wages.
I now come to the question of the shipment of grain through the port of Halifax. In 1942 there were 32,844,580 bushels shipped through that port. In 1945 that figure had dropped to 15,051,638, and this year it is estimated that no more than 7,000,000 bushels will be shipped through Halifax.
One can understand my concern with respect to the failure to make arrangements for the transportation of grain through Canadian ports, and my further concern that no consideration, so far as I know, has been give to including in the wheat agreement a provision which would definitely guarantee that all grain for export should be shipped through Canadian ports. When I refer to Canadian ports I am referring not only to that great port of Halifax, but to all ports of Canada.
It will be recalled that the late Right Hon. W. S. Fielding made a special provision to the extent of ten per cent in favour of goods entering through Canadian ports, and I should like to see a provision something along that line in this agreement. Therefore I suggest to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), through you, Mr. Speaker, that, in addition to the sections already appearing in the bill, he add another stating:
And it is further agreed that all goods under this contract or agreement must be shipped through Canadian ports.
I do not wish unnecessarily to take up the time of the house in the discussion of this measure. I felt, however, that I must say a word in connection with transportation, particularly in view of the fact that some of us in the east recognized away back as early as October, 1946, that a situation such as has arisen might develop. It is because of the present condition that I urge the government today to consider the views I have expressed, and to see that no further shipments pass through United States ports, but rather that

Canadian Wheat Board Act
in future they pass through our own Canadian ports, thus adding to employment at those points.
The hon. member for St. John-Albert stated that a million bushels of wheat had been shipped through Portland. I think the figure of one million bushels is used for that particular period, and I am concerned over the possibility of there being further shipments of a similar quantity. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will take these views of mine into consideration and pass them along to the Minister of Transport in order to make sure that we do not have to put up with this sort of thing.


Thomas Langton Church: tion with the United States loan. I support the motion made by the leader of the opposition to refer this bill back to the committee. I believe it should be referred back and considered very carefully. Great Britain did so much for us during the war, and we should not fail to support the mother country in the great food, coal and electricity crises which face her today.


Mr. E. G. McCULLOUGH (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is necessary to restate the position of the C.C.F. in connection with this bill or to point out what we consider are the inadequacies of the legislation. This has been done very well by my colleagues who spoke on the second reading, but there are some observations which I should like to make. I agree in principle with the bill; but, as has been mentioned, it is not adequate. In the past we have seen great fluctuations in farm prices, and in this connection I wish to refer to a newspaper report as follows:
Mr. Hannam quoted Fiorello LaGuardia, New York, as saying: "You know and I know that the farmers of the world have been exploited and are still being exploited."
Then Mr. Hannam continued:
We want stability not for purely selfish reasons. We want it if the people of the world are going to have more and better food to eat.
That is one of the great considerations at this time. It has been said that this bill affects only Canada, but I maintain that it affects all the world and, because of that, it is one of the most important bills coming up in this house.
We attempted to give some sort of stability to agriculture during the war, but the government permitted a break in the stability when they allowed an increase in prices of farm machinery. That was nearly the straw which breaks the camel's back, because, for the first time, we had farmers organizing to put on a non-delivery strike. If this sort of thing continues and the government does not accept the responsibility for giving parity prices to agriculture, rather than stability in the basement, we shall have a situation in Canada which will be a reflection on democracy in this country.
The farmers of western Canada are not satisfied with this agreement. We feel that we should have parity; that we should have a decent standard of living; that we should have prices above the cost of production which will guarantee us a decent standard of living. The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker) was quoted in the press and he can correct me if I am wrong; before the opening of the session he was reported as having said

that he was coming here to ask for $1.85 wheat. I wish to say-and I intend to say it to my farmers and constituents-I do not think you can have your cake and eat it. If you want stability you must be ready to accept a price of parity. In other words, at the moment you cannot demand the world price which is perhaps enhanced by world conditions, and immediately afterwards demand parity. But I do say that, unless we go back to the 1900 economics and administration of government, today the government should, take the responsibility to see that agriculture gets parity.
What has happened is that during the war the farmers have taken losses on their wheat. In most cases our prices have been steady and stabilized. As was indicated by one hon. member, the farmers have lost money which they could have received. If our farm products, chiefly wheat, were sold on world markets we could have received around $400 million. However the farmers were not kicking so much until the cost of production started to go up. As was intimated in the house today by the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden), the restrictions on the ceiling price of gasoline will be removed the last of the month. We find that the price of binder twine is going up. In the face of that, we find that the responsible minister has the audacity to rise in his place and say, without any show of seriousness, that these matters are being given the usual consideration, or something to that effect. If that is the usual consideration which is being given to the difficult problems in this country I want to say that we are headed for another depression which will be as bad as the one we had in 1930 when the Tories were in power.
I believe we have come farther than that. I should like to indicate to the government that, although we have had in the west a degree of prosperity, yet this situation prevails. I hold in my hand statistics which were furnished me by the bureau of statistics. These statistics show that the total farm debt, including mortgages and agreements of sale of land for the year 1941, stood at $799 million, and further that the institutional holdings of farm debt by insurance companies, trust loans on mortgages, government agencies, municipalities, railways and so forth in 1938 stood at $418 million. By 1945 when we had been getting decent prices and good crops we had reduced that debt to $263 million. But I wish to point out that, until that debt is practically cleared up and the farmers get out of the red, we want fair prices for the

Canadian Wheat Board Act
farmers. This indicates that our whole economy is going out of gear and we are headed for a position where we shall have decreased consumption. What we farmers want is everyone. to have all they want to eat.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) said that, until beef was rationed in this country, we had not shipped any considerable amount of beef out and that we had to continue rationing because we had put
750,000	of our boys and girls in the services. They were starting to have some money in their pockets and our farmers were starting to get decent prices and putting beef on their tables as they had not done before. This indicates that there is a potential market in Canada. Only when the people get a fair share of the national income, good wages and fair prices will they buy that stuff.
I was talking to a friend of mine in this city the other day. He was in a butcher shop where he usually does his buying, and the butcher said to him as a lady came in- they were speaking about the business trends which were taking place-"Watch what that lady buys." He said: "Formerly, three weeks ago she would have bought a Saturday night order of around $12 worth of the best cuts of meat in my shop." She bought bologna and some of the cheaper cuts of meat. That is what is going on. She bought only $2 worth. That is what is taking place all over the country today.
The "Economic Annalist" of February, 1946, states this:
The cash income from the sale of farm products for 1945 is estimated by the bureau of statistics at $1,654 million. This total is about 8 per cent less than the record high of 1944.
I hold in my hand a press report of the remarks of George Bickerton, publicity director of the United Farmers of Canada, Saskatchewan section, which says:
Saskatchewan farmers' income dropped $137,-
573,000	in 4945 with a further drop of $50,485,000, in the first six months of 1946.
That is the situation which faces us today. We of this group have asked for the inclusion in this bill of all coarse grains, but we have been unable to have that done. I might point out that flak, which I think all hon. members will recognize is one of the crops which we should have produced on a stable basis over the years and not on a fluctuating production basis, in 1941 brought an average price per bushel, No. 1, at Fort William and Port Arthur of $1,615. By 1945 it was $2.75 a bushel. This shows that in many parts of agricultural production there is no stability whatsoever.
We are not completely satisfied with this bill. In the first place, I believe that all participation dividends and sales coming from the 1945 crop should be paid out for that year. It is the responsibility of this government how they do it. That is their business, but we should have from year to year calculated parity prices for the farmers. I support the motion of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) that sections 20, 21 and 22 be referred back to the committee for further consideration.


James Arthur Ross: I shall be brief. I have taken it for granted that the responsible minister for the department and the responsible minister for the United Kingdom-Canada wheat agreement would have endeavoured to answer the questions which were put so frankly and forthrightly by my leader in his discussion this afternoon. I just wish to say-


James Garfield Gardiner: May I just suggest that if the minister spoke he would close the debate.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. May I remind the house that we are on third reading, not on second reading.


James Garfield Gardiner: On a point of order, is it not true that if the minister speaks a second time he will close the debate? He has moved third reading and has therefore spoken once. If he speaks again will he not be speaking twice?
Mr. DEPI T\ SPEAKER: I would remind the house that we are now discussing the amendment. There is no closing of the debate on an amendment.


James Garfield Gardiner: Then the minister has spoken.


William Ross Macdonald: The leader of the opposition moved an amendment. The minister has not spoken on the amendment.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is so.


James Arthur Ross: As I said, I had contemplated waiting until the two responsible ministers had endeavoured to answer the questions put by my leader. Since they sat silent and Your Honour was prepared to put the motion, I thought I should make a few brief remarks.
Referring to the amendment which was moved by my leader, I wish to say that when the producers of Canada planned their operations for the production of wheat during 1945 they were distinctly led to believe by the government of the day that they would receive an initial payment and participation
Canadian Wheat Board Act


Mr. F. S. ZAPLITNY (Dauphin):: I wish to make a comment or two on the question before the house. It seems to me that the field has narrowed down considerably since the question of the wheat board act first came up. It appears now that we are in disagreement with the bill because it does not provide certain benefits for the farmer. This afternoon the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) repeated what he has said before in this house, that is, that he is not opposed to living up to the terms of the British wheat agreement. In other words, we are now assured that, regardless of who the government shall be in the next few succeeding years, the wheat agreement will hold.


James Arthur Ross: The leader of the opposition has always said that.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: That is what I am saying. Furthermore, we find that the leader of the opposition has moved an amendment which would refer the bill back to the committee for reconsideration of sections 20, 21 and 22, and by implication this means that he is in complete agreement with the bill except for those sections. That now narrows the field down considerably to the question of what is contained in these three sections. I think the biggest bone of contention now is not the principle of the bill as a whole but whether
the farmer, under the bill, is getting all the benefits he should get out of it and getting them at the right time. The two things under discussion at the present time appear to be the payment of participation benefits and the initial price of the wheat itself. I think both those problems can be combined and can be easily solved if the proper minister would rise in his place in this house and say today that the initial price of wheat shall be $1.55 instead of $1.35. By making that announcement he would be doing two things. First, he would be guaranteeing the farmer a greater immediate income on his grain; and, second, he would be leaving far less money in the wheat board fund, over which the argument seems to be developing; that is to say, there would be less left for distribution at the end of the pool period and more money would be made available immediately to the farmers.
I do not think any argument has been brought forward in this house to prove that the government could not pay $1.55 as an initial price; and the trend of events in the last few months alone is such that we are being forced to the conclusion that, unless the government is willing to pay more for the grain or else to hold the price of other commodities down, the very basis on which this British wheat agreement could have been successful will be completely destroyed. The farmers who accepted the agreement did so because they felt that there was a real need overseas for as much food as possible at prices as reasonable as possible in this period of time. What we see happening around us now is that the government is permitting price ceilings to be lifted and washed out entirely, and the price is jumping, as the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) just quoted, as high as eighty per cent on binder twine. We do not know what the new price will be on gasoline, but we know it will not be less; it is going to be more. In the face of that, the government is now put in the position of responsibility of having to do one of two things, either make a real effort to hold prices down

in fact, it would be necessary now to roll them back-or else to increase the benefits the farmer is to receive under this bill. If one of those two things is not done, the farmers have a legitimate complaint and the government will get a rude awakening in a very short period of time.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, the amendment which has been moved would have to be changed in its wording, I think, before it
Canadian Wheat Board Act

would really mean anything at all in connection with the bill itself. The amendment says that the said bill be not now read the third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of reconsidering sections 20, 21 and 22 thereof. There are only six sections of this bill. There are no sections 20, 21 and 22. Therefore there would have to be added to the amendment, in order to make it mean what it is intended to mean, "included in clause 5 thereof". That is, these sections referred to are sections of the wheat board act which are included in clause 5 of this particular bill, and the wording would have to be changed in order to provide for that.
But before the vote is taken, there are a number of things which I should like to say with regard to the discussion which has taken place. We have had a long discussion on the three points which have been raised : the question as to whether we should increase the initial payment; whether the participation for 1945 should be paid out at once rather than be made part of the five-year pool, and, further, whether the government should announce definitely that all the wheat would be taken by July 31, 1950; that is, all the wheat that is presented to the government would be taken or would be paid for at $1.35 a bushel as an initial price.
As I was saying a moment ago, those three questions I think took up most of the time of the discussion in committee. There was very little discussion on anything else. We discussed those questions continuously, first, under section 17 of the wheat board act and, later, under sections 20, 21 and 22 of the act which, as I said a moment ago, are included in clause 5 of this bill. In discussing those matters, I think every point of view which could be expressed in the committee, if it were referred back again, was expressed then; and the committee finally gave its consent to the provisions of those three sections.
I do not know whether I should repeat very much of what was said or of what I myself said on that occasion; but in view of some of the remarks which have been made, I think that certain arguments should be repeated. In the first place, if we were to follow to its logical conclusion the action which is now proposed, and if the bill itself were not acceptable to the government on the terms that are suggested, and the bill were defeated, then of course the whole principle of the bill would be defeated just as effectively on third reading as it would be on second reading; particularly if the bill had gone back to the committee, had been reported again for third reading with terms the same as

they are now, and were defeated in the house. If we went on with that to its logical conclusion we would succeed in defeating the principle of the bill and defeating the bill itself.
Those who belong to the official opposition have been insisting, ever since this session opened, that controls should be got rid of. Some have even gone so far as to suggest that it should not be in any orderly manner. Some controls have been got rid of. Some ceilings have been taken off. I should1 like to suggest that I believe the farm organizations of this country meant what they said when they said they were in favour of stabilization. I believe, too, if we are not satisfied, as farm organizations, to give sufficient time for the carrying out of any orderly changes which must be made in connection with price levels, there is only one thing which can result, and that is that action finally will have to be taken in a disorderly manner.
Just by way of illustration, may I remind hon. members that a week or ten days ago, after strong pressure over a long period of time, action was taken to remove what I think was at least an inconvenience-and perhaps one oould use an even stronger term-resulting from the fact that wheat was supplied to the people of this country at a lower price than that at which it was supplied to Britain, and-this at the expense of the farmer. Action was taken in regard to that matter, and along with it action was taken which resulted in an increase in the price of feed wheat. This, of course, had two results, one being to give the producer of wheat a higher return, and the other to increase the cost to farmers in certain sections of Canada using that wheat for feed. Immediately exception was taken to the fact that an increased cost had been caused the poultry and egg producers, and it was therefore argued that there should be an increase in the price of eggs. As a matter of fact, a few months earlier the floor price of eggs had been increased by one cent a dozen over about half the year and by two cents a dozen over the other half, while no change was made in the price of feed. That was done by increasing the price under the British agreement by that amount. Now it is argued that when the cost of feed is put up again there must be a further increase in the price of eggs. Probably within certain limits that contention is justifiable, but certainly it is not reasonable to suggest that no consideration whatever should be given the fact that the price of eggs was increased at a time when the price of feed was not increased.	.

Canadian Wheat Board Act
On the other hand, today we had the fact brought up that the ceiling has been raised on binder twine. Some have said this represents an increase of eighty per cent in the price of that commodity. I am not in a position to say just what the increase will be in the price of binder twine, but I know that, with the situation existing in the world in relation to the material from which binder twine is made, if we were to have any binder twine at all some decision with respect to that matter had to be made in March. If we are to have binder twine in July and August to harvest the crops across this country, then a decision in the matter had to be made by March at least, and very early in the month. That is one reason the decision has been made at this time.
For the last two or three weeks hon. members have been quite properly pressing for a statement in the house in regard to the returns that are to be provided, under control, on feed grains. At the time of the conference last December it was suggested that if all the controls relating to food products and feed were to be retained through the crop year 1947-48, a certain procedure should be followed. There are present today a few who were also present at the conference of last December between representatives of the provinces, the farm organizations and the federal Department of Agriculture. They will remember that before Mr. Wesson proceeded to present his idea that an acreage payment of S5 might be made, he asked the definite question of the chair as to whether it was the intention of the government to continue those controls throughout the crop year 1947-48. That question was referred to me, as a member of the government. At that time I stated I was not in a position to say definitely what would be done with regard to prices throughout the year 1947-48, but that if we were to continue to attempt to fulfil our agreements with Great Britain to deliver farm products at the prices set out in .those agreements, leaving out the question of quantities altogether, it would be necessary to have some form of control throughout the crop year 1947-48. In the discussions which followed it was stated definitely that the subsidy of $5 per acre would or could be decided upon only if an attempt was to be made to hold prices at the Levels then existing, because immediately you allowed them to change, the whole situation would change. So the proposal itself was based upon the idea that price levels were to be maintained.
Since that time, as has been indicated by some of the steps taken, the government has 83166-86
concluded that prices cannot be maintained throughout the whole crop year 1947-48 at the levels in existence at the time those discussions took place; and because they cannot be maintained, certain actions have to be taken from time to time. If we are to handle the situation in an orderly fashion I believe we must expect that those who are presumed to benefit by the controls which are being retained should at least have sufficient patience to permit the action taken to progress to the point where all sides of the question may be examined. In connection with binder twine, I said a moment ago that if we did not act early in March we would not have any binder twine. From remarks which have been made I assume that when the minister this afternoon made the short reply that this question had been given the usual careful consideration before a decision was reached, it was not considered by many hon. members to be a sufficient explanation under the circumstances.


Percy Ellis Wright: Not in view of the manner in which it was said.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, I am simply discussing the facts which I know are apparent to farmers. Every farmer knows that the substance from which binder twine is made must come a great distance, and that there has been some difficulty in obtaining quantities of that material for the purpose of providing binder twine both during and since the war. So action had to be taken early.


Mr. BENTLEY:: May I ask if any British companies supply us with large amounts of sisal?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not in a position to answer that question offhand, though perhaps the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) might be able to do so. In any event, arrangements have to be made to obtain certain quantities of this material, and whether they are made with the government or with a company they must be made well in advance.


George Hugh Castleden: Is it not true there
are large supplies of binder twine already in Canada upon which subsidy has been paid?


James Garfield Gardiner: There would be some; I do not know how much. However the figure can be obtained. There would be some here. But whether there is some here, and no matter how much there is here, there will have to be more binder twine supplied before the harvest season.
Canadian Wheat Board Act


George Hugh Castleden: The price has been
maintained because of the subsidy paid by the government; is that not true?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, that is right, up
to the present time. And I should say that two ministers have said, prior to discussion in committee-and I referred to it while we were in committee-that subsidies were on the way out, and that the tendency was to try to incorporate subsidies into prices; a procedure which I think a great many people would desire to have followed, and to have completed at as early a date as possible.
And in doing that, of course, in connection with farm products movement has to be taken at the time it is wise to do so. Let me go back to the illustration with respect to eggs. We were making our agreement with Great Britain last fall. That was the time we had to consider rising prices of eggs. Then we were considering the matter of giving the farmer of western Canada the treatment to which he was entitled in connection with flour supplied here, and we decided that the time to deal with that was in the latter part of January.
I suppose the two things could have been done at one time, but there are reasons why it was difficult to do them at one time. Probably the proper time to deal with eggs, so far as future treatment is concerned, would be in April or May; and until we have reached that time it is difficult to make changes in the situation which now exists. Those changes will come about in the proper course of events.
The feed grain decision was something I was not able to announce prior to today, and I am sorry to say I am not in a position to announce it today. As I said yesterday, I had hoped I would be able to announce it at the end of the week, and I pointed out that the end of the week was Friday. But I find, after discussion which took place today, that there is a desire on the part of some of those who have to put these changes into effect, to have the week-end in which to discuss them with some of their men, who are in Winnipeg, rather than Ottawa. That is, they are men connected with the wheat board itself. Therefore it may be necessary to hold over the announcement until Monday.
I am sure, however, that if I could make that announcement now, and compare it with what has been done in connection with binder twine, every farmer in this country would agree that far more has been done to increase returns on grain than has been taken from him by anything that has been done in connection with binder twine.


George Hugh Castleden: Does the minister
include gasoline and tractor distillate, also?


James Garfield Gardiner: One would want to
know what will happen in connection with tractor oil and distillate. But I am told this, that at least in some parts of Canada gasoline has not been selling up to the ceiling recently. And if it has not been selling up to the ceiling recently, I do not know any reason why it would sell over the ceiling, at least in those parts of Canada, if the ceiling were taken off.
That is one of the facts which was before the government at the time the matter was discussed; and I venture to say there are many members in the house who will agree that when a shift is being made from one position to another, the time to make it is when it is least likely to impose any additional cost on those who have to buy the commodity.
I know no individual can guess these things accurately, and be able to say that there is no chance in the world of prices going up. I would not attempt to say that at this time. But one has to decide on the time to make these decisions, and to make them in a manner which will at least give the least possibility of costs going where they are not intended to go.
I bring out these facts in order to say this, again, that if we are to be able to hold the line at all, in the stabilization of prices, either by the action of this house or in any other way, then we cannot be changing our minds every few days or every few hours with regard to whether we support the principle behind a piece of legislation, or whether by our action or our words we support the views and the desires of those who are out to kill this legislation, by every means that is available to them to do it. And as regards any means which result in switching this legislation backwards and forwards from this house to a committee, and from the committee to the house, and then over to the senate, and back into the committee, and then out of the committee and into the senate, and then back to this house, with changes made; if this legislation or any other legislation to establish stabilized prices for farmers has to go through all that kind of thing, then I say that there will not be very much in the way of stabilization that will ever get past this parliament.
If we are to establish stabilized prices for farmers at all, then I think we must decide upon the principle we intend to drive for, and then we must continue to drive for it. We should not depart from that principle simply because those who have been fighting the legislation from the beginning, those who have

Canadian Wheat Board Act
opposed the wheat agreement from the time it was first announced, now suggest that we should do something about the matter; rather we should continue to support those who have fought for the principle throughout and have attempted to put it on the statute books of this country.
Something was said with regard to the action of Mr. Strachey while he was speaking in the House of Commons in Great Britain, and while he was in Winnipeg. Some suggestion has been made to the effect that Mr. Strachey could not have been right both times. Well, when Mr. Strachey was speaking on the floor of the House of Commons in Great Britain he was answering a general question put to him with regard to food products.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Danish, particularly.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. And in answering that question dealing, as has been suggested, largely with Danish food products, products coming from a country with which considerations such as those existing between Great Britain and Canada have not been entered into at all, he gave a certain answer. But when he was in the city of Winnipeg he was dealing with a specific question, namely the question of wheat, as covered by this bill. And in everything he said at Winnipeg he gave the impression to the people of this country that the undertakings given in the wheat agreement would be carried out in spirit, as well as in the letter. I think we should accept those opinions as those of the minister who signed the contract, or at least was here just prior to its being signed-one of his officials signed it-and the minister who took part in the discussions.
The Winnipeg Free Press has been quoted. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have not taken time out during these discussions to say very much about the Winnipeg Free Press, because I am not worried at all about whether the Free Press wants to put itself in the position of being a local newspaper instead of a national one. If that is what they desire to have themselves considered, then that is quite all right with me. They are speaking, or have been speaking, in, connection with this matter, for a group for whom I do not blame them for speaking. That is their own choice. But I have in my hand some articles which appeared in another paper owned and published by the same people in the city of Saskatoon, the Star-Phoenix. These four articles deal with the wheat agreement. One could take not only the articles which appeared on the editorial page, but the editorials of the editorial writer who is answering the editor of the Winnipeg Free Press, who is also 83166-864
answering the assistant associate editor of the Winnipeg Free Press, and answering them most effectively.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Who is the author of those articles?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Richardson is the editor of the paper, and I have no doubt he takes responsibility for what appears on the editorial page. His name is not on the articles, but he writes the editorials.


John George Diefenbaker: What is their date?


James Garfield Gardiner: The first one is dated January 20, 1947. It reads:
The Canadian wheat agreement with Great Britain cannot be judged fairly aside from the general trade outlook and the problems of restoring international trade.
And farther down:
A simple test, which may be applied with profit to other proposals, practices and policies-affecting trade, is whether it facilitates or retards the reopening of trade channels that were closed or impaired by the war. One further test might be applied: Does it prejudice the future expansion of international trade? Plainly it does not prejudice the future. Section 7 of me agreement says that "its terms and conditions shall be subject to any modification or amendment which may be necessary to bring it into conformity with any international agreements or arrangements hereafter entered into to which both governments are parties."
Then he goes on:
The merit of lending funds to overseas customers in order to stimulate our trade requires no explanation. The alternative is to shut down our production to the narrow limits required to export only to those who have Canadian dollars.
He goes on to support that action, and then he says:
The Canadian wheat agreement has stood the test, as we may now see it in the perspective of several months experience with it. It has given economic and psychological assurance to our best wheat customer.
May I say that the editor of this paper spent a considerable part of the war years in London. He continues:
Without it, the series of crises which were inevitable in the economic rehabilitation of Britain would have been deepened undoubtedly by an unbearable austerity in the British diet, which has been almost unbearable as it is! Without it, the opportunity of leadership in the economic reconstruction of western Europe, which only Britain can exercise, would have' been denied at a time when default could leave only chaos and invite the commercial isolationism which serves as the economic policy of communism. The door was half open, in any case. Discussions of -the wheat agreement without taking account of these vital aspects of the world trade situation in the present transition will serve only to obscure the purpose -and definition of all our_ future hopes. The agreement has been a main bridge between two worlds which
Canadian Wheat Board Act

can be integrated permanently by the reconstruction of world trading facilities. Without such bridges, even now all talk of an international trade convention would be little than idle speculation within the rigid walls oi an isolated dollar area in which Canada s destiny would steadily darken.
As I say, that is another paper published by the same people who publish the Winnipeg Free Press. It gives me the idea that the editorial policy of their papers is the editorial policy of the individual who writes the editorials. That was always so when the late John Dafoe was editor of the Winnipeg Free Press. No one during that period of time ever considered that he was expressing the opinions of anyone but John Dafoe. I venture to say that the time will come when no one will consider that this young editor is expressing the opinion of anyone but himself when he is writing views which affect all the people of this country. He goes on to say:
Since the Canadian wheat agreement with Great Britain was announced last July, the main criticisms made against it have become clear. On the one hand, the charge that Canada had broken its pledged word to the United States to work for the removal of discrimination in trade was quickly exploded.
He goes on to answer that charge. May I say again, that the editor of this paper spent the latter part of the war in Britain and that he spent part of it in Washington, and the part which he did not spend1 in either Washington or London was spent in Ottawa. He has some knowledge as to what these questions mean.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: A moment ago the minister spoke of "this young editor." Does he refer to the editor of the Winnipeg Free Press?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; the editor of the Star-Phoenix, Mr. Richardson. He ends with these words:
It is now said in Britain that the worst is over, though it is not all line sailing jet. lhe Canadian wheat agreement has made an mcalcul-able contribution to this result, which is m Canada's own best interests as a wheat exporter. It is serving to bridge the transition, it has stimulated the revival of world trade under new and strange conditions. Even more happily, it has brought us nearer the goal which we will reach only by going forward with the Americans and the British into an era of freer trade.
That sums up the opinion which the writer of the articles in the Star-Phoenix has with regard to the Winnipeg Free Press. This man writing in the Star-Phoenix takes the view that the opinions held by the Winnipeg Free Press are not correct. He has the courage to state what his views are with regard to the matter.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


James Garfield Gardiner: Britain has always agreed that over a period of time our prices should be stabilized in a reasonable relationship to the prices which the farmers receive for food to be consumed in Britain off the farms of Britain, and I am confident t that, as we go along, the answer to the question asked by the leader of the opposition with regard to 1948 will be made apparent to everyone in this house.
The leader of the opposition asked, what is the government to ask for in 1948; what is the government to ask for in 1949. Hon. members know what has been stated on previous occasions, namely that the British have agreed that there shall be no ceiling on what we may ask for in the last two years; and the fact that there is no ceiling on what we may ask for in those last two years should be an answer to the question that has been posed: Are you going to ask as much as the world market offers at that time for wheat? Obviously, if the world market remains as high as it is now, which very few expect, there will be no reason for asking less than the world price in the third year of the contract. If the world price is lower than SI.55, obviously there will be reason for asking a higher price than the world price is at that time. The question as to how much will be obtained as a result of what is asked is something no one in this house can answer at the present time. We simply rely on the fact that in all dealings we have had with Britain throughout the war, prior to the war, and since the war, the indications have been that we can depend upon the letter and spirit of the agreement that we have with them, not only with regard to wheat but as respects other products.


James Horace King: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. gentleman but his time has expired.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: This is an important matter, Mr. Speaker, and the minister should be allowed to proceed.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have no desire to
continue if my time is up. At any rate, there is only one further argument that I care to make on the subject. An appeal has been made for a statement of the position in relation to payments which are already made and which are to be made on the different years, and the suggestion has been made that there was an understanding with the farmers that participation would be paid annually throughout the period. I am not going to argue the question again as to whether the period was intended to be five years or four years. I think it is well understood by every

farm organization in Canada and all leaders of farm organizations, and by everyone else who has ever discussed the matter, that the five-year period existed before the British wheat contract existed at all. It was suggested this afternoon that, after the wheat contract had been entered into, the decision was reached to make the term a five-year one. The five-year term was presented in this house in September, 1945, and it always was a five-year term. There never was any suggestion that it be otherwise until all the terms of the British agreement were known; and then, as I stated the other night, that suggestion in the first instance came from the government and not from farm organizations. But after the discussion was completed, it was concluded that the 1945 crop would be retained in the pool.
I said something the other day which apparently did not register with the committee, when we were discussing this same question in committee. I stated that I did not see how this or any other government could retain in the treasury of Canada two or three hundred million dollars which belonged to some group of citizens in this country, mentioning particularly the farmers. If we had in the treasury of Canada in, let us say. 1948, as a result of the fact that prices remained high, two. three or four hundred million dollars, no government in Canada could carry that money through until the end of the contract. There would be a constant demand for the money to be paid out to the people to whom it belonged, and there would be an inclination on the part of any government that was in office under those circumstances to make an interim payment, just as an interim payment was made under similar circumstances when the wheat pools were in existence. But to say at this stage that, no matter what happens to be in the treasury, interim payment will be made, would be to take an impossible position in relation to the whole matter.


Percy Ellis Wright: Will the minister state that he will not make that payment before an election?


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course, if my hon. friends all get together some time, they can determine that payment is not made until after an election. I should like to suggest that if they want an election on an issue of that kind, it is not a bad thing from our point of view to have it on. '


James Arthur Ross: The Minister of Agriculture had one try-out on it.

Canadian Wheat Board Act


James Garfield Gardiner: No, we did not have a try-out on it.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: The hon. member had a try-out last night.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I suggest to members of the house that when the hon. gentleman who was fortunate enough to win that election to which reference is made, came into this house and made his first speech, he did not even mention the British wheat contract. He knew what he won the election on. I, too, know what he won the election on. He is too good a campaigner to think he won the election on the British wheat contract or anything related to it.


Arthur Leroy Smith: How much money have you? That is a simple question.


James Garfield Gardiner: I shall leave it to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon), whose bill this is, to state how much we have.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Will he do that?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, he will state how much we have. But what I want to point out to members of the house is this. If we had a large amount, no government could retain it in the treasury. It would require to be paid out as we went along. But if we were down in the position where there was some question as to whether we were going to take losses, then it would be absolutely impossible to make a payment. I think it would be inadvisable to make a payment from the point of view of the farmer himself, and the farmer would realize that.
Coming to the question which was in the mind of the leader of the opposition this afternoon and apparently is still in the mind of the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith), as to how much money we have, all I am going to say at this moment is that when the Minister of Trade and Commerce gives the amount I venture to say that every member of this house will be surprised at how small it is, not at how big it is. The payment of ten cents a bushel, which is already paid on 1945 or is being paid, reduces the amount to a figure which I think will be found by this house to be surprisingly low. I am not going to attempt to give that offhand. It is on record and will be given a little later.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Oh, come on; tell us.


James Garfield Gardiner: The position in relation to the matter and in relation to the whole principle underlying not only this bill but
the other agreements which will come down under the farm products bill, is being battled in Canada at the present time. The battle against that principle is being led, naturally, by the leader of the opposition in this house. Those who support the opposite view with regard to this principle will, of course, vote against a measure of this kind or will vote against the agreements that are covered in the other bill. But I venture to say that when the vote is taken-as it will be shortly-on this question, it will again be found that the government has the support of the majority of the members upon the policy which is now before the house.
The vote on the third reading is just as much a vote for or against the policy or principle of a bill as the vote on the second reading. I venture to say that the whole principle of this bill is bound up in the three sections which we are being asked to refer back to the committee. While there may be some things that individual members disagree about with regard to the details of what is contained in those sections, I am quite satisfied that a vote for the third reading of the bill at this time will strengthen the idea in the minds of the people of Canada that this principle of stabilizing prices for farmers at a reasonable level, with a guarantee that any profit which is made over and above that reasonable level will be turned over to the farmer in due course, is a principle which the farmers of this country desire to have and which this house ought to express itself decisively upon.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that everybody in this house knows perfectly well where this party stands regarding matters of this description. I do not think I need reiterate what we have so often said in this house, that we desire to see proper, orderly marketing and proper price stability at a proper level for the producers of this country. We do not wish to go back again to the days before the war, when prices went sky-high, as they did some years ago, and which were followed by a period of low prices when, as the British minister of food put it the other day, wheat was the value of chaff. However I must say this. When the British agreement which is connected with this bill was before the house last August, we made it perfectly clear that our support for that agreement and the method adopted by the government to implement the agreement through the wheat board was in no small measure connected with a continuance of the
Canadian Wheat Board Act

policy of the government as it was being carried out regarding controls and price ceilings. In the past six months costs of production have risen and the cost of living has risen. In the month of January of this year, according to the index-which of course does not comprise a very wide field of commodities-the cost of living increase was eight-tenths of one per cent in one month; or, put on the basis of the year, approximately 9A per cent for one month. If the government removes controls and lifts price ceilings to the extent that the cost of living rises and costs of production rise, then of course the basis of the British wheat agreement and the payments that are now being made to our farming community are neither fair nor just.
I would remind the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) that on August 15 last, speaking on the British wheat agreements, as reported at page 4825 of Hansard for that day, I said:
... at the present time the wheat agreement calls for the payment of $1.55 a bushel for the wheat that is sold to Britain, and I believe that is nearer what we sometimes eall a parity price. I believe the government would be well advised to consider the suggestion that, in the event of the costs of production rising for the next few years, as they will do largely because of the government's failure to maintain the ceilings, any difference there may be between what the farmer receives for his wheat and the increased costs of production should be made up out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.
Not even out of the five-year pool that was being established. I went on to develop that a little, and the Minister of Agriculture admitted in reply that at that time-and I use his own words-parity would probably be about $1.41 or $1.42, and that the farmers' organizations had argued for $1.40 as the basic price. Then there was some discussion between the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken), the Minister of Agriculture and myself, and the minister went on to say, dealing with the matter of the compensatory fund which I had suggested:
What I want to point out is that under the floor price measure-that is not the proper name, but it will do-we stated to the house that $200,000,000 was being provided for the purpose of taking care of any adjustments in connection with what might be known as parity on other farm products. At the same time we stated to the house that similar arrangements would be made if necessary, through the wheat board, in connection with grain.
The point I am making is that if the government allows price ceilings to be lifted and costs of production to rise as they have risen, then it is the obligation of the government to provide compensation to the farmers who have accepted this wheat agreement and the

prices that go with it. I know the minister is perfectly correct when he says that in this country at the present time there is a group of people who want to upset this wheat agreement and every other agreement of this description because they have an economic interest in doing so. I have stated several times in this house that I believe the policy of the government in regard to stabilized prices and negotiated agreements, under the conditions that exist at the present time, is the best policy for Canada and the farmers of Canada. No one who attended the food and agriculture meeting at Copenhagen-I did not attend, but I have read the record of proceedings-or who sat in, as I did, at commission No. 2 of the united nations organization and heard the discussion regarding food, can be under any illusion for a moment but that this is the only kind of agreement which at this moment will adequately protect the producers of this country. The Monetary Times makes it very clear that this campaign is being carried on. If you look at the issue for February, 1947, under the heading, "Wheat Agreement," on page 42 you will find:
Speaking of the west recalls the wheat agreement with the U.K. Usually, after an arrangement like this is sanctioned by parliament for a term of years, the opposition lets up and those protesting become resigned to "taking" it. Not so in this case. The opposition of the grain trade is as tenacious today as if the agreement were before parliament. The opposition of the Progressive Conservative leader, Mr. Bracken, is equally so.
That is quite true. We are interested in one point especially in particular regarding this agreement. When this bill was before the house and in committee, on numerous occasions my colleagues raised this point, and I myself raised it just before the vote was taken, that I did not think it was proper or is proper to put the proceeds of the 1945 crop into this pool. That is the main point at issue, which we feel needs to be dealt with by the government. We realize what the minister says, that if a very large accumulation of funds is to be found in this pool within the next two or three years, no government in Canada could hold back those funds from the real owners, but I suggest that the 1945 crop payment should not have been connected with the British agreement. If we could get a satisfactory promise that this matter would be reconsidered we have otherwise very little criticism of the bill, though, as I have indicated in what I have said already, we would have liked to see the initial payment higher because of the increased costs of production.
Even in this connection a doubt has been raised in the minds of farmers. Within the

Canadian Wheat Board Act
last week I have received one or two letters, one in particular, suggesting that before we support this agreement we should secure a pledge from the government that every dollar in that fund will be distributed to the farmers in 1950. I have taken it upon myself to write back and say I am convinced that no government could withhold money which was properly due the producers of this country. That formed a part of the agreement, and is written into the statutes of this country.
I do not want, nor as you may well understand, Mr. Speaker, do my colleagues want to jeopardize this bill. Certainly we do not want to play into the hands of the people who, for economic reasons, are desirous of destroying this measure which is so important to western Canada. I have lived in the west long enough to recollect the struggle which has gone on since 1919 for the establishment of a wheat board. Election after election was fought in western Canada on that issue; in 1921, 1925, 1926, 1930 and even 1935. In each of those elections the wheat board method of marketing figured, and I am convinced that the people who sent us here want this legislation. They do not like some features of it. We do not like some features of it, but if the administration would indicate rather more clearly than they have the situation regarding the 1945 crop and, if possible, pay the participation certificates on that crop year, to a large extent they would satisfy the farmers.


James Garfield Gardiner: If I may say a word, the position is that the 1943 payments are not quite out. The 1944 payments will start shortly, as the minister will indicate. It would be a physical impossibility to begin to make the 1945 payments earlier than late in 1948. The question is, how much advantage is to be gained; and when hon. members see the figure as to what the amount is, I think they will pretty well agree that is not an important factor.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: When I hear the figure as to what the amount is, it may make a difference. I want it to be clearly understood that we are not opposing this measure, that indeed we are firmly in support of the principle of this bill. We are merely trying to emphasize the point of view we expressed when this legislation was in committee. We want, however, to see this system of orderly marketing not only carried into wheat but, as we said when this was being discussed, into coarse grains as well. When the bill following this one comes in, dealing with commodity marketing, we hope we may not only be able to give it our support but be able to suggest 83166-87
that it be strengthened and extended in scope and time as we would like to see it extended.


Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak again in this debate, but in view of some of the statements made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) I feel obliged to make a few comments.
The minister has suggested that if those who believe in the wheat board start pushing a measure of this kind around it may have a disastrous effect on the legislation. We appreciate that fact. But I assure the minister that we do not like being put in a position where we have to criticize a measure of this kind for this group has time and again made it perfectly clear that they believe in the principle of the wheat board taking delivery of all the wheat produced and also in the principle of a long-term international agreement on wheat. But just because we believe in that, we cannot be put in the position of having to remain silent when we consider that certain injustices are included in the bill. We dealt with those injustices when the bill was in committee.
There are three things to which the Minister of Agriculture referred. First of all, we believe that the year 1945 should be taken out of the pool altogether; second, we believe that the price of $1.35 should be raised to $1.55, and, third, we believe that the government should definitely commit itself to buy all the wheat produced within the pool period at the designated price, whether it be $1.35 or raised to $1.55. When discussing in committee whether it would be possible to invest these moneys in securities the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) said:
I do not know whether I should get into this controversy too deeply because no doubt this matter has been debated a great deal. The
principles of this contract are, I think, these: for the protection of floors throughout the later years of the contract, the part of the contract beyond the period we can foresee; for the protection of the United Kingdom government's agreement to have regard to the fact that in the early years of the contract less than world market prices were paid; in return for the protection of those two factors the farmer is accepting less in the earlier year or years of the contract than the world market price.
The Minister of Justice did not seem to know whether it would be possible to make a payment. Now the Minister of Agriculture says that he cannot possibly visualize a situation where a surplus would be allowed to accrue and remain unpaid. The Minister of Justice refused to state whether the payment would be made. He could not say that it

Canadian Wheat Board Act

would be paid because the surplus might be required to meet losses in the latter part of the agreement.
Just what is likely to be the situation in the latter part of the agreement? The Minister of Justice states that there may be a very large crop and very low prices and that therefore the surplus may be required to meet the losses. But what is the price that we are to get in the latter stage of the agreement? The agreement calls for $1.25 and then for $1.
The Minister of Agriculture has stated it is unthinkable that the United Kingdom will not carry out her part of the bargain; that is to say, that when arriving at a price at that stage they will take into consideration the fact that we were willing to let the United Kingdom have our wheat in the earlier stage of the agreement at prices considerably below the market price. But we have no guarantee that the present government in the United Kingdom will be in power then. Public opinion in Great Britain is being aroused to such an extent against this agreement that it is very hard for us to say what might happen. I mention that because in the mail yesterday I received a pamphlet, as no doubt other hon. members did, from Britain. It shows the kind of propaganda which is being carried on there against this agreement, and it makes one wonder what the attitude of the British people will be two or three years from now on this wheat question. One of the people connected with this pamphlet is a prominent Canadian who has played a big part in the marketing of wheat from this country. First, I quote from the last part of the article to show the man to whom I am referring to. The article is headed "The Wheat Racket". It is published in the Liberator Council, a monthly publication. I quote from the end of the article:
We are fortunate in having as a member of the Liberator Council a gentleman whose name is widely known in the international grain trade of pre-war days. He has had 40 years' experience of that trade, and for a number of years was the official London representative of the Canadian wheat pools, when they were selling wheat at half the present inflated price. He writes that the world wheat situation is now on the easy side since the Canadian crop started moving freely in November, and says: "There is every possibility, with urgent needs satisfied, of a world glut in the late spring or early summer of 1947, when Australia and Argentine crops, moving in December, will be in free competition with the U.S.A.
I have quoted from the last of the article to show the individual connected with this organization.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not heard the name of the individual, but I venture to say

from the description that it is clear to whom the hon. gentleman points. I think it was the individual who proposed the floor prices that are now in this contract.


Victor Quelch: I have not the slightest idea who he is.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have a pretty good idea.


Victor Quelch: I think the minister might do well to give us his name. I should like to know who it was.


James Garfield Gardiner: The individual who suggested the floor prices in the agreement for the last two years was Mr. James Rank, one of the chief milling industry men in Britain. He bought all the wheat for the Conservative government there when they were in power and I think he is still buying wheat for the present government.


Victor Quelch: Was he the selling agent for the pools in this period?


James Garfield Gardiner: He was the man who proposed the floors in the last two years. He is one of the outstanding supporters of the other party, not the party in power in Britain now7. But I do not think there is any danger of any government in Britain going back on a contract made by another British government.


Victor Quelch: It makes this article all the worse if that type of individual is connected with the organization that wrote this article.


James Garfield Gardiner: He is not connected with this organization. He is buying wheat for the British government because he knows how to buy wheat.


Victor Quelch: I was hoping to hear that he was an irresponsible individual, but apparently he is not, and he is a member of this organization. I have quoted from the article to emphasize that if that type of propaganda is continued it will be very hard for any British government to pay us a high price for our wheat in the latter stage of the agreement if the world price should fall to sixty-five cents as it did in 1921. I quote further from this article "The Wheat Racket":
It is well worth considering a few comparative figures when trying to see through the fog of false and contradictory statements that arise on all sides.
Before the war the average cost of Canadian wheat, on rail, was 80 cents per bushel.
In the depression of the 1930's it fell to between 30 cents and 40 cents per bushel, on rail.
In September, 1939, a few days before the outbreak of w7ar, it was selling at 55J cents per bushel, including shipping to England.
Now this country has signed an agreement w-ith Canada to take approximately two-thirds of her wheat over a period of years, at the all-in

Canadian Wheat Board Act
high price of $4.55 per bushel, with freight and insurance additional. It is estimated by experts, that after allowing for increased costs of production this figure will give the Canadian farmer the nice profit of over 50 per cent.
What is not generally known in this country, because it has not been publicized in the British press, is that in December, 1945, a conference of Canadian farmers was convened in Ottawa, at which Mr. Gardiner, Minister of Agriculture, stated that wheat acreages must be reduced, in order to maintain the artificially high prices. In other words, the Canadian government is guilty of perpetrating the scandal of planned scarcity of wheat-the old, old tale. To give actual figures, the wheat area for 4946 was fixed at 23,400,000 acres, as against an average of
25,600,000	acres, a purposeful reduction of ten per cent.
The whole article goes along in the same vein and I shall not read it all, but it continues later on:
Had the government told the people of this country the truth in December, 1945, that the Ottawa agricultural conference accepted a reduction of 1,200,000 acres in the Canadian wheat growing areas, in order to keep up high prices, and that bread in Great Britain would be rationed and impoverished as a consequence, there would have been such an outcry as would have sent the government hurtling to an inevitable ^crash, for even eighty per cent of its own M.P. s have been kept in purposeful ignorance of the real facts.
The minister must agree that if that kind of false propaganda-I can only call it absolutely false-is circulated throughout England and a new government comes into power, it may be very hard for any government to maintain a price considerably above the world market price when the people have been told that there was a deliberate curtailment of acreage in order to maintain the price above the market level.


James Garfield Gardiner: Having heard the article read, may I say that in mentioning the name of the person who had suggested the idea of floor prices for the last two years under the wheat contract, my idea was to emphasize the fact that both those who support the present government and those who supported the last government were in on the discussions, first under the first government and then later under this government. They expressed agreement with the principles underlying this agreement, Having heard what was said by some individual, I would say that Rank was not the individual.


Victor Quelch: I should like to quote this again:
We are fortunate in having as a member of the liberator council a gentleman whose name is widely known in the international grain trade of pre-war days.
The liberator council there referred to is the organization that is circulating this pamphlet.
He has had forty years' experience of that trade, and for a number of years was the official London representative of the Canadian wheat pools.
It does not say that he wrote this article, but it says more or less that he is a member of the organization circulating the pamphlet.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is a different gentleman.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Who are the people who signed it? Does it give any names?


Victor Quelch: There is Sir Charles
Morgan-Webb.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who is he?


Victor Quelch: Probably the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) knows who he is.


Mr. AIITCHELL:: It sounds like a fortuneteller.


Victor Quelch: I do not think the Minister of Labour had better betray his ignorance by making a statement of that kind. Then there is Mr. William Brown, Mr. G. H. Stock and Mr. Eric Troward. I think Sir Charles Morgan-Webb is fairly well known and it is absurd of the Minister of Labour to refer to him as a fortune-teller. I read that to point out the difficult position any government in England is bound to be in if that kind of propaganda is circulated now and the people of Britain told that they are having to pay us fifty per cent more than they should for our wheat when actually we are under-selling the world market by more than fifty per cent. How much more difficult will it be for us to obtain from Great Britain a price that is fifty per cent above the world market price, as may be the case in 1948 or 1949 should the world market price of wheat fall to seventy-five cents a bushel and we are to get $1.25. Then take into consideration the fact that we are taking less than the market price now. What will the reaction be at that time if this kind of propaganda is going on now when we are making a sacrifice of from seventy-five cents to ninety cents a bushel? The minister must realize the difficulty the government will be in.
In view of the fact that our farmers are making considerable sacrifice, the least thing the government can do is to guarantee to them that it will buy at the stipulated price all the wheat produced during the pool period. Surely it is not asking the government to go very far to do such a thing. The other day the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) accused me of not having faith
Canadian Wheat Board Act

in the government in this matter, but I say that he is not being fair with the people. The Minister of Agriculture says to wait until 1950, and I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce suggested that we can wait until 1950 to decide this question, but the farmers are now being asked to go into an agreement and to make a sacrifice in the first part of that agreement, in return for which they are to get a certain guarantee during the latter part.
What right has the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Minister of Agriculture to suggest that the farmers should have to wait until 1950 to know what they will get in return for making a sacrifice today? They should know that now. They should be told definitely that the government will take all wheat, not merely the wheat they will have room for. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) said that there might be a tremendous crop in 1949, with consequent low prices. If that is the situation, then in all probability the elevators will be plugged and the farmers will not be able to deliver their wheat. That is the time they will need a guarantee.
When you talk about faith I think the very least the government can do is to keep faith with the farmers and make that unconditional guarantee that it will take all the wheat produced during that period. The fact that the government refuses to give that understanding can only give the farmers the idea that it does not intend to keep faith with them.
On behalf of our group, I wish to say that we believe in the *wheat board. We want to support it. However we feel obliged to support the amendment to refer this bill back unless we have a definite guarantee from the government that it will buy all the wheat produced within that period of time.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to follow the various arguments that have been advanced here this afternoon and evening, but I do intend to try to return the mind of the house to the subject matter of the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken). The amendment is:
That the said bill be not now read the third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of reconsidering sections 20, 21 and 22 thereof.
Those three sections deal with the questions of the pool period and the holding of surplus moneys secured or earned during the five-year period. As was explained by the leader of the opposition, the purpose of the amendment is to make provision by statute

and not by political promise for the payment of participation certificates for the crop year 1945-46. That is the purpose of this amendment which represents the demands of farmers all over western Canada. That is admitted by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) when he said that there was only the one point at issue, that, that they believe that the 1945 crop should not be put in the pool.
There have been many matters raised and smoke-screens produced; but, to come back to the amendment, let it be perfectly clear that reconsideration by the committee is for one purpose only, to assure the farmers and producers throughout this country that they shall in fact have carried out by the government the promise, whether made directly or not, certainly the contract promised that they should be entitled to secure whatever is earned on the 1945 crop. So far as this amendment is concerned, every hon. member who votes against it votes in favour of refusing to the farmers of this country, as soon as the necessary financial computations have been made, the right to participation certificates for the 1945 crop. There is the issue; there is no other. It is not a question of defeating any act; it is not a question of holding up any act. The smoke-screen that is raised is the usual one; it is that of always ascribing motives to those who are desirous of assuring that in this case the farmer shall receive what is his due instead of it being left to a nebulous promise which may or may not be carried out.
There is no denial by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) that the farmers demand this. There is no denial that, as recently as the end of February, in its submission to the government the federation of agriculture used these words:
We protest the action of the government in not retiring participation certificates on wheat delivered to the Canadian wheat board during the crop year 1945-48. We cannot but regard the withholding of these payments as contrary to the understanding which wheat growers had with the government during the whole of that crop year.
There is the essence of this motion, namely, to carry into effect what the federation of agriculture has asked for and what farmers everywhere are demanding. What is the government's attitude? We have not had any reply yet from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon). He is persistently silent when it comes to answering questions.


James Angus MacKinnon: I will answer them pretty soon.

Canadian Wheat Board Act


John George Diefenbaker: At last he is being pried loose and will be answering questions asked the other day by the leader of the opposition and repeated today. How much is there to the credit of the 1944 and 1945 crop years? How much interest is paid in respect of the surpluses held? These are questions which were asked ten days ago. These are questions that as yet remain unanswered and would have remained unanswered but for the fact that today the leader of the opposition moved this amendment.
I ask my hon. friends to the left, did they not suggest this afternoon, and during the debate the payment of participation certificates on the 1945 crop? They are given the opportunity to vote in favour of what they contended for. What is the reply of the government? The government produces a bill which will become a statute and which will deny the payment of participation certificates during the five-year period, on the 1945 crop. This is one of these bills, sir, which when it becomes law, cannot be amended by order in council with the facility with which statutes were amended during the period of the War Measures Act and the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, because the other day the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) said that, so far as this bill is concerned, it does not derive its powers from the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act. That being so, no order in council can be made in 1948 which will make provision for payment of participation certificates on the 1945 crop.


James Garfield Gardiner: The house will be
meeting.


John George Diefenbaker: The house is meeting now; and if the government intends to carry out the political promise, if I may call it that, which was made by the Minister of Agriculture, let us do it tonight so that the farmers will know what they are to get. I remember promises regarding the payment of participation certificates which were made before-


An hon. MEMBER:: 


James Arthur Ross: Not in 1939.


John George Diefenbaker: There were no participation certificates at any time under R.B. because the act did not come into effect until 1935.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There were a lot of other promises.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There was a depression then.


John George Diefenbaker: I remember the Minister of Agriculture in the campaign of
1940 promising the farmers of western Canada how much they would get on the 1938 and 1939 crops in participation certificates. It started at nine cents; the farther west he went, the larger it got. When he finally got to Calgary, was it not fifteen cents that he promised, and the farmers got nothing?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not correct.


John George Diefenbaker: That was the promise, but-*


James Garfield Gardiner: The farmers did get something.


James Arthur Ross: Misquoted again.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not correct. It is a misquotation on the part of my hon. friend.


John George Diefenbaker: Ask the farmers what they got and the degree to which the promise was carried out.


James Garfield Gardiner: They know what they got.


John George Diefenbaker: They certainly do know what they got; they got a promise which was not carried out.


James Garfield Gardiner: They got $60 million covering three years.


John George Diefenbaker: What we are asking is the payment of these participation certificates. The government did not even consider the payment of the participation certificates on the 1945 crop until the leader of the opposition made this motion. They did not consider it in any way. They were going to refuse it. We on this side of the house, and we were joined by hon. members to our left, all on this side of the house demanded this thing. Now we have an opportunity of getting what we have all spoken in favour of. The only answer the government has is this: Just leave this thing alone; pass the bill as it is with no such provision, and next year maybe we shall come back and we may amend it to provide for the payment of the participation certificates on the 1945 crop. This is the appointed time, tonight, not next year.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I thought it was last night.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, it was last night, but we did not have the opportunity last night; we have the opportunity tonight.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You tried hard.


John George Diefenbaker: Now is the time for those who averred their belief in the necessity of the farmers receiving what is fair, in the interests of the demands of the federation of
Canadian Wheat Board Act

agriculture, to vote ia favour of this motion. In no way does it defeat the bill in the slightest; in no way does it interfere with it. All it does is to assure that justice will be done to those who have the right to ask us who represent them in parliament to see that justice shall be done.
The suggestion that by voting for this amendment you vote against the principle of the bill is entirely removed from the facts. The principle has been established. This is but one item; this is but one clause. Instead of postponing the matter for one or more years hence, I suggest that we complete this matter tonight.
I am glad that we are to get some information tonight from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) in reference to the amount of money on hand to the credit of the farmers, because up to the present, so far as the wheat board is concerned, it has shown a cavalier disregard of the rights of parliament. We have never been able to get any information. The attitude has been the attitude of the government under order in council denying the farmers of western Canada the right to an accounting of the moneys that rightfully belong to them.
I am not going to say any more on this occasion. I return to what I started with. This amendment is definite and to the point. It covers three paragraphs which have to do with the mechanics of operation, payment of participation certificates and the like, and it will give hon. members an opportunity of carrying out the wishes of Canadian agriculture and its representative, the federation of agriculture.


James Angus MacKinnon: The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken), in the course of a speech earlier in this debate, asked a number of questions, some of which were answered at the time, and others of which were repeated tonight and answers requested. In the meantime I have been able to get the answers from authoritative sources, headquarters at Winnipeg, the Canadian wheat board. I purpose answering these questions and possibly adding slightly to some of the information, which will be of interest to hon. members, in connection with the funds on hand with the Canadian wheat board, the property of the producers of grain in western Canada.
The question was asked: What money is being held on hand today from the 1943 crop account? Before giving the answer, I should like to state that there is on hand today with the Canadian wheat board, from the 1940, 1941 and 1942 crop accounts, the sum of

$5,000,000. Let me point out whose property that money is. I may make this statement in connection with other crop years because for some members of this house it is quite unnecessary for me to make any explanation, though I believe there are members, who, hearing these figures quoted, may feel that these moneys have some relation to the funds for which distribution is asked for the 1945 crop.
As I say, from the 1940, 1941 and 1942 crop accounts there is on hand a total of $5,000,000. That is, producers' money is being paid out as the participation certificates are turned in and payments applied for. In this connection I may say that every effort is being made by the wheat board to get this money out into the hands of the rightful owners. Numerous letters have been written and follow-ups sent, and everything possible has been done to have the real owners of the money to apply for it and to have it paid.
From the 1943 crop account there is a balance of $6,000,000 on hand today, or there was a day or two ago. That money is also going out as it is being applied for by holders of participation certificates for the crop year of 1943. That money is, not wheat board money; it is the property of the grain producers.
From the 1944 crop account, subject to final accounting, although these are definite, authoritative figures, there is the sum of $61 million, again farmers' money on hand, distribution of which to the individual farmer will commence as early as possible this summer.
In the 1945 crop account, subject to final accounting, though the figures are relatively accurate, after allowing for the adjustment payment of ten cents a bushel which has been provided for by government policy this year, there is left on hand a total of $36 million. These are authoritative figures.
I was asked by the leader of the opposition for the investment return to the wheat board on securities that they hold representing investments of surplus producers funds. That investment return is 2-89 per cent, and in addition on cash on hand in the banks the wheat board gets one-half of one per cent.
There are other questions and other comments made by the leader of the opposition, which-


Joseph William Burton: The minister will remember that during the years the wheat pool was operating as a wheat pool they were able to get interim and final payments out to the producers in a very short time. Could the minister explain why it takes the wheat board so much longer to make these final payments than it did the wheat pool?

Canadian Wheat Board Act


James Angus MacKinnon: Without attempting in any way to give an all-inclusive answer, I know that the activities of the board are very much greater today. The same man is today in charge of distribution as was in charge then. We have had great practical, physical difficulties in having these cheques issued. The matter of accommodation in Winnipeg, the matter of staff, our inability to get possession of premises that were owned so that we could increase our staff to enable us to take care of the work-all these factors are receiving the best possible attention.
As I was about to say, there were other matters raised by the leader of the opposition, but they have been for the most part carefully and exhaustively, and, to me, satisfactorily, answered by my colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner).
The leader of the opposition referred to a statement made by the Hon. Mr. Strachey in the British House of Commons. The leader of the opposition knows, as do the rest of us, that Mr. Strachey made another statement in Canada which has been referred to already in this house, and that was that it would be monstrous for anyone to question the good faith of any British government as regards living up to the letter of the agreement that they have made with the government of Canada.
I was going to refer to some of the newspaper criticisms of the wheat board, not only in a Winnipeg paper but in an Ottawa paper, but 1 do not think it is necessary to go into that very fully. A great deal of the criticism was incorrectly levelled on the assumption that certain clauses were in this bill as it finally passed the house and without the realization that amendments had been made in committee which removed the objections upon which the editorials were based.
The leader of the opposition referred to a smoke-screen. I think of a smoke-screen as something indefinite and intangible, but I am prepared to come down to more particular matters in reference to opposition to this legislation. I believe that this legislation is absolutely necessary-and I think most of us agree with that-to carry out the provisions of the Canada-United Kingdom wheat agreement. I do know that certain estimable and amiable gentlemen from the city of Winnipeg came to Ottawa-some of them I think are still here and are likely in this building tonight-with the objective of ruining this legislation, of killing this legislation one way or another. There is no doubt in the world that their first objective was to try to injure it and kill it if possible in the agriculture committee of this house. That opportunity was lost when the members on this side of the house, the members of the C.C.F. party and the members of the Social Credit party announced that they were opposed to this legislation, under all the circumstances, going to the committee on agriculture and colonization. Now it is my opinion-and possibly I might be blamed for imputing motives -that this attempt to send this legislation back to the committee of the whole is merely another attempt, coming from the same quarter, to embarrass the government with this legislation.


John Bracken: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. The hon. gentleman is suggesting improper motives.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is not.


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes, he is.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: Withdraw.


Lionel Chevrier: Why should he withdraw? He has not said anything he should not say.


James Angus MacKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I very carefully stated that I was not imputing any motives to anybody.


John Bracken: I am glad to have the minister's re-statement of the position in regard to what he originally stated.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is what he said.


Arza Clair Casselman: It is totally different.


Mr. STIRLING:: We shall read Hansard.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is the leader of the opposition who calls the motive an improper one.


Arza Clair Casselman: Why does the hon. member not go across the floor of the house?


Mr. COLD  WELL@: We are very comfortable here.


James Angus MacKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I want to be just as careful as I can possibly be not to say anything that is improper, and to avoid saying anything at which any member opposite might take offence.


Mr. FULTON:: Why do you not say what you mean?


James Garfield Gardiner: You would not understand it anyway.


James Horace King: Order.


James Angus MacKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I am a bit surprised at the interruptions coming from the portion of the house occupied by the
Canadian Wheat Board Act

official opposition. I made no charges or no representations against any one of them. They do seem to be taking to themselves-[DOT]


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the words of the minister were definitely that this was another attempt by an outside body to bring this matter before the house. The point of order is that no outside body using this vehicle, His Majesty's loyal opposition, is making any attempt to voice the sentiments or the minds of those people whom we know not, who came from Winnipeg, in the minister's own words, to attempt to wreck this legislation. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the minister should remove from the record the statement made by him that this is another attempt to wreck the legislation.


James Garfield Gardiner: Are you not trying to wreck it?


James Arthur Ross: Try again.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The only
gentleman I met was one the minister introduced me to.


Lionel Chevrier: That has added a great deal to the debate.


James Horace King: Order.


James Angus MacKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I do
not remember the occasion referred to by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith), but I am quite sure that if he has said what I understood he has said, he means it.
This legislation, as I have said, is necessary to carry out the wheat agreement.


Arthur Leroy Smith: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Open the door,
Richard.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The fair
inference of what the minister said was that the leader of this party was operating as a tool for some gentleman from Winnipeg.


Lionel Chevrier: He said no such thing.


James Garfield Gardiner: You ought to withdraw that.


Arthur Leroy Smith: That is a
fair inference.


James Horace King: Order. I listened very
carefully to the minister when he was speaking and I listened to the hon. member who rose on a point of order. I do not believe that the minister imputed to the leader of the official opposition any improper motives.

I understood that the motives were attributed to outsiders, not members of the house. Therefore, since he did not impute motives to any member of parliament, I do not think I could ask him to withdraw.


Joseph Henry Harris: I rise to a
point of order, Mr. Speaker. I bow to your ruling, with all due deference; but I say, in fairness to this house that the record ought to be read. I would ask the minister to agree to having the record read, inasmuch as, with the confusion in this house, Mr. Speaker, you may not have heard as well as I did the word "attempt" being used, referring to an outside body and then being used referring to His Majesty's loyal opposition. It is not often that I disturb the chamber, but within the rules of the chamber I would ask you, sir, to ask that the record be read.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Angus MacKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I should
just like to set at rest the mind of the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris). I certainly made no imputation against the leader of the official opposition.


Mr. COCKERAM:: Withdraw.


James Angus MacKinnon: Just a minute. Neither did I make any imputation against any member of this house. I will possibly make it clearer by saying this.


Alan Cockeram: Withdraw the accusation you made before.


James Angus MacKinnon: If, by referring this
matter back to a committee of the whole, it might have the effect of destroying this legislation, then those people, referring to the special interests here, would be very happy. That is what I wish to indicate.


John Bracken: There is no suggestion in this amendment that the bill would be destroyed by referring it back for the consideration of one item.


James Angus MacKinnon: I have only another sentence or two. I want to impress upon this house and upon anyone interested in western agriculture that this legislation is necessary for the successful carrying out of the agreement with the United Kingdom. It is an attempt to give the grain producer stability of prices over a term of years. If anything should happen to defeat the legislation I believe the wheat producers of western Canada would wait some considerable time for another opportunity to obtain stability of prices.


Mr. C. E. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: I should like to say a few words before the

Canadian Wheat Board Act
vote is taken. I wish to assure the minister that there are at least some in this house who do not desire to have this legislation defeated. However, if it is defeated I should say it would be the fault of the government, because they have refused to make the very minor yet important changes that some of us in this house have desired. It is not the proper thing, I take it, for the government to endeavour to use the big stick on members of this house in order to force this legislation through, when I believe they could easily have it passed unanimously.
As the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) has said, we are agreeable to legislation of this type covering long-term payments to the farmers and stabilized prices. There is no question about that. We are also satisfied that the contract with Great Britain should be carried out. I may say quite frankly that we do not agree with some aspects of it, but in the main we are quite agreeable to seeing it fulfilled. However, as far as may be possible we are determined to have the government declare themselves on one thing. If they are as sincere as they try to make out they should not be so hesitant about saying they will pay the farmers the stipulated price for all wheat produced and offered for sale within the pool period. Certainly there can be no objection to that, and in that regard the government cannot hold any stick over my head and influence my vote. I tell them right now that if they do not agree to this I shall vote against them; that is, if they do not agree to take all the wheat produced within that pool period and pay the farmers the stipulated price.


James Angus MacKinnon: If I may say just a sentence or two-


Charles Edward Johnston: I wish you would clear that up, and you can take a dozen sentences.


James Angus MacKinnon: While the bill was in committee, I took occasion to speak on behalf of the government on that very point. I can repeat now, and I wish to repeat, that the government anticipates there will be storage in western Canada to take every bushel of grain grown during this pool period. The government intends to take every bushel of grain grown and offered for sale by the farmers, to the extent of every available bushel of storage space. If I were able to go farther now I should like to do so, but you cannot project yourself into the future and know what the situation will be three years from now. It is not practical to say what we can do under certain circumstances that we do
not expect to exist. It is the intention of the government to take every bushel of wheat the farmers offer for sale during the pool period, and to distribute to the holders of participation certificates all the surplus money made during that period.


Charles Edward Johnston: 
Mr. W. A. TUCKER (Rosthern):: la the first place, Mr. Speaker, I should like to observe that if the amendment were to carry and the bill were to go back to committee I am satisfied that, unless the government were ready to move an amendment along the lines suggested by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken), no such change could be made, because it might mean a charge upon the crown. So this amendment can be only one thing, a delaying or dilatory amendment, because it could not bring about the result he desires without the approval of the crown.


Arthur Leroy Smith: This is not the money of the government. Who said it was?


Walter Adam Tucker: I submit that, on the face of it, the observation by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) was well justified; that this is a dilatory and delaying motion which clearly indicates where the official opposition stands on this important measure.


James Arthur Ross: More imputing of motives.


Walter Adam Tucker: If you have a guilty conscience, of course attribute the motives to yourself.
In regard to the general principle of this bill I am one of those who are in thorough agreement with the idea that we should have a certain measure of stability over a reasonable period of years. I am one of those, too, who think five years is not too long. In fact, many of the farmers in my constituency feel they would like to be guaranteed a reasonable price and reasonable stability for more than five years at a time. If the principle is once written into the law that we should have a five-year pool and stability for five years it would be very hard, it seems to me, if it works out well, for any future government to depart from that principle. In other words, in this agreement and bill we have established the principle of a period of stability for five years at a time.
The attitude of hon. members opposite is this. They are attributing to themselves a :great deal of friendship for the farmer because they say: We would like to cut down this period from five to four years in order that there may be distributed at once, or when it [DOT]can be distributed, probably within the next three years, the sum of $36 million. I think myself that when this whole situation comes to be reviewed in the years ahead the friends of the farmers will say that it was well to leave that less than ten cents a bushel with dhe wheat board for perhaps an extra two

years for the sake of having a five-year period of stability established instead of a four-year period. In other words, we say that we want to have a five-year wheat pool period established as a minimum, and we say that, even if this money be paid out perhaps two years later than it otherwise would be paid out, that is a small price to pay for establishing the principle of stability for a period of five years at a time.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The hon. member said, two years later. If it will take two years to make the 1945 payment it will be 1952 before we make the 1950 payment. Get your mathematics straight.


Walter Adam Tucker: I did not think I would have to go into such details as that with my able friend the hon. member for Calgary West. We are perhaps three years behind now in making payments on a yearly basis. If it is all put in a five-year pool, presumably, instead of the money being paid out one year at a time and having five years to look after separately, it will be paid out at once, and it will not take nearly as long to pay it out in one payment as it would in five.
In regard to these attacks on the ground of delay in payments, I point out to the members of this house through you, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, in their submission to the government, unreservedly endorse the present wheat board and its present personnel. If they had thought that the wheat board was not doing a good job I submit that they would not have endorsed the present personnel of the board. I think that is clear.


Arthur Leroy Smith: So what?


Walter Adam Tucker: "So what," my hon. friend says. The suggestion is made that the wheat board is not doing a good job, that it is pushing the farmer around.


James Arthur Ross: Who said so?


Mr. ILSLEY:: The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) accused the board of being bureaucrats.


Walter Adam Tucker: All I go by is this. I took part in the Portage la Prairie by-election and I saw the attacks made by the official opposition on this wheat agreement.


James Arthur Ross: Made by whom?


Walter Adam Tucker: By the official opposition.


James Arthur Ross: Name them.


Walter Adam Tucker: Well, yourself.

Canadian Wheat Board Act


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is making a misstatement of fact. I never once criticized the wheat board in that by-election. I criticized the agreement and said it was wrong.


Walter Adam Tucker: That is what I said. That just shows again the desire of the official opposition to find fault. I said that the hon. member criticized the wheat agreement.


James Arthur Ross: You said the board.


Walter Adam Tucker: After all, if we cannot agree on a simple matter like that it will be hard for us to agree on some of these other matters. I do say this. I took part in the Portage la Prairie by-election. It is all very well for the leader of the opposition and members to come into this house and say that they are in favour of the principle of the agreement and then proceed to find fault with it in every conceivable manner in order to break down confidence in the agreement throughout the country. They are trying to have it both ways, and when that is suggested to them and they get up and protest, it shows nothing more or less than a guilty conscience. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot go into a by-election like Portage la Prairie and attack this agreement as not being a good one and say that the arrangements made are not good, and then come into this house and pretend that they are in favour of the agreement.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We did not do that at all. We said that it was a bad agreement.


Walter Adam Tucker: There we have it. Are you speaking for your leader? I understood him to say that it was a good agreement?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, he did not.


Walter Adam Tucker: Let him deny it. I do not think the esteemed leader of the opposition needs the young man from Kamloops to speak for him. He has been long enough in public life to speak for himself and I do not think he would wish my hon. friend to speak for him.
I think I should pay a passing reference to my friends of the C.C.F. party. I am not unmindful of the fact that they brought the minister of agriculture of Saskatchewan into that Portage la Prairie by-election, and the Hon. Mr. Nollet in that by-election said that a child could have made a better agreement than this one, and asked the people to vote against the government candidate because the government had made such a poor agreement. There is the situation, and I say again to my friends of the C.C.F., let them say the same
thing in the house as they say out in the west. Let them not talk one way out there and another way in the house.


Mrs. STRUM:: Mr. Speaker, I think the house should know that I had the honour of sharing a platform with the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) in the city hall at Regina before the present session opened. I would ask him whether I was there and whether I did not tell the truth about that agreement.


Walter Adam Tucker: You were charming as usual.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: Mr. Speaker, I asked for a statement of truth, not an evasion like that.


Walter Adam Tucker: It is very hard for me to admit that the C.C.F. are fair-minded in everything they say because I cannot admit that they are.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: Mr. Speaker, the charge has been made by the member for Rosthern that we have one story in the west and another story in the house. I had the pleasure of appearing on the same platform with the hon, member for Rosthern and I ask him, did I or did I not quote the terms of the agreement?


Walter Adam Tucker: In reply to the question asked me by the charming lady member for Qu'Appelle I would say this. On that occasion, as I heard her speech, I found no fault with what she said. In what I suggested I was particularly referring to Mr. Nollet, minister of agriculture of Saskatchewan, whom the C.C.F. brought in to take part in that federal by-election. I was not referring to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: Did the hon. member hear Mr. Nollet make the statement he has quoted?


Walter Adam Tucker: It was reported in the newspapers and not denied.


William Ross Macdonald: I must remind the house that we are not in committee. Is the house ready for the question?


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: The hon. member for Rosthern has imputed something to the movement which I have the honour to lead in this house, and I wish to tell him that no group in this house has been so consistent in support of the wheat agreement, both in and out of the house, as the C.C.F. group.


Thomas John Bentley: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say to the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) in connection with what he has said: if he felt that Mr. Nollet, Minister of Agriculture in the Saskatchewan
Canadian Wheat Board Act

government, had ever said anything outside the legislature that he would not say inside the legislature, he had an opportunity to become a member of that legislature and to make his charges in that house when Mr. Nollet could have defended himself.


Joseph William Burton: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in this debate, because on more than one occasion since the question has been before the house I have spoken not only for myself but on behalf of this group. But when the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) rises in his place in his usual blustering bull-dozing way and makes statements such as he has just made, I want to remind him of what he has been reminded of by the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bentley), namely, that he has not seen fit to accept the offer which was honestly and truly made by the C.C.F. in Saskatchewan.
I also want to tell him that I had an invitation to speak in the Rosthern constituency after the close of the last session. I appeared on a number of platforms there and I defended the wheat agreement to the constituents of Rosthern. I told them that no doubt their member was so busy chasing around other parts of the province that he would not have an opportunity to get into all parts of his own constituency before returning to Ottawa and that I was defending the wheat agreement on his behalf and on behalf of all those who believed in it. When the hon. member for Rosthern gets up on the floor of the house and for his own purposes, not for the sake of helping to put this bill through, makes the statements and assertions that he has made, I do not think he is doing himself or his party any good.


Walter Adam Tucker: I ask the hon. member to withdraw. The hon. member has suggested that I did not get up in this debate to make a point, that I got up for my own purposes. I suggest that that is imputing motives. After all, if that is the way he feels about it, I will say to him that if the wheat agreement did not get a better defence than it has received from most C.C.F'ers out west who found fault with almost everything in it and then say that they are in favour of it-


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: The hon. member
knows better than that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


William Ross Macdonald: Doubtless
there has been considerable heat during this argument and I suggest that some of the statements made have almost been un-

parliamentary. May I ask hon. members to restrain themselves as much as possible and endeavour to discuss the bill which is now before the house for third reading.


Joseph William Burton: Mr. Speaker, I shall
endeavour to comply with your request as long as you keep certain members on the other side in order. When the hon. member for Rosthern gets pinned down to certain incidents, he shifts over to another scene and another part of Saskatchewan.


Walter Adam Tucker: The hon. member has
no right to say that. That is entirely out of order.


Joseph William Burton: What is the point of
order? Eventually I shall have an opportunity to deal with the question before the house.


Walter Adam Tucker: Why don't you?


Joseph William Burton: Because there are so many foolish statements being made and, if a person does not answer them, they will go out unchallenged.
I just wanted to make one observation before getting down to business which is far too important to the farmers of this country to have side-tracked by some people trying to make a little political capital for themselves. There is no group in the political field in Saskatchewan that has been as consistent and persistent in working for the interests of the farmers as has the group to which I have the honour and privilege to belong.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Time.


Joseph William Burton: I hope the ones who want to call "time" will not call too soon. When we were discussing the various stages of this bill we tried to impress upon the government the necessity of doing certain things in order to provide legislation that would give the farmers the benefits to which they are entitled. As has been mentioned on more than one occasion, the farmers of western Canada believe-so far there has been no satisfactory answer to the contrary-that there was no justification for taking the 1945 crop and placing it in the pool period. There are many farmers who have taken the attitude that the government, by doing that, has violated the agreement. When those farmers started to deliver grain from the 1945 crop it was understood that the wheat board was operating and would continue to operate on its previous basis, namely, a one-year pool. Later on, that crop year was incorporated in the five-year pool, and consequently many farmers believe that, although there may not

Canadian Wheat Board Act
have been a written undertaking between them and the government, the government has violated the spirit of the agreement between them.	.
I suggest to the government that there is a way out by which they can continue to carry out the greater portion of the plan they have in mind and satisfy the farmers that they are prepared to do the right thing. They should adopt the suggestions that we have made on a number of occasions when this question was before the house; that is, make provision to pay interim payments during the pool period at the end of the crop year and make those interim payments on the basis of providing parity to the farmers. I left my notes on the other desk so that I cannot state exactly how many millions of dollars the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) told the house was in the hands of the government being held on behalf of the farmers. I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce why it should take the government so much longer to distribute money due to the farmers than it used to take the pools when they were operating on the pooling basis. I thank him for the answer he gave, but it is not as complete as I should like to have. I hope that the government will be able to make a better working arrangement.
However the suggestion I wish to make to the government is that in making these interim payments they take the money out of the fund which belongs to the farmers. Make the interim payment to bring the payment for that year up to parity. If that is done you will be using only the farmers' money. There will still be a considerable amount of money left over which will be used in the pool and which you will distribute at the end of the pool period. I make that suggestion because I believe it can be done. I believe it is possible to do it. If that is done it will solve the problem in so far as the farmers are concerned. It is because they are keenly concerned that I am taking up the time of the house to make this one final plea. Let the government cooperate with us and we shall be prepared to cooperate in helping to do something for the farmers.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I do not intend to look around to find this blustering bulldozer because I have examined all the seats on the other side and I do not find anyone who would be in that frame of mind. In my opinion they all have their tails down and are
hunting a little shelter. They are not the kind of person that was described a moment ago.
What I wish to make plain, if I can, to those of us who sit on this side of the house and with a pious hope perhaps that what I am saying may penetrate the conscience of one or two over there-that is the most that I can expect-


Mr. FOURNIER (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Presumptuous.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am very happy to know that. I thought I had missed something. Now that I have learned where the remark came from, compared with the minister, I am presumptuous. His modesty is something that we all know about.
What does this amendment seek to do? It asks that the proceeds of that crop shall be distributed. That is all. There is nothing else in it. When we are accused of acting for the Winnipeg grain exchange and trying to destroy what the government is doing, may I say that I think this is a more apt comparison. Let us assume that in his younger days the minister, who is in charge of this bill, went wooing a young and beautiful woman, and he had secured a beautiful corsage of roses. We all know that roses have thorns in them, but when we give a corsage to a woman whom we are trying to influence in our favour we have the thorns clipped off. What the government are doing here is saying to the farmers of the country, here is a bill. Certain features of it are good for you but you are going to take it with the thorns in it and like it. That is exactly what the government are doing at the present time by the refusal to distribute the proceeds of the 1945 crop.


Mr. A. M. NICHOLSON (Mackenzie):: In view of the representation made from this side of the house when the bill was before the committee, the government might be well advised to take into consideration the representations made. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) has intimated that there is a matter of $36 million involved which belongs to the producers of wheat.
It is not unreasonable to ask the administration to consider the matter overnight and bring in a recommendation along the lines which have been suggested. I cannot see that it would require any appropriation of government funds to carry out the terms of the suggestion. So far as the members of this group are concerned, if the government reconsiders the matter and refuses to make any compromise whatever we shall support the
Canadian Wheat Board Act

government on the third reading. I think the matter might be considered by the government overnight and a decision given tomorrow.


Mr. JEAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. McLURE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Dionne). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.



AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of Bill No. 25, to provide for the sale and export of agricultural products.
Grote Stirling: Does the minister propose to make a statement at this stage?


James Garfield Gardiner: I made quite an
extended statement on the resolution, and I do not consider it necessary to make a similar statement at this time. However, I do want to make available to the opposition an amendment I hope to have moved when we are in committee, and I think the information should be given at this time, while wre are on second reading.
Some questions bearing on the marketing of apples were asked me on the resolution. I stated at that time that there had been discussions between the provincial apple board and representatives of the British government, as well as between the special products board and the British government, and that the members of the apple board were anxious to be put in a position where they could, during at least the transitional period, have an agreement with Britain for the marketing of apples. I also stated that it was not our intention at the moment to enter into other agreements except the apple agreement under the powers which are being asked for. I was asked definitely whether there was provision in the bill which made it possible for such an agreement to be entered into. I looked into that question carefully between then and now and, after submitting it to the officials of the Department of Justice, I was satisfied that there was no provision in the bill which made it certain that an agreement of that kind could be entered into. So I intend, when we are in committee, to move an amendment to section 5 which, I am assured, will make it possible for that agreement to be entered into. I should like to make copies of this amendment available to the leaders of the different parties tonight in order that they may be able to give it consideration.


Grote Stirling: May I ask if the minister proposes to put forward any amendments to take care of that other portion of the request, namely, that the existing board should be permitted to carry on with interprovincial trade?
Bill read the third time and passed.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the intention.
Privilege-Mr. Bracken


Grote Stirling: Does this cover both export and interprovincial trade?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, both.


Grote Stirling: Mr. Speaker, under these circumstances I wonder whether it would not be a reasonable request that I should be permitted to adjourn the debate. There has been made at the time of second reading an important suggestion which will have a direct bearing on the debate that will ensue on the motion for second reading.
On motion of Mr. Stirling the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie the house adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
Friday, March 14, 1947