1947-02-28

Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I wish to lay on the table a copy of order in council P.C. 657, dated February 20, 1947, providing for the discontinuance of labour exit permits as required under the national selective service civilian regulations.
I desire to lay on the table also a copy of the report of the Canadian government dele-

Peace Treaties
gates to the twenty-eighth (maritime) session of the international labour conference, Seattle, June 6 to 29, 1946, in French.
In accordance with the provisions of article 19 of the constitution of the international labour organization, of which Canada is a member, I desire to lay on the table the authentic texts of the conventions and recommendations which were adopted at the twenty-eighth session (maritime) of the international labour conference at Seattle in the month of June, 1946; also the text of an order in council P.C. 4760 of November 26, 1946, which has been adopted dealing with the competence of parliament and of the provincial legislatures respectively with regard to the subject matters of these conventions and recommendations.
The texts of these conventions and recommendations, together with the order in council above mentioned, are being transmitted by the Secretary of State to the lieutenant governors of the several provinces.
In accordance with the provisions of article 19 of the constitution of the international labour organization, of which Canada is a member, I desire to lay on the table the authentic texts of the conventions and recommendations which were adopted at the twenty-ninth session of the international labour conference at Montreal in September-October last, also the text of an order in council P.C. 647. February 25, 1947, which has been adopted dealing with the competence of parliament and of the provincial legislatures respectively with regard to the subject matters of these conventions and recommendations.
The texts of these conventions and recommendations, together with the order in council above mentioned, are being transmitted by the Secretary of State to the lieutenant-governors of the several provinces.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Will the conventions
tabled by the minister be printed and distributed for the benefit of hon. members?


Humphrey Mitchell: I shall be glad to look into it, Mr. Speaker.



PENITENTIARIES


Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice):: On February 17 last I laid on the table of the house a report by General Gibson on the penitentiary system of Canada. As there has been some demand for copies of this report, I beg to move:
That the report of the commissioner appointed under order in council, P.C. 1313, dated April 5,
1946, be printed, 1,000 copies in English and 500 copies in French, and that standing order 64 be suspended in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I ask for leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the written submissions made by the government of Canada to the special deputies of the council of foreign ministers on the proposed peace treaties with Germany and Austria and the Canadian position taken with respect to a full participation of this country in the making of these treaties.
The urgency element in this motion will be recognized at once in view of the fact that the foreign ministers are scheduled to meet in Moscow in ten days. Unless full opportunity of debate is provided now, the, Moscow meeting may be over before the views of the Canadian people as expressed by parliament are known to them and to the world. This should not be.
The debate on the address, which resumes next Monday, will afford a wholly inadequate opportunity for parliament as a whole to make its voice heard on these matters and these alone. This further contributes to the urgency surrounding this motion now.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): May I be allowed to make a suggestion with respect to this motion? There is no doubt that its subject matter is one of great importance and interest to the Canadian people, and that there is some urgency in view of the fact that the meeting of foreign ministers is to take place in Moscow within ten days. However, at this time we are dealing with emergency legislation, and under the motion adopted by the house this is the last day that that emergency legislation can be dealt with until the address has been disposed of.
If the hon. member would care to hold his motion until Monday I would not venture to suggest there could be any opposition to the motion, although there are other matters of urgent importance; it would be within the jurisdiction of the house to decide which should have priority. Standing order 31 provides for the manner in which that is deter-
Agricultural Products

mined. Even if there were opposition to the hon. member's motion on Monday, and twenty members were to stand, the hon. member would have leave to discuss it. If he were willing to allow it to stand until Monday I should not attempt to raise the question that the matter could be as conveniently dealt with on the address as on the motion to adjourn. On the motion to adjourn the house the debate would have to be confined strictly to this one subject, whilst on the address the debate might roam over any of the matters that have already been touched upon. I think it would expedite the business of the house if the bill which is in committee and has already received a lot of consideration could be proceeded with today, because there might be some hope of its being disposed as to the committee stage, leaving only the third reading. Therefore I think the members on this side, and it may be the members generally, would be grateful to the hon. member for Peel if he would defer his motion until Monday.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I think the motion which has been introduced is both urgent and timely, and I support the mover's suggestion that the subj ect be debated; but I agree with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) that it would be better if the hon. member would defer the discussion until Monday. Another reason for doing so is that we would have a much better debate on the subject because in the meantime the members would have an opportunity to review the various documents which have been presented to us bearing on this matter. I therefore join with the Secretary of State for External Affairs in suggesting that there is urgency but in asking the hon. member to defer the discussion until Monday.
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I feel that the motion presented by the hon. member for Peel is timely and urgent, but at the same time I recognize that on Monday we would have a better opportunity to be prepared for the debate, which might continue for part of several days, than we would have in discussing it along with other matters in the debate on the address. I support the suggestion of the Secretary of State for External Affairs that the hon. member allow his motion to stand over until Monday.


Gordon Graydon: Having heard the remarks of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and the hon. member for Peace River, I have no objection to allowing the motion to stand over until Monday, on the understanding given by

the Secretary of State for External Affairs and without prejudice to my right to renew the motion at the appropriate time on Monday so that it can then be debated in the ordinary way.



AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the purchase, sale and export of agricultural products, for the functions and powers of the minister, of commodity boards and of provincial marketing boards in relation thereto, for the employment of officers, clerks and employees necesary for the proper administration of the act and the payment of their expenses and remuneration out of moneys appropriated by parliament for such purpose, and for the creation of a special account in the consolidated revenue fund called the agricultural products account, and to provide further that expenditures, other than the administrative expenses above mentioned, shall be paid out of moneys appropriated by parliament or out of the agricultural products account.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Mr. STIRLING:: On a point of order, may I ask whether this important resolution will have to stand until after the address is proceeded with, or will the house be asked to give its consent to advancing it to the next stage today?


Mr. SPEAKER:: These motions are not debatable. This is a motion to go into committee at the next sitting.


Mr. GARDINER:: Mr. Speaker, the question asked by the hon. member is important. He is not debating the motion but is asking, now that we are to resume the debate on the address on Monday, what will be the procedure in connection with this resolution. I do not know how rapidly we shall get through with the wheat bill, discussion on which will be resumed today, but if we finish that bill today I shall be glad to indicate the bearing which this resolution has on the legislation which is to be presented to the house, and by unanimous consent, if it be thought wise, we might discuss that later in the day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Natural Resources


Hon. J. A. GLEN (Minister of Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I have a statement to make which I think should be made first to the house.
As the members of the house know, the government has been carrying on negotiations with the province of Alberta for the adequate protection of the forests on that part of the east slope of the Rocky mountains forming the watershed of the rivers arising therein and flowing eastward through the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, and finally draining into Hudson bay. The importance of forest cover to stream flow regulation has long been recognized and need not be emphasized.
The dominion is protecting that part of the watershed which lies within the boundaries of Jasper, Banff and Waterton lakes national parks. It will be recalled that all the natural resources, including the administration of forests, was transferred to the western provinces in 1930. As a result, from that date the responsibility for protecting the watershed lying outside the boundaries of the national parks was placed upon the province of Alberta. The government of that province has frankly admitted its inability adequately to protect the area and took the view that the expenditures it was making were all that could be justified in the interest of the province alone and that the problem was of vital concern not only to the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, but to the whole of Canada.
I think everyone will agree that the protection of this most important watershed is a national problem and that it would be against the national interest if the responsibility therefor were left solely to Alberta.
It has not been an easy problem to solve. The area is large and comprises approximately 6,300,000 acres. The question of the other resources had to be considered. The province was unwilling to give up the administration of them. However, I am pleased to report that as a result of extensive discussions during the past year with Premier Manning and the Hon. Mr. Tanner, minister of lands and mines, we have been successful in arriving at the outline of an agreement which will be submitted concurrently for the consideration of this parliament and of the provincial legislature.
Briefly, the proposed agreement provides for the establishment of a board to plan, direct and supervise the construction, operation and maintenance of all projects and facilities
required for the proper protection and conservation of the area with a view to obtaining and maintaining the greatest possible flow of water from the Saskatchewan river and its tributaries. The board will consist of three members, two, including the chairman, to be appointed by the dominion, and the other member to be appointed by the province.
The dominion agrees to make available to the board a sum not exceeding $6,300,000 during the first six years of the agreement for the capital expenditures required for the construction of forest improvements, the making of a forest inventory, for reforestation purposes and such other works and services as the board may consider necessary. Further, the dominion will provide for the yearly maintenance of a complete protective and forest management service and for research in silviculture and scientific services, an amount which with the provincial contribution will enable the board to spend annually a sum up to $300,000.
The province agrees to contribute annually towards the maintenance costs the sum of $125,000 or fifty per cent of the maintenance costs if the amount thereof in any year should be less than $250,000. The province retains the revenue derived from the area provided that if it should exceed the amount of the province's contribution then to the extent of the excess will the latter be increased. The province also agrees to share equally in the cost of fighting any large or extraordinary fires. The province will act as agent for the board in carrying out the necessary works, subject to the conditions provided for in the agreement.
The term of the agreement is for a definite period of twenty-five years and will continue from year to year thereafter subject to termination by either party upon giving one year's notice.
I am sure all the members will welcome the announcement I have just made. We who are living today may not derive many actual benefits from this conservation project, but we would be very remiss in discharging our responsibilities if we failed to consider the interests and welfare of those who follow us. In conclusion, may I add a word of appreciation of the wholehearted cooperation extended by Premier Manning and the Hon. Mr. Tanner in working out the details of the arrangement. In our discussions at no time did they forget the wider interests involved.


Mr. BRACKEN:: The minister indicated
that later this agreement with Alberta will be offered for ratification in this house and
Canadian Wheat Board Act

in the Alberta house. What date has been decided upon for a consideration of the matter?


James Allison Glen: I am not in a position to
give any date at the moment, but it will be just as soon as I can possibly have it before the house.


John Bracken: The date then has not
been determined?


James Allison Glen: Not yet.



NAVAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. PEARKES (Nanaimo):: May I ask the Minister of National Defence whether he is prepared to give me an answer to my question of February 13 relating to the disbandment of H.M.C.S. Givenchy? The minister said he would obtain the information for me.


Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Defence):: As I understand it,
H.M.C.S. Givenchy was an administrative unit largely concerned with the handling of personnel during the war. Its functions and personnel have been entirely absorbed in another administrative unit on the west coast.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South Centre):: I desire to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Will the government instruct the officers of the Canadian National Railway system that it would not object to national railroad reports being filed with the transport board before they are filed with the government?


Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport):: With reference to the last part
of the question, having to do with the reports of the Canadian National Railways, the report for 1946 has not yet been audited, and it may be some weeks before it is. I have not had an opportunity of consulting my colleagues, but personally I can see no objection to filing the 1946 report with the board of transport commissioners when it has been audited.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, February 27, consideration in committee of Bill No. 23, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935-Mr. MacKinnon-Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 5 (section 17)-Powers of administration of the board.
The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding) :: I should like to remind hon. members that before the committee adjourned last night the Minister of Justice moved an amendment which would remove subsection 2 of section 17 from the bill. The committee was discussing the amendment when we adjourned last night. I think the committee had better decide whether the subsection is to remain or whether it is to be removed in accordance with the amendment moved by the minister.


Mr. WRIGHT:: Before the committee
adjourned last night the Minister of Agriculture was making a statement with regard to the deletion of this subsection. He argued that the subsection might very well be deleted because there was protection given to the farmers in that the government through the board must take deliverv of grain.
The minister said, as quoted at page 884 of Hansard:
All it says is that if a farmer delivers wheat to an elevator we must buy it and the wheat board must take delivery of the wheat.
Mr. Queleh:	If there is room.
Mr. Gardiner:	Yes, if it is delivered there
and there is room, they must take it.
Earlier in the debate the Minister of Justice suggested an amendment to subsection 1 of section 17. The amendment was not passed, but its effect was that the board may, notwithstanding anything contained in the Canada Grain Act, but subject to directions, if any, contained in any order, by order prescribe certain things. Among the things included are deliveries of grain. I contend that if the amendment suggested by the Minister of Justice were to pass making this the master act, it could override the Canada Grain Act. If that is so, the argument of the Minister of Agriculture is unsound. If the amendment were to pass the board would not of necessity have to take delivery of grain at all, because it would override section 108 of the Canada Grain Act, which states:
The operator or manager of every licensed public country elevator shall, at all reasonable hours on each day upon which the elevator is

Canadian Wheat Board Act
open, receive all grain offered thereat for storage without discrimination and in the order in which it is offered, provided that there is in the elevator available storage accommodation for grain of the variety and grade of such grain and of the character desired by the person by whom the grain is offered.
(3) Any breach of the provisions of this section shall be punishable on summary conviction by imprisonment for not more than six months or by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars.
If we delete this subsection, then the other amendment, which would make this the master act overriding the Canada Grain Act, should not be passed.


William Henry Golding: The committee is dealing with subsection 2 of section 17 on page 9.


Percy Ellis Wright: That is exactly what I am discussing. I am discussing the effect on subsection 2 of the amendment suggested by the Minister of Justice. I am convinced that if we delete the subsection it will mean that the board will not of necessity have to take delivery of grain. They will be able to decide the amount of grain that they are prepared to accept. They will be able to accept ten bushels, whereas this subsection speaks of a minimum of fourteen bushels. Unless the minister can offer a much better argument than has so far been advanced, or unless it is stated in section 21, that the board will take delivery of all grain grown up to and including the 1949 crop, whether that grain has been delivered on July SI, 1950 or not; and if it is offered at a later date and has been held back on the farm because of lack of storage in the elevator facilities of the country, they should then take delivery of it under the price agreed to under the 1945-50 food contract.
I should like to have a definite statement from the minister. The member for Acadia tried his best to get a statement; I tried, the member for Mackenzie tried, but we have not been able to get any statement from any of the three ministers as to what will be the position of the farmer with grain left on his farm because there are no facilities to deliver it on July 31, 1949. It is a very simple point, and there should not be any quibbling about it.
The Minister of Agriculture spoke for several minutes last night trying, as I thought, to draw red herrings across the trail and get the committee's attention away from that point. But so far as we are concerned, we want a statement on that point before we are prepared to see the clause deleted.


Mr. QUELCH:: Yesterday it was suggested by the Minister of Agriculture, and by other members as well, that we would make better progress if we allowed this section to stand until we had discussed section 21, because the question in all our minds is, what will the government do in regard to deliveries. Will they take delivery of all wheat? The Minister of Agriculture suggested that that question is answered in section 21. I suggest to the minister that we allow this section to stand until we have taken up section 21 so that we may have the whole matter clarified.


James Garfield Gardiner: I should like to clear up what seems to be in the minds of hon. members opposite. It was not this side that asked to have subsection 2 taken out. It was members on the other side. We do not care whether it is taken out or left in.


An hon. MEMBER:: We never asked that it be taken out.


James Garfield Gardiner: Individuals may say so, but the statement was made, and it appears in Hansard, by two or three different members that they would not permit this bill to be given second reading until they had a declaration on the question whether it was to be left in or taken out. The minister got up yesterday when the house opened and said that we were prepared to take it out. Well, we are prepared to leave it in. We put it in in the first place, and I do not see why there should be any argument about it. We will do whatever members opposite want to have done. Personally I do not think it makes much difference whether it is in or out.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: I think there has been a misunderstanding. When the member for Acadia spoke the other day in reference to section 17, subsection 2, he pointed out that there was a possibility that the government might not take more than fourteen bushels, but what he was definitely trying to convey to the minister and to the government and the house was that under that section the government need not take any more. But his point was that the government should declare itself clearly whether or not it was prepared to take all the wheat produced and offered for sale in that contract period. The Minister of Agriculture said that in his opinion that section had no bearing on that point but that section 20 was the one under which it should be dealt with, and it is my recollection that the Minister of Agriculture then suggested that we leave section 17 and

Canadian Wheat Board Act

go on to section 20 where that question could be discussed. If that is true, and if the Minister of Agriculture can convince the members that the question is well taken care of under section 20, then there should be no difficulty about section 17. But until he can do that, I think there will be considerable doubt in the minds of hon. members, and therefore I suggest to the member for Acadia and the Minister of Agriculture that we pass on to section 20 and dispose of that, so as to find out where we stand, and then come back to section 17.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no objection to that procedure. Let 17 stand and we can take 18, 19, 20 and 21, and after that we can come back to this question.


Victor Quelch: May I quote from Hansard to prove that we did not ask that it be taken out.


James Garfield Gardiner: It does not matter, anyway.


Victor Quelch: At page 744 of Hansard I made this statement:
Let me say to the minister that, before we can support the second reading of this bill, we must have assurance that when we reach the committee stage he will either move an amendment or accept an amendment to commit the government to accepting all wheat produced and offered for sale prior to July 31, 1950.
Then at page 747:
We are satisfied that in order to build up the prosperity of the nation, and the prosperity of the grain grower under this agreement, it will be necessary to have an amendment to subsection 2 of section 17 definitely committing the government to the acceptance of all wheat produced and offered for sale prior to July 31, 1950.
There was no suggestion of withdrawing the section; it was a question of amending it.


James Garfield Gardiner: You were not the only speaker.


Air. NICHOLSON:: An hour before we
adjourned last night I suggested that we let this section stand.


James Garfield Gardiner: Then let us do it.


Air. SMITH (Calgary West):: Will somebody make up his mind?
Section stands.
_ Cn section 5 (section 18)-Inquiries and investigation to ascertain facilities.


Air. MILLER:: This clause provides for inquiries under the Inquiries Act, giving the members of the board the same powers as commissioners under that act. The commis-

sioners under the Inquiries Act have very large powers. This was in the former act too. Has this section in the former act been untilized at all?


Mr. MacRINNON:: No; it has not been used.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 5 (section 19) agreed to.
On section 5 (section 20)-"Pool period" defined.
James Garfield Gardiner: This is the section that was referred to when we were discussing section 17, and the point I was making at that time is this. Section 20 reads:
Subject to section twenty-six of this act, in this part "pool period" means
(a)	each crop year prior to the first day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-five;
(b)	the period commencing on the said first day of August and ending on the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty;
These two periods are definitely determined. The first is all the period up to July 31, 1945, and the second is the five-year period, four years of which are covered by the British contract down to July 31, 1950. The next clause (c) states that this matter is to be brought back to parliament before the end of the second period in order to determine what we are going to do after July 31, 1950. In other words, in reference to the matters referred to, this act will be brought back into the house prior to 1950. Last night we were discussing what the condition would be in July, 1950. We shall be in a much better position to know what the condition is going to be in the last session prior to July 31, 1950, than we can possibly be now, and the provision put in here is to see that the bill does come back in order to determine what we shall do from there on. It is to take care of such matters as we discussed last evening. In other words, if this bill and the British agreement work out to the satisfaction of the majority of the members of this house, then I have no doubt the house will simply say we shall go right on as we are.
If a new contract were made with Britain or an international arrangement were made in the meantime on a multilateral basis, we would simply be saying that that contract was extended over a certain period of time; and if in saying that we say that the initial payment is still $1.35 a bushel, there is nothing else at all which needs to be said. It is just the same at the end of 1950 as it was at the end of 1945-46. 1946-47 and 1947-48. We are just going on in a period during which pool-

Canadian Wheat Board Act
ing is being carried on; and if there is no change whatsoever in the initial payment, then we are not concerned whether there is still wheat on the farm, in the elevators, or anywhere else. We are just going on into another period when there is an initial payment of $1.35, and we get our participation paid up to that date. Whatever participation is earned over the next period, whether it is one, two or three years, will be provided1 for in the legislation at that time.
There are conditions which could arise, some of which have been discussed by hon. members who fear that the rights of the farmers may not be properly protected. It is said that there may be a big crop in 1950, that there may be a surplus of grain. If there is a big crop and a surplus of grain, and the initial payment is still to be $1.35, it will not make any difference. If there is a big crop and if the results of this contract and of this period show that an initial payment of SI.40 or $1.45 can be paid, then if I know the farmers of western Canada I do not think many of them will want to deliver their wheat; they will want to hold it over to get, not $1.35 but $1.40 or $1.45. Under those circumstances, this house may want to do something with regard to that. I would imagine what they would want to do would be to say that immediately they had determined that the initial payment is to be raised, on that very day the payment would have to go up. They probably would not wait even until the end of July to do it, because if they did they would not get delivery of any grain in the meantime.


Victor Quelch: What about the other
side?


James Garfield Gardiner: Let us come to the other side. Suppose it has to go down. Unless there is a shortage of storage space, every farmer in the country will get all his crop in before the end of July. He will see to it that it is in if the initial payment is going down to $1.25 and it is $1.35 up to the end of July. Every farmer will rush his crop into the elevator.


Percy Ellis Wright: If there is space.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, if there is space. On the question whether there will be space, may I say, first, that there have been twelve months in which to deliver it, and, second, that we did during the war add approximately 150 million bushels of storage space to the elevator system of this country-but not because we needed it before the war. We had too much elevator space before the war for
the needs of Canada in times of peace. But during the war when we had to pile up 600 million bushels of grain in our elevators and on our farms and then provide for a new crop, we had to put storage not only on our farms but at almost every delivery point in western Canada. We had to put extra storage at Fort William. I understand that the extra storage there has been largely pulled down; it was temporary. But those of us who live on the prairies know that the special storage put up in our own towns and villages is still there.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, the greater part of it is still there, although there may be the odd place where it has been pulled, down. I do not know where my hon. friends live, but I travel over more of the west, I think, than any other member of the House of Commons and I still maintain that storage is there in most places. The figure I received the other day is to the effect that some 95 million bushels of it is still in existence, which brings us up to well over 500 million bushels of available storage. Unless we are going to grow the biggest crop we ever grew, on the biggest acreage we ever had, I do not think there is any possibility at any time during the next four or five years of our having a shortage of storage space. There may be individual points at which the elevators are jammed, although there is not a shortage of space generally, and something may have to be done about situations of that kind.
Although the wheat board have sometimes found difficulty in doing things as quickly as some people would like to have them done, in the end they have not found any difficulty in meeting special conditions of the kind. Where only a small proportion of the farmers are involved, ways and means can be found of taking care of the situation. But I do not see any possibility, under the conditions which are likely to exist, of such a situation developing. But even if it did develop, when will this house be in a better position to deal with it than when they know it has developed and when they are sitting here in 1950 dealing with the situation? We can sit here for days and discuss all the possible things which could develop, and try to cover them in this bill; but I am sure when we were through, after we had gone home, the ordinary farmer would think of many things we had forgotten about which might have been put in the bill if an attempt were to be made to protect everybody against everything that might happen.

Canadian Wheat Board Act

I suggest that this matter has been discussed widely with those who are most concerned with it and who are dealing with it every day, and they and the government think that the matter is safeguarded/ in every way in which it can possibly be safeguarded without putting into the bill outlines of a situation which in all probability will never develop but which no one can say definitely will not arise. We have put a provision into the bill which makes it certain that the legislation will come before the house again before 1950, and at that time this possible situation can be dealt with in the light of the knowledge then available.


John Bracken: We are dealing with section 20, which defines "pool period". This is the section which provides that from now on the pool period shall be a five-year period rather than a period of single years as in the past. With that policy on the part of the government we are not in agreement. We think the pool period should be the period of the crop year, and that whatever money has been collected in sales by the government in addition to what it has paid out should be paid out on the participation certificates each year. The section reads as follows:
Subject to section twenty-six of this act, in this part "pool period" means-
There are three subsections, (a), (b) and
(c); I shall refer only to the one I am dealing with, which reads:
(b) the period commencing on the first day of August-
Meaning the first day of August, 1945.

and ending on the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty.
This means that the five-year period we are now in is to be regarded as a pool period. During that year the board is to advance the amount of $1.35 a bushel each year, but no more until the end, and at the end of the period whatever may be left in the pool will be paid out. We think these balances should be paid out at the conclusion of each crop year. I therefore move:
That paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of section 20 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"Any crop year prior to or subsequent to the first day of August, 1945."
In simple language this means that the pool period would become a one-year period rather than a five-year period. In connection with this amendment I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce, or perhaps the former minister of finance or the present Minister of Finance, to tell us how much money the board is holding in connection with the 1943 crop, the 1944 crop and the 1945 crop, and also what rate of interest any such moneys

may be earning. It is a fact that as long as the board or the government holds this money, and it can only invest it at a relatively low rate of interest, probably Jess than three per cent. The owners of that money, the farmers, are denied the use of it to pay off their obligations on which they are charged up to six and seven per cent interest. The point of this amendment is to make the pool period one year rather than five years.


William Henry Golding: I should like to have the opinion of those who may be speaking in regard to an increased expenditure on the part of the government as a result of this amendment. I am of the opinion that it would be out of order on that ground, but I should like to hear an expression of opinion by hon. members.


John Bracken: Well, Mr. Chairman, it will be recognized by everyone in the committee that no one on this side is allowed to make any amendment that would have the effect of bringing about increased expenditure on the part of the government. But this amendment does not do anything of the kind. Here are the facts, and the committee may consider them. The government, through its agency, the wheat board, takes possession of the farmers' wheat. It sells that wheat and gives the farmer part of the money received, and holds the balance. All we are asking is that the board pay the farmer the balance of the money each year rather than after five years. That would make no charge on the treasury. This is the money of the farmers; it is not the money of the taxpayers. So the point of order you raised, Mr. Chairman, I suggest has no relevancy in this connection.


Percy Ellis Wright: I do not see that this amendment would involve an increased expenditure by the government, but it would destroy a principle contained in this act for which organized agriculture has been working over a number of years; that is, stability in the price of grain for a period of years. If the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition were to be adopted it might mean that this year we would obtain quite a high price. We do not know what the price might be next year, and we know even less about what it might be the year after. The amendment would remove the basis of stability which at present exists under the act. I am in favour of annual payments on participation certificates, but we maintain that the only way this can be done and at the same time maintain stability is to make those payments on the basis of a parity price, which would not fluctuate. Parity in this country would not fluctuate to the extent that world prices might

Canadian Wheat Board Act
fluctuate over a five-year period. Therefore we would get the result we desire by making the participation certificates payable yearly on the basis of a parity price. In that way we can maintain the stability feature of the act and at the same time give the full benefit to the farmer. I think by his amendment the leader of the opposition is defeating the purpose of the farmers in connection with stability.


Mr. BURTON:: I wish to concur in the statement made already, that payments made in * accordance with this amendment would not be increased by expenditures by the crown, because they would be money really belonging to the farmers. But that is as far as I am prepared to go at the moment with the leader of the opposition. My colleague the hon. member for Melfort has just pointed out that there is a way by which the farmers could receive payment of their participation certificates each year, by way of an equalization or parity payment. From what we have seen so far, however, I doubt whether the government would be willing to do that. If the government do not care to adopt that suggestion, then in all sincerity I submit to the leader of the opposition that instead of destroying one of the main principles of the bill our purpose can be achieved in another way. That is, when the board has considerable funds on band, interim payments might be made. I believe a majority of the farmers would be satisfied with that. I made some reference to this yesterday. If the board has millions of dollars on hand it will find it necessary to invest that money in other securities. The pool period is fairly well advanced now, and after another year the board will be in possession of a very considerable amount of money that really belongs to the producers. Then they could go to work and make an interim payment, still retaining a reasonable amount on hand to help level off the balance of the pool period.


Mr. SINNOTT:: The farmers of western Canada have been crying for a stabilized market for a number of years, and under the government plan as outlined in this bill we will have that stabilized market. Let us say that wheat is $1.20 this year, $1.40 next year, $1.60 the year after that. $1.70 the following year, and that the following year it drops to $1.10 or $1. So far as I can see this is the only way you can have a stabilized market over a five-year period. The farmers of western Canada are not concerned about the government holding a few dollars, but they are concerned about seeing that the conditions of
1930 to 1935 do not return. If the government has a few dollars that have accumulated over a period of years I do not think there will be any objection.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: The leader of the opposition recognizes that all the expenses of the wheat board are to be paid out of the sale of the wheat of the producer, but this five-year pooling is retroactive legislation, something which I have heard the Minister of Justice object to on the floor of this house on more than one occasion. I think the agreement with Great Britain came into force after the commencement of this crop year 1946-47, yet according to this pooling basis the proceeds from the sales of the 1945^46 crop year are being put into the pool. The proceeds from that crop year should have been disposed of before the United Kingdom-Canada wheat agreement came into force. However, it is proposed to put the proceeds from that year's business into the five-year pool.
The leader of the opposition has asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce a definite question, as to how much money the wheat board had left at the end of 1943; how much it had left at the end of 1944, which year has all been cleaned up, and how much was left at the end of 1945-46, which is the first year they propose to include in the five-year pool. The operations for that year were completed before the operation of the agreement with the United Kingdom commenced.
I do not think it is good business to create a five-year pool on that basis. This money was obtained from the efforts of the producers and it should be disbursed annually. People talk about organized agriculture, but I am sure if you consulted the wheat pools of Canada you would get the request for the disbursement of these profits annually. They want an early settlement whenever the payments can be figured out and the cheques issued. The producers want to work on an annual basis.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Do they not also want a guaranteed initial payment for five years?


John Bracken: Certainly.


James Arthur Ross: Certainly they do.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Does the hon. gentleman suggest that we guarantee an initial payment of $1.35 for five years and yet pay out at the end of each year on participation certificates?


Mr. FULTON:: In other words, you are making a floor price.
Canadian Wheat Board Act


John Bracken: The figure of $1.35 is the government's figure as an initial price; that is your policy.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Unless the interests of what I call the taxpayers are to be disregarded almost entirely, then the figure of $1.35 would have to be quite a different figure if we were going to pay out annually. There would be no guaranteed $1.35 for two years from now or three years from now. There could not possibly be, because the risk of very great loss would be so enormous.


John Bracken: We have listened to the Minister of Justice tell us that the price that the farmer is to get must be the average of what he can sell for on the export market. Under the British agreement for two years they will get $1.55; for one year they may get only $1.25 and for the last year only SI. The minister says because of that they can make a payment of $1.35, and that is all they can pay. I want to ask this government whether it stands for a fair price for the farmer or whether the price is to be the average of what it sells its wheat for outside? In three years from now the price of wheat may be $1 per bushel, and they may find that the best international agreement they can make will be for $1 or $1.25 per bushel. Is the government then going to pay the farmer as little as that?
If it is, where is the stability in its policy, and at what a level that stability will be! Does the government stand for a fair price to the farmer for his wheat, or does it not? With costs as they are, under these conditions $1.35 is not a fair price.


James Garfield Gardiner: The question which the leader of the opposition has raised is an important one when associated with this legislation, but it brings us right back to the point raised by the hon. member for Melfort and the hon. member for Humboldt. It strikes at the principle underlying the legislation. The principle underlying the legislation is to give the farmer a stabilized return, and as high a stabilized return as it is possible to give him over a long period without endangering his own position in relation to the other taxpayers of this country.
As was said on the second reading of the bill, it is much better and more in the interests of the farmer to have a price which can be assured to him out of the trading of his own product than to have him dependent upon a price which must rely upon the taxation of two-thirds of the population which does not grow farm products for the existence of the policy. We have had enough experience with that kind of thing to know that 
when you get to charging the taxpayers too much, the taxpayers vote that kind of policy out of existence. This legislation makes provision for the building up of a plan under which the farmer knows what minimum he is going to receive for his product over a long period.
The question involved in the discussion taking place is whether this is properly a four-year term or a five-year term. That is the first question that is raised in connection with whether payments ought to be made for the 1945 crop year irrespective of whether we have annual payments or not.


John Bracken: The bill provides for a
five year term.


James Garfield Gardiner: The bill provides for a
five year term, but that is the question in the minds of the people who are discussing it. For example, we had before us today the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and they made strong recommendations to the effect that the participation for the 1945 crop ought to be paid out. That is the only representation that has been made by the farm organizations in connection with payments on a yearly basis. They contended that the participation payments for 1945 should neyer have been taken into the pool, that they should have been paid out at the beginning of this present crop year.
In reply to that I would say that the discussion with regard to this policy began on the floor of this house, I think in September, 1945. At the beginning of that crop year, when the farmers were harvesting their 1945 crop, the suggestion was made that we ought to follow the price up. The price had passed $1.55 per bushel on the way up and it was said by some people that we should take off all controls on the price of wheat and let our price follow the American price up as high as it was going to go. Eventually, of course, we would follow it down.


Percy Ellis Wright: Look the other way when you say that.


James Garfield Gardiner: I wanted my hon.
friend to hear it and understand it. They suggested that we follow the price right up, but the government said that that would not be the proper thing to do. We have been discussing this matter before the international wheat committee ever since 1922. The question whether or not we could get multilateral agreements on wheat was first discussed at the end of the first war in Rome. That organization was moved from Rome to London, and then from London to Washington. It did not make any difference where its

Canadian Wheat Board Act
headquarters were, they were never able to arrive at a conclusion with regard to it. Any conclusions they did arrive at were departed from shortly afterward by someone, and therefore they were not carried into practice.
In 1945 the committee met in London. It had gone back to London from Washington. Before the government took any action in the matter they sent a cable to London and asked for a decision on the question that had been before that committee for some time. The question had been submitted by the representatives of this government. There had been a discussion on acreage control and quota control of wheat delivered by the different countries into the markets of the world, and a discussion on price. There had been an agreement reached on quota control. Canada was to have 40 per cent of the world's market in wheat, as was stated here the other day in the submission to the committee. It was agreed years ago that Canada was to get 40 per cent of the world's market in wheat, that she should market each year 40 per cent of the wheat delivered into the markets of the world. In addition it was agreed years ago what the acreage control should be. In the last arrangement it was agreed that what we had done in 1941, when we paid the farmers S4 an acre to take land out of wheat and put it in summer-fallow, was sufficient action by Canada in acreage control to warrant the international committee in accepting what we had done as being all that could be asked of Canada. So those two questions had been agreed upon-acreage control and quota control. The one question there had not been agreement upon was the question of price.
At one time it was agreed that the price for a period after the war was to have been the price that was realized by Canada in making her last sale to Great Britain prior to the end of the war. That was in 1942. In 1943, for reasons which have often been explained to the house, we suspended operations on the Winnipeg grain exchange; therefore there could be no price established in Winnipeg for grain in the last transaction between this country and Great Britain after that date. As a result that provision in the agreement was of no effect. Bo there was no price agreement. We had an actual agreement in 1942 on acreage, quotas and price, but when that action was taken in 1943, the price arrangement was no longer effective. A number of meetings and discussions took place as to what the price arrangement should be. The last submission made by Canada prior to 83166-57
September of 1945 was that the price should vary between $1 and $1.50 a bushel. That was discussed by the committee on two or three occasions, but agreement had not been reached. So in August or September of 1945 we sent a cable to London asking the committee for a decision on the question in order that we might decide whether we should follow wheat up beyond $1.55 or conform with the wishes of the international committee. We got a cable back saying they could not reach agreement.
A day or two after we got that cable the Minister of Trade and Commerce came into this house and said that the Canadian government was prepared to do what we had suggested to the international committee might be done as an international arrangement, that we were prepared to guarantee to the farmers of Canada a minimum price of $1 for five years beginning with the crop of 1945, and that we were prepared to go on selling wheat for the time being at $1.55. We said that we would deliver wheat only to our overseas allies at that price; that if the people of the United States or any country which was not our ally in the war desired to buy Canadian wheat they would have to pay the world price for it or the price that had been established on the Chicago grain exchange. So as regards wheat sold to the United States for feed, and we sold approximately 160,000,000 bushels in 1943 and 1944-the United States has an embargo against our wheat being used in the United States for food-that wheat went to the United States at the American price less the duty that has to be paid under any circumstances to get wheat into the United States.


Mr. HACKETT:: What is the United States duty on wheat?


James Garfield Gardiner: It has been 42 cents a bushel ever since 1930. They will not admit into their countiy more than 800,000 bushels of wheat a year for human consumption in the United States. So there is no way of selling wheat into the United States at the American price. There has been an embargo against it, I am told, ever since 1938.
With that situation existing we said: The government of Canada is going to go on selling wheat to Britain and our other allies overseas at $1.55 a bushel, but to anyone else we are going to sell at the world price, but we will guarantee that no matter what the world price of wheat is, the floor price for five years will be $1 a bushel. That is the situation which existed at the beginning

Canadian Wheat Board Act

of the 1945 crop. That was a five-year plan, a five-year arrangement, and mo one ever discussed it from any other point of view, either with the British government or with any other government, or with the farm organizations; and no one ever suggested that it ought to be anything else but a five-year programme.
Now I come down to the last week before the British agreement was signed, when we knew all the facts with regard to it. The Minister of Trade and Commerce and I met-
I have stated this in the pool board meetings in western Canada and I have their consent to state it anywhere-we met the representatives of all the farmers' grain handling organizations in western Canada-the Saskatchewan wheat pool, the Manitoba wheat pool, the Alberta wheat pool, the United Grain Growers. These organizations were all present, together with the president and secretary of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and a representative of the wheat growers of Ontario. The meeting was held for the purpose of discussing what the initial payment ought to be following this agreement. We were in a position at that time to inform them what that British agreement was, because it had all been agreed to. The agreement was signed I think two days later.


Mr. COLD WELL:: What was the date of that meeting?


James Garfield Gardiner: It was some time last summer-I think in July. The first question I asked the representatives of the farm organizations when we settled down was this. I said: Am I right in believing that the highest initial payment that has been asked for officially by the farm organizations is $1.25 a bushel? Without any exception they said yes. The next question I asked was: Am I right in believing that the farmers would like to have a price which might be termed parity? The answer to that was yes. Beyond that I do not know that I had their consent to this, but in all the previous meetings it had been agreed that parity based upon the price which had been received for wheat from 1926 to 1929 was $1.41 a bushel. Therefore I said: Am I right in believing that you now would like to have an initial payment of about $1.40 a bushel in order that it may be somewhere near the parity price as it has been calculated? And they said yes. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, they then submitted arguments as to why the advance payment ought to be $1.40.
I tell this story in order to show that the first time anyone ever suggested that participation be paid on the 1945 crop was during
	* _ :	|
that discussion. It was not suggested by the farm organizations; it was suggested by myself, and every one of the farm organizations will agree that that is so. Why was it suggested? When the proposal was made that we should start off with $1.40, the argument was used which I have twice used in the committee, namely, is it not much better for the farmer to be in a position to say that whatever price he is getting, he is getting it for his own wheat, paid for by the people of Canada, paid for by the British or anyone else who wants to buy it? It is better that way if we can arrange it, and everyone, I think, was agreeable to that.
The next thing was to calculate how much could be paid without any fear of loss. It was suggested that $1.35 was the highest price that could be paid without any fear of loss, on the calculating that had been done by those who look after matters of the kind for the government. Others checked it and it was agreed that that was as high as one could go if all the crop years were taken into consideration.
Then the suggestion was made that since we could not pay more than $1.35 over the whole five years without involving someone other than the farmers themselves, probably we could develop a plan based on four years and pay the participation on the first year at the end of the year 1945. We asked the definite question whether it would be more satisfactory to the farmers if we paid the participation on the 1945 crop and then paid $1.35 through for the four years. The representatives of the farm organization said that would be more satisfactory to them. It was not their proposal; it was our suggestion to them.
A few days following that they held a meeting in Winnipeg and submitted the question to that meeting. It was discussed behind closed doors by the representatives of the farm organizations. We continued to make our calculations and finally had to come back and say that after calculating the matter as we had done previously it would be impossible to maintain the floor at $1.36; we would have to come down to a lower floor in order to maintain the position that we had taken previously, if we had paid the 1945 participation and put it on a four-year basis. Therefore the question would have to be discussed again from the point of view of the five-year period.
Representatives of the farm organizations flew from Ottawa to Winnipeg to complete the discussion in Winnipeg and finally received the agreement of the organizations under some protests that it would be satisfactory to proceed on that basis. Hon. members know what

Canadian Wheat Board Act
results from discussions of that kind. When discussions of that kind are started-and we assumed the responsibility for starting them, not the farm organizations-it is not easy to stop them, particularly when you start them in that way. These matters have been discussed in farm organizations ever since. Farm organizations have been passing resolutions about it here and there. But the heads of the organizations know what the discussions were which took place and the reason for them. They know what was involved in them, and when they come to talk to us they are not talking of this year-by-year proposal of the leader of the opposition. In the statement they made to us today they asked for payment of the 1945 participation, thereby going back to the suggestion which was made to them by us last summer. They suggest that that ought to be paid.
The leader of the opposition says that parity now is 11.55, therefore we ought to pay $1.55 to the farmer. Two years ago somebody agreed that it was $1.41. They were not so sure about it a year ago. I have no doubt that if all this calamity takes place which has been suggested since the discussion started, by 1950 somebody will be saying that it is $1, not $1.55. But I do not think the calamity will take place. One of my reasons for saying that is that I believe the long-time contract, especially with a nation like Britain, will give stability to our agriculture over a five-year period such as it has never had before. Believing that, I do not think that parity will come down to $1 in that period of time, but it can come down to $1.35 or $1.30. All we are suggesting is that the farmers should have parity, but not parity of today or parity of yesterday. They ought to have a parity based upon a period of five years, and that ought to be paid to them.
The hon. member for Melfort and the hon. member for Humboldt have ideas of their own as to what might be done about that. They think that we might calculate that parity every year and that we might pay out the difference between $1.35 and whatever that parity is in each year as we go along. I do not know just where parity will go. I do not know that I know exactly how to calculate it myself. I have to take someone's word for it and perhaps check on it.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: It can be done.


James Garfield Gardiner: It can be done, but I think it will be agreed by everyone that to keep the matter right you have to do it at least every week.


Major James William Coldwell: Once a year.
83166-57i


James Garfield Gardiner: I doubt whether we can get very much by calculating it weekly, monthly or annually, if what you want is long-time stability. We believe that farmers do want long-time stability, and that it ought to be for a period of five years. Therefore this legislation is based on that idea.
I may say something which perhaps the government would not follow me in all the way, but which I think any government which is here at the time will have to follow, and that is that if the situation develops where this government is to have an enormous sum of money piled up, somebody will insist on our paying it out. I do not believe this government or any other government will be permitted to pile up and hold in the treasury, let us say, $300 or $400 million which belongs to somebody else.


Arthur Leroy Smith: How much money have you piled up now?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not known exactly what it is, and I do not think I should make any guess at it.


James Arthur Ross: It should be quite a bit.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. But everyone knows that you can lose quite a bit of money in the wheat business in a short time. For example in western Canada we had pools which handled wheat, and every member who was associated with the wheat pools will tell you this. The chief mistake that was made was making too high an initial payment and finding a little later on that those who agreed to their establishing that high initial payment would not let them put it down when they came to the meetings from time to time. I can understand people who do not believe in this principle, who do not believe in this legislation at all, trying to get us on to such a high basis in connection with initial payments that in the end we shall be defeated in exactly the same way as the wheat pools were. Believing that, Mr. Chairman, I do not think this committee should try to lead, not the government of Canada but the farmers into a position where they set up in this country an organization for the marketing of their wheat which runs any risk within the next four years of having to make an appeal to the people of Canada to pay out of the treasury money to take care of losses.
If we have to do that I know what will happen when parliament meets in 1950 to consider what we shall do after 1950. There is only one sure way of having legislation brought down here in 1950 which will continue
Canadian Wheat Board Act

marketing under the pooling system and marketing under long-term contracts, and that is to be able to say in 1950 that no one took any loss whatsoever in it, that the farmer got his $1.35, that no one had to pay anything to help him get it except the people who ate his food, and that at the end of it we can say to all the other people in Canada-because you must remember that there are only about 280,000 of us, that is to say, heads of families, who are growing wheat: We have asked the government of Canada to do a job that will make it possible for us to market our product to better advantage than we have ever marketed it before. The government of Canada has done that. We have tried it out for five years and now we have proved to you that it does not cost anyone else a red cent; and that being the case, we think the government of Canada, or rather the parliament of Canada, ought to continue the system.
Unless we can do that at the end of the five-year period, we have not much chance of having the system continued, and so I say that the member for Melfort and the member for Humboldt were one hundred per cent right when they said that the motion made to the committee by the leader of the opposition strikes at the very principle underlying the whole plan that is contained in the bill. I suggest therefore that the committee ought to vote the proposal down.
On the question whether the motion is in order, I think there is much to be said in favour of its being in order; that is to say, we are dealing with the farmers' money. I hope it will not result in our dealing with anyone else's money. If we were to do what my hon, friend suggests we should do, probably there might be an argument in that direction. But as the bill is drawn, as the section is drawn, it is intended to safeguard us against that kind of thing and I think it does. Therefore I do not think that any of the ministers who are interested' in the bill, or the government, will urge any particular line of action on the chairman. He is in charge of the committee and will give whatever ruling he thinks is the right one, but we are not asking for a ruling that the motion is out of order. We simply say that we believe the question ought to be decided on its merits, and1 can be decided on its merits, and if it is we will decide in favour of the principle, which is long-term stabilization of farm prices over a period of five years.


James Arthur Ross: When I was speaking the Minister of Justice asked me if I believed in floor prices or an initial payment, which I 
certainly do, and at that time someone else took up the discussion and I did not have an opportunity to finish.


William Henry Golding: If the hon. member will wait a moment I will allow him to speak. I have listened to the discussion, and as I pointed out before, what I am concerned about is as to whether the motion will involve expenditure on the part of the government, and what effect the amendment would have on the operating clause, 22, of the bill and on subsection 3 of 5, on page 4, that is to say:
Losses, if any, sustained by the board
(a)	from its operations under part 111 of this act in relation to any pool period fixed thereunder, during such period, or
(b)	from its other operations under this act during any crop year.
That is what I am concerned about. If I have the assurance that the motion will not involve additional expenditure and is not likely to, then I will not rule against it.


James Arthur Ross: The chairman has not ruled it out of order.


William Henry Golding: Not yet.


James Arthur Ross: In that case I should like to finish my remarks in answer to the Minister of Justice. It will be recalled that he was Minister of Finance throughout the war years, and under his policy, and the policy of Mr. Donald Gordon, of price stabilization, you will realize that these same wheat producers in three years made a contribution amounting to $394,000,000 odd in order to help out that stabilization policy, over and above their share of taxation which they bore in common with every other taxpayer in the country. The statistics will prove that. This is interesting now, in view of the statements made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture outside this house, and since the termination of the war, that owing to the great contribution the farmers had made not only in wheat but in agricultural production generally in order to maintain price stabilization in Canada, that point would certainly have to be taken into consideration during the post-war period by the government of the day. Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture have spoken in those terms outside this house on more occasions than one. As I say, these same wheat producers have made a contribution of $394,000,000. The last report tabled by the price stabilization board the other day showed an expenditure of approximately $400,000,000 to date since 1941.

Canadian Wheat Board Act


James Lorimer Ilsley: How does the hon. member get that figure of $394,000,000?


James Arthur Ross: It is taken from the Searle index. Major Strange compiles that and he is an understanding statistician. The figures can be obtained from the bureau of statistics. I will tell the minister where he can get another chart. He can get it from his own bureau of statistics.


James Lorimer Ilsley: What is the basis? How do you reckon it?


James Arthur Ross: It is the difference between prevailing world prices and what the farmers received for their grain, the loss. I put it all on the record the other evening.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It was not a contribution to stabilization. It was taking lower prices in the earlier period of the contract for higher prices in the later stage.


James Arthur Ross: In the matter of wheat that was taken over for domestic consumption in Canada there was approximately 70,000,000 bushels-


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am glad the hon. member brought that up. I will discuss it when he sits down.


James Arthur Ross: The farmer was
allowed $1.25 a bushel at one stage, which was 30 cents a bushel under the export price of $1.55, and that in turn today is 96 cents under the open price of $2.51 which the same board acknowledges today as the prevailing export price. That cost the farmers over $20,000,000 a year on the wheat that went into flour in Canada. That is one item alone. The dominion bureau of statistics will prove that in the one year of 1945, on all agricultural production in Canada there was a loss of some $400 million which might not have been incurred if prevailing world prices had been obtained and agricultural producers had been on the same basis as manufacturers and lumber people whose goods were exported. The agriculturists of Canada are the only people who are held down in this fashion by the government of the day. No other class of people in Canada is treated in that manner.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is entirely incorrect,
and will be shown to be so.


James Arthur Ross: The minister will
have an opportunity to show that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I certainly will.


James Arthur Ross: I just wanted to
point out that fact at this time. I am not arguing that this provision will cost the
government anything. What I am arguing or bringing to the notice of the members of this house and of the people of this country is that, during those years when the people were being keyed up to produce all they could, they were led to believe, by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture, that for the losses they were taking they would be reimbursed in some fashion and to some degree during the post-war period if things were not just as rosy as they were in those da3rs. I again repeat that I think this legislation which is retroactive-that is, taking into account the year 1945-46 which the Minister of Agriculture just told us that organized agriculture thinks should be settled for-by itself is not a good type of legislation. Even if the people wanted a longterm pool, you should not go back into those other years and put that into the pot over this long-term pool. I am sure the Minister of Justice himself does not conscientiously believe in that type of legislation.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think, Mr. Chairman, that I should answer a statement-


William Henry Golding: Order. I hope we shall not again get into a discussion of the principle of this bill. I hope we are past that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I did want to answer a statement the hon. gentleman made which was to the effect that the wheat farmers of Canada made a contribution to the stabilization policy of Canada in regard to domestic flour prices or domestic wheat prices which was different in character or kind from the contribution made by any other-


James Arthur Ross: Taxpayer.


James Lorimer Ilsley: -persons in Canada. That is not correct. The policy that was followed in the stabilization programme of Canada was this. Domestic prices over a wide range of commodities were subjected to ceilings which kept those domestic prices lower than the export prices. That applied not only to wheat. It applied to a wide range of commodities, as is well known. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni j^esterday referred to certain commodities which are produced in British Columbia.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Sixty per cent of the lumber was exported, and sold at world prices.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I cannot just hear the hon. gentleman's remarks, but I will give certain classifications of lumber here on which the Canadian ceiling was $26; the United States price, $70, or a difference cf $44. And that is typical.
Canadian Wheat Board Act


Edmund Davie Fulton: But sixty per cent of the lumber was exported. That was the point I was trying to make. Sixty per cent can be exported.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think nearly eighty per cent of the wheat can be exported.


William Henry Golding: Order. I do not believe we should get into a discussion on lumber or any of these other commodities. What is before the committee at the present time is the amendment. What I am concerned about and should like to hear from members about, is whether, in their opinion, this would increase expenditures of the government.


Major James William Coldwell: While I do not agree with the purpose of the amendment, I would submit that it is in order. You, yourself, Mr. Chairman, quoted from page 4, section 3, (3), (b), which reads as follows:
. . . from its operations under this act during any crop year for which no provision is made in any other part of this act, shall be paid out of moneys provided by parliament.
It seems to me that we are not committing the government-


William Henry Golding: Order. Read the whole of it.


Major James William Coldwell: I did read the whole of it myself, before.


William Henry Golding: It says that losses, if any, sustained by the board-


Major James William Coldwell: Yes. I will read the whole of it.
(3) Losses, if any, sustained by the board
(a)	from its operations under part III of this act in relation to any pool period fixed thereunder, during such pool period, or
(b)	from its other operations under this act during any crop year, for which no provision is made in any other part of this act, shall be paid out of moneys provided by parliament.
It seems to me that at the time the losses were apparent parliament would be called upon to make the provision and that parliament at that time would decide whether any money should be paid out. Consequently this house, by adopting the amendment made by the leader of the opposition, is not committing the government to any payment whatsoever. We are simply providing that these losses shall be paid out of moneys provided by parliament when the time comes to make up those losses. Consequently, although I say I agree that 1946 should be paid, I do not want to endanger the whole principle of this bill by supporting the amendment of the leader of the

opposition and I do not intend to support it. But I think the amendment is in order under the rules of the house.


James Garfield Gardiner: You mean that 1945 should be paid?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes.


John Bracken: In your own words, Mr. Chairman, there are two matters before the committee. One is whether this amendment is in order or not and the other is the substance of the amendment. You have asked for the opinions of members of the committee as to whether it may involve the government in some expenditure beyond the moneys now held at the credit of the farmers of Canada.


William Henry Golding: That is right.


John Bracken: I suggest that if you wait until you get unanimity of opinion on that in this committee, you will wait for a long time; because one man may say it will result in some loss to the government, and another may say it will not. If you are seeking advice, I would suggest that you take the opinion of the Minister of Agriculture. He said that now SI .55 a bushel is being obtained from Britain and a large part of the remainder is being sold for S2 and S2.50 a bushel, and he suggested that even in 1948-49 the price will not be lower than SI.35. I suggest, therefore, in arriving at your decision, that you accept his judgment on that and agree that this will mean no loss to the taxpayers of Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not what I said.


John Bracken: Let us have a decision. If we are out of order, let us have a declaration that we are out of order. If we are not, let us go ahead with the discussion.


Mr. McMASTER:: I wish to speak on the question of order only. I do so with considerable diffidence, having regard, Mr. Chairman, to your long experience in the chair. But we must, first of all, examine this bill to see whether it is actually a money bill or not. This was not a money bill originally, although consent from the governor general was obtained. It is a bill which has to do with the marketing and the buying of wheat. I submit that its primary purpose is not that of a money bill. I should like to refer you-
Some lion. MEMBERS: Question.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Keep quiet.


William Henry Golding: Order. So far as hon. members have indicated, it will not increase expenditures. Without further debate I should like to put the amendment. It is moved by Mr. Bracken:

Canadian Wheat Board Act
That paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of section 20 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"Any crop year prior to or subsequent to the first day of August, 1945."
All in favour of the amendment will please say "aye".


John Bracken: Mr. Chairman, if you have now ruled that this is in order and you are going to permit it to be debated and voted upon, I wish to answer some of the points that have been raised by previous speakers. I would remind1 you, sir, that before I moved this amendment I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he would let us know how much money the board now has from the sale of the 1943 crop, the 1944 crop and the 1945 crop. I ask that just as a matter of information; because whatever that amount is, this board has invested it at relatively low rates of interest, while the farmers who own the money are paying high rates of interest on any sums they may owe. I asked for that information; I should like to get it if it can be made available.
After I moved this amendment the hon. member for Melfort raised some objection. First of all, he said he wanted to get a parity price. Forget that name; call it anything you like. It is supposed to be a price that bears a fair relationship to the cost of growing this commodity. The hon. member says that is what he wants, but he says this policy of paying $1.35 over a period of five years will give some stability, and for that reason he is inclined to accept it. If stability is all we want, regardless of the level, then there may be some merit to his point. Everybody wants stability.


Percy Ellis Wright: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the leader of the opposition is putting into my mouth words I did not use. That was not my position, nor has it been the position of this group. We have said all along that we wished participation certificates paid yearly on the basis of parity, determined for each year.


John Bracken: Well, I am glad to hear the hon. member say that.


Percy Ellis Wright: We said it before.


John Bracken: That is exactly what we want, but you objected to my amendment.


Percy Ellis Wright: Your amendment is a different thing entirely. There is no parity whatever included in your amendment.


John Bracken: My hon. friend says he wants parity prices, and hon. gentlemen over there have said the same thing. I have not
heard anyone in Canada deny that we should try to get prices for agricultural products that are fair in relation to their cost.


Percy Ellis Wright: Your amendment does not have anything to do with that.


John Bracken: You will have your chance to talk all you wish about this amendment. The government now come along with a programme under which they say that for the next five years they are to give the farmers $1.35 a bushel. It is realized that they are holding back a good deal of money which has been received but has not been paid over to the farmers; and the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Agriculture are saying they cannot give any more than $1.35 because they might need the surplus they now hold to balance up any losses. Therefore today they are not guaranteeing any more than $1.35 over the next five years. My point is, that is not a fair price; that is not a parity price.


James Garfield Gardiner: You don't know.


John Bracken: I do know.


James Garfield Gardiner: How do you know?


John Bracken: I know it is not for this year.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have still four years to go.


John Bracken: The minister can speak later if he wishes. My hon. friends to my left are objecting to this amendment, but let us look at this situation. Today a fair price is $1.55. I have not heard anyone deny that statement. I am not suggesting that this price should be fixed for all time to come. Costs change. Costs may go up, as they have been going up. They may go down. The price received should bear a relationship to changed conditions as to costs from time to time; make it yearly, or whatever you choose. The point is that on the argument of the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Agriculture they say they cannot afford to pay more than $1.35 over the five-year period; therefore they say they have to keep these surpluses to offset possible losses. That is all the farmers are sure of under this legislation-$1.35 a bushel. I ask the hon. member for Melfort if he is satisfied with that. I am not. This is not a policy of stabilized prices at fair levels. Suppose the fair level is $1.55. This is a floor price policy, at $1.35. If you are to have only floor prices, which are less than fair prices, you must let the farmer have anything above the advance price when he can get it, because for many years he will have to take less than a fair price under this very policy.
Canadian Wheat Board Act

If the government had a policy of paying fair prices now, that would be one thing,; but that is not the policy they have. Theirs is a policy of floor prices. If, arising out of the latter policy, the farmer is to get fair prices, then when the world price is high he must be allowed to have it, because all too often the world price will be low and he will, on the average, be getting less than a fair price.
I think I have dealt with the substance of the objection of the hon. member for Melfort and the hon. member for Humboldt. What I want, what we all want and what I think the government want is to try to find a price that will bear a fair relationship to costs, not for this year alone, not for next year, not even for four years, but for all time to come. The policy in this bill will not do it, even for the present. The government is now depending wholly upon an international agreement to return this $1.35. An international agreement with one country will not give stability of prices to farmers. When you come to make another agreement three years from now, the price may be down to $1. Are you going to be satisfied with an average price based upon world prices of around $1, when you come to make a new agreement? You know you are not. That is the main issue. The Minister of Justice and the Minister of Agriculture say they cannot guarantee more than $1.35 under these conditions. That leaves the impression that this is all they think the whole policy is worth, and that is not good enough to give a square deal to agriculture.
In saying that, I am not speaking only for the agriculturist, because, while it would do him good to have fair prices, just as it does the labouring man good to be assured of a job at fair wages, I say as well that if the relative income of the agriculturist goes down the whole economy will be adversely affected. If the farmer is to be denied his present purchasing power, he cannot in future buy as much goods from the people who make them in Canada, and as a result such people cannot maintain high employment in this country. Whatever else may be said here, that is involved in the issue we are facing right now. Are we to accept a stabilized price at the level of only $1.35, or are we not? If the policy of the government were to pay a parity price now I would accept it and ask no more. But that is not their policy; theirs is only a floor price policy, and in order that this floor price policy may give fair prices over a long period of time you must allow the high prices of the good years to be paid the farmers because the low prices of the bad years have to be accepted by them as well. That is the issue, and that

is all there is to it. I am sure we are all indebted to the Minister of Agriculture for the outline he has given us of these developments over the years, but what I have stated is the basic principle at stake, and that is what we are voting on in this amendment.


Thomas Miller Bell: If that were the principle involved in this amendment I do not think there would be any objection to it, from this corner of the house at least, and I doubt very much if there would be any objection from any corner of the house. But look at the amendment itself. It strikes out paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of section 20 and substitutes therefor this simple statement:
Any crop year prior to or subsequent to the first day of August, 1945.
It would then read:
20. Subject to section twenty-six of this act, in this part "pool period" means any crop year prior to or subsequent to the first day of August, 1945.
That is to say, it puts every year as a single pool year. It means that if the price is high, we will say in this year of 1946-47, every cent would be paid out and nothing would be left in the pool to meet any call that might be necessary to bring the price up to parity in future years. That is what this amendment means. My hon. friend says that he does not mean that, but if that is so let him draft something that means exactly what we all want it to mean. He should not ask us to vote for something which means something entirely different from that which he says it means.
Any interpretation placed upon this amendment must be that each year is to be regarded as a separate year, that everything that accrues in the year must be paid out by way of participation certificates. I am in agreement with my hon. friend who says that participation certificates should be paid in addition to th6 $1.35 to make up to parity when parity is arrived at, but I would prefer to forgo that rather than to sacrifice the principle of this bill and jeopardize the growers of this country during the next four years. That is exactly what would happen.
The leader of the opposition knows perfectly well what may happen two years from now. A few days ago, the Hon. Mr. Strachey said in Winnipeg that wheat might drop once again to a level where the British government could buy it like chaff as they did in 1931 or 1932. We want to safeguard these people back home who were penalized in those years from a recurrence of the condition under which they suffered at that time.

Canadian Wheat Board Act


John Bracken: I have only one question to ask the leader of the C.C.F. party who has just spoken. He has indicated that under this arrangement the government could not pay out any participation certificates year by year, because at the end of four years there might not be enough money to pay the $1.35 average. My question is, is he satisfied under those conditions to take $1.35 a bushel as a complete payment for the crops of the next five years? That is what his whole argument leads up to.


Major James William Coldwell: I am not prepared to take $1.35. I would say that if the price of wheat remains high over that period the farmer's of Canada will not be asked to take $1.35; they will get the balance.
Amendment negatived: yeas, 36; nays, 88.
Section 5 (section 20) agreed to.
On section 5 (section 21)-Board to buy wheat for interprovincial and export trade.


John Bracken: I directed some questions to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and I wonder if he could answer them.


James Angus MacKinnon: Did those questions have reference to the amount of cash on hand?


John Bracken: I asked how much money the wheat board held as a result of the 1943 operations, as a result of the 1944 operations and as a result of the 1945 operations.


James Angus MacKinnon: I have not the figures showing the amount of money that we have on hand as a result of the 1943 operations, but every dollar of that has to be paid out in participation certificates. I have not the figures as to what cash is being held for the 1944 crop year, but again all that has to be paid out to the producers of the wheat.


John Bracken: That is entirely beside the point. I only asked for the amounts that were on hand.


James Angus MacKinnon: I have not the amounts.


John Bracken: Could the minister not get that information?


James Angus MacKinnon: I have been making an effort to get the information for the last hour. I find that I cannot readily get it and that it will require some time to make the breakdown. There is also the matter of whether or not the information should be made public.


John Bracken: Will the minister give us that information when he can get it? I am not asking him to do the impossible today.


James Angus MacKinnon: I shall certainly be glad to do that as far as the 1943 crop is concerned and as far as the 1944 crop is concerned.


John Bracken: Will the minister also give us the average interest earnings on the balances held by the government?


James Angus MacKinnon: I will try to get that information.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Will one of the spokesmen for the government clarify the position with regard to clause (a) which reads:
(a) buy all wheat produced in the designated area, offered by a producer for sale and delivery to the board at an elevator or in a railway car in accordance with the provisions of this act and the regulations and the orders of the board.
There has been a good deal of confusion regarding government policy. The hon. member for Battle River quoted from the "Wheat Pool Budget" which reported a speech made by the Minister of Agriculture. This is to be found on page 629 of Hansard, and I quote:
The Canadian government, through the wheat board, will take all deliveries of wheat up to July 31, 1950. This statement was made by Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner, while addressing the annual convention of the United Farmers of Alberta, in replying to a question from one of the audience.
The Minister of Agriculture really did not make the position clear when he said, and I quote:
The statement which has just been read corrects what was said all over western Canada. It was said all over western Canada that, under the order in council as it was, there could not be more than fourteen bushels to the acre delivered. A member in that meeting got up and asked for a correction of that, and I corrected it much in the words of this report, which was not submitted to me before it was printed but which, nevertheless, to all intents and purposes does give the explanation which was given.
In discussing this point the other day, the Minister of Trade and Commerce made it clear that it is not the intention of the government to be committed for more than fourteen bushels per acre on 22,000,000 acres. When the minister suggested the other day that he would be prepared to withdraw this clause which we discussed at such length last night it was the understanding of those who heard him that it would be withdrawn and that an undertaking would be given by the government to make good the promise made by the Minister of Agriculture. I wonder if we might have some statement as to whether the cabinet ministers have been able to get together on this problem and whether the Minister of Agriculture, if he was correctly reported, was speaking for the government

Canadian Wheat Board Act

when he spoke in the west? I know the Minister of Agriculture does believe it will be possible to take this large quantity, but the minister has been wrong on some occasions, as he admitted a few days ago.


James Garfield Gardiner: Occasionally, yes.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I think that, before we leave this section, the members of the cabinet should make clear just what the government policy is.


James Garfield Gardiner: If my hon. friend will read the statement again he will find that it states exactly what has been said here continually, that all the wheat delivered down to July 31, 1950, will be taken at $1.35 a bushel. But that is not the question that is in the minds of my hon. friends from Alberta.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Up to fourteen bushels an acre.


James Garfield Gardiner: No; all of it delivered down to that time will be paid for at $1.35 a bushel. That statement was made in Calgary and it is correct. But that is not the question raised by my hon. friends from Alberta. They are worried about wheat that cannot be delivered if there is a big crop and the elevators are full. Any wheat that is delivered will be paid for at $1.35 a bushel. There can be no question about that. Section 21 states:
The board shall undertake the marketing of wheat produced in the designated area in interprovincial and export trade and for such purpose shall
(a) buy all wheat produced in the designated area, offered by a producer for sale and delivery to the board at an elevator or in a railway car in accordance with the provisions of this act and the regulations and the orders of the board.
That is in absolute accord with what I said in Calgary and what has been said everywhere. But the question raised by my hon. friends from Alberta I argued under the previous section is taken care of by the fact that this house has to reconsider this agreement before the end of the period, and if, for any reason, it may develop that there is some wheat somewhere that the Canadian farmer could not get taken into the elevator because of conditions over which he had no control, the question would then have to be decided [DOT]whether the government would provide some means of his getting that wheat into the elevator. That question was argued on section 20, and it is safeguarded by the fact that this agreement must again come before the house, and all the facts will be before it when the decision is to be made. If I were to argue that question now I would say that in my opinion-I know I cannot always be right, as

has been suggested-no difficulty will arise, but in case any difficulty does arise I cannot conceive of this house, with all the facts before it, dealing with it otherwise than as has been suggested by many members here.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: My point is that, as the legislation now stands, the wheat growers are guaranteed acceptance of only fourteen bushels on the authorized acreage. Is that not correct?


James Garfield Gardiner: I would rather see that provision taken out, myself.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: If you took it out it wTould leave the matter to be decided by order in council, and the farmer would have no guarantee. Certainly those of us on this side of the house would like to have a minimum of fourteen bushels to the acre rather than no guarantee at all; but, as I understood the argument of the hon. member for Acadia and the hon. member for Battle River, they wanted the government to state whether all the wheat that can be grown can be sold at this price or whether the government is restricting its contract to fourteen bushels on the authorized acreage.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will tell you why I
should like to see that provision out. It is that when we go back to western Canada we shall hear on every platform this argument about the fourteen bushels. We have heard it ever since that provision was in there. It has been argued all over western Canada that because fourteen bushels is in there, that is all we are going to take. That has never been the intention of the provision. It was put in there, as I said last night, as a means of controlling acreage, and it has been utilized for other purposes since. The committee can do whatever they see fit with regard to it. Personally I do not think the provision in section 17 means very much. I should like to see the committee go back to that section and decide whether to leave that provision in or take it out. If they take it out we shall get rid of a lot of the discussion that we shall otherwise have about that fourteen-bushels provision.
On the general question about which my hon. friends are concerned, I do not see how we can give them any further assurance than is contained in this section. This section says that we must take all the grain that is delivered to us. I presume that means so long as there is some place to put it, because nobody would ask us to take it unless there was a place where it could be taken care of properly.

Canadian Wheat Board Act


Victor Quelch: Provided that the grain
grower is allowed to deliver it under section 17, under paragraphs (f) and (g) of which the board can refuse delivery to the farmer. Now, if the farmer cannot deliver it, the board cannot buy it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am sure that the
hon. member does not really think the board would try to stop the farmers from delivering wheat. The fourteen-bushels provision applies, not only at the end of the year, but right through, and that provision is put there for only one purpose. It simply says to the farmers:	You are all going to be given a
fair chance to deliver your grain. If you have a big crop it may have to be put under quota, even in 1947, not in 1949. But the bill says that, under any circumstances, that quota will not be less than fourteen bushels to the acre. That is all that has been said. But whether the provision is left in or taken out, the wheat board will be taking all the wheat they can possibly get just as fast as they can market it because people are starving for the want of it. So that the board are going to be pushing this wheat out to market as fast as they can get it out.


Victor Quelch: The Minister of Agriculture says that parliament in 1950 will be able to decide this issue. But the farmers are being asked to make a sacrifice today in taking less than the market price, and in view of that sacrifice they should have the assurance that they will not have to wait until 1950 for that decision to be made. The minister said yesterday, as reported at page 884 of Hansard:
I do not think any piece of legislation can be one-sided and when you say that the government must do a certain thing, there are some people who must see to it as well that the funds which the government is handling are protected.
It seems to me definitely that the minister is taking the weaker side. The argument on the other side is far stronger, because you are today compelling the farmer to take a considerable loss as compared with the world market price, a loss that may run anywhere up to ninety cents a bushel, and he is being given no definite guarantee that he will be able to dispose of all the wheat which he produces up to July 31, 1950, at a price of $1.35. That assurance should be given now. *The farmer should not have to wait until 1950 for it. It is true that section 21 sa3's:
The board shall undertake the marketing of wheat produced in the designated area in interprovincial and export trade and for such purpose shall
(a) buy all wheat produced in the designated area offered by a producer for sale and delivery to the board at an elevator or in a railway car in accordance with the provisions of this act and the regulations and the orders of the board.
83166-58i
The amount of wheat delivered will depend on the action of the board. The minister must admit that, if in 1949 the elevators become seriously congested, a quota will be put on deliveries and those quotas might not be lifted by July 31, 1950, in which case the farmer would not be able to deliver all his grain. The result would be that on July 31, 1950, there would be a certain amount of grain left in the farmer's bins, as to which he is given no guarantee at all. The minister says we can deal with that in 1950. Why wait until 1950 to say that the intention of the government is that the SI.35 shall apply to all wheat delivered to elevators and also to wheat left in the farmer's bins owing to the elevators being full?
I shall quote what the Minister of Trade and Commerce said as reported at page 855 of Hansard. I wish to congratulate the Minister of Trade and Commerce on the fact that he is the only minister of the three who has put this question fairly before the committee so that we can actually determine what the policy of the government is to be. Had it not been for the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce I, and, I think, other hon. members, would have jumped to the conclusion that the government was going to pay $1.35 a bushel for all wheat offered for sale by the farmers prior to July 31, 1950. The minister has made it quite clear that that is not so. Let me quote what he said.


James Angus MacKinnon: No.


Victor Quelch: I shall quote what was said and then the minister may argue whether it means that or not.
As reported at page 855 of Hansard the Minister of Justice referred to a certain situation which might develop, and he used these words:
For instance, if you had an enormous crop the last year at frightfully low prices-
The minister contemplates that we might have that situation. The report continues:
-that would upset your calculations tremendously, as the hon. gentleman can understand.
Then I interjected the following:
Perhaps the minister would go a step farther. He said that we might have a tremendous crop in the last year, and in that case no doubt the elevators would be plugged. Would the Minister of Trade and Commerce still propose to accept for delivery, in that case, the grain that could not be taken by the elevators by July 31, 1950?
Then the Minister of Trade and Commerce
replied:
According to the statement I made, we propose to take all the wheat for which we can find space. We will take all the wheat produced to the extent of the available elevator capacity.
Canadian Wheat Board Act

In other words, if we have a very heavy crop in 1949 and it is not possible to take delivery of all that wheat, the government is not committed to pay $1.35 for that portion of the crop which is still left in the farmers' bins; therefore it is not true to say that the government proposes to take all wheat offered for sale prior to July 31, 1950, at the price of $1.35. It was for that reason that I offered the amendment to subsection 2, to make it quite clear that the government would buy all wheat at $1.35 up to July 31, 1950.
When we turn to section 17, paragraphs (f) and (g), we find the following:
(f)	fix, from time to time quotas of each kind of grain that may be delivered by producers to elevators or railway cars, witbin any period or periods, either generally or in specified areas or at specified delivery points or otherwise;
(g)	notwithstanding anything in this part, prohibit the delivery into or receipt by an elevator of, any kind of grain, or any grade or quality thereof, either generally or otherwise.
I do not think for one moment that the board would use these sections if it could avoid doing so; but, on the other hand, if you had a situation such as the Minister of Justice suggests may develop, then I do not doubt for one minute that they would be forced to use the sections, with the result that, by July 31, 1950, all wheat would not have been delivered, and that portion of it which was left in the farmers' bins would not be marketed at $1.35 unless, as the Minister of Agriculture says, the price in 1950 were $1.48. But if the situation was as the Minister of Justice suggests, an enormous crop at ruinously low prices, then the farmers certainly would not get $1.46 in 1950, and therefore they would suffer a loss on that portion of the wheat which was left in their bins. It is for that reason that I object to the removal [DOT]of subsection 2 of section 17 because it does give a limited amount of protection. It gives a guarantee that the government will accept at least fourteen bushels to the acre. If you take that out you are removing even the small amount of protection which the farmer has in this bill. Therefore I suggest that the government could very well have accepted the amendment which I suggested to the effect that, notwithstanding anything contained in the act, the government would agree to accept all wheat offered for sale prior to July 31, 1950. I know I cannot move the amendment; it has been ruled out of order. I am suggesting that the government should accept the suggestion.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce may say, how can we take delivery of wheat when there is no room in the elevators? Am I to

understand that, so far as the government are concerned, the only reason they are not prepared to give that guarantee is that they would have nowhere to put the wheat?


James Angus MacKinnon: I think I can say that the government contemplates taking every bushel the farmers raise and offer for sale to the capacity of the elevators.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is no good.


James Angus MacKinnon: May I say this, and I am saying it kindly. The hon. member anticipates bad faith on the part of the people handling this legislation.


Victor Quelch: I am accepting the statement at its face value.


James Angus MacKinnon: Again I repeat, we contemplate taking all the grain that is offered for sale to the full extent of our storage and elevator capacity.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: That is not good enough.


James Angus MacKinnon: Just a moment.
Further than that, if some situation does develop in which there is a large surplus, but which I think is impossible, I do not think, and I am sure that no hon. member from western Canada who makes a study of the storage facilities, and in view' of our wheat agreements and the demands of other countries for our wheat, thinks the situation which is expected by the hon. member for Acadia will ever come about.


Victor Quelch: Then the minister should have no hesitation in giving the guarantee.


James Angus MacKinnon: I do not think it will ever occur. I do not think it could occur when one takes into consideration our elevator facilities, our wheat contracts and the demand for our wheat.


Charles Edward Johnston: Put it in the contract and save all the argument.


James Angus MacKinnon: If that situation does occur there is only one way it can be dealt with, and that will be done in the light of the conditions as they are at that time. I do not think it is practical to attempt to make any regulations or promises regarding these circumstances which I do not believe will ever come about.


Mr. GLADSTONE:: The farmers of eastern Canada will consider that the government has now gone quite far enough, not knowing what the world economic conditions may be in 1950.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: I wish to ask the minister a question in connection with interprovincial

, Canadian Wheat Board Act
marketing control. What is the position of a British Columbia farmer who owns an Alberta farm, grows grain on the Alberta farm and wants to take it to British Columbia to feed on his British Columbia farm?


James Angus MacKinnon: The farmer in question can get the necessary permission by applying to the Canadian wheat board.


John Horne Blackmore: The arguments
advanced thus far by the ministers have not convinced me.


James Angus MacKinnon: They have convinced me.


John Horne Blackmore: All through southern Alberta the farmers have almost a complex by reason of the fact that, during the war when it appeared there would be the greatest need for grain, in many cases they had to build makeshift retainers and containers on their land by using straw, wire and posts. Many of them have lost heavily because they had vast quantities of wheat piled on the ground, open to the weather.


James Angus MacKinnon: They started out with tremendous surpluses of wheat in the elevators.


John Horne Blackmore: That sort of surplus may again develop. The reports which I get and which, of course, may not be by any means adequate when compared with those to which the minister has access, indicate that the countries in Europe which have been accustomed to producing wheat are rapidly returning to the production of wheat.
All the countries in the world such as Australia, United States, South Africa and others, which have been producing wheat are rapidly returning to a full production of wheat. What grounds have we, according to ordinary logic, in assuming that there will not again develop in Canada a surplus of wheat, provided that we have large crops? Those considerations are serious. You can find them in every reputable journal, in the words of everyone who is competent to offer an opinion. I think the time has come for the country to face up to a situation such as the one I am going to indicate. There is no doubt that we should get to the point where we can have a sort of ever-normal granary. That was the expression that the late President Roosevelt used. I believe it would be a good thing to have an ever-normal storehouse or larder. I consider that the government would be sound in adopting a policy something like this.
Let the government say: "We will accept all the grain that can be delivered in the elevator space we possess and we will go even farther than that. If the elevator space should
be found to be inadequate we will advance, either directly ourselves or through the province and then through the municipality, money to farmers with which they can build granaries on their farms, probably along the fence line. Those granaries will be built according to certain specifications which will guarantee that they will take care of the grain in good condition. We will allow the farmers to store their grain in these bins and the grain will be paid for in whole or in part, and will be the property of the dominion government, or the provincial or the municipal government as the case may be,, and on the grain, storage will be paid the farmers as though the grain were in elevators. Then we shall have the grain right on the farm, right out in the country where we can get it in the event of a crop failure or in an emergency which might make it necessary that people in a given area, in central Saskatchewan let us say, should have access to grain and other commodities which they need, without having to have them shipped from long distances such as Port Arthur at ruinously high rates."
There is nothing unsound in that proposal. It is the barest kind of prudence to have on hand in this country great quantities of the necessities of life. I do not wish to labour the dangers which we are facing by reason of new war weapons which might easily destroy our communication systems or the great storage facilities. I do not need to refer to these possibilities to impress upon everyone in this country the necessity of having grain stored right near the people where it will be needed. That, I should think, would be an argument in favour of the government adopting a broad policy under which it would assist in the storage of grain on the farms. If this policy were adopted the government could easily make the commitment which this group suggests that it make, and it could do so without any danger whatsoever of embarrassment.
Mr. IsICHOLSON: I do not think we are imposing an unreasonable demand on the taxpayers. An hon. member has intimated that people in eastern Canada would not be willing to go farther than the government has gone, but surely Canadian funds invested in wheat stored under proper conditions would be quite as safe as gold in the mines in the north or in the hills of Kentucky. If the Canadian government at this stage would give the assurance that they are prepared to enter into longterm agreements with our own producers, it would have a stabilizing effect on the people engaged in the industry in other parts of the world as well, and I do not think the Canadian government would be running any risk. But when we have a situation where the Minister
*910
Canadian Wheat Board Act

of Agriculture has publicly given the impression that the Canadian government will accept all wheat that may be produced in this period, and then the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Trade and Commerce refuse to go farther than a commitment to accept fourteen bushels an acre on the authorized acreage, it is bound to have a disturbing influence on those who will produce in the next few years.
I wonder if the cabinet ministers can give some indication as to why they are worried, as to how many dollars they think might be involved if they gave the commitment that they would be financially responsible for accepting all wheat grown on the authorized acreage for this period.


James Garfield Gardiner: As I said before, I do not know of any way in which even an estimate could be made at present. As a matter of fact, if the government were asked to give an estimate they would say that really there is nothing involved,-because we do not think this position will develop. On the other hand, if we attempted to put in a provision to safeguard that, we would have to try to safeguard the opposite position where the farmer does not wish to deliver and will not, when we want the wheat to send somewhere. We have discussed that fully with the persons interested, who handle the marketing of grain on behalf of the farmers to a larger extent than anyone else, and they are absolutely satisfied that everything is here that ought to be here.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: They are satisfied with the fourteen bushels an acre?


James Garfield Gardiner: They did not discuss that question; they discussed the question as to what will happen in 1950. They are absolutely satisfied that the provisions in sections 20 and 21 will take care of that situation, and for that reason I think the bill ought to be passed, so far as sections 20 and 21 are concerned, in its present form, and when we go back to section 17 the government has no strong views at all on that question. In its present form it would be acceptable, and it would be acceptable to take it out. But as to simply saying, why not put in this particular commitment, I do not think it is fair to ask the government to do that at the present time. I do not know whether I shall Be here in 1949 or 1950, but I can assure everyone who is here that, if I am here at that time, I shall be fighting as strongly as they will to see that proper provision is made for handling all the farmers' wheat for that five-year period, and I will tell the committee the reason.

On behalf of the government I have stated every year, since at least as far back as 1943, that the government is absolutely opposed during the transitional period to putting any limitations on the production of the farmers of Canada and the marketing of their commodity, and the reason we are opposed to that is that during the war we put on price control and, while doing so, we urged the farmer to produce as he had never produced before. We did so all through the war; he increased his production forty per cent, and we had a ceiling price on it all the time and held it down. Members of the official opposition or others are quite justified in saying that we did not let the farmer get all that he might have had for his farm products, as part of price control during that period. But we did not let others get all that they might have had. At any rate, they are quite right in saying that w'e did not allow the farmer to do so; but, since we asked him to produce to the limit, and held down his price, when we established floors under his returns during the transitional period we must be prepared to see that his whole product is marketed, whatever may be the amount he desires to produce; and if he goes ahead and produces, as he went ahead during the war and produced to the limit, then we must find a market for him at a level which is not lower than the floor. We passed legislation to take care of that floor. We did so in a different bill altogether.
I say frankly that in the legislation which I shall bring before the house-the resolution is on the order paper today-we are trying to see to it that the people who eat the food pay for it at floor price levels or higher. That is our effort. We are attempting to do that through agreements. We have sold the surplus of other products and we have sold a very large proportion of the surplus of this product at a set price. We say that we. are going to continue that policy just as long as we can in the transitional period and try to avoid having to take any money out of the treasury in order to take care of it. But we have on the statute books legislation under which, if the price does go down lower than that, we have made provision for taking care of it. This one is just the same as the others. We as a government are committed to the policy of taking the farmers' product. All we are suggesting at the moment is that we cannot see our way clear to putting into this statute that we are to do something on July 31, 1950, when we do not know what the circumstances will be. But this government, as a matter of policy, are

Canadian Wheat Board Act
oommitted to finding some way of dealing with any problem of export in 1950 in relation to farmers.


John Horne Blackmore: Will the minister tell me in what words and by whom is the government committed to this policy?


James Garfield Gardiner: Any minister of this government who rises in his place in the house and presents a policy as a government policy commits the government to it. That is the government's policy on that particular matter. Every member of the government sat and listened to the policy being pronounced. It was decided in council first, brought here and presented to the house and stated over and over again. Hon. members on the other side of the house were urging us to accept the United States policy which is to set parity and then take ninety per cent of the production at parity. We said that we would not do that, that we would not cut off ten per cent but were going to take 100 per cent.


John Horne Blackmore: Does the minister believe that the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce up to the present time in this house have committed the government to accept all the grain which is offered for sale?


James Garfield Gardiner: I say that the words of the government over the last five or six years, and spoken here in the house, have committed the government to take the total production of the farmers or to see that it is marketed at floor prices; and not only in our speeches but in the legislation we say that if we have to buy it at a stated price which is higher than the market price in order to maintain the floor, then we are going to buy it at that price and pay the difference.


John Horne Blackmore: If the government of the day committed the government during the last five or six years, why is the Minister of Trade and Commerce so hesitant to commit the government now in this debate?


James Garfield Gardiner: I will answer that by asking another question. If the government is committed to that action as a matter of policy, why should a member of the house insist on our laying down now a method by which we are going to put it into effect four years hence when we do not know what the circumstances will be at that time? This government has been committed to that action as a matter of policy; but when you tell us to put into the act now that we are going to take delivery-if not in the elevator, on the
farm-of all the farmers' wheat on July 31, 1950 at SI.35 a bushel, we simply say that, without the facts before us. we do not know how that should be done. It is all very well to say that in the United States there is some kind of a granary that can be locked up, but we have not granaries of that kind here and we do not market grain here in the same way as they market it in the United States. With the circumstances as they are here, I think it would not only be wrong to put this provision in but that we would be putting into the act something that we probably could not carry out on July 31. 1950, under certain circumstances; and this house would not permit us to carry it out in any event if it were one of these circumstances which has been spoken of. There would be no safeguard in that if the house would not let us do it, and they would correct it if we made a mistake in doing it now.


William Henry Golding: Shall section 21 carry?


John Horne Blackmore: I will just say this for the sake of the committee and of the people of the country who will read Hansard. I am going to submit it to them whether the government, through the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Minister of Justice-the three ministers who have spoken in this debate-have committed the government to the policy of taking all the grain on the farm or anywhere else which is offered for delivery. They have not done that. There is not a doubt in the world about it. It is as clear as day. The Minister of Agriculture is as evasive as he can be in this.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I am not evasive.


John Horne Blackmore: It must be quite obvious to everybody. I just wish to answer one argument which the minister made. He expressed fear that the farmers might not be willing to deliver grain, we will say in 1949 or 1950. There is just one conceivable reason why the farmers would not be willing to deliver grain, and that would be that the world market price was higher than $1.35, and higher than $1.35 plus participation. If the world price at that time, we will say in 1949 or 1950, happened to be so much above $1.35, then certainly the government ought to be safe in raising the price to the farmer enough so that he will bring in all his wheat, so that the government could deliver it on the world market. I am really surprised-and I say it with all deference to the Minister of Agri-
Canadian Wheat Board Act

culture-that he would have endeavoured to evade this issue by using such a specious argument as he used this afternoon.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not using any specious argument. I am simply saying that the farm organizations are agreed that this legislation does safeguard them to the fullest extent. I am not battling for what we who are sitting here think. It is the opinion of farm organizations given to me no later than last night and today at noon.


Mr JOHNSTON:: Maybe you talked them into it. You are a good talker.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I did not talk them into it.


Calvert Charlton Miller: In section 21, paragraph (b), provision is made to pay to producers selling and delivering wheat, and so on. One question I wish to ask is in connection with the paragraph down to where it starts with "provided". Suppose a man sells his land or dies, say at the end of 1946. Under the first part of that paragraph (b), could he be paid what he was entitled to get on his participation certificates up to that time, or would such a person or his estate, as the case might be, have to wait until 1950? I come to my second question. There has been some talk today about making an interim payment. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar emphasized that it would be insisted on. How could you make an interim payment to anybody when you have not determined the full class who would participate in I960? For instance, there may be growers who grow only in 1945 and 1946. At the end of 1946 there may be that huge surplus about which we have been talking. It may be said that we should make an interim payment, but to whom would the interim payment be made? Would it be to the men who grew wheat in 1945 and 1946? At the same time there would probably be men growing wheat in 1947 and 1948 who would be entitled to participate in the very money being paid out, and the amount in which they would be entitled to participate by being future growers would not yet be determined; yet you are dealing with their money. I ask how you can do that. You are either going to pay it out in 1950, or you are not going to pay it out at all. Is that not the situation?


James Angus MacKinnon: With reference to the first question dealing with the producer who has delivered grain and who dies in any year before the final amount of the pool payment is established, his executor will have to wait until the end of the pool term to get the participation. With regard to the second question, there are in this bill no provisions for interim payment.


Calvert Charlton Miller: There has been some discussion about it; and can the minister figure out any legal way in which an interim payment can be made before 1950?


James Angus MacKinnon: Just offhand, and giving my own opinion, I think it would be very difficult.


Calvert Charlton Miller: It would be illegal, would it not?


Mr. CASE:: Yesterday I asked the minister a question because I was quite concerned about certain compulsory features of the bill. Now the comments of the hon. member for Lethbridge have again raised that doubt in my mind. Yesterday I asked the minister if this was the only medium through which the farmer could market the grain designated in the bill: wheat, oats, barley and flax. The minister's reply was that it must go only to the Canadian wheat board for interprovincial or export sale. Now, in order to get this clear in my own mind, do I understand that a farmer can sell his wheat to a miller in the province in which it is grown, or sell his oats or his barley without restriction on his right of free sale, except when it moves out of the province or out of the country?


James Angus MacKinnon: That is correct; he can sell to a miller or to anyone else within his own province, subject to the quota.


James Arthur Ross: I wish to be clear on this one point, something along the line of the matter raised by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie. I have in mind the case of a man who had a considerable acreage of wheat in 1945 and 1946. He does not now like this pooling system, and wants to change his plan of operation. He will be in this pool for the first two years, during which he has produced a great deal of wheat, and during a time when the price was high. I suppose he will have to wait for final payment until 1950, in spite of the fact that he is not now growing wheat, and will have to take his loss along with the man who remains in the pool for the five-year period, by which time the price may be down to SI. Is that correct, that no settlement can be made in a case of this kind, and that a man must take his loss in spite of the fact that he has changed his plan of operation?


James Garfield Gardiner: Long before that time he will find he is vrrong and go back to wheat.


James Angus MacKinnon: As a member of the pool he will have to wait.


Charles Edward Johnston: I think the government
is making a grave mistake in not complying with the wishes of hon. members on this side

Canadian Wheat Board Act
of the house in this regard. It seems to me that when the ministers are so firmly convinced that a situation such as we have been indicating will never arise, then to satisfy the country as a whole and certainly to satisfy the farmers they should place in this section an undertaking that the government will accept all the grain produced and offered for sale. On. several occasions the minister has pointed out that there will be ample storage space as at July 31, 1950, but he overlooks the fact that already some of the annexes that were built in the west during the war have been torn down and a great many others are being offered for sale by the elevator companies, who are calling for tenders on them. Nothing is clearer than the fact that gradually these annexes will be torn down over the years, so that the storage space available will become less and less. As time goes on, we shall have less room for storage. It is pure, unadulterated nonsense to say that the government's policy is to take all the wheat, when they have made it clear in this act that they have no intention of taking more wheat than they have storage for. Merely to say that they will have the storage or that they will be able to take all the grain that will be produced because there will be storage is certainly not a good argument. It does not seem to me that in their policy the government have committed themselves to take all the wheat produced. The Minister of Agriculture went to some lengths to say that this was the policy. If it was and is the policy, and if, as far as the government can see, there is no danger of a shortage of storage space, then surely it is only good business to put that in the contract. Whoever heard of drawing up a contract and leaving something to be written in at the end of a four or five-year period. No business concern would do that.
Today the farmers are taking for their wheat a price which is less than the world market price. That difference is substantial, running to about $100,000,000 a year. That is a tremendous amount of money, but the farmers are accepting that loss on the assurance that they will be given a guaranteed price for a period of years on whatever amount of wheat they produce; yet the government persists in saying that they will take only that grain for which they have storage. In the interim the storage facilities are being reduced. That is not good business. I do not believe the government should place the members on this side of the house in the position of having to vote against this section for that reason. The government have said they do not anticipate
any trouble over storage in the future. Then why not insert that provision, and let us get on with the business of the house?


James Angus MacKinnon: Because it is not possible to foresee the circumstances that may exist.


Charles Edward Johnston: Why not? You have assured us there will not be any shortage of storage space. Either the government are not convinced of the truth of what they are saying, or their policy is different. There can be no other interpretation of the statement just made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. They do not believe the statement they are trying to convince us is true. If they did they would have no hesitation in placing that provision in this bill. The Minister of Agriculture says the farm organization is satisfied. Well, I know the minister is one of the best orators in Canada. There are times when he can almost make you believe black is white, and this is one of those occasions. But some of us in this house have gone over this bill very carefully. We are trying to be reasonable about it.


John Horne Blackmore: And we have heard the minister before.


Charles Edward Johnston: He has been talking to a group of farmers, and I am afraid, when the members of this agriculture committee go home, they will become wise to what is going on.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Percy Ellis Wright: Section 21, subsection 1, paragraph (d), gives the board the power to pay a further ten cents a bushel on the 1945-46 crop. In view of the representations that have been made by various organizations with regard to the 1945-46 crop, I wonder if the government would not withdraw this clause and substitute a clause that would allow them to pay out a greater amount of the proceeds from the 1945-46 crop. I think that should be done because a large reserve of money is being held by the board at this present time. The government might well give consideration to this matter in order to meet the demands that some of this money now being held shall be paid out to assist the farmers, instead of its being held for the five full years. I think this could be done without injuring the government's position in any way.
Canadian Wheat Board Act


Mr. PAIR:: I cannot see any valid reason for the 1945 crop being included in the five-year pool. Some of the ministers have been talking about the huge amount of money they are going to have. If that is so, we should get rid of some of it and pass it on to the proper owners. There are other things in connection with this that many of us do not like. It was suggested this afternoon that the eastern farmers think the government has gone far enough. That sentence was not finished; it should read, "has gone far enough in skinning the western farmer."
Some people do not realize that the western farmers have been subsidizing all the consumers of Canada in connection with wheat used in bread which all of us eat. A number of people do not realize also that we have been subsidizing the consumers of the world, because not very long ago the government through the wheat board, placed a ceiling of $1.55 a bushel on all wheat for export. That was done at the expense of the farmer.
When the Minister of Agriculture told us that this is a one-sided agreement he did not lay any stress upon the fact that that was because the cards were stacked against the farmer. I think a number of these matters should be taken into consideration in dealing further with this agreement. I realize that this is a long-term programme, but if we have to sacrifice millions of dollars in the price it is not as advantageous as some people would have us believe.


Charles Edward Johnston: Subsection 2 of section 21 reads:
The board shall, if directed by regulation, pay to each producer at the time of delivery of wheat to the board, in addition to any other payment authorized by this section, a sum per bushel on account of storage of the said wheat on the producer's farm, for such period of storage as the board in its sole discretion shall fix for the purposes of such storage payment, which sum, however, shall not in any case exceed the amount payable for storage in a country elevator for the same period according to the country elevator tariff rate filed with the board of grain commissioners.
The question was raised that there might be a possible shortage of storage for the 1949 crop. The minister has said that they will only take wheat for which the elevators have space. What is the purpose of putting in that subsection?


James Angus MacKinnon: The government may be faced with a situation where they may wish to pay storage on wheat on the producer's farm and we are asking for authority to do that.


Charles Edward Johnston: In case the elevators are filled up or something?


James Angus MacKinnon: And for other reasons.


Charles Edward Johnston: What other reasons?


James Angus MacKinnon: One was advocated from the hon. member's section, I think by the hon. member for Melfort; that is, the establishment of an ever-normal granary on the farm. That is a project or plan of which I think highly myself, apart altogether from this bill. If the government in its good judgment believes that storage should be paid to a producer on the farm, then we would have the authority to do it if this section passes.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am not arguing against it because I think it is a good thing. I believe the government is showing good judgment in making provision for the storage of grain on the farm, but it only goes to support what has been said from this side of the house, that the government should buy all the wheat offered for sale up to the end of July 31, 1850. They would have provision under this section whereby they could provide for storage on the farm if they so desired.


James Garfield Gardiner: Why not give us credit for having done something that you have suggested should be done?


Charles Edward Johnston: I will give you all the credit I can; I am only sorry I cannot give you credit for being a little bit more lenient and taking all the wheat and using farm storage for that purpose.


Calvert Charlton Miller: The government did that under regulation some years ago for one year only, and the amount paid for storage was graduated according to the time of delivery of the grain.


James Angus MacKinnon: When the wheat was delivered1 we paid an increased amount.


Calvert Charlton Miller: You are taking the power here to do it if you want to do it, but you are not undertaking to do it?


James Angus MacKinnon: No; there is no obligation.


Calvert Charlton Miller: Why should you not undertake to do it on the same basis as you did it for that one year. That was a fair basis and it was based originally on a suggestion made by a committee of this party.


James Angus MacKinnon: We are taking the
power so that if we are confronted with a situation like that referred to, or with other situations, we can pay storage.


Percy Ellis Wright: I agree with the government that this clause should be in the bill. I believe they should have the authority to pay

Canadian Wheat Board Act
storage, but I should like to see the words, "not in any ease exceed" in line 25 deleted and the word "equal" substituted therefor.
If the government are to pay storage on the farm they should pay at a rate equal to that being paid the country elevators. Unless there is some reason for it, I cannot understand why that should not be stated in the section.


James Angus MacKinnon: This is the same clause as was used in the old act. I do not think it is an important matter because it is anticipated that we -would pay the same storage as to the elevators.


Percy Ellis Wright: Why not say so? I expect that that is what they would do and I can see no reason why it should not be stated in the bill. It seems to me that we are arguing about something that we are both agreed upon, but there is some reluctance to state it in the bill. It is only common sense to *state what you intend. That would be much more satisfactory so far as the act itself is concerned, and so far as the grain growers and we in the opposition are concerned, because we are out to protect the grain growers' rights.


James Garfield Gardiner: I move, Mr. Chairman, to strike out in line 25 of page 11 of the bill the words "not in any case exceed" and substitute therefor the word "equal," so that it will read:
. . . such storage payment, which sum, however, shall equal the amount payable for storage in a country elevator . . .
And so on.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Calvert Charlton Miller: Would the minister also strike out the words in line 18 on the same page, "if directed by regulation"?


James Angus MacKinnon: No.


Joseph William Burton: I wish to say a few words in support of what the hon. member for Mel-fort said about the 1945 crop. I see the minister smiling at hearing mention of that again. Many farmers during past years have been wrongfully accused of disregarding contracts, yet, as regards the 1945 crop, the farmers feel that they are on the other end of that kind of bargain because, when the 1945 crop was being harvested and delivered, it was the understanding that there was to be a one-year pool and that participation certificates would be issued on that basis. Like the hon. member for Melfort, I am also in favour of the longer period of time in a pool of this kind, but I submit that to go back and include the 1945 crop in the pool is to a great extent doing the very thing that many farmers have
been wrongfully accused of doing in years gone by, namely, disregarding a contract. Therefore I support the suggestion made by the hon. member for Melfort that the board should consider making a substantial payment on the 1945 crop.


James Arthur Ross: I am not able to follow' the two hon. members who have just spoken on this question and asked that a substantial payment be made on the 1945 crop, because I do not see why they should not ask for a full settlement for that year. I agree with their arguments otherwise, and I am sure that the Minister of Justice will agree with me, although he may not say so, but I know his ideas on these matters. There is no doubt at all that this is retroactive legislation. The farmers who produced wheat that year fully expected that whatever profits were shown on that year's business would be distributed to them when the business of the year was completed, and not to do so is breaking a contract with them. I do not know why the farmer should be expected to take the word of the government seriously in the future, as the minister has argued, if justice is not to be done to them on the 1945 crop. The government refuses to write into the act what will be done in 1950 about delivery of grain, and I was surprised to hear the Minister of Agriculture argue as he did this afternoon. Even municipal corporations are guided by the statutes governing them, and it does not matter how well intentioned a member of the organization may be; it is what is written in the statute that counts if there is litigation. Good intentions count for nothing; it is what is written that counts. I am surprised that the 1945 crop has been included in the five-year pool. There should be a full settlement made for that year, and then establish the pool from that time on.
Section 5 (section 21) agreed to.
Section 5 (sections 22 and 23) agreed to.
On section 5 (section 24)-Form of certificates.


Mr. JAENICKE:: Subsection 2 provides that no certificate issued under this part shall be transferred or assigned. I agree with that. But I think some provision should be made for cases where the certificates are held bj vendors under agreements for sale or by mortgagees who have been paid in full. The minister will know that in the west agreements for sale are usually on a crop-payment plan, whereby the purchaser delivers a part of the crop against the purchase price. Mortgagees usually demand and get a collateral crop agreement, whereby the mortgagor delivers a portion of the crop to be applied against the
Canadian Wheat Board Act

mortgage. The certificates are issued to the mortgagee and vendor respectively. But it has happened that, when these agreements for sale and mortgages are paid in full, the vendor or mortgagee continues to hold the certificates which will at a later date become payable. Provision ought to be made in this section whereby a producer who is not the actual producer, such as the mortgagee or vendor, may, under regulations issued by the board, be entitled to transfer and assign those certificates back to the actual producer of the grain on whose behalf the certificate was issued. It may be that there is some regulation of the board which covers that, because subsection 2 says: "except as provided by regulation, no certificate . . . shall be transferred or assigned." If there is a regulation covering the point I have mentioned, well and good; if not, I have an amendment to offer.


James Angus MacKinnon: If my hon. friend will look at section 24 (1) (c) he will see that the identical case he mentioned is covered.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: Is there a regulation in force now whereby these certificates may be assigned to the actual producer?


James Angus MacKinnon: There will be regulations covering that point.
Section 5 (section 24) agreed to.
Section 5 (sections 26 to 33 inclusive) agreed to.
On section 5 (section 34)-Police officer, et cetera, may request delivery of permit book.


Calvert Charlton Miller: I wish to make a slight objection on behalf of our party to subsection 4 of section 34. This subsection should be deleted in the interest of humanity, if for no other reason. It deprives a man of the right to have any sort of living. If he has a farm and commits an offence the board can suspend his right to deliver grain. I suggest to the minister for his consideration that that is going a little to the extreme. It is not the man who commits the offence who will suffer; it will be his wife and children. If he commits an offence, fine him; do not deprive him of his livelihood. I suggest, with deference, that the subsection should be deleted. It is not necessary for the enforcement of the provisions of the act.
Mr. A\ RIGHT: I should like to support the remarks of the hon. member for Portage la Prairie. This can be a serious matter to a farm family because their living may be affected. By this subsection you are taking away the right of a man to work and earn a 
living for his family. I do not think it is necessary. A fine is quite sufficient for the purposes.


James Arthur Ross: Will the minister not consider deleting subsection 4 of section 34?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Of course I am not familiar with the trade or the practice, but I am informed that the object of this subsection is to prevent repetitions. It occurs to me that the object of the subsection would be carried out if it were changed in this way:
. . . where a producer is convicted of a second or subsequent offence there shall be a suspension.
I think that would be reasonable.


James Arthur Ross: Under the set-up, the farmer is not permitted to deliver his wheat anywhere else. It must go to the board. This subsection would work a hardship on the farmer who was convicted of an offence. I would suggest that subsections 4 and 5 should be deleted from the section. It seems to be drastic legislation. The board are all-powerful and the grain cannot be delivered anywhere else.


Calvert Charlton Miller: I would suggest to the Minister of Justice that it would be much better if the fine were made higher on the second offence. If a man is suspended from making deliveries he will have to grow the grain anyway and he will not have any granary room. I do not believe this is a sound remedy for the condition that the board has in mind.


Angus MacInnis: I am of the opinion that this subsection is wrong in principle. It imposes economic sanctions against a person after he has undergone the punishment which the law provides.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If the hon. gentlemen wilt permit me, may I say that we consent to the deletion of the subsections.


Calvert Charlton Miller: Subsections 4 and 5?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.
Subsections 4 and 5 of section 34 deleted.


Percy Ellis Wright: Subsection 2 of section 34 provides that a police officer or representative of the board or an inspector may take possession of a permit book and hold it for thirty days. The permit book controls the sale not only of wheat but also of coarse grains. During the time that the farmer has not possession of the permit book, it is impossible for him to deliver any grain. If the board takes away a permit book and the farmer suffers a financial loss as a result of the board holding the permit book and the farmer is proven innocent he should have the right to sue the board for

Canadian Wheat Board Act
any loss which has occurred, because the board seized the book on a charge which they could not substantiate. These permit books are important to the farmer. They are his living. To give the board power to take these permit books indiscriminately-I am not saying that they have done that but there have been cases where the permit books have been held by the board for thirty days-means that the farmer may suffer serious losses. If after the case is heard and no offence is proved against the farmer, the permit books have to be returned, I believe that the board should be responsible for any loss incurred by the farmer, because he has not had the use of his permit book.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It merely delays delivery for a while.


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes; but if, during that period, the price of barley drops ten cents a bushel and the farmer has to sell at ten cents less it may work a hardship on him, particularly if there is an open market. It does not apply to wheat because there is a permanent payment on wheat; it will mean a delay of delivery. But there permits cover coarse grains as well as wheat. On an open market in coarse grains as we may probably have in coarse grains before 1950, I can see where it -would work a serious hardship and losses in some cases.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is necessary that the police officer should be empowered to have the permit book for a while. That is admittedly necessary.


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes, but the board should issue a temporary book in the meantime.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The best we can do on the spur of the moment is to change it to fifteen days. I am willing to do that.


Percy Ellis Wright: That will help.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: Subsection 3 of section 34 remains mandatory. I believe it would cover the situation. It reads:
Where a permit book has been delivered to a police officer or inspector appointed by the board, the board may, in the place of returning the permit book to the person by whom it was delivered as required by subsection 2 of this section, issue a duplicate permit book to him...


William Henry Golding: I would remind hon. members that they should address the Chair. I do not yet know what the minister has proposed.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I move that the word
"thirty" in line 29 be struck out and the word
'*fifteen" substituted therefor, and that the word "thirty" in line 32 be struck out and the word "fifteen" substituted therefor.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section 5 (section 34 as amended) agreed to. Section 5 (sections 35 to 39) agreed to. Section 6 agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN:: We shall now have to return to section 2. Some amendments were proposed and the section was allowed to stand until further consideration could be given it. Is the minister now in a position to take up the section?


James Arthur Ross: When we were discussing the matter the Minister of Trade and Commerce said he would give me the approximate cost of transportation of wheat from Fort William to the United Kingdom. Has he that information?


James Angus MacKinnon: This information was asked for by the hon. member for Souris and also by the hon. member for Cariboo regarding the comparative costs of moving wheat from Canada to the United Kingdom, exclusive of marine insurance, based on No. 2 northern wheat at $1.52 a bushel in store Fort William-Port Arthur or Vancouver. An elaborate statement has been prepared which will be of considerable interest to those engaged in the trade and I suggest that, instead of reading it in detail, I be permitted to put it on Hansard.


James Arthur Ross: That is quite satisfactory. It gives an idea of the cost per bushel?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes. The statement follows:
Comparative Costs of Moving Wheat from Canada to the United Kingdom, exclusive of marine insurance based on 2 northern wheat at $1.52 per bushel in store Fort William, Port Arthur or Vancouver.
Vancouver-Add to price per bushel:
cents
Carrying charges	 3-5
F.O.B. differential	 2-5
Bank charges	 '425
Three rates apply from Vancouver
1.	New tramp rate of 92-6d. per ton=49-924 cents per bushel.
Price delivered to U.K.-$2.08| per bushel.
2.	Timber control rate of 110 shillings per ton = 59-37 cents per bushel.
Price delivered in U.K.-$2,171 per bushel.
3.	U.S.A. flag tramps $19.95 per ton=53-43 cents per bushel.
Price delivered in U.K.-$2,114 per bushel.
Canadian Wheat Board Act

West Saint John
All rail-add 3-5 cents carrying charge and f.o.b. differential of 23-875 cents per bushel.
1.	Tramp rate 10-3d. per quarter=25-816 cents per bushel.
Price delivered in U.K.-$2,054 per bushel.
2.	Liners-'11 * 6d. per quarter=28-965 cents per bushel.
Price delivered in U.K.-$2.08f per bushel. Halifax
All rail plus carrying charges and differentials applying to West Saint John.
1. Tramp rate 9s. 9d. per quarter-24-557 cents per bushel.
Price delivered in U.K.-$2.04 per bushel.
Halifax liner rate same as West Saint John.
West Saint John-lake and rail 15-875 cents
f.o.b. differential plus carrying charge of 3-5c.
1.	Tramp rate-10s. 3d. per quarter=25-816 cents per bushel.
Price delivered in U.K.-$ 1.97^ per bushel.
2.	Liners-11s. 6d. per quarter = 28-965 cents per bushel.
Price delivered in U.K.-$2,001 per bushel Halifax-lake and rail same differential as for
West Saint John.
1.	Tramp rate 9s. 9d. per quarter=24-557 cents per bushel.
Price delivered in U.K.-$1-96 per bushel.
2.	Liners-same as West Saint John.
St. Lawrence-lake and rail 13| cents f.o.b.
differential plus carrying charge of 3-5 cents.
1. Tramp rate-10s. 9d. per quarter=27-076 cents per bushel.
Price delivered in U.K.-$1,951 per bushel.
St. Lawrence-all water-f.o.b. differential of
12 cents.
Price delivered in U.K.-$1,944 per bushel.


Percy Ellis Wright: Has the minister a statement now with regard to the quota and the way in which it is determined? If so, he might put it on the record.


James Angus MacKinnon: That is, the authorized acreage?


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes.


James Angus MacKinnon: In 1941-42 the board established an authorized acreage for each farm unit in the designated area. This acreage was established to provide an equitable basis for a restricted total marketing within any one crop year. The original basis was sixty-five per cent of the 1940 seeded acreage of each farm unit. In any one year acreages may not be normal. A producer might have an exceptionally large acreage of wheat or an exceptionally small acreage, depending upon his seeding plans for the year. This actually happened in 1940, and consequently the board was ready at all times to adjust authorized acreages of growers who were at a disadvantage as a result of the distribution of their acreages in 1940. In addition, new land has 
been coming into cultivation in the prairies each year and provision was made to establish authorized acreages for such farms. As a result of the long period of drought in southern Saskatchewan in the thirties, full recovery in wheat acreage had not been made by 1940 on a great many individual farms. This factor was taken into consideration by the board in subsequent revisions of authorized acreages.
The hon. member for Calgary East and afterwards the hon. member for Portage la Prairie, I believe, asked as to the cost of the quota department for 1945-46. That cost was $100,389.10 and was paid by the dominion government.
The second question was as to the cost of permit books. That was $4,097.70, and that amount is included in the sum I. have just given, paid by the dominion government. A total of 261,000 permit books of twelve pages were printed.


Percy Ellis Wright: The minister's answer does not cover the point I raised. I knew all that he has told me. The point I raised was that today when a farmer applies for a quota there is a different formula used in determining his quota as between different parts of the provinces, different parts of western Canada. What I asked was as to the formulas that were being used at the present time by the board in determining the acreage in various sections of western Canada, because we are being approached quite often on that point by farmers who want to know what formulas the board uses in determining a man's acreage. A neighbour of mine has a section of land and his brother has a section in the southern part of the province. Both applied to have their quotas adjusted. They got entirely different results, and they want to know and, I think, we should know, what formula the board is using and the reason for applying these different formulas. I can see that a different formula should be used, and all I want to know is what formula is being used.


James Angus MacKinnon: It has been suggested to me that when the agriculture committee meets to discuss the wheat board's report there will be present Mr. Malahar, the official in charge of authorized acreage, and he can be thoroughly examined on this point there.


Percy Ellis Wright: That will be satisfactory, but I should like the board to take this as notice that the question will be raised there so that we can have the information at that time.


James Angus MacKinnon: Quite so.


William Henry Golding: I have been trying to follow this discussion.

Canadian Wheat Board Act
We had an amendment moved by the hon. member for High Park. Has that been dealt with?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


William Henry Golding: Then that amendment is that there be added immediately before subsection 2 of section 4 the following words, "That, subject to the provisions of subsection 1 of this section", and so forth, has consideration been given to that amendment?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Consideration has been given to the hon. members' amendments. We feel we cannot accept them. The object of the amendments seems to be to make this board subject to suit in the provincial courts like an ordinary corporation instead of preserving its status as an agent of the crown for suit purposes. We have talked this matter over among ourselves, and we consider there are very good reasons why the Canadian wheat board should be clearly recognized as an agency of the crown and that actions against the Canadian wheat board should be by petition of right in the exchequer court.
I do not want to get into a long, hairsplitting, legal discussion if I can avoid it, particularly since in some respects the law may not be entirely clear. But, as the act now stands, there is no doubt that amounts to farmers due on participation certificates cannot be attached for debt, and that is the way we want it to be for reasons which we think are good. If we were to accept the hon. gentlemen's amendments I think we would just have to put in a special section protecting these payments against garnishee proceedings, which could be done with some little trouble. But, as the act stands now, that is not necessary. There is no doubt that they are exempt from garnishee proceedings.
As the act stands now, on the state of the decisions in Canada, actions to be brought against the board must be brought in the exchequer court. As to the type of action that may be brought against this board it might be for an accounting; and if actions for accounting, based upon small claims particularly, are brought in the various provinces- one action in Alberta, another action in Saskatchewan and another in Manitoba, for example-at different times, two things occur. In the first place, the inconvenience to the board is extreme to the point where the operations of the board might be seriously dislocated; whereas, if an action is brought in one court, particularly if more than one action is brought and these actions were consolidated in one court such as the exchequer court, the
dislocation is much less extreme; the litigant, if he wishes to go to the Supreme Court of Canada, gets there much faster, and there is not the danger of conflicting decisions from the courts of the various provinces. We have therefore come to the conclusion that there is a particularly good reason here why actions against the Canadian wheat board should be brought in the Exchequer Court of Canada instead of in the courts of the various provinces. As the act is now, we believe that to be the case.
There is a second reason why it is most important that actions be dealt with just as expeditiously as possible, and that there be unanimity and consistency in the decisions. If actions against the board, such as actions for accounting, are not dealt with expeditiously, distribution may be held up. The board conducts its affairs prudently. If an action is brought, based upon the claim that the amount of the participation should be nine and a quarter cents a bushel instead of nine cents a bushel, or something of that kind, the normal way for the board to act would be for it to cease distribution- although it might be about to distribute $60 million or $100 million or something like that-until that action is settled. Therefore the procedure against the board should be procedure which is likely to be most expeditious and which will minimize the danger of conflict between the courts in the various provinces.
Yesterday the hon. gentleman mentioned the question of torts. We think that the only torts which would likely arise would be possible cases of negligence, such as those arising out of the operation of motor cars by employees of the company or something of that kind. The exchequer court has jurisdiction over claims of that sort. If there are any other wrongs or torts, generally speaking-although I may not be 100 per cent correct in what I say-the crown is not liable but the servants of the crown are liable. That again, I think, should be enough opportunity. Altogether, we have come to the conclusion that we should make it clear in this bill that this agency is really an agency of the crown which should be proceeded against as such in the regular way in which actions are brought against agencies of the crown.


John Thomas Hackett: What the minister has
said is, I think, one of the disturbing features of this bill. The crown enters the field of commerce and in its transactions ceases to be subject to the ordinary rules which govern and control financial and commercial trans-
Canadian Wheat Board Act

actions. Immediately parliament loses its control; contracts cease to be enforceable, and the courts are ousted of their jurisdiction.


James Lorimer Ilsley: In what way are the courts ousted of their jurisdiction, and why do contracts cease to be enforceable?


John Thomas Hackett: Just because it is impossible for a person to enforce his contract until he has the approval or the consent of the attorney general.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Which he gets as a matter of course.


John Thomas Hackett: Which he gets when it
pleases the incumbent of that office to issue it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Which is obvious.


John Thomas Hackett: And in this regard there have been abuses. The point that I wish to accentuate at the moment is that, day by day, we are seeing our ordinary transactions, which in the past were governed by contract and controlled by the courts, lifted from the area in which they had play in the past and brought into a special jurisdiction which is always subject to the let and hindrance of some bureaucratic power. It is that thread of compulsion which runs through this whole bill which is repugnant to a person who believes in what some are pleased to call capitalism and what others are pleased to call private enterprise.
The other evening I heard the hon. member for Calgary West say that this bill had as its only excuse a bad contract which had been entered into by the government in power, and that we must honour that contract even though it was an unfortunate one, that we must subject ourselves to coercive measures in order that it be fulfilled. I admit that the undertaking to Britain must be carried out, however burdensome it may be, but there comes a time when good reasons to serve bad causes are a bit wearisome. I wish to make my position clear. I have very little sympathy with this type of legislation; I am opposed to it and, if it were fully and completely understood, I believe most of the people of my province would be opposed to it.
This denial of access to the courts, this doing away with the ordinary arbiter of trade and commerce and subjecting everything to the arbitrary wish of one man is a mistake. I admit that, as long as the minister who sits opposite is in office, it is unlikely that there will be any difficulty in getting a fiat, but the fact is that we are placing ourselves under a yoke. I dislike a yoke, it is high time to free ourselves from this type of restriction, this type of yoke, and this type of socialism.


William Alexander McMaster: I am not so much concerned with my amendment to subsection 1, because I believe the trend of decisions in England at the present time is toward giving full effect to the express words of the action, so that it probably does not make very much difference. Also in all probability my amendment is out of order, since subsection 1 is not before the committee. As far as my other amendment is concerned, however, I wish to direct attention to the fact that the courts have stated that simply creating a corporation is not sufficiently explicit to give it all the attributes of a corporation if it is the crown that happens to be the corporation. How can any court forget that fact when it is brought out in the very next subsection? After saying it is a corporation which can sue and be sued, the next clause to meet the eye of the court states that for all purposes the board is an agent of His Majesty in the right of Canada and that its powers under this act may be exercised by it only as an agent of His Majesty in the said right. That clause must have been put in for some reason. It was not put in, I assume, for the purpose of rendering nugatory the previous subsection, but I am afraid that will be the result. All I am asking is that there be included at the beginning of subsection 2 the words, "Subject to the provisions of subsection 1 of this section." That is to keep in force, notwithstanding these words in subsection 2 that we have before us now, the full force it was intended subsection 1 should have; and I cannot see any reason in the world why that should not be done.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know whether the hon. gentleman desires me to answer and prolong the discussion, but I do not see the need for those words and I do not know the effect of them. Certainly a body corporate may be an agent. Subsection 1 says this body, this board, is a body corporate, and the second subsection says it operates as an agent of the crown. I see no inconsistency. It may sue and be sued. If it is sued, the proceeding is brought against the crown.


Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he really thinks any danger to the operation of this act would result from accepting the suggestion of the hon. member for Stanstead, and whether the minister is content to have this immunity extended to all kinds of corporations set up under the aegis of government; whether it is necessary, and whether it is sound.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. gentleman has raised a broad question, as to whether there

Canadian Wheat Board Act
should be any necessity for a fiat at all, and I have an open mind on that. But certainly I do not think the necessity for a fiat should be eliminated for the Canadian wheat board and required for every other person who brings an action against the crown.


William Alexander McMaster: I should say it is necessary in every case. If it were not that we are now introducing subsection 2 I do not think a fiat would be necessary, because by that subsection you make the wheat board a corporation.


Calvert Charlton Miller: Would you care to add the words, "without a fiat"?


James Lorimer Ilsley: There would be no justification for that. The matter of the necessity of a fiat is a broad question, as to which I say I have an open mind. The socialist government of Great Britain, which I presume my hon. friends would like to follow as much as they can in everything-


James Arthur Ross: Be careful where you are looking.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I mean my hon. friends opposite, who are practically asking that at the present time. The government of Great Britain have introduced legislation doing away with the necessity for fiats. I also understand that in one province in Canada the power to withhold a fiat is a real thing; that is, it is withheld on occasion. Here we do not do that.


William Alexander McMaster: We do not really understand why the socialist government of Canada should act differently from the socialist government of the United Kingdom.


William Henry Golding: Does the hon. member withdraw his amendment?


William Alexander McMaster: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
William Henry Golding: Then subsections 2 and 3 of section 5 of the act, which are under section 3 of the bill dealing with profits and losses, were left over for further consideration.


William Alexander McMaster: I believe the hon. member for Haldimand moved an amendment to paragraph (e) of subsection 3 of section 2.


William Henry Golding: Yes. We have that amendment, and we may as well deal with it now.
On section 2-Board to be an agent of His Majesty.
The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Goldingl: It has been moved by Mr. Senn, seconded by
Mr. Ross (Souris), that section 2 be amended by deleting from the first line of paragraph (e) of subsection 3 thereof the words "notwithstanding anything contained in" and substituting therefor the words ''pursuant to the provisions of". That is in connection with the Civil Service Act. This matter was left over for further consideration.


James Angus MacKinnon: I have explained that this point was considered when the original act was drafted in 1935. and at that time it was felt that the board would be unable to obtain the specialized skill and experience they required as easily and expeditiously if its employees were placed under the regulation of the civil service commission. In an effort to inform myself on the merits of the amendment, I spoke to officials of the civil service commission, who point out that there would be three classes of employees. First, there are the labourers who would be outside the authority of the civil service. Then, there is the technical staff made up of qualified men with experience in the grain business. Some special arrangement would have to be made in connection with these people between the board and the commission. It was not a matter that the commission would attempt to handle wholly by themselves. Then they said they would be quite ready to look after the employment of clerical staff. In answer to my question, they pointed out that this would necessitate increasing to a certain extent the present civil service commission staff in Winnipeg.
The members of the Canadian wheat board are. very much opposed, for reasons which they hold strongly, to bringing their employees, senior or junior, under the civil service commission. Today some thirty delegates representing the Canadian Federation of Agriculture met the cabinet to make certain representations along agricultural lines. During his presentation, the head of one of the western pools drew the attention of the government to the motion of the hon. member for Haldimand. He said he did this because he wanted to take strong exception to the wheat board being put under the control of the civil service commission.
He said he was speaking for the Manitoba pool, for the Saskatchewan pool, for the Alberta pool and for the United Grain Growers. He felt very strongly and I asked if he would mind being quoted. He said no, that he would be quite ready to be quoted.
I have heard no criticism, and I am sure there has never been any whatsoever, regarding the employment of staff for the Canadian wheat board. Certainly there have been no
Canadian Wheat Board Act

charges of political partisanship in connection with the employment of any of these people. I should like if the hon. member would not press his motion because we do not feel we can accept it.


Mr. SENN:: The minister pointed out that a similar clause was inserted in the original bill passed in 1935. That may be true, but it is also true that at that time it was never contemplated that the wheat board might become a permanent institution. I felt, and others felt with me, that if it were to be a permanent institution employing a number of officials of different kinds, those officials should enjoy the benefits of superannuation under the Civil Service Act. However I am not here to press a motion of this kind if it will embarrass the wheat board' or the government, and I shall be glad to consider it withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Sale and disposal of grain.
James Lorimer Ilsley: The question of profits and losses was raised by the hon. member for Humboldt and others. Last night I argued that, in so far as operations in wheat are concerned, this section is all right. My argument was that we would have to act either on one theory or the other; that is, that both profits and losses would1 be for producers' account or that neither profits nor losses would be for producers' account on non-producer wheat. I argued that that was all right. However the hon. gentleman made a perfectly valid point in my judgment when he said that the section was wide enough to cover coarse grains, so that I should like to move:
That clause 3 of Bill No. 23 be amended by inserting in line 12 after the word "act" where it appears therein the words "in wheat."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 5.
James Lorimer Ilsley: I should like to move:
That clause 5 of Bill No. 23 be amended by inserting at the commencement of subsection 1 of section 13 the words "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Canada Grain Act."
There is the same necessity for the insertion of those words in section 13 as there was for amending the section that was amended in the same way last night. Section 13 will then read:
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Canada Grain Act, except with the permission of the board, no person shall deliver grain . . .
Otherwise there would be a conflict between the two acts. While the latter act probably would prevail, these words make it perfectly clear.


George Hugh Castleden: What is the particular point of conflict?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Under the Canada Grain Act, the elevator has to take grain when it is brought along, provided that there is space for it. Under this act, the wheat board may regulate deliveries under a quota system. The two acts were in conflict and we want this act to prevail.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
On the title.
Thomas Miller Bell: I was unavoidably
absent on Monday when this bill was up for second reading and there are a few things I should like to say. First of all, I should like to say we have supported -the general principles of this bill and we hope it will work out to the benefit of both the producers and the people of Canada. There has been a tremendous amount of discussion during this debate as to the value of legislation of this description, particularly as to the value of the United Kingdom wheat agreement with which this bill has much to do. It seems that every attempt has been made by our hon friends to the right to undermine this act and to make it more difficult to understand the agreement. I can well understand that because, when the agreement with Great Britain was before us last August, we had a clear indication of their attitude. The leader of -the opposition, in speaking to the British agreement on August 15, 1946, at page 4822 of Hansard, said this:
It is a bad bargain also because it will create friction between Britain and Canada. If in two or three years from now the world price of wheat is low and Britain does not come through with a higher price to us than the world price then is, we shall feel that she has reneged on this agreement. On the other hand, if two or three years from now, when the world price of wheat may be low, we press Britain to pay ns more than the world price, she will feel that we are unreasonable. So I say that the proposal is altogether likely to create friction between this country and Britain.
And then on- the same -page, 4822, he said:
I predict that in two years time, or a little more, this agreement will blow up, when the advantages to Britain are gone -and when her own people will be wanting to get food at the world price, as they have always wanted to, and when the world price will probably be lower than it is now.
In dealing with this particular measure designed to give orderly marketing and to fulfil the agreement which has been made, I

Canadian Wheat Board Act
think it is interesting to note that the criticism made in August is different from the criticism made now. Then the criticism was that the world price would have fallen so disastrously that the British people would want to renege on the deal.
Mr. 1IACKETT: When was that?


Major James William Coldwell: August, 1946.


John Thomas Hackett: Two years ago, nearly.


Major James William Coldwell: 
John Bracken: I think the remarks of the leader of the C.C.F. party deserve some comment in view of the fact that he has tried to pin on this party a point of view that we have never expressed. There has never been any statement by us that the government of Britain would refuse to carry out the contract.

Canadian Wheat Board Act


Major James William Coldwell: I have read it from the record.


John Bracken: You did not read anything of the kind.


Major James William Coldwell: I read the statement from your own speech on the record.


John Bracken: You did not read anything where we said that the government of Britain would refuse to carry out its contract. What we said was this-the hon. member has the statement and I do not have it-we said that at a certain time there would be discussions as to whether the price of wheat should be $1 a bushel or more, or $1.25 a bushel or more. We said that this agreement has been interpreted as meaning that, because Britain now is allowed to purchase our wheat at forty or fifty cents, or more, below the world price, and that when they came to make another agreement for the 1948-1949 crop they would then pay more than the world price because of having got our wheat now at less than the world price. What I said was that if we did not then get more than the world price, Britain might be interpreted as reneging on this arrangement; also that if we expected considerably more than the world price, then we might be regarded there as being unreasonable. These results may still come if, in the later years, considerably more than the price is not obtained, provided that the world price is low.
Britain can carry out this agreement without increasing its price above the world price, because all they undertook to do under paragraph (b) of section 2 was as follows:
In determining the prices for these two crop years, 4948-49 and 1949-50, the United Kingdom government will have regard to any difference between the prices paid under this agreement in the 1946-47 and 4947-48 crop years and the world prices for wheat in the 1946-47 and 1947-48 crop years.
The British government "will have regard" to it. There is nothing in the agreement saying that they will make up at that time for the advantage which they have gained now. They will only have to "have regard" for it. It might be only a cent a bushel; it might be five cents. But at the present time they are getting an advantage of fifty cents and more per bushel.
If it was intended in 1948 and 1949 that Britain should make up for the advantage they are gaining now, it could have been put in the contract. It was not put there. Now, when these prices come to be adjusted, if an additional price approaching the advantage Britain now has is not put in, there will be some misunderstanding here. There might be

some feeling that Britain had not carried out what was represented to be the intent of this measure, but nothing specific was put in the bill. All they have undertaken to do is to "have regard" for the advantage now given; that is all. If it was meant that they should pay fifty cents a bushel or more, then, because they are getting an advantage of fifty cents a bushel or more now, it should have been put in the agreement and, then there could not have been any misunderstanding.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said that this bill could have been improved in certain particulars. Certainly it could. This government leaves the impression that it stands for parity prices, for fair prices. The policy of this bill will not give fair prices. The ministers themselves have admitted that farmers may not get more than $1.35 a bushel for the next five years. There is not a student of agriculture in this committee who will agree that that is a parity price or a fair price for these five years. It will not give stability on a parity level, or on a level which will assure a fair price to farmers for their wheat.


Mr. FLEMING:: Mr. Chairman-


William Henry Golding: There is no place at this time for a general discussion on the bill. The leader of the C.C.F. intimated that he would be away and asked permission to make a statement; the committee granted it. The leader of the opposition has made his position clear, but there is no room for further debate on the bill.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I trust you are not making a ruling, because there are other things that flow from the remarks of the leader of the C.C.F. which some of us who have thus far refrained from participating in this debate feel that we should have the right to answer at this time.


William Henry Golding: Order. I would call the hon. member's attention to the fact that such a discussion can be had on third reading of the bill if it is desired.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With respect, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has been permitted to make his statement.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Henry Golding: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am speaking to the point of order. Whether rightly or wrongly, the fact is that you have admitted a statement from the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar.

Canadian Wheat Board Act-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: The committee admitted it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: How many chairmen are there? Having admitted that, and the statement having been made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, which cannot be allowed to pass unchallenged, I submit that any hon. member, particularly those who have refrained from participating in the debate up to this time, should not be precluded from his right to reply. That is my point of order, Mr. Chairman. I ask for that right, not as a privilege but as a right.


William Henry Golding: The leader of the official opposition replied to the remarks made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. As I said before, if hon. members wish to take advantage of it there will be an opportunity to speak on third reading, but this is not the place for a general discussion. If the hon. member is given the right to speak I see other hon. members who would also like to speak. Shall the title carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Arthur Leroy Smith: No.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, is it your ruling that I cannot speak?


William Henry Golding: It this time, yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With respect, I appeal from your ruling.


William Henry Golding: I have given my ruling that at this stage of the bill there is no place for a general discussion which is apt to take place if it is permitted at all. The hon. member for Eglin-ton has appealed against the ruling. If five hon. members rise in their places I shall have to report to the Chair.


John Bracken: May I make one observation, Mr. Chairman? You say that you are not allowing any general discussion at this stage of the bill. You did allow a general discussion on all phases of the bill by the leader of the C.C.F. party.


James Arthur Ross: That is right.


John Bracken: I knew nothing of that. I took up just one aspect of his argument and endeavoured to answer it. There are other phases that deserve to be answered. I submit that since you have made a ruling to permit the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar to speak you cannot deny others the right to speak.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: Mr. Chairman, would you explain to the committee why you called the preamble if it is not permissible to say anything on it?


William Henry Golding: Order. The leader of the opposition stated that I permitted the leader of the C.C.F. party to make a statement. The hon. member appealed to the committee and the committee granted him the privilege of speaking.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John Bracken: The committee certainly would not deny him the right to speak.


William Henry Golding: He rose in his place and asked for the right to speak.


Major James William Coldwell: I said I regretted that I would not be here on Monday and that I would be glad to make a statement which I did.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Chairman, when this measure first went into committee I attempted to discuss the bill on what I said was the preamble. You distinctly said that we were on section 1 and that the preamble would be called at the completion of the bill and that we could discuss it there, and on your calling the preamble the leader of the C.C.F. rose in his place and said he had not been here and wished to make a few general remarks, which you permitted him to do.


William Henry Golding: The hon. gentleman is not correct in that.


James Arthur Ross: Hansard will bear me out.


William Henry Golding: The preamble was carried-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: It was not.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, yes.


William Henry Golding: -and then I asked whether the bill carried.


Major James William Coldwell: The title.


William Henry Golding: The title rather; and when I asked that question the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar rose and asked for permission to speak and it was granted. It was not the Chair.


John Bracken: Mr. Chairman, the fact is you permitted discussion by the leader of the C.C.F. and now you are denying it to others.


William Henry Golding: It was not I who granted the permission but
Canadian Wheat Board Act

the committee. If .hon. members wish to make general remarks they can speak on the third reading of the bill.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, with great respect, I should like to make two brief comments.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


William Henry Golding: If the hon. member has the permission of the committee.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, very
briefly I wish to comment on two outstanding facts in the light of the remarks of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. The first is this, that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, in a speech in the Canadian House of Commons, has referred to a statement made by a British minister of the crown in Canada within the past forty-eight hours and concerning a matter which throughout this entire week has been under debate in the Canadian House of Commons. I contend that it is not only bad taste but that it is entirely improper for any member of the British government coming to these shores to comment on a subject which is under debate in the Canadian House of Commons, and proof of the fact that it is entirely improper lies in this, that a member of the Canadian House of Commons has seen fit to tiy to buttress a very weak argument on his part by quoting the remarks made by that member of the British government in Canada at the very time this measure has been under debate in the Canadian House of Commons.
I hope that if the position had been reversed and there had been in the United Kingdom, at the time when a measure was under debate in the parliament at Westminster, a member of the Canadian government, that member of the Canadian government would have had the good sense, good taste and good judgment to refrain from comment on that matter while it was under debate in the parliament of the land that was showing him hospitality.
The second point is this. It will not have escaped the attention of this house, not only tonight but on previous occasions, that the C.C.F. has now undertaken to set itself up as the champion of the British government in this country. The only comment that some of us would have to make on that is this: What a change since 1939!


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, may I
rise on a matter of privilege.
[The Acting Chairman.]


Arthur Leroy Smith: Mr. Chairman-


Major James William Coldwell: I am rising to a question of privilege.


William Henry Golding: The hon. member may proceed if it is a question of privilege.


Major James William Coldwell: I resent the statement
that anyone in this party pretends to speak in defence of the British government, but I do say that when the British government or any government I respect is slandered or libeled someone should make reply in this Canadian House of Commons.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Mr. Chairman, you know-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Leroy Smith: We have
certain myths in Canada, ogres and bogeymen, and if the one over here does not stop soon I will give him some attention. We will let that go for the moment. I have this to say about the bill before us, and I am asking if I am correct in using the expression that the Minister of Agriculture used the other night. He used two words; one was "imagination'' and the other was "surmise". He can define them as he wishes, but am I correct in bringing the matter on to a factual basis when I say that this is the truth? We have guaranteed a price of $1.35 under a contract. I do not think I am in error in any way in that statement. What we have done is this. We have arranged for $1.55; then for $1.25 and then for $1 as a floor basis. That, of course, is surmise. In other words, the Minister of Agriculture is selling a billion dollars worth of Canadian grain short. That is exactly what he is doing-I mean the Minister of Trade and Commerce; I am sorry. It is the Minister of Trade and Commerce, with the assistance of the Minister of Agriculture, and you can interpret the word "assistance" in any way you like. In any event, the responsibility lies with the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Here is what I have in mind, and I am sorry to have a suspicious mind, but these are the simple facts. The farmer today gets $1.55, while the price is away beyond that. He gets $1.35, I should have said, while the price is $1.55.


James Garfield Gardiner: He gets $1.55 from Britain for the two first crops.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The government gets $1.55 but the farmer gets $1.35.


James Garfield Gardiner: The farmer gets it.

Canadian Wheat Board Act


Arthur Leroy Smith: Ultimately, maybe. Are we in agreement now? Then what happens next? Having sold this tremendous amount of short wheat, they anticipate a drop in price in the last two years. They may be right; I do not know. But the policy of the government is this, and this is the great thing they lean on with respect to stability for the Canadian farmer, that he has this base price, this initial price, and with his own money they permit him to get that lower price throughout the years. That is a possibility. I am not suggesting that is bound to happen, because my imagination and my surmises are not nearly as good as those of the Minister of Agriculture, even though he has had a great deal of practice in that sort of thing during the past few years. And so we have that possibility, even probability if you like; so that he is now storing up money which is being retained by the dominion government, and they have absolutely refused to tell us what it is.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: On a point of
order, Mr. Chairman. There is no member in this house I enjoy listening to more than the member for Calgary West. He is always interesting and we can hear him; he is also a very fine gentleman, but I want to know what your ruling is. Are we in order or not? If we are in order, I wish to speak on poultry and eggs.


William Henry Golding: Shall the title carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I know perfectly well, Mr. Chairman, that there is no conspiracy between you and1 the hon. member for Fraser Valley because both of you are wonderful gentlemen who would not descend to that. I should be very happy to have the hon. member for Fraser Valley answer me. I might even get a basket of peaches from him next fall similar to those he spread around here last year. But I want to continue.


James Garfield Gardiner: This is out of order.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: Speaking to this point of order-


William Henry Golding: Order.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I will sit down, Mr. Chairman, but when I sit down, do not say, "Does it carry?". I have the floor and I am consenting that my hon. friend should speak.


James Sinclair: The point of order is that, according to the ruling which you gave some moments ago, Mr. Chairman, this is not the place for general discussion. The hon. member for Eglinton actually raised- a question of privilege which I think we would all agree with. But if there is to be general discussion, I think you should so rule, because your ruling so far has been that there is not to be general discussion on the bill.


William Henry Golding: The hon. member for Eglinton did state that he was going to speak for only a couple of minutes.


James Sinclair: It was privileged.


William Henry Golding: We gave him that privilege. I would remind the hon. member for Calgary West that he is out of order now, but he can make the sort of speech he was making after the committee has reported the bill and it is up for third reading.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am quite sure that is very satisfactory.


James Sinclair: It does not have to be satisfactory. It is according to Beauchesne.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Please do not put the question, Mr. Chairman, while I am on my feet unless I am wrongly on my feet. If I assure you that I will not take any more than two minutes, may I have the floor?


Mr. MACKENZIE:: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman, for the first time in this discussion.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I have not been asked to sit down on this point of order. I have the floor.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend has been incorrectly on his feet for the last twenty minutes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am speaking to a point of order.


An hon. MEMBER:: You should get a watch.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Unfortunately, I have to watch you. I submit, with all respect, Mr. Chairman, that you have ruled that this discussion is definitely out of order. I am not stating it is or is not, but you have so ruled.


William Henry Golding: Yes.
Agricultural Products


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If any hon. gentleman disagrees with your ruling, the procedure is laid down in the rules of this house; but there should not be general discussion all round, meaning nothing and leading to nothing.


Arthur Leroy Smith: May I, Mr. Chairman, speaking first to the point of order, resent the anger in the voice of my very old friend, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. Apparently he does not know his rules. He has said so often that he does, that I have always accepted what he said; but this time he is quite wrong. Are you ruling that on the present thing before the committee- and "thing" is the word I used-that I may not speak generally on the bill? If you do, I accept your ruling with the best grace I have, and I will sit down; but I have not understood that.


William Henry Golding: I rule in that way, and I think that ruling is absolutely correct. The hon. member will have an opportunity to speak, as will any others who so desire, on the third reading of the bill.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Then may I bow to your ruling and only hope that the applause I got was not hysterical.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.


James Garfield Gardiner: That the order passed today respecting the resolution with regard to the purchase, sale and export of agricultural products be rescinded, and that the house go into committee of the whole on the said resolution this day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Gardiner thereupon moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the purchase, sale and export of of agricultural products, for the functions and powers of the minister, of commodity boards and of provincial marketing boards in relation thereto, for the employment of officers, clerks and employees necessary for the proper administration of the act and the payment of their expenses and remuneration out of moneys appropriated by parliament for such purpose, and for the creation of a special account in the consolidated revenue fund called the agricultural products account, and to provide further that expenditures, other than the administrative expenses [The Acting Chairman.]
above mentioned, shall be paid out of moneys appropriated by parliament or out of the agricultural products account.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.
James Garfield Gardiner: The resolution which has just been read is preceding a bill which I propose to submit for the consideration of the committee and the house; and I am1 doing it this evening because of the suggestion made this afternoon that the bill might be introduced before we returned to a discussion of the speech from the throne. I do not know exactly what is the desire of members who wished that to be done, but I would imagine that the main reason for the desire to have the resolution discussed in committee and, if possible, agreed to, would be for the purpose of having the bill itself submitted to members of the house. I understand that at least some of those with that desire in mind thought it would be somewhat delayed in getting into the hands of members of the house if we returned to a discussion of the speech from the throne on Monday and then did not get back to a discussion of this bill until a week or ten days hence. I can understand that being the desire of members of the committee and I can also understand it being the desire of others.
We have in the city of Ottawa at present a large delegation of representatives of farm organizations who came here from all across Canada for the purpose of presenting their point of view to the government of Canada on the question of introducing a marketing act at this particular session or at this time. I may state to the committee this evening that they made their presentation this morning and at the same time they presented a model bill which they hoped at some time, either at this session or at some other session, might be presented to this house. I recalled the fact that in 1939 and 1940, just at the beginning of the war, a similar delegation approached the government asking it to place on the statute books of Canada a marketing act which would supplement the acts which at that time had been placed on the statute books of a number of the provinces, more particularly British Columbia. Since that time, I believe marketing acts have been passed by all the provinces, and they have all made appeals to us to place on the statute books of Canada a marketing act which would be supplemental to the marketing acts of the provinces and would make provision in general terms for dealing with the interprovincial and international marketing of Canadian farm products, over which the provinces have no authority or control.

Agricultural Products
At the time that proposal was made, just at the beginning of the war, I suggested that I thought it would be necessary throughout the war period that any boards set up to handle the marketing of farm products should be under the control of the federal government and under the War Measures Act, and that any authority they might have during the war period should be under the War Measures Act. That suggestion was accepted at that time; and today, for the first time since then, we had a proposal that a marketing act be introduced. In making that proposal to the government, the representatives of the farm organizations read a resolution, the second clause of which was to the effect that what they desired to have done in a marketing act was to legalize a continuation of much that had been done throughout the war under the boards set up under the War Measures Act. I suggested to them this morning that there was on the order paper a resolution which might be discussed in the house today, and that the objective of the resolution and of the legislation based upon it would be to continue in effect the powers we had been given during the war under the War Measures Act, through the different orders in council.
The first of these orders in council is P.C. 2138, dated May 23, 1940, which is known as the dairy products regulations. That has been amended by order in council on five different occasions: by P.C. 143, of January 10, 1941; P.C. 515 of January 29, 1941; P.C. 1984 of March 23, 1941; P.C. 3197 of May 7, 1941, and P.C. 5827 of July 29, 1941. It is under those orders in council that we have been marketing cheese, canned milk and other products down to the present time, and it is suggested that the authority we were given to make contracts with Great Britain for the delivery of cheese, canned milk and other dairy products should be extended under the bill which will be presented if this resolution is adopted.
I am giving rather a full account of what is in the bill itself, because I understand I must have unanimous consent in order to present the bill and have it given first reading, and if that is permitted I should like to have as much information as possible before the committee. The second main order in council was P.C. 2520 dated April 15, 1941, the special products regulations, as amended by P.C. 4211 of June 17, 1941; P.C. 2164 of March 20, 1942, and P.C. 9158 of October 6, 1942. That original order, together with the amending orders, are the authority under which all agricultural products in connection with which we have contracts with Great 83166-59
Britain, such as beans, apples and other products of that kind, have been dealt with'. The other main order in council is P.C. 4187 dated June 3, 1943, known as the meat board regulations. If I had started at the beginning in relation to the meat board regulations I should have gone back to the fall of 1939. The first order in council we had giving authority to make contracts with Great Britain had to do with bacon. It was first passed merely as a regulation empowering us to make contracts for the sale of bacon to the British food mission.


Mark Cecil Senn: These are the orders in council under which these various boards were set up?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, the three main ones, as I shall explain in a moment; but the one I am- dealing with now really had its beginning back in 1939. In 1943, when we began to make contracts with Great Britain to deliver not only bacon but also beef, lamb and mutton, it was changed from a baoon board to a meat board. All the preceding orders in council were brought together in the order in council passed in 1943, called the meat board regulations. It is the principle contained in those three original orders, and the amending orders, which is contained in the legislation I propose to bring before the house, which gives us authority to continue to carry on the dairy regulations, the special products regulations, and the regulations with regard to the sale of meat. I should repeat that the special products regulations give us wide authority to make contracts in connection with all other farm products except dairy and meat products. I should explain to the committee, I think, that, in addition to dealing with the contracts already entered into, the special products order in council, and therefore the act based upon it, contemplates giving authority to the special products board to enter into new agreements. The only agreement we have in mind at the moment is in connection with apples. During the war we have been handling apples under special orders in council, which made provision for cash, payments to apple producers where losses otherwise would have been taken, outside the special products marketing regulations themselves. For some time now, negotiations have been going on between Great Britain and the apple producers, particularly those of the maritime provinces and British Columbia, for the marketing of apples to Great Britain under contract, and we had it in mind that those negotiations should continue, as they could continue under the special products regulations.



Agricultural Products
The only o-ther fact that I think I should place before the committee at the moment is with regard to the terms of the bill. Under the bill, authority is being asked for only twelve months or until sixty days after the beginning of the next session of parliament. We are prepared to bring this legislation back every session in order to report on what has taken place under the agreements and to get authority to proceed for another twelve months. I should like to say it is not anticipated that we would get any other result at the end of each session than the authority to continue to a conclusion the contracts which have been entered into for the delivery of bacon, cheese and other commodities of that kind to Great Britain over the period of years or the period of months which would carry us through to the end of 1948 in some cases and into 1949 in others.
As I say, the bill will terminate in a year or within sixty days after the house meets, but our intention is that in coming back we would in all probability get the support of the house at least to carry out the contracts whcih have been made. I should like to place myself in the hands of the committee to answer any questions that may be asked.


Grote Stirling: Did I understand the minister to say that the existing boards will be empowered only to carry out transactions connected with agreements which the government has entered into with other countries, or will this bill enable the boards to carry out other undertakings which they have taken on with regard to shipments out of one province into another province?


James Garfield Gardiner: The bill will cover interprovincial and international shipments.


Grote Stirling: Not only connected with the agreement?


James Garfield Gardiner: Not only connected with the agreement. It does provide authority to deal with interprovincial transactions.


Mr. REID:: Is there anything new in the legislation proposed by the bill? I ask that question in view of the representations made by members of the federation of agriculture who are here and who have been looking for some legislation apart from what is contained in the orders in council.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that the persons representing the farm organizations who are here, particularly those representing farmers who are interested in the sale of apples which is one of the big items that would be dealt with in the future, are concerned that we should have similar authority to that

which we had under the orders in council in order to delegate some of the authority to agents of the government. In the case of the apple producers, it would be the agency which has been handling apples throughout the war. Thus an agency of the producers would in all probability be given authority to carry out agreements which have already been discussed in order to make effective delivery of a product in much the same way as bacon and cheese has been delivered under the orders in council that have been in existence.
I should not like to be too definite in saying that the bill does not go outside the bounds of the orders in council. Necessarily the bill is general in character. It might be interpreted as giving more authority in connection with meat products than the meat order gives. It might be interpreted as giving more authority in connection with dairy products than the order with regard to dairy products gives. Perhaps the necessity for this is to be found in the fact that more authority would be required to be given in connection with the special products board than in connection with the other two, if organizations such as those which have been handling apples are to be empowered to do what the others have beexr doing under the other two orders.
Therefore I should not like to say that the bill does not give any other powers outside those contained in the orders. The intention is that, in effect, it will give the same authority to the government as the orders, but it is our intention, in applying that authority, to carry out the arrangements which were made during the war, particularly in connection with meat and dairy products, and to apply somewhat similar principles to the handling of these other products.


Mark Cecil Senn: The minister says that the powers may be somewhat different. Will power be conferred on the board whereby all farm products will be compelled to be sold to that organization, such as apples or meat or dairy products? Does the dairy products board intend to have everything marketed through the board?


James Garfield Gardiner: I doubt very much if any such authority would be given even if we had the power to give it under the act. We have never proceeded in that way. We have that authority under the orders in council but we have not proceeded in that way. Take bacon, as an illustration. We certainly have not handled anything like all the hogs which have been produced; we have handled only a smaller part of them. The packing plants which have always done the business have carried out all transactions. We have simply

Agricultural Products
directed the operations. Under our authority, we have sometimes compelled those who might not have fallen in with the general plan of the greater number to comply with the wishes of the greater number in the marketing of the product. You need to have pretty general powers in order to be able to do that.


Mark Cecil Senn: I understand that the meat board has power to take over sufficient meat to fill the contract with Great Britain.


James Garfield Gardiner: They have the authority.


Mark Cecil Senn: Is it intended that they shall exercise that authority? And will the other boards exercise similar authority under the bill?


James Garfield Gardiner: In 1941 the dairy board took all cheese, as the hon. member knows. In 1941 or 1942 we said that only fifty per cent of the hogs that had been delivered on to the Canadian market from the packing plants could be delivered in that year. We did those things during the war, but it is not anticipated that we shall do more than make certain that the Canadian market is fully supplied and that the surplus is taken off and sent to the markets to which we have agreed to send it.
The present position is that we have no agreements except those with Great Britain. Those agreements call for our sending all our surplus to Great Britain. We have attempted to put into figures what we think the quantity is that we shall be able to deliver and we do attempt to reach that figure. However, if it were impossible to do so without shorting this market to the extent of making our people go below their ration, we would probably hesitate to do so.


Mark Cecil Senn: I was going to bring up the question of rationing. Certain types of meat are rationed; butter is rationed and so are other products. Is it intended, under this bill, to continue rationing so that we can fill our contracts with Britain?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think that will be determined entirely as the people of Canada generally think it should be determined. Take butter as an example. While we have less butter than we had in 1945 and in 1946, we have more butter than we had prior to the war. There are some who think we ought to do away with rationing because we have more, but the purchasing power of our people is so much greater than it was at that time that we would probably create some hardship to our own people if we did away with rationing at the present time. I am not sure that we would not be able to do with less butter if we did not have rationing, because certain 83166-59J
people would buy butter in greater quantities and in all probablity there would be other developments which would result in many people not being able to get butter. Therefore a lower consumption might result than we have under rationing. But that question is apart from this altogether.


Mr. CARDIFF:: Did I understand the minister to say that the benefits derived under the orders in council in regard to apples were confined to the maritimes and British Columbia?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; the position was this. Prior to the war, Britain had been taking fifty per cent of all the apples produced in Canada. They had been taking eighty per cent of the apples from the maritime provinces and a very small quantity, not more than a few thousand barrels of apples, from Ontario. The reason was this: Ontario and Quebec have a market in central Canada for all the apples they produce. What we did in the first year of the war was to say that no one can ship apples into Ontario and Quebec except by permit and that no one could ship apples into the prairie provinces except British Columbia, except by permit. Then we said to the maritimes that we were prepared to pay for the canning and dehydrating of their apples; they proceeded to have their apples canned and dehydrated, and the government took them over and paid a price for them. The next year the whole procedure was changed and put in a different form of contract which has been followed from then down to the present, whereby we guarantee the apple producers in the maritimes and British Columbia certain returns on their apples. Then they proceeded to market their crop under the efficient marketing board which operates right across Canada. That board proceeded to carry out all the transactions in connection with marketing. The government had their records in connection with those transactions, which cost us a considerable amount of money each year, some $2,000,000 to $3,000,000 from the treasury of Canada. But they did no marketing by contract with any country outside Canada. They did, after the first year, sell some apples to Britain, and British Columbia in particular sold a considerable quantity of apples in the United States. They marketed the crop, generally speaking, right across the country and I think the results have been satisfactory. Ontario's main consideration was a guarantee of its own market in the central part of Canada. That arrangement worked out satisfactorily, and it was only when there was a scarcity that a permit was issued allowing apples to come in

Agricultural Products
from outside. Those apples came in under an arrangement with the apple growers of Ontario and Quebec.
The desire at the moment is to have a contract with Britain, and Britain is desirous of having a contract to take a very considerable quantity of apples, particularly from Nova Scotia and British Columbia, and to have them marketed there under agreement.


Mr. HARKNESS:: Will the legislation contain provisions continuing the embargo on our cattle going to the United States? If so, will any relaxation be made to permit at least of a token shipment of our cattle?


James Garfield Gardiner: The bill to provide for the sale and export of agricultural products has no provisions in it for the control of either exports or imports of any farm product; that is, control in the sense of limiting exports or imports. That comes under another bill, the export and import bill which is already before the house.


Mark Cecil Senn: Do they take the recommendations of the Department of Agriculture?


James Garfield Gardiner: Recommendations would be made by the department but they would be carried out under the other bill by the Department of Trade and Commerce. That is the machinery through which it has always been done, and the power for doing it will be taken in the export and import bill, not in this bill.
With regard to token shipments of cattle to the United States, I discussed that question with the ranchers and producers generally when I was in Calgary. Most of our cattle which have been going to the United States have gone from the western provinces, particularly from the ranches, and a considerable quantity have been going from western Ontario as well. We do not feel that there is any necessity for any token shipments to the United States, because we have a definite understanding with the United States that, at any time we desire to go back to the quota that we had prior to the war and down to 1942, that quota will be provided for us. There is no misunderstanding about that. That can take place any time we wish to have it take place. I would hesitate to go to the United States and suggest that in order to strengthen the understanding we already have with the United States government, we should ask them to take in a token shipment of, say, some fifty thousand cattle. I do not know exactly what we would do with them if we did send them there. There are many dealers in the United States who deal with ranchers and others on this side of the line, and how we

would divide up those cattle I do not know. But I am certain that there is no necessity for token shipments for the purpose of establishing our right to be in that market, for that right is already established both by correspondence and by personal discussions with the United States government.
But we are concerned about something else. In 1945 we shipped 573,000 head of cattle in cans and in frozen form to the United Kingdom and Europe, over 400,000 of those cattle going to Britain and some 100,000 odd going to Europe in cans, making a total of 573,000 head of cattle. We never had the right under the treaty we had with the United States to ship into that country more than 220,000 head of cattle, which included not only our quota but whatever number the Mexicans sent there. So that our quota actually amounted to 193,000 head. These were mostly top-grade beef. We never did have a good market in the United States for canners and cutters and lower grade beef. We could not do very1 much better in the United States on these than we can do at home. They wanted our high-grade beef.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It was a good market for feeders.


James Garfield Gardiner: For good beef and
feeders, yes, which is a high type of cattle not fully finished.
Under this other arrangement, we have been getting rid of 500,000 head in one year and a lesser number in the other years to Britain and Europe of a type of cattle for which we had no ready market at all. It has greatly improved our herds across Canada, and we still have the market for all we can send.
Some have said that the canned beef went to UNRRA and, therefore, to the continent. It did, but Britain would have been pleased to have it. We made an arrangement that the canned beef would go to UNRRA and to the continent. Britain did not have any of it. That was simply a means of trying to feed the people on the continent. Today Britain would be quite prepared-and this was said the other day by Mr. Straehey and the other representatives who were here with him- and would be quite pleased if they could get our canned meat as well as the other, if we are not going to continue to send the canned meat to Europe. We have a market there for almost any number of the type of cattle that have been going there for the present, that we can send. In addition to that, they will be pleased to get our higher grade beef if we can send it to them. Our main difficulty

Agricultural Products
in doing that would probably be that we would have t-o go short on our own market of the type of beef people here desire to eat.
The whole question of international trade is now being discussed in London. Our delegates left this morning for London, I believe, to discuss for a month in London the international trade proposals of the United States and then to carry them to Geneva and finish the discussions there.


John Horne Blackmore: Will the minister
permit a question?


James Garfield Gardiner: Wait until I am through with this statement and then the hon. member may ask a question.
Until the discussions on international trade are completed, we hesitate to suggest that we should stop shipping cattle to Europe or to the British market, particularly the type of cattle we are sending, if the only exchange we are to get is a market in the United States for 193,000 head of a better type of cattle. Our suggestion is to wait until the discussions at the international trade conference reach the point where we have a better idea as to whether we have a larger quota into the United States, whether by lowered duties or by some other arrangement, and as soon as that is clear, then make a statement as to what ought to be done in connection with the United States market.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to thank the minister for the statement he has made. I know we have had a good market in Great Britain and, in fact, overseas generally for a considerable time, and are apt to have one for the next one or two years.
While the minister was in Calgary, I am quite sure that the live stock men there, particularly the ranchers, must have presented to him their fears that that market would fairly rapidly dry up and that we would be left in the position where we w'ere during the war when we were not economically able to compete with other parts of the world for the overseas market. The, only place that we could sell our surplus beef, particularly high-grade beef, was in the United States market.
As the minister knows, a considerable number of ranchers in southern Alberta have fairly close connections and contacts with cattlemen in the United States. As a result of talking with their friends across the border, they have become considerably disturbed at the change in the complexion of the United States congress particularly, and feel that there might rapidly be imposed, so far as the United States is concerned, an embargo against the importation of cattle from Canada into that country, particularly in view of the fact that during
the present period they have been short of beef. In fact there has been a great meat shortage in the United States, and we have not been sending any cattle to them.
I know that a considerable number of these men who have been in this business all their lives and know it well and who also know conditions in the United States-some of them have ranches in the United States and Canada -have been concerned that, unless we send what I spoke of a while ago as token shipments, we shall be in danger of having that market cut off altogether.
While I am quite happy about the market at the present time, it is the future that I am thinking of. Under the new regulations, I am wondering whether it would not be possible to do what the cattlemen of the west feel should be done, namely, to send shipments of some kind so that, as one of the biggest of these ranchers expressed it, we may be able to keep the ditches wet so far as imports into that country are concerned. I believe that these men know what they are talking about, and I am convinced that it would be in the interest of the country as a whole to follow along the lines which they suggest, to some extent at least. I should like the minister to comment on that point rather than on the markets that we have overseas at the present time.


James Garfield Gardiner: The delegation from Britain which was here last week came here to discuss two things; one was meat and the other was wheat. The suggestion made was to the effect that they were desirous of getting meat from this country, and, in particular, beef was mentioned. They would like to get it in as great quantity as they are getting it now, and in greater quantity if possible. Naturally I raised the question which is in the mind of ranchers and others who are producing cattle across Canada. I asked how long were we likely to have a market in Great Britain of the same proportions as we have it now. The reply I received was that there would be a general shortage for a considerable time. They did mention a term of years. I hesitate to mention a term of years to the committee tonight, because I do not know that it was given to me with the idea of mentioning it or making them responsible for any particular figure; for, just as some say, that I guess wrong sometimes, I suppose ministers and governments elsewhere may also guess wrong sometimes.
In this case the minister and the others who were with him were insistent that for a considerable time, a longer time than we have considered in contracts with them for meat,
Agricultural Products

there would be a decided shortage, and they were anxious to make arrangements to get as great quantities as possible from this country over as much of that period as possible. For that reason I do not think that, in so far as numbers of cattle are concerned, there is any danger of the British and the European market drying up to an extent which would leave a surplus of cattle on this market in any reasonably long future period. I think it will extend for much longer than most of us had expected.
In so far as the United States market is concerned, it has been good for our cattle. They are prepared to take them but, as is generally known, there have been times when they have put fairly high duties on them.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In that connection may I ask the minister a question?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Did the minister say that he has a written agreement or a written understanding with the United States administration that they will permit our cattle in again at any time we want them to go in?


James Garfield Gardiner: The history of the matter is this. Back in 1942, after consulting with the Americans, we put an embargo on beef going into the United States, for the reason that we were taking so many hogs off this market, and had so many troops training that we were short of meat. We stopped beef going to the United States and it was all consumed here for about a year and a half. We did not send any to Britain. We sent bacon and ham to Britain, reducing our own supplies so far as hog meat was concerned, and we replenished it with beef. A year and a half later we would probably have considered taking the embargo off cattle going into the United States and, while considering the question, we had discussions with the Americans with regard to it. I myself went to Washington and discussed it with the secretary of agriculture of that time. As hon. members know, the Americans were then lease-lending beef to Britain. We were not lease-lending beef to Britain but we were sending, under mutual aid, bacon and other food. We sent no beef, and the Americans themselves made the suggestion that it would be misunderstood in the United States if we were to send cattle to that country while they were lease-lending to Britain. Their suggestion was that we might [DOT] send our cattle over under mutual aid direct. We acted upon that suggestion, and from that time to this we have been sending cattle to Britain, with the results I have indicated.

While the Americans themselves were short of beef, they wrote and asked us for permission to cancel for the time being that part of the quota which had been given to us and to permit of their giving it to Mexico or anyone else they could get meat from for the time being, and in writing at that time they gave us a definite undertaking that, whenever the situation was such at the end of the war or at any time-they did not specify the end of the war but any time the situation changed-that we were desirous of coming back into that market we would have the same quota as we had before.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I hope the minister will not think I am unduly insistent on the matter, nor am I trying to put him on the spot, but I wonder whether he feels more or less completely satisfied that the agreement which was made some years ago is likely to continue to be the idea of the congress at present elected and the one that we may see in the next two years or so; in other words, whether he completely discounts the opinion which I have heard expressed by the cattlemen of Alberta at any rate, that if we do not do something to maintain this market and send some token shipments there, the cattlemen of the United States will press strongly to cut us out of it. That is really the point I am making.


James Garfield Gardiner: There has been no suggestion or even hint of anything like that at any time I have met Americans over here or in Washington and discussed the matter with them. I am not now speaking of the cattle dealers of Minneapolis or St. Paul or Chicago. I do not know what the position would be there, except for this, that the last time we communicated with them, while the war was still on and while we were having considerable pressure from Alberta and elsewhere to have cattle shipped there, we did communicate with the cooperative stockyards and had the suggestion that we should not send them. They did not think there was going to be anything gained by it, and I have not heard any suggestion from anyone there that there is any feeling with regard to our not having sent any.


Douglas Scott Harkness: But the minister has heard that expression of opinion from the cattlemen of Alberta?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. I heard it in Alberta, but I thought they were fairly well satisfied after the discussions we had. Of course, you cannot satisfy everyone in such discussions, but generally speaking they were.


James Arthur Ross: I support what the hon. member for Calgary East has said about

Agricultural Products
the cattle situation. It is a matter of concern to beef cattle producers throughout Canada, and with due respect to what the minister has said about the agreement with the United States, I can assure him that there is great concern owing to the fact that, since the government quit shipping cattle to the United States in 1942, there has been a great increase in the numbers of cattle shipped to the United States from Mexico. They have run well over half a million, between five hundred thousand and six hundred thousand annually.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is some difficulty now becau'se of disease.


James Arthur Ross: As was well said by the hon. member for Calgary East, our beef producers are concerned about that situation, and rightly so, because the United States is our natural market for beef cattle. I was pleased to hear what the minister said with regard to our present market in the United Kingdom and Europe, but there is the fear that it is only a temporary market. I am glad to hear the minister say that these people thought it would be a market for some-years longer than the term of the present contracts. I had an idea that it was a very temporary market in the United Kingdom and Europe, and that probably their natural market was the Argentine because they could buy greater numbers of cattle and have them transported reasonably from the Argentine, so that that would be their natural market rather than the market in Canada. The question is regarded as a serious one by the beef producers of Canda. They would like to get back to that natural market of theirs as soon as they can. They are fearful that Mexico and others are establishing themselves there and getting the market to which Canadian producers think they have a claim. I hope the minister will do all he can to retain that market for us, because our producers will not be happy until they are allowed to export our cattle to the United States again. I think the minister realizes that.
One more question, and that is with respect to bacon and pork products. I should like to know whether there will be the same reason for compulsion in supplying bacon that there has been throughout the war years. It has been practically essential that we market through the packers. The slaughtering people and even the farmers had to obtain permits, and I am wondering whether the same degree of compulsion will be necessary in the future.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am quite satisfied that more and more we shall have to remove controls of that kind. I think it will be necessary
for a time to go along much as we were, but everyone anticipates that in due course we shall need to go back to taking what is surplus, over and above what is utilized, and fill our contracts with that, and we shall have to make our contracts conform to the quantity that we can obtain in that way.
I do not know how many members are familiar with the practice followed in Britain prior to the war. In 1932 they began to plan having meat conferences which took in all the nations that supplied meat to Britain, and they had a meat council which took in the nations within the British commonwealth that supplied meat to the United Kingdom. We came in the meat-council class, those within the empire who supplied meat to Britain; but, unfortunately, we were not able to take advantage of the situation in the manner in which most others were. We have a federated form of government under which we could not go to individuals and take live stock. Countries like Denmark could requisition their product, send it over and fill a contract for a stated amount and make sure they filled the contract to that amount. Britain in those years from 1932 down to the beginning of the war had definite undertakings from nations all over the world that they would supply a certain amount of meat to Britain. That is the only way in which she could be assured of her meat supply. When it came to Canada we had to say, "We are not in a position to say that we can ship you a certain amount because we have not the authority under our constitution to go and get it." Therefore Britain said, "We will give you an over-all quantity of 280,000,000 pounds of bacon." We were only supplying her about 160,000,000 to
200,000,000 pounds at the time. She said, "We will give you 280,000,000 pounds. We will be responsible for putting that quantity in and for saying to the other nations of the world that we will get that from Canada, and then take our quantities from the other countries." That is the method on which we proceeded until we got into the war. Then, under the War Measures Act, we took the authority which the other countries had prior to the war; that is, most of the countries other than those that were in the same position as ourselves, and I think maybe Australia was in much the same position. We then took the quantity which we undertook to deliver. We did that until about 1944. Then our people were very much concerned about not getting the kind of meat they wanted, when they wanted it and how they wanted it, and so we eased up on that. In easing up on it. we lowered the amounts we
Agricultural Products

said we could and would send to Britain, and those quantities in the contracts have gone down from that time, first down to 450,000,000 pounds and then down to 350,000,000 pounds, and now we are trying to turn them upward again in order to get more meat. We realize that the time will come when the authority we are taking in this act, which is a continuation of the authority we had under the orders in council, is something we are not going to have and therefore we may as well start to ease away from it and get to a basis where we know what we can supply by providing the surplus to Great Britain and they know in advance what we can supply.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is the minister in a position to tell us how long meat rationing will continue in Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I am not. That does not come directly under my department.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I want the minister to go back to this beef business. He spoke about discussions in Calgary in July. Perhaps he is unable to tell me all those whom he talked it over with, but I wish to mention two names and ask him if they were there. One is George Ross and the other is Jim Cross, who, as he knows, are among the largest producers of beef in western Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: George Ross was not there, but I spent the greater part of the next day with him.


Arthur Leroy Smith: He wrote me after the minister had left and told me that his great fear was the loss of the United States market. The minister said a moment ago that our quota with the United States was 193,000 head. Is he quite right about that?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Is this not the situation, that we have a quota at a given tariff and that above that there is no quota? In other words, it is unlimited.


James Garfield Gardiner: What I should have said is that the tariff rate prior to the war was three cents a pound. Under the right which the president had, he could cut that rate to one and a half cent a pound; and he did cut it to one and a half cent under the agreement. Under the conditions which then existed, it was not very profitable, if profitable at all, to sell cattle into the United States under a three-cent duty, but it was profitable under a one and a half cent duty. The way the matter worked out was that in the first year I think we did send over the total number that we were entitled to send over, the 193,000 with the

special duty, but they all went over in a few months. Then the year was split up into four sections, and we took three months at a time and had a quota for each three months. The Americans asked for that because they did not want all the cattle dumped in there in a short time, then none coming in for a long time. My memory is that, after we provided for this dividing up of the year into three, there were not more than two years-and my memory is that there was only one-in which we reached
193,000.	That was not because we could not have sent more at three cents, but we did not have enough cattle; or at least we did not have enough of the quality required to send over and supply even the 193,000.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Is the minister sure of that? What has been the difference per pound in the price of beef in the United States and the price of beef in Canada since the embargo was put on? It is more than three cents, is it not?


James Garfield Gardiner: Since the embargo, yes. But we have sent in cattle since that.


Arthur Leroy Smith: We have sent no cattle under the embargo. If it were not for the embargo of three cents, we could have sent profitably a great number of cattle to the United States. There is not any question about that.


James Garfield Gardiner: No. I think if we had taken the embargo off, we would probably not have had any cattle unless we took our ceilings off here.


Arthur Leroy Smith: All right. Did the western ranchers not come here and offer -in order to keep the ditches open, as the hon. member for Calgary East has said-to send those cattle over to the United States and give you the surplus in price?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, but that offer was made at a time when it was considered that the proper thing to do was to send those cattle to Great Britain.


Arthur Leroy Smith: All right. Then let us carry it one step farther. The minister has not any doubt, has he, that in the Argentine, for example, where they have outdoor feeding the year round, they can produce cattle much more cheaply than we can here where we have to feed them in the winter time? That is just pure economics, is it not?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Once Britain is able to purchase elsewhere, what is the minister's idea as to where our cattle will go?

Agricultural Products
While I am on my feet, I may as well mention the United States agreement. The minister mentioned the contents of a letter he had; having done that, may I say with the greatest respect that I think the minister should produce that letter.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think it has already been put on the table in a previous session.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I did not know that.


James Garfield Gardiner: If it has not been, it can be.


Arthur Leroy Smith: If it has not been, it will be. I knew the minister, with his usual graciousness, would say that. If it has not been placed on the table, perhaps the minister will let us have it before we are through with this draft bill. Does the minister think that having a verbal arrangement with, no doubt, the secretaiy of agriculture in the United States-and I speak with great respect of whoever the secretary was; I do not remember who it was at that time because they have changed many times-


James Garfield Gardiner: Just once since. It was the secretary preceding Anderson.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The complexion of that government over there having changed, does the minister not think that perhaps the ideas of the secretary may have changed, or that a change may be forced in his ideas? In other words, we are not on solid ground at all in this arrangement, are we?


James Garfield Gardiner: I say quite candidly that so far as I am concerned, and so far as the government is concerned, we realize that the natural market for high-grade cattle from Canada is the United States. We also realize that the natural market for quite a number of other things is the United States. But so long as we maintain our present ceiling levels in Canada and so long as the United States has her present price levels, there is not any possibility of opening up the boundary line. I am not arguing the question whether we are right or wrong in maintaining our present levels. It is and has been the policy up to the moment to maintain on everything a lower price level in this country than prevails in the United States. If we wish to maintain that price level it would be impossible for us to open up the boundary line on food products. We would just lose all our food products in a very short time and would) be on the higher level. That might be a good thing for the farmers in the end; I am not going to argue 83166-60
the point at the moment; but, as long as that is the policy, then the other idea of opening up the market is pretty difficult.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am quite sure the minister misunderstands me.


James Garfield Gardiner: I see it is five minutes to eleven o'clock. I should like to say that, if it is the desire of the committee to have this bill given first reading so that it may be distributed, I should be glad if that were made possible tonight. I would assure the committee that the discussion we are now having may be continued when we get into the bill itself.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Then I assure the minister I shall keep quiet and shall be very happy to see the bill itself.


Mr. BRYCE:: I have been waiting right along to get into this discussion, and I do not want to lose the opportunity now because I never know whether or not I shall come back. I wanted to say something similar to what was said by the hon. member for Souris with regard to cattle. I need not repeat what he said, except to state that I have always thought the southern market was our logical market. There is, however, another market we shall have to cultivate. That is, we can send our better grade feeding steers to Britain by way of Hudson bay and get as good a price, after paying the freight, as we can get from Ontario feeders. I have been in Britain; I went over and saw for myself, and I know what can be done there. I wish to ask the minister whether the act he is going to bring in will be somewhat similar to the natural products act which was declared ultra vires in 1934.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not the same as the act brought in then. Of course, if it were not for the special conditions set out in the act it probably would not be possible under the constitution to put into the act what it contains any more than it was possible to put some things in the other act. An attempt has been made to see that this bill is intra vires, but it sets out that special conditions exist which make it necessary for us to have legislation of this kind for at least another twelve months. But I want to emphasize again that those who were here today asking for legislation of the kind the hon. member for Selkirk is thinking of said that the powers we have under the orders in council, which were exercised by us during the war, were the powers they wanted us to have now in order that we might be able to continue to do in peace time the things we did during the war, and this bill does provide for that.

Agricultural Products


William Scottie Bryce: Then why make it only for one year? Why not give security to the cattle raisers?


James Garfield Gardiner: If the house will insist on going to the end of the agreement, I shall be very glad to accept that, but I thought the house would want a limit of one year.


William Scottie Bryce: Why make an agreement for only one year? You do not give security to anyone who is in the business.


James Garfield Gardiner: The agreements in connection with cattle go down to the end of 1949, and I think the agreements with regard to hogs cover the same period of time. However, I hesitated to come before the house and ask for a bill which would be binding on the house and the country until the end of 1949. If the house feels that I should have such a bill, it can be considered.


John Horne Blackmore: If I may ask one straight question, could the minister make any comment on the price for our beef which seems possible from Britain for the two or three years he has mentioned?


James Garfield Gardiner: We are not Limited by anything Britain is offering. We are limited in Britain by our own position in Canada under price control. It is the same as if you were to open the United States boundary and let all the beef that could be sold on the United States side go at a high price. Our price level would have to go very much higher.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Gardiner thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 25, to provide for the sale and export of agricultural products.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. GARDINER moved the first reading of the bill.
Mark Cecil Senn: May I ask the minister when the bill will be ready for circulation?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think it is ready now and will be circulated tomorrow morning. I had only two copies of it, one of which I sent to my hon. friend's leader.


John Bracken: What I have is called, "an act to provide for the sale and export of agricultural products". Is that the bill?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is it.


John Bracken: Apparently it is available now.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I intended to make a very short statement about the business ahead. We had intended to have that statement made, before we received notice this morning of the intention of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) to move the adjournment of the house to discuss a matter of urgent and definite public importance, but now it seems quite likely that discussion of that motion will take the whole of Monday.
As hon. members are aware, on Monday we automatically return to the terms of the resolution moved by the Prime Minister on January 30, dealing with the address. It was the intention of the government, I may say frankly, that we would finish the debate on the address by Thursday of next week; and if we are not able to do that, in view of the new developments, we certainly expect all cooperation possible to have it concluded with the utmost speed. We realize the position of those who moved motions of non-confidence in the administration, and that they should have an opportunity at the earliest possible date of obtaining the decision of the house on the question of confidence in the government. It must also be realized that the government itself will welcome the earliest possible decision on this question. While, however, we realize the responsibility of all parties in this regard, we realize that the government has a special responsibility in regard to emergency legislation and it intends, if necessary, by appropriate parliamentary procedure, to ensure that this legislation is not imperilled by any technicalities. If, therefore, Mr. Speaker, the debate on the address should show signs of being unduly prolonged it may be found necessary to renew motions such as those adopted previously this session for giving precedence to emergency legislation. If a further extension of time for emergency legislation should be necessary we have the assurance of the leaders of the various groups that they wall cooperate with us in this.
It is only fair to say that the attitude of all parties at the conferences held has been most helpful, and with the same cooperation we should hope for speedy disposal of the address and an early return to the consideration of the emergency legislation, making provision, with the cooperation of the house, for such extension of time as may be necessary.


John Bracken: With respect to the spirit of the remarks just made by the right hon. leader of the house I may say that we are in entire accord. I think it will be agreed by members of the government that those who

Peace Treaties
sit in opposition have been quite fair with the government in making possible the consideration of their emergency legislation before the debate on the address was concluded. However, it was felt that in view of these amendments to the motion the debate should not be longer delayed. I agree entirely that if the debate should be extended to any length the government must make its own decision as to what procedure it will adopt. We do not propose to embarrass the government if on any technical grounds they fail to have this emergency legislation dealt with by the end of March. We do not intend to embarrass them by taking advantage of any technical position such as that which might arise.
Mr. MaeNICOL: Will private members lose any of the days they would ordinarily have to discuss private members' resolutions because of the debates that have been carried on.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I would think they would lose them unless provision is otherwise
made for special consideration later on in the session.
Mr. MaeNICOL: Will it mean that there will be no private members' resolutions discussed?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It will mean that a lot of time ordinarily used to deal with private members' resolutions will be lost. I think a discussion would have to be held in regard to making special provision for that.


Angus MacInnis: What will be the procedure on Monday? Will there be a motion to adjourn the house, or is it the intention to take up the matter introduced by the hon. member for Peel on the address? If that is the intention, I shall protest because it is not the proper way to proceed.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I may be in error, but my conception of the rules is that a motion to adjourn the house to discuss a matter of urgent and definite public importance is made before the orders of the day are called and after routine proceedings. The order of the day next Monday would automatically be the special resolution which was passed unanimously by this house. If any hon. member gets the permission of the house he would be in order to move the adjournment of the house on a question of urgent public importance ahead of the discussion on the address.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
83166-60i
Monday, March 3, 1947