The House resumed, from Friday, May 28, the debate , on the motion of Sir Henry Drayton (Minister of Finance), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for t/he House to go into Committee of Ways and Means, and the proposed amendment thereto of Hon. W. S. Fielding.
Hon. T. A. CREE.AR (Marquette): Mr. Speaker, in rising to make my contribution to the debate on the Budget, let me say at the outset that I hope to detain the House for no very great length of time. We have been debating the matter now for almost two weeks and naturally there remains little that can be added to the discussion that has already taken place. Before I come to discuss the proposals outlined in the speech delivered by the hon. the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), I wish to refer briefly to some of the criticisms directed against our Progressive group at this end of the Chamber by some hon. members on the other side of the House.
I have in mind particularly at the present time the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) who spoke for almost two hours in this Chamber and, during the greater part of his speech, endeavoured to describe, or to criticise, certain actions of the grain growers and the farmers, which certainly was not relevant to the subject of debate. The criticisms were, I might add, very fg,r wide of the mark indeed.
My hon. friend (Mr. Stevens) seems to be very much exercised over the continuation of the Canada Wheat Board. He attributes the formation of that board, and the effort to maintain it, to the farmers of
this country. I believe he even suggested that some of the members who sit behind me were desirous of seeing this board continued. Well in that regard, I am expressing my own personal opinion, and I think the opinion of those who sit around me, when I say that Government control in matters of this kind is not desirable as a permanent policy. My hon. friend, however, saw fit to take a different position. He apparently is quite desirous that this control shall cease at the earliest possible moment. I would suggest to him that he consult the Government as to what their policy for the future in the matter is. It does not lie with members on this side of the House, nor does it lie with the members particularly sitting around me, to say what the policy of the Government is to be in this respect. I would suggest to my hon. friend that if he is very anxious that this control should cease he might consult the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Commons who, I understand, is strongly in favour of the continuation of the board. I would also suggest that he keep his eye on the hon. the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) and the hon. Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) because if he does he may learn that the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Immigration and Colonization are perhaps now harbouring the thought of maintaining this control as a peimanent policy in order that they can appeal to the farmers of Canada with it as an offset to their tariff demands. I would suggest that consideration to my hon. friend.
My hon. friend (Mr. Stevens) also saw fit to refer to the profits that had been made by the farmers' organizations and particularly that one with which I am associated. I do not know that this is a subject that is of much interest in this debate to the members of the House. I desire to say, however, that I will be very glad indeed to give my hon. friend, at any time, all the information he desires on that point and I certainly hope it will lead him to a more correct understanding than that which he displayed in his criticism. His criticism, based upon the statement that a profit of 211 per cent was made by the terminal elevator operated by the United Grain Growers, is altogether wide of the mark. This elevator is leased from the Canadian Pacific railway and -I wish to point out to my hon. friend if he wishes to be fair in the matter that back of that there is an investment of over $2,000,000 in country elevators for the purpose of gathering the grain that is sent to this terminal elevator. lIf my hon. friend wishes to be fair he must take that into account in any criticism he makes of it.
He also referred to the profits made by the Grain Growers Export Company of New York, a subject which also furnished a fruitful topic to the hon. member for Fron-tenac (Mr. Edwards). It is true we have an export company in New York. It is organized under the New York state laws. It is true that with a capital of $100,000 the company earned $500,000 in 1915. But the explanation lies in this, that the company enjoyed exceptional privileges of credit. Our bank loans ran very high and the total amount of grain that was handled and which furnished the profit mentioned, was over 86,000,000 bushels. I ask my hon. friend if less than one-half of one per cent on the turn-over which was the fact in this case is an excessive profit. If my hon. friend wants to be fair I would suggest this other consideration, Mr. Speaker: I do not like at any time to parade before the public my patriotism or the patriotism of my friends but I think it may be interesting to my hon. friend to know that when the stress and trouble in connection with food supplies came upon us, when the Allies centralized their organization in Europe and extended their organization in America to handle grain, the Grain Growers Export Company, these profiteers whom my hon. friend described, turned over for absolutely nothing in return, their whole organization to the Wheat Export Company representing the British Government in New York, and for twenty-two months we served that organization with no return save salaries and expenses. We purchased and forwarded on ocean vessels for them over 197,000,000 bushels of oats and as I have said, we got not one cent out of it.
My hon. friend from Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) also had something to say the other night, He, at any rate, spoke with a certainty of knowledge that leaves no doubt of conviction in his own mind regardless of whether he is able to successfully convince other members in the House.
