1947-02-26

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved:
That the name of Mr. Power be substituted for that of Mr. Langlois on the special committee on redistribution.
Motion agreed to.

Inquiries of the Ministry

[Stage Direction]
Right'Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved:
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this house has appointed the following members to assist His Honour the Speaker in the direction of the library in so far as the interests of the Commons are concerned and to act as members of a joint committee of both houses on the library, namely:
Messrs. Adamson, Aylesworth, Black (Chateau-guay-Huntingdon), Bowerman, Cardiff, Castle-den, Cloutier, Dion, Eudes, Fournier (Maison-neuve-Rosemont), Gauthier (Nipissing), Gingues, Gladstone, Gourd. Grant. Henderson, Herridge, Howe, Jackman, Jaques, Kidd, Knight, Lapalme, Leger, MacLean, Marier, Marshall, Matthews (Brandon), McGarry. Mcllraith, McKay, Men-ary, Mullins, Nixon, Pearkes, Reid, Richard (Ottawa East), Ross (St. Paul's), Skey, Smith (York North), Stephenson, White (Middlesex East), Winkler, and Zaplitny.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. MACKENZIE:: With the consent of the house I should like to say that one of the names on that list is that of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), who today is celebrating his natal day. On behalf of the whole house I should like to extend to him felicitations and best wishes for many happy returns of the day.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear. CANTEEN FUNDS



APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER CONTROL AND DISTRIBUTION

Hon. BROOKE CLANTON (Minister of National Defence) moved:: That a select committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon the control and disposition of canteen funds accumulated during the war which commenced on 10th of September, 1939, out of profits arising from army messes, canteens and other services operated by or for the benefit of army personnel, as well as moneys derived by units through the sale of refuse, and other moneys received for the benefit of personnel of the Canadian army, and to recommend to the house appropriate legislation to implement such recommendations as the committee may make, with power to send for persons, papers and records, and to print its proceedings; and that the provision of section 1 of standing order 65 be waived ;n respect of this committee: and that the said committee consist of the following: Messrs. Baker, Belzile, Beni-dickson, Castleden, Cleaver, Cockeram, Croll, Cruickshank, Dion, Emmerson, Fulton, Halle. Harris (Grey-Bruee), Harkness, Langlois, Leonard, Marshall, Mutch, Probe, Robinson (Bruce), White (Hastings-Peterborough), Whitman, Winkler.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
83166-52£


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temiscouata):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. My attention has been drawn to the following sentence appearing in the issue of Maclean's Magazine for November 15, 1946:
The "Independant Liberal" is Jean-Franqois Pouliot, regarded by the government as one of its most implacable enemies.
I should like to know if such a statement has been made by any cabinet minister to any gentleman of the press. If so I would ask all cabinet, ministers, or any one of them, please to raise their hands, or his hand, or rise so that I shall know with whom I have to deal. No one rises; therefore I must be an implacable friend, if the word can be used in that way.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. E. McGARRY (Inverness-Rich-mond):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. Has the railway service between Point Tupper and Inverness been restored to its daily schedule? If not, has action been taken to have this effected at the earliest possible moment?


Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport):: The railway service between
Point Tupper and Inverness was reduced to a service of three days, by order of the transport controller. The hon. member has suggested a means whereby that service might be restored to its original state. I have asked the management of the Canadian National Railways to ascertain whether the hon. member's suggestion can be adopted, but I have not yet received a reply. Just as soon as I do, I shall be glad to inform him.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, copy of which I sent him and to Your Honour. Can the minister give the house an estimate of what it will cost the government to pay the subsidy to the Dominion Coal Company under the present contract for the period
Inquiries of the Ministry

during which they will be out of production because of the work stoppage, assuming that the strike will last beyond March 31?


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much if it is possible to obtain that information. In March of last year the government entered into a contract with the Dominion Coal Company, extending over the present fiscal year. There is no way by which the government can honourably withdraw from that contract. Until the accounts of the company have been rendered, audited and considered in the usual way by the department, I know of no -way to estimate how much the strike is costing the government.
The present cost is the cost of caretaking, and I can assure my hon. friend it will be kept as low as possible.


Clarence Gillis: Was consideration given to whether it would not be just as cheap to subsidize the wage increase as to live up to that contract?


Clarence Decatur Howe: If it is a matter only of out-of-pocket expense to the government, then it is much cheaper to subsidize the present situation. It is far less satisfactory; but the fact that an unsatisfactory situation has developed I feel is not the fault of this government.


Clarence Gillis: Whoever drew up the contract was short-sighted.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. Witnesses on behalf of the Canadian National Railways before the board of transport commissioners in the current proceedings respecting the application of Canadian railroads for a thirty per cent freight rate increase having stated that the national road is able to produce as evidence financial reports of its 1946 profits, but that they cannot be presented until they have first been presented to the Canadian government for examination by a parliamentary committee-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I must ask the hon.
member to be brief. The purpose of a question is not to give information, but to get it.
IMr. Gillis.]


Ralph Maybank: The information preceding the actual question in this instance is necessary to clarify the question. Of course I could ask the question first, simply by a process of reversing the order.


An hon. MEMBER:: Put it on the order paper.


Ralph Maybank: Continuing my question-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Ralph Maybank: The words I now wish to use constitute my question. Will the government instruct and advise the management of the Canadian National Railways that it has no objection to the Canadian National Railways filing such statements in the present hearing with the board of transport commissioners, and that it would approve such action-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Horace King: Order.


Ralph Maybank: -and further would
approve the Canadian National Railways giving all possible information to the board at the said hearing?


Mr. STIRLING:: Sauce for the goose.


James Horace King: I would call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that when Mr. Speaker asks for order the hon. member should resume his seat. As it is a lengthy question I would ask him to be good enough to put it on the order paper.


Ralph Maybank: May I point out that it is an urgent matter?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.



PRICE CONTROLS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like
to ask a question either of the leader of the government or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). In this instance Winnipeg will be brief and to the point. Will the government assure the house that it will not remove any further controls affecting the cost of living until the matter has been discussed in the house and decided by parliament?


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: The house will have full opportunity to discuss controls and government

Canadian Wheat Board Act
decontrol probably within a few days when the bill which stands in the name of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) comes before the house. May I say that the removal of controls and the government's decontrol programme are matters of government policy for which the government must take responsibility, and they will be announced to the house in due course.



ARRIVAL OF CANADIAN HIGH COMMISSIONER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the uneasiness throughout Canada in connection with the situation in India-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Gordon Graydon: I was wondering what
contrast there would be between the hearing I would get and that accorded the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Is it necessary for the hon. member to lecture the house? Should that not come from the Chair, rather than from a private member?


Gordon Graydon: May I suggest it should not come from the Secretary of State for External Affairs, either.


James Horace King: I would call the attention of the house to the fact that the rules apply to every member. Questions are to be brief and to the point. Moreover to be in order at this stage they must be urgent.


Gordon Graydon: I suggest to Your
Honour and to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that my question is urgent. I am asking whether or not Mr. Kearney, who some time ago was appointed High Commissioner for Canada in India, has yet reached his post, and what steps are being taken by the government to expedite his going there, in view of the uneasiness surrounding the situation in India.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): The new high commissioner for India reached Canada en route to New Delhi, India. It may be some little time before arrangements are completed which will enable him to take up his residence at New Delhi.


Gordon Graydon: I should think no time should be lost.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, February 25, consideration in committee of Bill No. 23, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935-Mr. MacKinnon-Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Definitions.
The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding) :: Before we proceed I should like to ask hon. members to be kind enough to deal only with the sections before the committee. If this is done I am sure we shall make more progress than we could by continuing a general discussion which should have been had on the second reading.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: Mr. Chairman, I shall try to keep strictly within your ruling, but I trust that as in the past Your Honour will permit more or less general discussion, related as closely as possible to the section in question, thus enabling the argument offered to be reasonably complete. I think if we follow that course now as we have in the past, the deliberations will be materially reduced.
This bill, along with several others which have been before the house during the last ten days, arises by reason of the continuation of certain powers under regulations passed under the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act of 1945. It would appear from a reading of the bill that some regulations passed under that act will be continued whether or not this bill is enacted. As this legislation refers particularly to that act I think the committee and the country should have a statement from the Minister of Justice as to whether this legislation is strictly within the legislative ambit of parliament. This bill covers not only wheat but other grains as well. As I read the debates in 1935 when the Bennett government introduced the wheat board act, the members of the opposition, some of whom are now members of the government, were doubtful whether parliament possessed the power to control certain grains other than wheat, particularly when the grains were a matter of domestic consumption.
Up until the last session of parliament the general idea always was that legislation such as this could be justified on the ground that the emergency following the end of the war was still continuing, and reliance invariably was placed upon the judgments in the Fort Frances case and the Board of Commerce case in the early twenties. However, within the
Canadian Wheat Board Act

last six or eight months the privy council has handed down a judgment in connection with the Canada Temperance Act which has completely revamped the emergency doctrine which used to be regarded as of the essence of the decisions in the cases I have referred to.
I think we should have from the Minister of Justice, as a preliminary to all this legislation, his view regarding the whole question of emergency legislation, and whether it is not a fact, in view of the Canada Temperance Act case, that the doctrine of emergency no longer exists and that as a result of that judgment certain sections of this bill do not come within the legislative competence of parliament. I suggest that the minister give his own opinion and also place before the house and the country the legal opinion of the law officers of the crown.
We on this side of the chamber have long been contending for a general principle, that there must be responsibility to parliament on the part of any board set up by parliament or any boards controlling businesses operated by the government. In this case, as in many others, the government, through the instrumentality of the wheat board, is going into a major and important business, and the board should be responsible directly to parliament. The submission has been made that an opportunity should be given to members of this house and to the country at large to know about the operations of the wheat board, to ascertain its efficiency and to be assured that in the expenditures it makes and in its general operations it is carrying on in accordance with the act.
My first suggestion, looking to making this board responsible to parliament, in addition to its being required each year, as it has been in the past, to give an accounting to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, is that at each session of parliament an opportunity be given to hon. members, either in the agriculture committee or in another committee, to examine accounts and to ascertain what is being done to the end that proper business principles shall be applied in a matter as important as this. The request is not an unfair one. I am sure there are members on the other side of the house, certainly there -were in 1935, who argued that very point; and I look now at the Minister of Veterans Affairs. He was most outspoken on this very point, and I know that on this occasion I shall have his support.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have not seen such great faith; no, not in Israel,


John George Diefenbaker: I have here some of my right hon. friend's speeches and, sir, if

they were delivered today they would shock you. They were well-delivered, cogent, I
should not say vitriolic-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No; they were all good-natured.


John George Diefenbaker: I will say very searching, and my right hon. friend made those arguments in support of this very principle. In all seriousness I suggest to him that we be given that opportunity. I remember well that in 1942 the hon. member for Melfort and the hon. member for Souris were on the agriculture committee, and we had the wheat board representatives before that committee but we did not get very far because as soon as any searching question was asked we invariably got the answer that it was not in the public interest to divulge the information. That was during the war. The war, is over now, and I suggest that the right of parliament to control boards be vested once and for all in parliament under this act-not the direction of the day by day operations of the board but in the sense of an accounting to parliament of what the board does year by year to the end that the largest possible return will be made to the wheat producer.
We found out in 1942 that some $550,000 were being paid out in brokerage fees and deducted from the moneys coming to the farmer. It was pointed out that there was no service being performed because the only purchaser was the British government and the only seller was the wheat board; yet the board secured intermediary firms to earn the same commissions that they would have received had they actually been doing the purchasing. As a result of the publicity given to this disclosure the practice was stopped; it no longer appears in the records of the wheat board because the wheat board does not do that any more. The British government pays it, but the same result is effected for the firms who were in receipt of that commission. First, then, restore to parliament the right to supervise the activities of the board from year to year.


Mr. ILSLEY:: If I may ask a question, would the practice followed with reference to the annual report of the Canadian National Railways be a satisfactory practice to follow in regard to the reports of the wheat board?


John George Diefenbaker: That looks reasonable, and I do not want to be unreasonable. That is the very point we are contending for. I appreciate the suggestion that it be submitted to a committee where there can be careful examination of the operations of the board over a number of years. There can

Canadian Wheat Board Act
be no objection to the situation being the same in that regard as it is in connection with the railways.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The reason I ask that is that I understand my colleague offered no objection, indeed he said it would be quite satisfactory to the government to refer the report to a committee-the committee on agriculture, or some other-and I think that every year except for the last two that has been done.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Gobeil from Quebec, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Vallance and Mr. Lucas. The man who introduced the legislation on behalf of the farmers and was ridiculed for it was Mr. Bennett. The men from western Canada who gave him support were Mr. Perley from Qu'Appelle and Mr. Willis from Manitoba. It is well to recall that at. this time.
The legislation then became the law of the land, and in the very first session of parliament the new government came along and passed an amendment. Under the bill as originally passed the farmer was entitled to 874 cents a bushel. That is what the act of 1935 authorized.


Mr. TUCKER:: It was not authorized1 by the act.


John George Diefenbaker: It was fixed in September of that year by the governor in council at 874 cents a bushel, at which figure it remained until the fall of 1938 when the government fixed it at 80 cents. Then in 1939 an amendment to the statute put the price at 70 cents, and in 1942, during the war, an amendment was passed which changed it to 90 cents. Provision was also made whereby the wheat board would not operate unless wheat went below 90 cents. That is why during the years 1937, 1938 and 1939 there were no annual participation certificates. Through action of .the governor in council and of the government of the country .the wheat board was made inoperative and ineffectual. But the principle behind the Wheat Board Act of 1935, changed only by order in council afterwards, was that each year there should be a complete accounting and that .the farmers who had sold to the wheat board should! be entitled to the difference between 'the cost of administration and. the price ultimately secured. The Wheat Board Act was designed to assure marketing and to see that the farmer should not be unfairly treated in the matter of .the disposal and the marketing of his crop. When provision for the annual participation certificate is removed, the most salient principle in the Wheat Board Act of 1935 is removed!.
Yesterday the minister said that he intends no longer to press for the quota, and that the section dealing with the 14 bushel per acre quota is to be removed. Is that correct?


Mr. MacKINNON:: That is correct.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, sir, it is not being removed. One section which provides for the quota is being removed, but two other sections will enable the governor in council oi the wheat board itself to pass regulations to determine how much if any shall be 
marketed each year. I shall refer to the particular sections so that the minister may give consideration to them.


William Henry Golding: Order. I thought the hon. member intimated that he would try to stick to the section which is under discussion. We can deal with these other sections when we come to them.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I do not expect to be here tomorrow. I am trying to be helpful; I am trying to place before the minister a few suggestions, but if you rule that I must not do that, of course I shall certainly-


Mr. MARTIN:: Stick to the rules.


John George Diefenbaker: I will refrain from mentioning the section, sir, but in doing so I shall not be so helpful. In one instance the power is to be removed, but there are two sections dealing with regulations which empower the minister or the board-I will not refer to them by number-to make regulations "first to exclude any kind of wheat either in whole or in part or generally for any period," and second "to do such acts and things as may be necessary for the administration of the provisions of the act." Both these subsections enable the government to do with the left hand that which the board cannot do directly with the right hand. I suggest that if the power to control the farmers and determine how much should he produced, is not to be taken by the government, then it should be clearly stated that the power to make regulations shall not include the power to determine any quota provision.
Some of my hon. friends endeavour to leave the impression with the people that we are opposed to any assistance to Great Britain. None of us have ever had that idea. As a matter of fact, sir, many Canadians felt a distinct sense of shame when only a few weeks ago Britain, in her dire position, turned over twelve million pounds of butter to this country so that our quota would not be reduced. So far as we are concerned we believe with, the Minister of Agriculture that Britain and Canada should be linked together. That has always been the stand taken by my leader. We are prepared to go to any limit. Make it a gift if you will; but in making it a gift if the person who is actually penalized is the farmer who produces, let it be remembered that, any assistance such as this, commendable as it is, should not rest for its performance upon one section of Canada, its producers; it should rest upon all the people of the dominion.

Canadian Wheat Board Act
Yesterday the Minister of Agriculture referred to the fact that the making of bilateral agreements between Great Britain and Canada was a proper course to follow and was generally received with approval. Well, I have here before me a statement given by Mr. Hannam, and I will quote from it. It appears in the issue of January 24, I believe, of the paper Cooperator:
There are thirteen countries now in the international wheat council trying to reach an agreement on supplying the world's wheat. A 40 per cent quota is suggested for Canada. They are trying to agree on a minimum price and a maximum price for wheat. If they do reach an agreement, it will come under FAO.
In October, there was an international meeting on trade, continued Mr. Hannam. Canadian delegates are playing an important part in these international conferences. They talk in New York of the international trade organization as ITO just as though it had already come into being.
And here are the significant words, bearing out the stand taken by the leader of the opposition when he said that what was needed today was multilateral trade and not bilateral agreements which cause controversies with other nations. Mr. Hannam went on to say:
It was agreed-
That is, by the members of these thirteen countries.
It was agreed that a long-term agreement could be harmful if restricted to two countries, excluding other countries.
I conclude rvith two questions which 1 would put to the minister. The other day some reference was made by him to the advisory committee of the wheat board. I would like the minister to indicate, placing before the country all the facts, whether a report was received from the advisory committee in regard to the question of bilateral agreements; whether the wheat board was asked its opinion in regard to the agreement with Britain, and whether an opinion was secured in regard to the extent to which the wheat board should be an absolute government monopoly, its constitutionality, and also in general the recommendations which the advisory board made. For my information is, and it is subject to correction, that in fact the wheat board did receive a lengthy memorandum from the advisory committee, setting forth some of the criticisms to which I have referred, and placing before them the minister and also the wheat board. I would like him to say whether or not such is the fact and, if so, whether he will table the recommendation made so that parliament will be in a position, understanding as it then will the arguments advanced by this
authoritative body, to appreciate some of the weaknesses of this bill, to the end that we together here may be able to achieve the construction of a bill which will be operative and which will bring benefits to Canadian agriculture everywhere.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: This will undoubtedly be the most important legislation coming before parliament, affecting the people I represent, and therefore I would like to say a few words before the clause carries. I have always had a good deal of respect for the member for Lake Centre. As a criminal lawyer he enjoyed an enviable reputation before he came here, but I am not in a position to express an opinion on his standing as a constitutional lawyer. If this parliament has not the right to pass a bill such as No. 23, it should have it, and I believe members on all sides of the house will agree that the clauses of the bill should be discussed and passed by this assembly.
The problem of providing food for the world received top priority during the war and should receive similar consideration in the years that follow. While we were in the midst of a war, in May and June, 1943, to be exact, the united nations conference on food and agriculture was held at Hot Springs, Virginia, and several important conclusions were reached there. They were agreed that:
There has never been enough food for the health of all the people in the world. This is justified neither by ignorance nor by the harshness of nature. The production of food must be greatly expanded. We now have knowledge of the means by which this can be done. It requires imagination and a firm will on the part of each government and people to make use of that knowledge.
Members in all sections of the house take some pride in the fact that farmers throughout Canada responded to this challenge and we set up new standards in every department of agriculture. The conference also went on to say:
The first cause of hunger and of malnutrition is poverty. It is useless to produce more food unless men and nations provide markets to absorb it. There must be expansion of the whole world economy to provide purchasing power sufficient to maintain an adequate diet for all. With full employment in all countries, and large industrial production, the absence of exploitation, and increasing flow of trade within and between countries, and orderly management of domestic and international investment and currencies, and sustained internal and international equilibrium, the food which is produced can be made available to all people.
One more reference.
The primary responsibility lies with each nation to see that its own people have the food needed for life and health; steps to this end are
Canadian Wheat Board Act

for national determination, but each nation can fully achieve its goal only if all work together.
I am not suggesting that Canada can solve the food problems of the world, but we can make a very important contribution, and this contribution must be made. For that reason I welcome this bill, not because it is perfect but because it does indicate that two important governments have decided to take a step forward. These two governments have decided that they wish the producers in Canada to have the maximum return for the food and they are also determined that the consumers in Great Britain should have wheat products at the lowest possible price.
Both governments, I take it, are agreed that the element of speculation should not be allowed to come between the producer and the consumer, and it is encouraging to find that all over the world there is growing support for the idea that if people wish to gamble that is one thing, but that they should not gamble with foodstuffs in times of scarcity or of abundance. Members of the house will be interested in the words of ex-mayor La Guardia when he addressed the united nations a short time ago:
You cannot have both stability and prices and security for the farmer as well as fluctuation in prices. It is no use saying that we are not going to interfere with free exchange and free sales. If you want what is needed . . . you will interfere, and you will put every gambling grain exchange out of business in Chicago, Winnipeg, Liverpool or wherever it exists.
For that reason I think a bill such as we have before the house today should be supported bj- all those who feel that the element of speculation should not enter into the marketing of our food. One of the reports of the food and agriculture organization of the united nations gives us some interesting information to the effect that so many people in the world never have had enough to eat. There never has been enough food in the world at any time. Before the war there were a thousand million people consuming less than 2,250 calories daily. By contrast, in the United Kingdom, even with the present acute shortage, the average intake per head is 2,750. When you think of the austere rationing in Great Britain at the present time, remember that we had a thousand million people throughout the world who have never had the equivalent of the diet now available in Great Britain.
We should be discussing new techniques for the production and distribution of our foodstuffs. Food consumption depends upon purchasing power. As family income rises, consumption of the more expensive foods increases. Thus, for example, it is estimated

that before the war the diet of about one-third of the population of the United States of America was not up to health standards, owing to insufficient consumption of animal products, fruits and vegetables. Statistics are not available for Canada, but it is reasonable to assume that conditions in this country are not better than in the United States. Think of the great productive capacity of the country to our south, and then remember that it has never been possible for more than two-thirds of their people to go to bed at night feeling that they had enough food, and the proper kind of food.
One of the steps in which Canada has participated is outlined in the world food survey, also published by the food and agriculture organization of the united nations, which indicates that we are prepared to participate with a view to providing higher world targets in the future. We are committed to increase our production of cereals by 21 per cent, of roots and tubers by 27 per cent, of sugar by 12 per cent, of fats by 34 per cent, of pulses by 80 per cent, of fruits and vegetables by 163 per cent, of meat by 46 per cent and of milk by 100 per cent. I might also make reference to the discussions which took place at Quebec, when the situation of farmers all over the world was reviewed. Again Canada is no exception to the general picture. On page 9 of the report of the first session of the conference held at Quebec in October, 1945, we read:
Large numbers of farm people throughout the world are poor, and existing patterns of production, consumption, and trade keep them poor. So are many urban families. While recognizing the general inferiority of rural education, housing, health, sanitation, and electrical facilities, as contrasted to urban service, FAO and member governments must be mindful of the mutual problems of producers and consumers in both city and country. Human welfare must be the concern of all for all. Neither peace nor abundance can be long enjoyed by special groups, or in favoured places, while others want for the essentials of decency and fear the approach of another day.
The delegates attending that conference from Canada, France, China and other countries spoke frankly about the position of the farmers in those lands. The spokesman for France pointed out that the farmers and fishermen of his country were not enjoying a fair share of the national income. The spokesman for New Zealand pointed out that they were taking ambitious steps to improve the position of the New Zealand farmer. India's delegate said that one hundred million people in his country are underfed, and that the annual income per capita was only about $22. There is not enough food in that country,

Canadian Wheat Board Act
not enough purchasing power. The problems facing India are the problems of hunger and poverty. Speaking for Great Britain Sir John Orr went on to say-


William Henry Golding: Order. I would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks as closely as possible to section 1, which deals with definitions. The hon. gentleman is making a very interesting speech, but is not dealing with the section before the committee.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I appreciate your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but I think it unfortunate you did not make that ruling last evening when we first went into committee. In view of some of the comments made by other members of this committee I feel that those taking part in the debate today should be given a little latitude.


William Henry Golding: I did draw the attention of hon. members to the rule, and said we must discuss the section. Having done that I had hoped that today hon. members would try to conform to it.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Then do I understand that no further remarks are to be permitted?


William Henry Golding: I do not want to curtail the hon. member's remarks, but I think he knows without being told what the section is, so perhaps he will confine his remarks as much as possible to that section.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I shall be glad to cooperate with you, Mr. Chairman. I did feel that since this is such an important piece of legislation a little latitude might be allowed on this first clause, as has been the case with other speakers who have taken part in the debate, but I shall refrain from any further comments concerning Canada's international responsibility in the production of food. I do submit, however, that this is a very important subject and that by this legislation the government of Canada recognizes that we must get away from speculative marketing if Canada is to fulfil her commitments as a member of the united nations in the production of the greatest possible quantity of food and its distribution in the most equitable manner to the largest number of people.
I concur in the comment made last evening by the hon. member for Melfort when he intimated that while the farmers of Canada have been quite willing to accept a price which apparently at the moment is lower than the world price, and are not expecting an unreasonable return, they do feel themselves in a strong position when they ask that their return should be reviewed yearly. Last evening the hon. member for Melfort discussed parity prices and the cost of production. Unfortunately no one in Canada can accurately state just what it costs to produce wheat or butter or eggs. Though, we spend large sums of money in maintaining departments of agriculture, both federal and provincial, as far as I know we have never used public funds to set up an experimental station to produce wheat in order to find out how much it costs in Manitoba or Saskatchewan, say, if you pay civil service wages, if you pay for an eight-hour day, time and a half for overtime and double time for Sundays. So far as I know such a study has not been made, and I believe the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture should give some indication that they are prepared now, in response to the requests that have been made by the wheat producing areas, to carry out a thorough survey to determine exactly what it costs in different parts of Canada. If a price is fixed under which farmers in the good wheat producing areas obtain an unusually large return, we have our income tax machinery to see that they do not keep too much of it and do not bring too much pressure to bear on the cost of living.
The problem deserves more consideration than has so far been given to it. The farmers are prepared to carry on in peace time as they did during the war, and to produce food for Canada and the world. But I think they are not unreasonable in insisting that we do determine what a fair share of the national income would be for the farm population.
I should like to refer briefly to a question which has been discussed by hon. members of the Progressive Conservative party, namely the position of their party in relation to this act. I interrupted the hon. member for Calgary West the other evening and made the suggestion that members of his party were complaining that the British were not paying enough for wheat at the present time. I now find that the hon. member for Portage la Prairie is reported at page 748 of Hansard as saying:
We want the farmers to have security, but we feel that the government of this country is not giving them security.
And farther on he says, regarding the British agreement:
That agreement has been made and we are prepared to honour it but I feel that a better price could have been obtained and should have been secured in the negotiations between this country and Great Britain.
Canadian Wheat Board Act

Hon. members of the Progressive Conservative party have been, careful in their expressions, but I would gather from that comment- and also from the speech of the leader of the opposition the other night, when, as it was stated by the Montreal Gazette, he railed about the wheat pact and stated that the Canadian farmers are losing at least $100 million on their 1940 wheat crop as a result of the selling policy of the government-that they are not satisfied with the agreement. The statement of the leader of the opposition is on the assumption that if there were no wheat board and no plan, the so-called world price would be available. But that is a false assumption. No one can guarantee that if we were to return to speculative marketing on the grain exchange the farmers could count on an additional $100 million.
Last night the hon. member for Kamloops complained that the agreement was weak. Hon. members in this group feel that the proper procedure is for representatives of the Canadian government and of the British government to negotiate from time to time, and on such occasions to take into account the cost of production and also the price in the world market.
I am strongly opposed to returning to the operations of the Winnipeg grain exchange, and leaving the farmers at the mercy of that organization.
I was interested in reading the debates which took place in the house when the Canadian Wheat Board Act was being discussed by parliament in 1935. We have heard some comment about dictatorships, and what a C.C.F. government would do. But I find that this resolution was introduced on March 4, 1935, and nothing more was heard about it until June. Parliament prorogued on July 5. I find it was the prime minister of that day who took the most active part in the discussion. While his government took the responsibility for the measure, a reading of the debates discloses that there was very little enthusiasm on the part of his followers for the bill which was introduced. It is true that the opposition of that day, the party which now has the responsibility of government, opposed the measure. But there was an election coming on, and hon. members on both sides of the house were careful about what was said. It would appear that they were not quite sure what the reaction would be back home.
The prime minister of that day, the present Viscount Bennett, was able during his extended remarks to claim the doubtful honour that during the time he had been prime minister the price of wheat had fallen to 3&i cents, the 
lowest level which had prevailed in 400 years. Those of us who remember those days hope we shall never have to go back to the uncontrolled and unregulated marketing of grain which prevailed at that time.
There is no reason why an organization like the wheat board cannot assure Canadian farmers, who produce wheat to be sold in the markets of the world and in Canada, that a price can be paid for that -wheat which will 3nable those living on the farms to have a .'air return.
The situation in all parts of the country suggests that one of our best markets in years ahead will be our own farm market. I was interested to read statistics showing facilities that are lacking on our farms all across Canada. The following figures will show the percentage of farmers having these enumerated facilities in the prairie provinces:
Inside running
water	
Electric lights Furnaces ....
Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta per cent per cent per cent
2	1	37	5	618	12	M
The fact that the people on the plains have been unable to take advantage of these modem advantages suggests that they have never enjoyed even a minimum income over an extended period so that they could take advantage of the facilities which are available in the cities. Therefore I suggest that while we will have criticism of specific sections in the bill, it should be supported by all who have at heart, the welfare of western agriculture.


Mr. IRVINE:: This bill is so important and I am so anxious to see it passed that I am not going to say another word about it until we proceed to discuss the sections. It may be that We will have amendments to make on the sections; I feel however that the speeches made last night and this afternoon should have been made on the motion for second reading.


Mr. REID:: I should like at this time to direct a question* to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and when we reach section 3 I shall have something to say about poultry and the price of feed.
For many years, up until the outbreak of war as much as S9 million bushels of wheat were shipped in a year from the Pacific coast to Great Britain. For some reason or another in the past five or six months the wheat board have left two elevators on the Pacific coast vacant. This is a serious matter, because a statement was made in the British House of Commons that they were afraid Canada was

Canadian Wheat Board Act
falling down on the job and would not be able to send to Great Britain in time the quantities of wheat required.
At the present time there are some seven ships awaiting wheat, but there is no wheat available at that point for shipment. In prewar days the ports of British Columbia were great exporting ports, and wheat could be shipped to Great Britain-I believe it could now-just as cheaply by way of the Panama canal as by taking it all the way to Saint John and Halifax. As is well known, during the winter months the port of Montreal is closed. I feel certain in my own mind that had the wheat board utilized the two large elevators on the Pacific coast and filled them with wheat early in the fall, that wheat would now be available for shipment to Great Britain, and the continuous flow maintained.
I realize there is a shortage of cars. Perhaps the minister will now say that that is why the wheat has been held up, but that is only part of the story. On the Pacific coast we are wondering whether the wheat board is now directing its interests to the eastern ports and neglecting the great ports on the Pacific coast.
This matter is serious enough to warrant the minister giving an explanation as to why wheat was not directed by the wheat board to ports on the Pacific.
As one who has argued freight rates before the transport board and the governor in council I would point out to hon. members, as I have pointed out to those bodies, that there are certain parts of Alberta where wheat matures and is threshed a little too late to be shipped via eastern or Atlantic ports. In duty bound that wheat should be shipped through Pacific ports to Great Britain and other countries. I contend that we can ship wheat as cheaply to Great Britain from the Pacific coast as it can be done after being hauled from Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba all the way to Atlantic ports. It is true that shipments through the port of Montreal can be made more cheaply, but when wheat is taken all the way by rail to the Atlantic ports it costs more than when it is shipped through Pacific ports.
Six or seven ocean going ships are now waiting on wheat, and no wheat is there. The statement was made in the British House of Commons that they were afraid we would not be able to ship wheat before the port of Montreal froze up; therefore I think a statement should be made by the minister.


James Angus MacKinnon: As the hon. member for New Westminster has answered his own question, I can only elaborate briefly upon it.
The western shipment of wheat has been a matter of transportation and weather conditions during the harvest period. Ever since last fall efforts have been directed toward getting the greatest possible amount of wheat into position for easy shipment, and that includes shipment from the Pacific coast. In spite of pressure by the wheat board, transportation conditions have been getting worse; and then we encountered the additional problem of damp and wet grain in Alberta. On top of that we had unusually bad winter weather which has tied up a number of cars.
I am sure the hon. member knows, but I shall put it on the record, how the government and the wheat board have attempted to handle this matter with the transportation authorities. We have tried to give high priority to the necessary cars, not only to take wheat to the east and to put wheat in position for the bay ports, but also to send wheat to the Pacific coast where there is and has been ample storage. But there has been a great scarcity of box cars. A large number of our box cars are in the United States and are not being returned here because we have an even greater surplus of cars of another kind in this country which are being used for other purposes. We have run into the position where we have not been able to move to the Pacific coast the amount of wheat that we would have liked to move. Every effort is being made and up to date no ships have failed to find wheat ready for loading. I believe at the present time there are five ships loading at the west ports, there are five being prepared for the reception of grain and I believe there are five or six more ships on the way. I believe we have a couple of million bushels of wheat on hand at the Pacific coast for those ships and there are another couple of million bushels on the way. This whole problem is a serious matter to the wheat board and it is a serious matter to the government, but we are doing everything to take care of it.


Thomas Reid: I rather expected that the minister would emphasize the weather conditions and the lack of cars, but I am afraid his officials have not given him the entire story. In the month of October, long before adverse weather conditions occurred, we had some difficulty in leasing an elevator at New Westminster to the Searle grain company. They were asking for a reduction in the price, and they argued that there were two empty elevators available, which so far as I know have never been used.


James Angus MacKinnon: The Canadian wheat board have no elevators in the Vancouver area.
Canadian Wheat Board Act


Thomas Reid: I am well aware that they have no elevators.


James Angus MacKinnon: Nor do they control any elevators.


Thomas Reid: That is why I put a question on the order paper to find out who is responsible for the routing of grain either east or west. Despite what the minister has said this afternoon I claim that this year we have been discriminated against. In other years we shipped 89 million bushels from that port, and we can ship grain cheaper than when it is hauled all the way across the country to eastern Atlantic ports. I would ask the minister to have the matter looked into further in the light of this protest.


Mr. BROOKS:: I do not blame the hon. member for New Westminster for trying to get wheat shipped through western ports, but I would direct the attention of the minister to the fact that during the last three or four weeks there have been a great many ships lying idle in Saint John and Halifax waiting for grain. I do not think I can agree with the hon. member for New Westminster when he says grain can be shipped cheaper from Vancouver than from Saint John or Halifax. My understanding is that it is cheaper to ship from the maritime ports. I should like to have the minister's reply on that particular point so that there may be no false impression.


Thomas Reid: We are not objecting to wheat being shipped through eastern ports, because you are entitled to those shipments; but there is a dividing point on the prairies. East of that point it is cheaper to ship from eastern points, and west of that point it is cheaper to ship via New Westminster and Vancouver.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The minister might also state whether time is a factor in the matter of shipping wheat. Would you want to ship wheat to England all the way around via the Panama canal, or ship it via the shorter route through eastern ports?


Thomas Reid: You have to ship it any. way you can when a country is crying out for wheat. We should not have ships tied up waiting for wheat.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: They should not have to wait months for it if they are crying out for it.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: In view of the present box car shortage would it not be better to ship through Pacific ports? -because the cars could be shuttled back and forth three times in the time it would take to ship via Saint John. That is something that ought to be considered.


William Irvine: I should like to ask a supplementary question to that asked by the hon. member for New Westminster, because I was not satisfied with the answer made by the minister. It is idle to say that during the past five years or so weather conditions have prevented the shipment of wheat from western Alberta through the port of Prince Rupert, where the government has a first-class elevator. I understand that wheat can be shipped more cheaply from certain points via v'estern ports than it can through eastern ports. This port can be used to great advantage when you are shipping to the orient. Like the hon. member for New Westminster I should like to know who decides this matter, and why it is that year by year this government elevator should not be used.


James Angus MacKinnon: I do not wrant to bring an avalanche of argument down upon me for what I am about to say. First the rates from inland points to Prince Rupert and Vancouver are the same. Second, the British food ministry advise us that the rates from Prince Rupert and Vancouver to British ports are higher than from Atlantic ports.


William Irvine: Naturally, but what about freight rates from points in Alberta to ports on the eastern coast?


James Angus MacKinnon: I am advised that the over-all rate is still higher. But that is not the reason why wheat has not been going to Pacific ports. It is for the reasons I have mentioned, particularly in the last six weeks or two months.


Thomas Reid: There is another point the minister overlooked. There is a great lumber trade from British Columbia eastward, the lumber going to Great Britain or to the eastern and central provinces. Those cars on their return trip could easily haul wheat westward. That would help to solve the car shortage. But they now travel empty clear across the country.


James Angus MacKinnon: I do not think I need to point out to the hon. member for New Westminster that I agree heartily with his argument.


Mr. MILLER:: Is it the intention of the government to continue the wheat board after the expiration of this wheat agreement? The explanatory notes say that that is the main purpose of the act. Second, the new clause 2(1) (j) defining "quota" speaks of "a specified number of acres". That is a new expression. The old regulation spoke of the authorized acreage. Upon what basis will the specified or authorized acreage be fixed?

Canadian Wheat Board Act


James Angus MacKinnon: The government certainly anticipates the continuation of the wheat board after the end of the British agreement. I do not want anything to be read into that statement beyond exactly what I say, namely, that we anticipate that the Canadian wheat board will carry on after the termination of the British agreement.
The authorized acreage is sixty-five per cent of the wheat acreage of 1940. Anybody familiar with farming will appreciate that a man who ordinarily grows wheat may not have grown wheat that year and therefore would not have had an opportunity to get an authorized acreage. Various cases of this kind have been taken into account and at the present time the authorized acreage in designated areas amounts to 22,100,000.


Calvert Charlton Miller: Who fixed that? Is it mentioned in the act at all?


James Angus MacKinnon: I am told that it was fixed arbitrarily to start with but adjustments have since then been made.


Mr. FAIR:: I have been listening for quite a while to gentlemen farmers and, as one who has practically lived in the wheat fields for more than thirty years, I wish to say a few words lest my position and that of those with whom I am associated might not be understood.


Thomas Reid: All farmers are gentlemen.


Robert Fair: I quite realize that. But a number of people have a false impression of the standard of living in my part of the country, and it is amusing to find some of these gentlemen farmers who do not get up early in the morning and do not make their living out of the soil still coming to the house and telling us about farming conditions. I thought we had done away with all their arguments long ago but I find that some of them are still telling us what they think the western farmers are doing. It does them no credit and I object strenuously to some of the things that have been said.
On February 4, the hon. member for Champlain said:
I am opposed to special privileges and special financial favours being granted to one portion of agriculture. The eastern farmer as a rule does not spend much time asking tor favours.
Commenting on that, I would say that the eastern farmer has all his favours granted without asking for them. The hon. member went on:
In fact he has never been spoiled by government favours. The same thing cannot be said of the farmers in other parts of Canada. If
there is any difference between the eastern and western farmer i would say that the eastern farmer works harder and longer hours and is a more deserving citizen.
Right here I suggest that it is poor business for anybody who is getting his living directly or indirectly from the farmer to try to stir up hatred between the eastern and the western farmer, and I suggest that the hon. gentleman should change his ways. He went on, speaking of the eastern farmer:
He is honest and he pays his debts.
That was insinuating that the western farmer is not honest and does not pay his debts. I object strongly to that insinuation. Still speaking of the eastern farmer, he went on to say:
He administers his affairs more wisely and more economically than others.
Here again let me say that the western farmer takes second place to no other farmer or businessman in the administration of his affairs or in working long 'hours and working hard' at making a living. The hon. member continued:
He takes good care of his property. You will not see near the buildings of an eastern farmer pieces of expensive machinery like threshing machines. combines, binders and mowers lying around exposed the year round to rust and dust and rain and snow.
A number of these implements are not used by eastern farmers, but in western Canada they have to have them, and, because of the conditions imposed upon us, not because of our inefficiency or anything of that kind, we have been unable in some cases to provide machine sheds to 'house these machines.


William Henry Golding: The hon. member Should not quote from a previous debate this session.


Robert Fair: I have just about finished, Mr. Chairman, and I can give the rest from memory. The hon. member went on to say that fortunately the eastern provincial governments have not passed any moratoriums to protect the farmer. Any moratorium that has been granted in western Canada was made necessary because of the conditions imposed on the western farmer for the benefit of central Canada. Had we been given a square deal; hau we been given farm implements at reasonable prices, things might have been different. As hon. members know, at least seventy per cent of the farm implements manufactured in central Canada are used in western Canada, and yet we are paying exorbitant freight rates, that are an injustice on both the raw material and the finished products. No comment of that kind should have been made by the hon. gentleman in question.
Canadian Wheat Board Act

A little later on in his speech, he said that he was well acquainted with the farmers in his constituency.


William Henry Golding: Order. I would remind the hon. member that we are dealing with section 1 of this bill.


Robert Fair: Mr. Chairman, I shall put my book away and I shall not quote any more, nor am I reading my speech. But I have to finish with the hon. gentleman. He said that he was well acquainted with the farmers in his constituency and that he also had some land in Saskatchewan-


James Lorimer Ilsley: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that we shall have to decide at an early stage in this session whether we are to pay any attention to the rules. This is rebuttal, whether the hon. gentleman reads his speech or not. He is now referring to some remarks made by an hon. gentleman in a previous debate which have no relation whatever to the section in question or even to the bill that is now before the committee. Surely the hon. member must realize that that is so far beyond' the bounds of the rules of order that it should not be permitted; otherwise we shall have no rules of order during the session.


William Henry Golding: I would ask the hon. member to try to confine his remarks to section 1, which I hope will soon be carried.


Robert Fair: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the Minister of Injustice should give me a chance to answer a charge which has been made against the western farmer. This hon. gentleman said that he has had more headaches than money from his western farm.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Robert Fair: That is all I am going to say about the matter.
Without quoting the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, may I say that I was amused a day or two ago to hear him say that he had heard from farmers that they did not expect any more participation certificates or the payment of them. I do not know who these fellows could be unless they were gentlemen farmers who are in the habit of contributing something for purposes which I shall not mention here. They could not have been dirt farmers because they knew well from past experience that they should have had much more coming to them than they have already received.
To show that the farmers have been contributing quite a lot, may I remind the committee that for a number of years past we

have been subsidizing directly and indirectly the consumers of Canada, namely, those who eat bread and drink whiskey and other liquors.


Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: Shame!


Robert Fair: We have been supplying wheat to the millers and distillers at a price of
77f cents a bushel. The government has been subsidizing the difference between 77$ cents and SI.25, and the farmers out of their own pockets have been putting up the difference between SI .25 and world market prices. The hon. gentleman to whom I referred did not refuse to eat that cheap bread or drink the cheap liquor.


An hon. MEMBER:: What cheap liquor?


Robert Fair: Let us not forget that for some time we have subsidized the consumers of Britain to the extent of the difference between SI.55 and world market prices. I am not objecting to that. I believe Britain has had a hard time and will have a hard time for some time to come, but let us not forget that the farmers of Canada have had a hard time, and there are more of these hard times coming. If the government wishes to make good fellows of themselves let the cost of this subsidy be paid by all the people of Canada. That is the stand we take with regard to that matter.
A number of people have the idea that we are being enriched by being paid an initial price of $1.35 a bushel. About three and a half years ago we found out that the parity price of wheat at that time was $1.41 a bushel. On other occasions since that time we have been told that government statisticians could not calculate the cost of wheat, but these are the figures which have been given by the government. Let us not forget that that parity price was based on a price that existed between 1926 and 1929. I have no objection whatever to a parity price being calculated provided that it is calculated on a just basis. During the period 1926 to 1929 the percentage of the national income received by the farmers was 16-6 per cent, although we had approximately one-third of the population of Canada living on the land. In my opinion that is not a sound basis on which to calculate parity prices. Today the price would be much above $1.41 because we have had an increase in practically everything we have to buy. In addition to the increase in the price, we find that the quality has been materially deteriorated.
During the early years of the war and during the depression years we were told that in days to come we would get better treatment. Do not forget that from 1930 to 1940

Canadian Wheat Board Act
the farmers of Canada received an average of 9-4 per cent of the national income. In other words, one-third of the population of Canada living on the land received 9-4 per cent of the national income. If we take some of the better years from 1926 to 1940 we shall find that the average ran to 11-3 per cent. If we go back to 1932, the worst year of the man-made depression, we shall find that the farmers of Canada received five per cent of the national income. That was a man-made condition which should not be imposed upon the people of this or of any other country.
While we are dealing with that year, I should remind the committee that the grain exchange was in full operation at that time and wheat went down to 38i cents a bushel. Perhaps some of the champions of the grain exchange can tell us why we did not have better prices at that time. We should be glad to hear them a little later on. I am personally, and this group as a whole are in favour of the wheat board and definitely opposed to the grain exchange. Let there be no mistake about that. In my opinion the grain exchange has robbed more farmers and put more of them on the road than any other single cause because, in addition to selling grain that was grown, the exchange sold millions of bushels that were never even sown or grown and used it to depress and otherwise deal with prices.
I believe that we should place our stand definitely on record. We believe that the wheat board should take delivery of all grain grown up to the end of July, 1950. I say that because we have had very low prices up to August 1, 1942. When I came to the house first in 1936 the initial price of wheat was fixed at 87^ cents a bushel. It remained at that figure the next year; but, if my memory serves me aright order in council P.C. 2202 was passed which made the wheat board inoperative unless the price of wheat went below ninety cents a bushel. In 1938 the price was cut by this government to eighty cents a bushel, and in 1939 a bill was introduced which would have made the initial payment sixty cents a bushel. But during a couple of weeks at Easter time the bill was withdrawn and another one introduced which substituted seventy cents for sixty cents. I do not know whether an election was in the offing at that time, but we might give the government credit for increasing the price ten cents a bushel, from sixty to seventy cents. That price of seventy cents a bushel continued as the initial payment until August 1, 1942, after we had been in the war for practically three years. That, in my opinion, is not fair and should have brought about some settlement in the later years of the war and after the war in order to make up for the losses the farmers suffered during those years. The September, 1943, price was $1.25 a bushel and, as hon. members know, it is now $1.35 a bushel as from August 1, 1945. I am quite satisfied that, taking everything into consideration, the price should be not $1.35 initial but $1.55. That is the price guaranteed by the British government at the present time.
Do not forget that the wheat board, on behalf of the government, is holding back an average of ninety cents a bushel on every bushel delivered this year by the Canadian farmer. Do not forget either that a number of farmers are still in debt, paying interest on debts that should be paid off by this money that is held over by the board.
Again, if we are to take the payments on past crops as an indication of the time when we may expect other payments under the government's programme, it will be 1951, or 1952 or 1953 before we can expect to get our money out of the proposed five-year pool. I understand that it will be possibly two or three months before the 1943 participation payments are complete, and after that we shall have the 1944 payments coming, which will possibly be three or four years behind time.
The initial price should be increased to $1.55. It is only reasonable to ask that this be done, and when the proper time comes in committee we intend to move an amendment to that effect.
In order to "give the farmers the benefit of the price that exists at the present time, we believe that settlement should be made on each crop as sold. That, I believe, would be in conformity with the terms of the Canadian Wheat Board Act. While the condition of the farmer at the present time is better than it has been for a number of years, there are still millions of dollars owed by farmers, and so long as any farmer is in debt we are not in a proper financial position and should be entitled to our proper share of the national income so that we might be able to build homes, put up outbuildings, buy proper machinery and also pay our debts and live as the rest of the Canadians do.


John Lambert Gibson: I wish to assure the hon. member for Battle River that I am not a farmer and I certainly would not claim to be a gentleman farmer in any event.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: You are a gentleman.


John Lambert Gibson: However I have listened with keen interest to this debate, which, as the hon. member for Cariboo
Canadian Wheat Board Act

said, has become a trifle tedious. I have often wondered if it would not be an excellent plan for the parties to get together and decide what stand they would take and each party have certain speeches made; and, apart from that, any member who wanted to do so might send out to his constituency a copy of a speech with his photograph on it. He would not say that he had made it, but he could allow his constituents to infer that he had done so. It would do just as much good.
As I have listened to this debate, it has seemed to me that the farm members are trying to claim that the farmers are carrying the white man's burden in connection with everything we happen to do for Great Britain. I would point out that we in British Columbia have not done much squawking about aid to the old country, but I want the committee to know that for the past six years the lumbermen, fishermen and miners of that province have been making a substantial contribution in accepting lower prices for all their products, and we have not complained about that at all.
As regards the wheat board that is being set up, I must say I do not know much about wheat. I bought wheat once when I was told it was at the lowest price in three hundred years, because some gentleman on the grain exchange told me that it could not possibly go lower. I found that it was lower in Caesar's time, however, and that is where I wound up. So that I have no particular brief for the wheat board, and I assure the government that if they start any timber boards in British Columbia, or any fish boards out there, I shall be much opposed to them. The wheat board may be necessary; I am still to be convinced of that; but I should not like to see the government extend their socialistic proclivities farther than they have gone at the present time.


Calvert Charlton Miller: As I understand the situation, if there are farmers who, by reason of their method of farming, or crop rotation, consider they are aggrieved by the fixed percentage of sixty-five per cent they can go to the board and have it adjusted.


James Angus MacKinnon: That has been done
in thousands of cases.


Calvert Charlton Miller: The minister did not tell
me how the specified acreage is fixed, or was fixed. Is it by order in council? There appears to be nothing in the act to authorize it, unless it is done by order in council.


James Angus MacKinnon: I am informed that it was fixed arbitrarily by the board and has been continued with variations.


Calvert Charlton Miller: You are taking no statutory authority this time.


James Angus MacKinnon: No. This figure was
adopted by accepting the wheat acreage reduction figure, which was sixty-five per cent of the 1940 acreage.


Calvert Charlton Miller: Should it not be in the
statute?


James Angus MacKinnon: I do not think so.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: I wish to make
it clear that the three members from British Columbia-three members, I repeat; two on this side and one in that corner-representing farm districts are in accord with the bill. On a former occasion I heard members raising points of order and questions of privilege and talking about everything but the north pole, making remarks on wheat when they knew nothing at all about the subject. I agree with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni that we could shorten the debate if the suggestion he made were adopted. One of these farm experts from British Columbia might have his picture in Hansard but at any rate he leaves a bunch of them around in post offices with the invitation to ''take one". The funny thing is, however, that no one bothers to take one.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who is that?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am not mentioning names. He has wasted a lot of time and 1 do not want to get him started again. I will tell you that he is one of these Rhodes scholar members. I leave the inference to you. So that there will be no misunderstanding, I may say that, while we have disagreed with many things in connection with wheat in the last week because certain subjects were not taken into account, the British Columbia farmer members are not opposing this bill, because we are entirely in favour of the board. Speaking personally and, I believe, for other members, we have no sympathy for Toronto and the Winnipeg grain exchange. As far as I can see, the Winnipeg grain exchange has found friends only among the Toronto members of the house.


An hon. MEMBER:: The Tory party.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I was not so rude as to say, "the Tory party." The members from British Columbia representing the farmers are supporting this bill. We do not think it covers some things that should be covered, but we can take those up later and see that our people are protected.


James Arthur Ross: Could the minister tell us approximately what it costs to transport

Canadian. Wheat Board Act
a bushel of wheat from Fort William to Britain? If he can tell me that I shall have another question to ask.


William Henry Golding: I do not think that comes under
section 1.


James Arthur Ross: W'hat section does it come under?


William Henry Golding: This is the definition section.


James Arthur Ross: There is reference to the export of Wheat. I know many people have asked for this information, and I have been trying to obtain it for them. If the minister does not have it, that is all right, but if he can get it for me I should like to have it.


James Angus MacKinnon: I shall make a note of the hon. member's question, and when we come to the proper section I shall give him that information.


James Arthur Ross: Last evening the minister said he might have some information for me about feed wheat.


James Angus MacKinnon: It was my intention to give the answer to the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Souris, just before six o'clock. I wonder if the committee would allow me to put it on the record, or should I read it? The question is, how much does the feeder pay for wheat?


James Arthur Ross: And the annual consumption; is that information available?


James Angus MacKinnon: And the annual
consumption.


William Henry Golding: Does the committee agree that the minister shall have permission to place this information on the record?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


James Angus MacKinnon: 
Mr. CAMPBELL:: I should like a little information in connection with quotas. A few moments ago, in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie, the minister said that quotas which had been set in 1940 had been changed in some cases. I have run into quite a few instances where the quotas set in that period were very low, and I am glad to hear the minister say it is now possible to have those quotas changed. Would he tell me just what the procedure is in order to have that done? Then I want some information in regard to subsection 1 of section 2 of the act, which reads:
(1) In this act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a) "actual producer" means a producer actually engaged in the production of grain.
Then on page 2 a producer is defined in this way:
(i) "producer" includes, as well as an actual producer, any person entitled, as landlord, vendor or mortgagee, to the grain grown by an actual producer or to any share therein.
The point I wish to raise is that if a quota is put on, as will likely be the case in the event of a large crop, and that quota is perhaps five bushels to the acre the first month, gradually increasing until all the crop is taken care of, who will be able to sell that quota of five bushels or whatever the figure is? Will the actual producer of the grain get permission to sell that amount, or will the producer as defined in paragraph (i) have an opportunity to sell grain as well?

Canadian Wheat Board Act


James Angus MacKinnon: I was not able to follow my hon. friend's question all the way through, but I am informed that subsection 1 of section 16 will give him the proper answer.
The hon member also asked regarding the authorized acreage. Anyone who feels that he has a grievance need only write the Canadian wheat board, acreage division, and it will be looked after.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Board to be an agent of His Majesty.
Mr. WRIGHT:: Mr. Chairman, are you going to deal separately with each of the lettered sections under section 2, or are you having it passed en bloc?


William Henry Golding: We shall try to accommodate ourselves to the wishes of the committee in that matter. If the hon. member wishes to discuss any part of the section he is at liberty to do so.


Percy Ellis Wright: I wanted to ask a question with regard to paragraph (j) on page 2 of the bill, concerning the definition of "quota." That paragraph reads:
"Quota" means the quantity of grain authorized to be delivered from grain produced on land described in a permit book as fixed from time to time by the board, whether expressed as a quantity that may be delivered from a specified number of acres or otherwise.
I am wondering whether this definition of quota is needed now in view of the fact that the minister said he intended to delete a further section in the bill which deals with quotas.


James Angus MacKinnon: I am told that this clause is still needed; that all we are deleting is the minimum guarantee. We still want the power to arrange quotas, for deliveries only.


Percy Ellis Wright: Then I would ask the minister just what is meant by the words, "whether expressed as a quantity that may be delivered from a specified number of acres or otherwise." What has that reference to?


James Angus MacKinnon: At the present time, for delivery purposes each farm is allotted an authorized acreage, and the quotas are progressively related to that acreage.


Mr. WTRIGHT:: Then I see the words "or otherwise." The first part covers that, without the use of the last two words.


James Angus MacKinnon: I am told that it is a matter of drafting. It might be necessary to apply it in some other way, without limiting in any way the general purpose of the clause.


Percy Ellis Wright: It does not have reference to coarse grains?


James Angus MacKinnon: No.


Percy Ellis Wright: Only to wheat?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes, just wheat. I am told that, in the event of the board handling coarse grains, it may then refer to coarse grains. The Canadian wheat board can put quotas on all grains delivered to elevators.


Mr. QUELCH:: Would the minister explain how the authorized acreage is arrived at by the board, and then what may happen to change that acreage? For instance, if a man buys an additional farm does he automatically get the quota with that farm? Or if he should happen to break up some additional land, to what extent will the quota be increased for that newly broken land? Will it be on the basis of fifty per cent, or on what basis?


James Angus MacKinnon: I think I can briefly state that the general purpose or general idea observed is to bring up the authorized acreage in the individual case to the average of the district.


Victor Quelch: The average of the district is based upon approximately fifty per cent of the cultivated wheat acreage of 1941? There must be some basis for the average.


James Angus MacKinnon: I have answered that question. It is based on sixty-five per cent of the 1940 seeded acreage.


Robert Fair: May I ask whether that percentage-


William Henry Golding: The committee has carried section 1. The matter of quota is in that section. I suggest that we should now deal with section 2.


Percy Ellis Wright: I had one further question to ask with respect to quota. I had thought that the various paragraphs would be called under section 1, rather than passing it as a whole.


William Henry Golding: Section 1 was carried, and we are now dealing with section 2.


Percy Ellis Wright: In determining the quotas for individuals who send in applications, is the same formula used for all parts of western Canada? I have been informed that when applications come in from certain areas the quota is less than that given in certain other areas. Is the same formula used throughout the whole of western Canada in determining the quota?

Canadian Wheat Board Act


James Angus MacKinnon: The farming conditions in a particular district are taken into consideration in the establishment or revision of the authorized acreage.


Percy Ellis Wright: That is, in the wheat growing areas in the southern part of the province larger quotas would be given to individual farmers than to a farmer, we will say, in the northern part of the province, where coarse grains are grown. If there is a difference, I should like to know what it is.


James Angus MacKinnon: The hon. member is talking about authorized acreage?


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes, the matter of determining authorized acreage in respect of individual applications which are now sent in, or have been sent in and dealt with by the board. The minister has said a different formula is used in determining the authorized acreage as between the different parts of western Canada. What are those differences?


James Angus MacKinnon: The only answer I can give at this time is that it depends entirely upon the farming conditions in a particular district.


Percy Ellis Wright: I am particularly anxious to know what those are, and I think they should be available. I am not asking that the minister give them immediately, but I would ask that he put the information on record.


James Angus MacKinnon: I am advised it would take an hour to give it.


Percy Ellis Wright: I believe we are entitled to have it. As a member I have been asked why these differences should exist. I think we have a right to know what the differences are, and the reason for the board's allowing them.


James Angus MacKinnon: I shall see that a statement is prepared and submitted tomorrow.


Victor Quelch: One question I asked the minister did not answer.


William Henry Golding: Older.


Victor Quelch: It is a separate question.


William Henry Golding: I hope hon. members are not now going to discuss section 1. It has been carried by the committee, and we are now on section 2.


Mr. BRACKEN:: I have a question supplementary to the answer the minister has just given. I ask it only in order that I may be clear as to the meaning the government intends to give to the words "or otherwise" in paragraph (j) of section 1. My understanding of the minister's answer that that is a blanket power asked for by the board in order to arrive at some other means of applying the quota, if the bushelage on a specific acreage should require to be departed from. Is that correct?


James Angus MacKinnon: I am advised that sometimes over the years it might be necessary to apply this to the seeded acreage, which may be an additional benefit to the farmer. I am told it is already done in respect of coarse grains.


John Bracken: It is just a blanket phrase under which the government may apply this quota system in some way different from that indicated in the section. I believe that is the answer.


Victor Quelch: Apparently we are discussing section 1. May I have an answer to my question asked a few moments ago? If a farmer who owns land buys an additional farm, does he automatically get the quota that is on that farm when he buys it? If not, why not?


James Angus MacKinnon: He does.


Thomas Reid: I wish to say a word regarding a matter the discussion of which was ruled out of order last night, I believe that it would fall properly under section 2, which deals with interprovincial and export trade. In my opinion-and I have so expressed it on- many occasions-the difficulty confronting agriculturists in certain parts of the country is due to too many ministers handling agricultural matters. Agriculture now comes under three ministers, the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Finance. With that complicated set-up, it is little wonder that the poultry raisers and dairymen in certain provinces, particularly British Columbia, are a little worried and hence have some difficulty in getting a direct statement from the minister.


Gordon Graydon: The Minister of National Revenue is the worst one.


Thomas Reid: That is a matter of opinion. But I am not going to be side-tracked, I have my own views on the point. We in British Columbia are not asking for too much. Let us look at the picture for a moment. Until 1940 the poultry industry in British Columbia was at a low ebb. At least fifty per cent of chicken houses were empty. Then a demand came from Great Britain for a supply of eggs. Under the Department of Agriculture, steps were taken to encourage the growth of that industry.
Canadian Wheat Board Act


William Henry Golding: Order. I do not believe the poultry business comes under this section at all. I must ask hon. members to try to confine their remarks to the section.


Gordon Graydon: Poultry is always in season.


Thomas Reid: I do not know that I have a better friend in the house than the hon. member who is now in the Chair, and I am sorry to have to dispute his ruling. If the Chairman will look at subsection 3 of section 2 he will see that the board is incorporated with the object of marketing in an orderly manner, in interprovincial and export trade. We are buying wheat and the trade must be interprovincial. Even an ordinary lawyer would know that, let alone a. good one. I believe I am well within the confines of the section when I deal with this matter, and I am sorry to have to disagree with the Chairman. Am I to be allowed to continue?
The poultry industry was at low ebb in 1940. Then encouragement was given by way of freight assistance and a twenty-five per cent drawback. May I say to the committee that we are appreciative of the help that has been given. I have been told by one cooperative organization that the assistance granted to them last year amounted to something like $387,000. However, that assistance was in the picture when the departmental officials and the minister made the agreement with Great Britain. The section taken by the Minister of Trade and Commerce which has raised the price of wheat some $10 a ton has affected the entire poultry industry. I know the matter is rather complicated and perhaps no definite statement can be made by either minister, but I ask that the entire situation be carefully considered in the light of the fact that this industry depends and was established on the basis of the assistance given to it.
It is all very well for men in the cities to ask for an increase in wages and I do not think it is too much for farmers who are faced with an increase of 810 a ton for the wheat they buy to come to the government through their representatives and ask that the entire situation be reviewed so that the industry may not again fold up.


James Arthur Ross: Paragraph (g) of the new subsection 3 reads:
(g) to establish, utilize and employ such marketing agencies or facilities as it deems necessary for the purpose of its operations under this act.
How do the officials of the Canadian wheat board arrive at a price, say of $2.49 a bushel,

for No. 2 Canadian wheat? This was one of the prices quoted the other day, but I thinl-it is now about $2.51. In arriving at this price, do the minister's officials take into consideration the use of brokerage people on the grain exchange?


James Angus MacKinnon: The price per bushel is based on the United States price and no brokerage is paid by the Canadian wheat board. I am informed that a service charge is paid by the buyers to the shippers that they use.


James Arthur Ross: How do you arrive at that price in conjunction with the United States price? Those prices vary considerably. For instance, there is quite a variation today between Chicago and Winnipeg prices. What formula do you use in getting the price at which you are going to export wheat to other countries?


James Angus MacKinnon: The price is arrived at after considering the prices prevailing in all United States markets and at the seaboard.


Mrs. STRUM:: What brokers or selling agencies have acted for the government in selling Canadian wheat?


James Angus MacKinnon: I shall be glad to secure a detailed list and submit it tomorrow.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Irvine) that section 2, subsection 3, paragraph (g) be amended by striking out the - words "utilize and employ" so that it will read:
(g) to establish such marketing agencies or facilities as it deems necessary for the purpose of its operations under this act.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: What is meant by the word "utilize"?


James Angus MacKinnon: Simply that we are using existing agencies, shippers.


Charles Edward Johnston: Are you using any in
Canada?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes, shippers.


Charles Edward Johnston: What commission do you pay?


James Angus MacKinnon: As I have just
explained, there is no commission paid by the wheat board but a service charge is paid by the purchaser.


Charles Edward Johnston: Is any reduction made
in the price at which you offer grain for sale to take care of the commission paid by the buyer?


James Angus MacKinnon: No reduction at all.

Canadian Wheat Board Act


Walter Adam Tucker: If this amendment were to carry, would it prevent the employment of cooperative marketing agencies like the wheat pools?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes, I am advised that it would.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: Since the wheat board is the sole receiving agency and exporter, is there any reason why it should not have its own selling agency? There seems to be a contradiction there. The wheat board is going to handle all wheat that we are going to sell; we have signed long-term contracts with importing countries and then, after having fixed up these agreements, someone else is to handle the mechanics of placing it for us. This clause permits the government to go into the actual selling, and I understand that this is the first time the government has written this particular clause into the wheat board1 act.


James Angus MacKinnon: We have always had it.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: If it is there, why do we not use it?


James Angus MacKinnon: The Canadian wheat board is not asking the buyers to use any particular services. They are quite satisfied to carry on the way they have been and use certain established services.


James Arthur Ross: Judging from the answer the minister gave me I would assume that on the wheat taken by Great Britain they pay brokerage charges.


James Angus MacKinnon: They pay a service charge.


James Arthur Ross: How much does that amount to?


James Angus MacKinnon: For the movement of wheat from the lakehead to the seaboard, one cent a bushel; for the movement of wheat from Vancouver, half a cent a bushel.


James Arthur Ross: From evidence given by the officials, I have understood that in the past it was the desire of the British government to trade through these brokerage people. Is that the case today? It was during the war.


James Angus MacKinnon: So far, they have indicated plainly that they wish to continue to trade through the established agencies.


William Irvine: I do not think the minister's conclusion is accurate when he says that the amendment, if carried, would prevent the British from utilizing the pools. It merely
says:
-to establish such marketing agencies or facilities as it deems necessary for the purpose of its operations under this act.
It does not say that before it establishes all that is required for the board's own business, it shall not use the pools.


Mr. MUTCH:: If it would permit the use of one agency the amendment would mean that the board could establish any channel it liked. If we accept the hon. member's interpretation of the amendment it is just words that mean nothing at all.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: I am indebted to the hon. member for Rosthern for pointing out that the amendment might prohibit the pools from selling, which is something I would not wish to do. What I wished to accomplish was this. I should like to see the government do the thing which the bill says it may do. I understand that this is permissive but not obligatory? Is that correct?


James Angus MacKinnon: That is correct.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: In moving the deletion of those words, I was simply proposing to make it obligatory for the board to establish a selling agency of their own.


Walter Adam Tucker: Does the hon. member not realize that to make it obligatory on the board to set up their own organization might prevent them from employing the cooperative marketing agencies, which have their elevators and terminals and so on out west? If it is made obligatory on the board to set up their own organization it would be impossible for them to employ the pools. Surely the C.C.F. do not want to put the pools out of business.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: In answer to the hon. member, I would point out that in the handling of coarse grains, for instance, it did not follow that we had only one marketing agency. The wheat board is taking delivery of coarse grains and the grain trade is also handling coarse grains. The thing I hoped to do by my amendment was to make it obligatory for the board to start to do this thing which this clause says it may do.


Mr. JAENICKE:: I think there is a misunderstanding between the hon. member for Rosthern and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. We want to know what is meant by a marketing agency. The hon. member for Rosthern I think includes all the elevators and he may be right, but I understand that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle means only the commission agents who do the actual buying or selling of the grain.


Walter Adam Tucker: It says, "employ such marketing agencies or facilities."


Frank Eric Jaenicke: I agree with the hon. member for Rosthern.
Canadian Wheat Board Act


William Henry Golding: In view of the explanation given, does the hon. member wish to withdraw her amendment?


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it.
Amendment withdrawn.


John Bracken: The minister has indicated in answer to questions, that there is now no commission paid by the government or the wheat board and no commission paid by the purchaser, but that what he calls a service charge is paid. Is that correct?


James Angus MacKinnon: That is what I have stated, yes. The purchaser pays a service charge or commission, or whatever you want to call it, but that is entirely outside the purview of the wheat board.


John Bracken: The minister has indicated that a service charge is paid by the purchaser, of one cent a bushel in some cases and half a cent a bushel in others. What I want to know is what service is given for this charge that is made.


James Angus MacKinnon: I think I can get an answer for the hon. member, but I do not see that it is relevant at all, because it is a matter between the purchaser and the agent in Canada that he employs.


John Bracken: If the minister does not wish to answer, that is one thing, but I respectfully suggest that the members of this house and the Canadian people ought to be told what service is given for this charge of one cent or half a cent a bushel which the minister has mentioned. I think it would clear up a great deal of misunderstanding if there were more frankness on the part of the minister on that point.


James Arthur Ross: I think this point
should be cleared up. I well remember that in the agriculture committee in 1942, when the report of the wheat board was before that committee, another member and I moved for the names and a break-down of some ninety brokers who were then being paid by the wheat board on the say-so of the other end of the deal. I understand that this practice has been stopped and that the other end of the deal are now paying it themselves, that it does not go through wheat board channels at all. But in 1942 the cheques were issued by the wheat board on the say-so of the purchaser at the other end of the deal.
I have a copy of the proceedings of that committee to bear me out. The commissions ran into a huge sum of money. I think the 
producers are entitled to know just what service is rendered for the service charge that is made, even if it is paid by the other end of the deal, because it is part of the buying and selling operations.


James Angus MacKinnon: Wheat going from the lakehead to the seaboard is taken by the shipper and put on board the ocean-going vessel. Exactly the same thing takes place with respect to Vancouver; the shipper takes the grain and places it on board an ocean-going vessel.


John Bracken: Is that the same service for which a commission was formerly paid?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes.


John Bracken: Then the service charge is just a substitution for the commission which was formerly paid?


James Angus MacKinnon: Technically it may be a substitution, but actually it is an arrangement between the purchaser and his agent in Winnipeg.


Mr. GARDINER:: If I may be permitted, what the hon. member for Souris has in mind is, I think, a discussion that took place before the committee on agriculture in 1942. I recall that on that occasion I was called before the committee to answer some questions having to do with the very point which is now raised. This request was made of the British at that time, whether they wanted this service established in Canada. Mr. Taggart was with me in Britain in 1940. The then chairman of the cereals branch of the purchasing board of the British government was Mr. Rank; his assistant was Mr. Hooker. Across the table we asked the definite question whether they wanted this service continued in Canada. They made the definite request at that time that the service be continued on this side; that otherwise they would have to set up a service of their own. They preferred to deal with the individuals who had been carrying on the service throughout the years and with whom they were familiar rather than to establish one of their own. They have been dealing in that way ever since. The officials on the British side who are dealing with the wheat at the present time are much the same officials who were dealing with it then.


Mr. SENN:: Paragraph (e) of subsection 3 of section 2 confers certain powers upon the board. It gives the board power-
. . . to employ such technical, professional or other officers, clerks or employees as may be lecessary for the conduct of its business.

Canadian Wheat Board Act
I presume that power was conferred upon the board by order in council under the War Measures Act, but I am not sure of this. However I think the wisdom of conferring such power upon the board is open to question. In a great many lines of governmental activity civil servants are chosen by the civil service commission. Personally I am opposed to conferring this power upon the board, because I think the civil service commission might very well be employed to choose these officials. Of course it might be said that the civil service commission are not capable of employing or choosing technical and professional officers. I should like to point out that the Gordon report made certain recommendations about modifying the position about technical and professional officers under the Civil Service Act. Personally and, I think, on behalf of the party I can say that we are not opposed to such a change, but if the government keeps on appointing officials m this way the day will come, and it may not be far distant, when there will be more civil servants outside the provisions of the Civil Service Act than there will be under it. Therefore I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for 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."
The paragraph would then read:
Pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Service Act, to employ such technical, professional or other officers, clerks or employees as may be necessary for the conduct of its business.


James Angus MacKinnon: We shall have to give consideration to the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Haldimand, but I may say that this paragraph is taken from the wheat board act of 1935.


Mark Cecil Senn: No.


John Bracken: You are not following all the features of that act.


James Angus MacKinnon: I misstated my
information.


Mark Cecil Senn: It is not in the 1935 act.


James Angus MacKinnon: The powers are exactly the same as those contained in the act of 1935.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: May I ask the minister a question in connection with the main part of the section which provides:
The board is, for all purposes, an agent of His Majesty in right of Canada . . .
Will the minister not reconsider that and perhaps make an addition to the act permit-83166-53
ting the board to be sued? Will he tell me now, if he can, why he thinks this board ought not to 'be sued the same as any other corporation doing business of this kind?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Perhaps that is a question on Which I might be allowed to say a word or two. I am not in a position at the moment to make a full statement on the desirability or advisability of making boards such as this agencies of the crown. But in the only litigation in which the point has been raised, this board has been held to be an agent of the crown. One thing which I think one can say with certainty is that it is desirable in t'he legislation to settle the question one way or the other as to whether it is an agency of the crown or not. According to other provisions of the act, the board is subject to directions from the governor in council. That may or may not be desirable. The desirability of making it subject to the directions of the governor in council may be dealt with under a subsequent section. But I think parliament will expect t'he government to take a considerable measure of responsibility for the operations of the wheat board, because it is in its essence a government operation.
As I understand it, When it is made an agency of the crown its property is not taxable. I think that is desirable. I should think it would be desirable from the point of view of the farmers who are interested in keeping the expenses of the board as low as possible.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am not suggesting any change in that. I think you should merely addi a provision somewhere that it can sue and be sued.


Mr. FRASER:: Then t'he question of garnishee arises. If this board, is not an agency of the crown I am informed it would probably be subject to garnishee proceedings.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Suppose it was.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That would mean that these amounts due to hundreds of thousands of farmers would be attachable at the instance of creditors. That has never been considered as a desirable feature of the legislation, I do not think it is desirable, although that again is something as to which there might be pros and cons.


Arthur Leroy Smith: A garnishee would cover only debt, not damages or things of that kind.'


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am not mistaken, am I, in thinking that if an amount is due by the crown to a farmer under a participation cer-

Canadian Wheat Board Act

tificate, if that debt could be attached in garnishee proceedings the farmer would not get it. If it is like an independent corporation that would be the situation.


Gordon Graydon: That could be protected, if you want to do it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Should we attempt to draw a line? As I say, I did not come prepared1 to argue this question and I should like to give it a little further thought. But should we be prepared to set up something halfway between a crown corporation and an independent corporation?


Gordon Graydon: It was done in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know whether the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is an agency of the crown or not.


Gordon Graydon: Nobody else does.


William Henry Golding: Order.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is why it should be settled one way or the other in this bill. I think it should be settled one way or the other as to whether it is an independent board entirely, and the more independent it is made, the more you take it from under the control of government and of parliament. Or it should be made an emanation of the crown in so many words, which would bring it directly under the governor in council and much more susceptible, I should saj', to the control of parliament and exemption from taxation and garnishee proceedings. These are some of the considerations involved in deciding the question, and I shall give the matter some thought between now and tomorrow and make a statement as to what our position is. But with what consideration we have been able to give it, we thought it was far more desirable, from every point of view, to make it. an agency of the crown, which in fact it is. Really this is the government, through an agency, that is in the business.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The minister will remember that the most I asked was that he give the matter further consideration than it has so far received.
May I point out one or two other things that have not been considered. Let us assume that this organization, which will be a large one, is driving a motor car down the street and runs over someone. As the section stands, the person injured has no recourse whatever, because you cannot sue the king. I confess that, with respect to the army and the air force during the war, the government was very fair about such matters and permission

was readily given if one had difficulties of the kind I have mentioned. The point I am trying to make, however, is this. I appreciate the difficulties suggested by the Minister of Justice, in taking half measures, so to speak, because when we do that we do not know how many complications we shall run into around the corner. But it seems to me that, if we simply put a clause in there that this is a corporation-we have already got that-[DOT] which may sue and be sued, that would let us out of most of our difficulties and certainly give individuals all their rights.
As to the worry about garnishee proceedings, I do not think that is serious. You cannot garnishee anyone for damages but only for debt, and it is only when the debt is due; that is all. If an individual farmer garnisheed the board for a debt, let us say, of $1,000 it would not hurt the board to pay the $1,000 into court. That is all you do, and I fail to see any great worry about giving the right of garnishment to a person who thinks the board owes him some money.
As regards saying that he has a participation certificate, that can be easily fixed by declaring that that certificate is not payable until a given date and only on that date does it become a debt in connection with which garnishee proceedings can be taken. The difficulties are not so great and I wish the minister would give the matter sympathetic consideration overnight and let us have an answer.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The. act now provides that the board may sue and be sued.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I could not find it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is on page 3, section 2 of the bill. Section 2 is an amending section which leaves extant, untouched, subsection 1 of the old section 4 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, and subsection 1 reads:
The board shall be a body corporate having capacity to contract and to sue and be sued in the name of the board.
So that the power to sue and the liability to be sued are there. It has, however, been held that this is an agency of the crown, in the only litigation on the point that has come up, and therefore the words which provide that it may sue and be sued mean sue and be sued in the exchequer court and not in the ordinary courts of the province, which does necessitate the obtaining of a fiat. I think I should take some slight exception to a statement made once or twice that a person is without remedy when a fiat is necessary. Fiats are granted universally, though there have been cases

Homing
where obviously a frivolous application has been made and denied. But access to the exchequer court is access to a court of justice in every sense of the word.


Gordon Graydon: Is not the difference between having a fiat and not having one simply that the litigant in one case is at the mercy of the court and in the other at the mercy of the government? If the government does not want to grant the fiat it need not.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is theoretical only.


Gordon Graydon: It is more than theoretical. If it is only theoretical, why is there a fiat?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It has always been so. When you are suing the crown your first act is to apply for a fiat.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, February 27, 1947