Mr. ROBERT McKENZIE (Assiniboia) moved:

Whereas the policy of extending federal assistance to western farmers on a bushel basis rather than on an acreage basis has worked out most unfairly and unjustly to the residents of those districts suffering from failure or near failure of crop,

And whereas a largely signed petition and memorandum has been presented to the government by the secretary of Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, praying for additional legislation to partially remedy the situation that exists,

Therefore be it resolved: that, in the opinion of this house the government should give immediate consideration to a more equitable and less discriminatory solution of this problem.

He said: Mr. Speaker, in moving the resolution which stands in my name on the order paper, 1 can say that to those of us who are conversant with the measure that was passed during the last days of the last session, an Act respecting Wheat, this resolution will be practically self-explanatory and will not re-

Mr. E. J. YOUNG (Weyburn):

Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the principle of taking money out of the public treasury and giving it either to individuals or to corporations. I am opposed because such action is unsound in principle, and because when once that practice is started it is almost impossible to treat everybody alike. When the government has chosen to take that course however I suggest to them that the only thing to do is as nearly as possible to treat everybody alike.

Last year when the proposal to grant a bonus of 5 cents a bushel on all wheat grown in the western provinces was before the house, I attempted to point out to the government that the scheme was bound to work out inequitably, that those who had a large crop would receive a large bonus while those

Farm Relief-Mr. Young

who had no crop would receive no bonus but would have to help to pay the bonus to their more fortunate neighbours. The request for a bonus of one dollar per acre seeded last year has arisen as a direct result of the policy of paying 5 cents per bushel on all wheat grown in the western provinces. Those farmers in the dried-out districts are saying, "We are helping to pay the 5 cent per bushel bonus to all those in the north who have had good crops, whereas we are deriving nothing, and have had no crops." The farmers of the dried-out districts in southern Saskatchewan are to-day suffering more from the depression than any other class of people in Canada. Not only do they suffer, but they are in the unfortunate position of having reaped no harvests for one, two or in some cases three years. For the work they have done during that time they have received no wages. They are practically all on relief. In spite of the fact however that they are the chief sufferers and those who stand in greatest need of relief, they constitute the only class in the Dominion of Canada on relief to-day who are required to sign a note for everything they receive. Every other class receives relief as a gift, but the farmers in the dried-out areas, the chief sufferers, get nothing as a gift but must sign a note in blank and in advance for everything they have received or expect to receive. I have the note here; I will read it:

I, the above named applicant

hereby faithfully promise and agree to pay to The Saskatchewan Relief Commission on behalf of His Majesty the King in the right of the Dominion of Canada, on or before the first day of November, A.D. 1933, the full value of all relief now or subsequently obtained by me from The Saskatchewan Relief Commission at the values or prices stated by the said commission.

This form has to 'be signed and witnessed by every man when he makes application for relief. All the relief that he receives will be charged against that note at prices to be fixed by the commission.

Will any interest be charged?

Mr. YOUNG:

I do not know. I asked the Prime Minister the other day if he intended to charge interest, but he could not answer me at the time. Probably he will let the house know later on.

Before coming to Ottawa I was summoned to a gathering of farmers, and the first question they asked me was "Where do you stand on this proposal of $1 an acre bonus?" I said, "Tell me exactly what you want: do you want SI an acre in addition to the relief that you are now receiving, or do you want $1

an acre in lieu of the relief you are now receiving? If you want the $1 an acre cash in addition to all the relief you are receiving, do you think you will get it?" They said, no, they did not think they would. Then I said: "Do you want $1 an acre in lieu of the relief? If so, let us try and figure it out." We took the case of a farmer working a halfsection of land last year; he would have probably 200 acres in crop; at $1 an acre the bonus he would receive would be $200. At present, if he is on full relief, he will be receiving from the relief commission food, fuel, feed for his stock, and he expects to receive seed for his land. Would that amount to more than $200 in the year? Yes, it would. They did not feel that they could accept $1 an acre in lieu of the relief; and they did not feel that they would be able to get that in addition to the relief. The matter was thoroughly discussed and finally they thought that this would be a fair proposal: Give us against our notes that you are holding and which we will have to pay, a credit equal to $1 an acre on all the acreage seeded last year, and we will be satisfied. I think hon. members will all agree that that is a very fair proposal on the part of the farmers. It was not submitted to the farmers all over the country. I am speaking of the farmers in one community who discussed the matter thoroughly in my presence, and that is what they agreed on. That, of course, would leave out some odd farmers throughout that dried-up district who had saved a surplus and were not on relief, although they have resiped no crop for the' last two or three years. Perhaps in their particular case a grant would have to be made in cash; but for those farmers who are obtaining relief I think it is not unreasonable to ask the government to grant them credit equal to $1 an acre on their seeded acreage against the notes held by the relief commission.

Mr. A. M. CARMICHAEL (Kindersley):

Mr. Speaker, the resolution now before the house says that the act passed last year has worked out most unfairly and unjustly. I rather agree with that statement. In fact I heard the opinion expressed in different parts of my own constituency that the act was a very good fulfilment of the Scripture: "Whosoever hath, to him shall be given; and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have." It did seem to work most unfairly in the case of those farmers who had very little crop. So far as my own immediate district goes, we did have a fair crop of wheat and the five cents per bushel bonus worked fairly satisfactorily; but when I got into the southern part of my

Farm Relief-Mr. Carmichael

constituency, not over fifty or sixty miles away, the farmers there and within a distance of one hundred and fifty or one hundred and sixty miles had practically nothing; in one large area down towards the Empress district they had an average of about two bushels an acre. Well, at five cents per bushel it will be seen that the bonus would amount to about ten cents an acre relief, which did not help them to any great extent.

As a result there has been a strong demand among the farmers for some different form of relief. That is expressed in the last part of this resolution, which asks for a more equitable and less discriminatory solution of this problem. I agree with that principle also. I have received a number of resolutions from farmers' organizations, and this one is typical of the many:

Whereas the farmers in the dried out areas are not receiving any of the five cent bonus, and _

Whereas the seed wheat provided by the government will cost the said farmers five cents above market price,

Be it resolved that we petition the government to grant one dollar per acre on all acreage seeded in 1931, less the bonus already paid.

The secretary adds:

There was a large attendance at this meeting and the resolution was carried unanimously.

Now, this is not the first time that the proposal of $1 per acre bonus has been mooted in my own section of the province. I do not know whether my particular district can take credit for originating this thought or not, but I do know that back in December, 1930, a large representative meeting in the town of Ivindersley, attended by between four and five hundred farmers and business men, discussed a resolution put forward by a farmers' local from north of Kindersley, asking for this very thing, namely, a bonus on the seeded acreage of crop, not only on wheat, but on flax, oats and barley as well. This meeting endorsed the idea as being fairer and more equitable than the five cent per bushel bonus. At the request of this same farmers' local I journeyed to Regina and interviewed our premier when he was there on December 30, 1930, in the hope that the government would see fit to adopt it. Well, the proposal was not adopted, and, as we know, the legislation that is now in effect was brought down and finally passed this house on August 3, 1931.

There are many advantages in that legislation. It placed between nine and ten million dollars in the hands of the farmers of the three prairie provinces. That is quite a help to the people of the west. The principle of giving a bonus may not be sound,

but as the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) has stated, if special considerations are to be given to other industries, if they are to be kept from getting into the valley of humiliation because of government legislation, well, why should not the farming industry be similarly treated? So going on that basis, I would not raise any objection to the five cents per bushel being paid as it was paid. Many individual farmers were helped considerably through the payment of that five cent bonus. 1 know farmers in my own immediate district who on the average had 20, 25 and 30 bushels of wheat to the acre, and of course the bonus helped them. It helped, as was stated when the legislation was being considered, to give some relief for high freight rates and tariff adjustments; it also partly made up for loss on the production of crops. But the disadvantages have been named by those who preceded me in this debate. The chief disadvantage is that those farmers who have nothing are compelled to make up, in part, by way of taxation upon them, the ten million dollars or thereabouts which goes to the farmers through the five cent per bushel bonus. That is most unfair and it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that no person can justify that inequitable application of the legislation of last year. In addition, there are many farmers who do not grow wheat; there are sections of the country not suited to the growing of wheat. Oats can be grown quite satisfactorily; other sections grow barley very well, while still others grow flax. Indeed, there are some types of soil where some of these other grains must be grown before wheat can be put in. In my own district the land first must be seeded with flax, or the likely result is no crop, because of a wire worm which works in the new land.

Looking at those different viewpoints the inequality of this legislation of last year will be seen, and I may add that considerable dissatisfaction was brought to my attention because of the way the legislation affected tenant farmers. There were cases in my own district where the owner of the land put up the seed, the feed, the necessary power either by way of horses or tractor and the implements necessary to till the soil. He owned the land, yet if the tenant happened to get a small share of the crop for his wages the tenant collected the five cent bonus on all the grain grown on that property. This led to a great deal of dissatisfaction; several cases were brought to my attention in this connection.

Farm Relief-Mr. Campbell

I can see considerable difficulty, Mr. Speaker, in applying the bonus of a dollar per acre to the crop of 1931, although of course if the government do not see any difficulties and are willing to apply it I will not object. But I do not see that there would be any insuperable difficulty to it being worked out for the crop of 1932. The legislation passed last year expires on July 31 of this year. Either that legislation will be dropped and nothing further will be done, or some other scheme will be worked out by the government. Personally I feel that in view of present conditions on the prairies it would be very helpful to agriculture if some scheme could be worked out by the government that would be fair and equitable, and for that reason I give my hearty support to this resolution.

Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):

Mr. Speaker, in presenting another side of the question under debate I hope hon. members will not take it that I am lacking in sympathy for the farmers of those districts affected by drought last year. During the recess I spent almost all my time in helping to the best of my ability the farmers from the dried-out areas who have moved into the bush district in my constituency. I know something of their problems; my heart goes out in sympathy to them, not only those who have moved to the north and are pioneering again there, but those left in the dried out districts. So I want to make it clear that while I am presenting an entirely different side of this question my sympathies are very much with the people of those districts.

The first part of the resolution reads:

Whereas the policy of extending federal assistance to western farmers on a bushel basis rather than on an acreage basis has worked out most unfairly and unjustly to the residents of those districts suffering from failure or near failure of crop . . .

My contention, sir, is that this is not a correct or fair statement, and I hope I shall be able to convince at least some members of the house of that fact. With regard to the five cent bonus, I believe this is the first time any Canadian government has done such a thing for western farmers. There has been direct cash assistance from the federal treasury to aid the farmers of western Canada through their difficulties. Let us consider the farmer who had a crop. In my constituency, where there was a fairly good crop, the farmers were selling their wheat for about 30 cents a bushel at the elevator. After a man paid his threshing bill that meant he had left 23 or 24 cents, certainly not more than

IMr. Carmichael.]

25 cents net per bushel. Everyone knows that this return would not provide a living for the farmer, to say nothing about his ability to pay debts or anything else. Therefore the bonus came at an opportune time; as far as my district was concerned it was very acceptable and greatly appreciated by the great majority of the farmers.

Perhaps I misunderstood the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) when he introduced this measure last year, but I took his meaning to be that while this was not a permanent measure it was something that we could expect to be applied during the low price period. That being so, the application has not been so inequitable as might appear. I have lived in the north, in the bush districts, for twenty-five years. Year after year I recall our farmers envying the farmers in the prairie districts which have now been so affected by drought. Those were the districts where they were having abundant crops, big yields and fine qualities of grain; our farmers were the ones who were having the difficulties. In the natural order of things conditions might be reversed next year. If this five cent bonus is given for another year-and I believe that was the intention of the Prime Minister last year, whatever he thinks about it now-those southern districts may be the very ones having fine crops, and when they have crops in the south they have a far greater acreage than we have in the north. In my constituency the average farmer will have only half his land under cultivation; the balance will be bush, but in the southern country the whole farm is under cultivation, so naturally when there is a crop the production is very much greater. So it seems to me that the attacks on this measure are not quite fair.

When the legislation was brought in last year it was met with an onslaught from opposition members, particularly from the province of Quebec but also to some extent from Ontario and the maritime provinces. In his provincial campaign last year Premier Taschereau made this one of the main issues. So it seems to me that the least the government should expect is unanimity among the farmers of western Canada, for whose benefit the measure was brought down. The legislation should have met with the approbation and Support of leaders of thought among western farmers generally.

I cannot say that there has been any agitation against this measure in Manitoba; if there has been I have not heard anything of it. But the policy was hardly announced before a movement was started in Saskatchewan against the five cent bonus and in favour

Farm Relief-Mr. Campbell

of the dollar per acre. It was claimed by some of the advocates of the latter policy that it is not in direct opposition to the five cent bonus, but the effect of this whole campaign has been to create dissension among the farmers and to develop a lack of appreciation of the measure passed last session.

What are the arguments in favour of this bonus of a dollar per acre, and against the bonus of five cents per bushel? It is urged that it goes only to the farmer who has a crop while the farmer who has no crop gets nothing. On the face of it that seems an unanswerable argument, but there is another and entirely different side to the question. The farmers in my constituency, most of whom have crops, are not getting any relief and yet the very crops they have are in most cases not paying expenses. But in the southern parts of the drought-stricken districts millions of dollars of federal as well as provincial money are being handed out in road work and direct relief. It may be true, as the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) has said, that the farmers are signing notes for the relief they get. I would not discuss that question very much until we are able to see how many of these notes will be paid. The great bulk of the farmers are destitute, and if we looked ahead ten years I would predict that the great majority of them will never be paid. I hope the notes will be paid; I hope the farmers will have crops that will enable them to pay these notes. But I know that the ordinary debts, mortgages, interest and so forth that are piling up against the farms in the south, in the dry districts, are so great that when the farmers do get some crops the money will be used in that direction, and I am afraid that the Saskatchewan Relief Commission will come in last when it comes to collecting the notes. So far as that angle of the question is concerned, therefore, I think it is scarcely worth consideration.

As regards my own district, we had on the whole a good crop, but there are farmers there who had no crop; and there are many other farmers again who, because of the nature of the soil, as well as frost and other local difficulties, are unable to grow wheat successfully, so that they are compelled to grow only oats and barley. These farmers get nothing from the bonus but I have heard no particular complaints from them. A few of them mildly suggested that the bonus should have been applied to oats and barley, but even these farmers appreciate the fact that something has been done for their brother farmers, and I do not know of one single

instance, by meeting or in any other way, of any attack on the five cent bonus in my constituency. Of course, in these dry districts there are farmers who will have no crop and who will have to maintain themselves although they are not getting relief. It makes no difference, however, what measure you bring down, there is bound to be some inequality. It is utterly impossible to bring in any measure that will apply with absolute equity. The reasons brought forward by the hon. member for Weyburn supporting this, although he objects to the principle, are not very valid and sound, because there is inequality in any measure that is introduced. There is inequality even in free trade, which my hon. friend is so fond of putting forward.

I do not, therefore, expect that even this five cent bonus will be found to apply with absolute equity.

So far as my constituency is concerned, the five cent bonus has been universally appreciated by both farmers and business men. May I assure the house that I am not discussing this question from any party angle, because in the province of Saskatchewan there were outstanding men among the Progressives, members of the legislature, Liberals and Conservatives, who got out and took part in the campaign; and a recent convention of the United Farmers of Alberta placed themselves on record as condemning the principle of the bonus. So that there is no party angle to the question. But in view of the difficulties which the government had in bringing down the measure, and in view of the attacks made upon the government in this house and in the country when they attempted to do something for the western farmers, I did expect something better from the leaders of thought among the western farmers themselves. I hope the government will not be influenced by this in their attitude towards the policy for the coming year. I hope they will bring it down as they did last year, but if they do not then the farmers have only their own leaders to blame for losing one of the efforts made to meet their difficulties.

Mr. W. J. LOUCHS (Rosetown):

As a western farmer, I wish to endorse what the last speaker (Mr. Campbell) has said. I do not want to see anything done that will be detrimental to the farmers of western Canada, and I know well the situation that exists there. Certain things have been mentioned with reference to the distribution of the bonus, and I would refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael). I might say in that connection that the greater number of the landlords in my con-

Farm Relief-Mr. Loucks

stituency are professional men who have other means of livelihood besides farming, and if there is one thing above another which calls for comment it is the fact that this relief went to the actual farmer, whether tenant or not. As pointed out by the last speaker, with the price of wheat at 30 cents a bushel, when the farmer cuts that in half there is not much left. Most of the land in Saskatchewan is rented, and if the farmer had to divide the bonus with the landlord you can readily see that it would not be of much advantage to 'him.

In any constituency I found that there was great appreciation of the bonus on the part of the tenants, and many landlords have said that had it not been for the bonus they did not think that the tenants would have been able to carry on during the coming year. I wish to make it clear to the house why I did not' endorse the petition when it was presented to me by those agitating -for the dollar an acre. In view of the fact that a second relief measure was brought into the house at the last session, and realizing that a dollar am acre would not begin to cover the needs in the dried out areas, I felt that I could not endorse the petition.

The hon. member for Weyfourn has referred to the signing of notes. In this regard, I agree with what has been said by my hon. friend across the way; I doubt whether very many of these notes will be paid. We trust that the farmers will be in a position to meet these notes, but if things continue as they are it is doubtful.

Mr. VALLAN'CE: Are you speaking for the government now?

Mr. LOUCKS:

I am stating my own views to the house. The motion refers to the presentation by the representatives of the municipalities of a resolution asking for a dollar 'an acre. I take it that this applies to the whole province of Saskatchewan, and it means that they are asking for a bonus of a dollar an acre to cover the acreage of the province. I estimate, therefore, that the request is for 820,000,000, which would represent 20,000,000 acres. Now, considering ithat we have bad relief in the bonus that has been paid, and in view of the fact that we are looking to the government for further relief which is estimated to be about $15,000,000 for seed this spring, I for one do not feel like asking the eastern members to subsidize us further to the extent of $20,000,000.

Let me assure members on both sides of the house of the cheerful spirit in which the farmers in my constituency received the relief that was given. They felt grateful to the

representatives of the other provinces of the dominion for the generous way in which they had come forward and supported the relief measure upon which the farmers in Saskatchewan are so dependent. I can only convey the appreciation of some of the electors in my constituency for the relief granted. Hon. members showed that their hearts were in the right place when they granted this answer to the plea that something be done for the relief of the farmers of Saskatchewan. I have before me a letter which illustrates the working out of this relief. This letter is dated February 5, and is written by George E. Tracy, of Alsask, which is on the border of Saskatchewan and Alberta. It is addressed to the premier of Saskatchewan and reads as follows:

I would like to take this opportunity also of congratulating you and your government on the splendid, fair and impartial way relief work has been carried out among the people of this province and this district in particular. During this past very cold weather thousands will bless you in their prayers that they have coal in their cellar and the necessities of life which could not have been supplied by the municipalities or local merchants. As head of the cooperative government you have refused to "play politics." In Saskatchewan in the hour of need you stepped into the breach in a truly great way and you have more supporters than a noisy opposition would lead you to believe.

That illustrates the appreciation felt in my own constituency. There has been no discrimination in the granting of this relief. I am informed that in the city of Regina similar notes had to be signed. I know that this spring it would be impossible for many in the province to carry on had not this relief been granted. But still further relief will be required in the way of seed. One dollar an acre would be only a drop in the bucket, if I might be permitted to use that term. The appreciation voiced by the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) for the five cent bonus is echoed by the farmers in my constituency.

Those farmers in Saskatchewan who have not received any direct relief up to the present time will find it practically impossible to purchase seed this coming spring. Something in the neighbourhood of $15,000,000 will be needed. This government have been so generous that I cannot see my way clear to ask them to subsidize further the farmers to the extent of one dollar per acre.

No.

Mr. LOUCKS:

That is what is being suggested. The resolution does not discriminate, it states merely that the representatives of the municipalities have asked for a bonus of

Farm Relief-Mr. Gardiner

one dollar per acre. I do not see how we can come back to the government and ask for a further dollar per acre to be paid to those farmers who have already received the bonus of five cents per bushel.

Mr. YOUNG:

No one is asking for that.

Mr. LOUCKS:

This petition was forwarded to me and I replied that I would endorse it if I could be assured that they would be able to get by with a bonus of one dollar per acre in lieu of the relief already voted. I received no reply, but had one been forwarded to me I know it would have stated that that would be nothing at all in comparison with what some farmers would require. I think we would be well advised to continue with the present system of relief.

Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):

Mr. Speaker, the resolution now before the house rises out of the legislation passed at the last session granting the bonus of five cents per bushel on wheat delivered to the elevators.

I had the privilege last year of travelling over most of Alberta and I can assure the government and the house that wherever there was a crop, the bonus of five cents per bushel was appreciated. Unfortunately, the crop was not well distributed; in the dry areas there was very little crop, while in the more prosperous areas the crop was quite heavy. Because of the weather conditions which had prevailed the difference in the yield was considerable. The five cent bonus would permit a farmer who had a crop averaging from 35 to 40 bushels per acre, grading not less than No. 2, to pay expenses. However, it must be remembered that that would be a very good crop. Should the crop be even larger than that the farmer was enabled to pay his taxes, and in some cases pay a little interest on his indebtedness. I understand that the average crop in the districts where there were crops was about 22 bushels per acre. Large portions of the province of Alberta were dried or hailed out, while in other portions the crop was quite heavy. In those districts where there was a crop at all the farmers expressed appreciation of the bonus because it helped them considerably. As I said before, large districts were dried out or hailed out and I would direct the attention of the house to the fact that the premium on hail insurance is so high at the present time that no farmer can afford to insure against hail.

Mr. BENNETT:

It is hardly as bad as that.

Mr. GARDINER:

The average premium

runs from 15 to 20 per cent. These districts received no benefit from this bonus. The

farmers in the dried out areas were not opposed to the payment of the bonus but they did think that in view of the fact that they had cultivated and summer-fallowed their land, gone to the extent of seeding and doing all work necessary, they were entitled to some consideration. It has been suggested that in order to be fair to the farmers in those districts which have been dried out or hailed out, a minimum bonus of one dollar per acre should be paid. If a man had a crop running only ten bushels per acre, he would receive a bonus amounting to 50 cents per acre, but these farmers feel that they are entitled to further consideration up to at least SI per acre.

The relief measures being carried on in Alberta differ from what is being done in Saskatchewan. When speaking in the debate on the address in reply I mentioned that the relief measures being carried on in the dried out areas of Alberta were totally inadequate to meet the situation, and I still maintain that as a fact. The farmers of those areas, however, feel that if they receive at least a minimum of one dollar per acre they will be satisfied to try to carry on under the circumstances.

Some discussion has taken place with regard to the attitude of farmer leaders in different provinces in the west. Some criticism has been levelled by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) against those farmer leaders. I do not know where he gets his information. I can quite understand that inasmuch as in his particular district the farmers had a uniformly good crop, the people would be fairly well satisfied. My hon. friend ought to have an opportunity of visiting some of the dried-out areas in either Saskatchewan or Alberta and then he would probably be in a different frame of mind; that is, if he is capable of understanding the feelings of those people in those areas. I say that in all fairness because of the fact that one has to get into the environment where those conditions exist in order to understand how the people feel in those particular areas.

At the annual convention of the United Farmers of Alberta held in January of this year at Edmonton, a resolution was passed which dealt with this particular subject. I am going to place this resolution on Hansard primarily because there has been some press criticism which has not been altogether accurate and therefore not altogether fair. This resolution reads:

*Whereas, the five cent bonus on wheat was not intended as a means of increasing the production of wheat but solely as a relief measure to meet the present crisis facing the farmers of western Canada, and

Farm Relief-Mr. Gardiner

Whereas, a very large proportion of our farmers are not benefiting by this payment through hail, drought, wind and other causes beyond their own control, and

Whereas, we have noted in the press statements by the Prime Minister of Canada that this omission would be taken care of, and

Whereas, the present relief schemes are inadequate as for obvious reasons they fail to meet the necessities of a great number of our farmers besides failing to make provision for the necessary finance to seed the crop of 1932;

Therefore be it resolved, that we ask the Dominion government, through our board of directors, to change the bonus payment to the effect that all grain growers be recompensed to a minimum of at least one dollar an acre seeded, so that all those who have received no bonus and all those who would not otherwise receive this amount should be treated fairly, and to those whose crop production exceeds this amount the bonus to be as it is at the present time.

That shows, I think very clearly, the state of mind in so far as the farmers of Alberta are concerned.

Mr. CAMPBELL:

Was that resolution not rescinded? I am sure I read in the press that that was done.

Mr. GARDINER:

No, this resolution was not rescinded. It was passed and it will be submitted to the government in due course as being one of the resolutions which were passed by the convention and which will be called to the attention of the government. This resolution shows conclusively that as regards those portions of the province of Alberta where they had good crops, even those farmers who were well satisfied with the bonus as it is at the present time, still feel that in the dried-out and hailed-out areas adequate provision has not been made to take care of the distress.

I merely wish to say again I hope the government will be able to give some attention to this matter. It is a serious question; as a matter of fact, in the dried-out areas the agricultural population to-day is up against what one might term a calamity, and so far as present indications go, the relief that is being handed out is inadequate even to take care of the bare necessities of life, let alone to place those farmers in a position next year to secure seed and to carry on their farming operations. Therefore I trust the government will realize that, as regards Alberta, farmers there who had a crop appreciate the bonus and those who are in distress on account of there being no crop, hope the government will give further consideration to their needs.

Mr. CAMPBELL:

May I ask the hon.

member whether it is not a fact that the convention of the United Farmers of Alberta passed a resolution expressing approval oi the bonus and later repudiated it?

Mr. GARDINIER:

No; this resolution

that I have read was passed by the United Farmers of Alberta in convention assembled. It has been sent down to the United Farmer members in the house and it will be presented to the government as one of the resolutions passed by that convention, anticipating and hoping the government will be able to take some action upon it when it is presented.

^ Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle): Mr. Speaker, before discussing the resolution in a general way, I should like to take this, my first opportunity of expressing to the government the appreciation of my constituents for its having passed the measure which gave the five cent subvention on wheat. While in my constituency there were very few farmers who shared in that, they generally approve and appreciate it from a realization of the fact that the government was endeavouring to do something to help the farmers.

I was surprised to note that the mover of the resolution, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. McKenzie), did not give some credit or commendation to the government for what it had done. I suppose it is hard for some hon. gentlemen opposite to give this government credit for anything, no matter what it has done.

Every hon. member knows the principle behind the passing of the act granting the five cent bonus. It was agreed upon early in the session; it was embodied in the budget brought down on the first day of June and therefore it must have been considered by the government before that, at a time when there was no suggestion or thought of a complete failure of crop in a great portion of the western provinces, and particularly Saskatchewan. The principle behind the five cent subvention was that of bonusing the product of an industry similar to that of bonusing the product of the mining industry by giving them a bonus per ton of coal on a basis of the mile haulage. It was a straight bonus to the product of an industry. I supported the principle as adopted by the government, and I believe I was the first member to suggest that some bonus of this kind should be granted, when on the 13th April, 1931, I made this suggestion to the house. When the measure was brought down, we realized we had secured something that

Farm Relief-Mr. Perley

would prove to be of great benefit to the farmers of the west, for, as the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) has stated, when before did any government of this dominion do such a splendid thing for the farmers of any part of Canada? As has already been stated, this subvention was earmarked so that it went directly into the hands of the producer. The house will remember some of the discussions that took place last year when the measure was being debated, and some of the objections that were taken to it. I think it was the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) who suggested it was only a gesture to help out the railway companies, but it was so earmarked there was no doubt about that, and it went into the hands of the producers, direct. But, Mr. Speaker, owing to the climatic conditions prevailing in the west the people in the southern part of Saskatchewan have not to any extent shared in the 810,000,000 which has already been paid to the producers of the west. When the budget was under discussion last year some of us from the west, when it became evident about the middle of July that there was likely to be a complete crop failure throughout a considerable portion of the province of Saskatchewan, made the suggestion that there might be a change to an acreage basis. At that time, however, it was so evident that a calamity was imminent out there that the government considered the method they adopted to give relief would be more effective than that of placing relief on an acreage basis.

May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I was associated with the petition which was presented to the government, and the delegation which came to Ottawa. I played only a very small part in getting signers to that petition, and in fact attended only one meeting at which it was discussed. Right here and now, Mr. Speaker, may I take exception to the remark made by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. McKenzie) to the effect that there was no playing of politics. At the one meeting I attended I had to take the platform and defend the attitude of the government, because the man who was speaking in favour of the dollar-per-acre bonus-the member for the constituency of Estevan in the legislature of Saskatchewan-was certainly making a political speech. I think however that a great many of the people out there realized the exact situation.

In the western provinces, particularly in Saskatchewan, we will be interested for many years in the production of wheat, and any action to encourage the farmers and assist

them to stay on their lands will be a step in the right direction. Think what it would mean to the whole of Canada if for the next two years or so there was a normal crop in western Canada. It is quite possible if we have normal climatic conditions next year in the three prairie provinces, there should be a production for export of about 500,000,000 bushels of wheat. Furthermore, there might be 150,000,000 to 200,000,000 bushels of coarse grain. What would that mean in the matter of relief from the present condition? What would it mean with respect to a solution of our unemployment problem? In the province of Saskatchewan at the present time there are some 50,000 farmers receiving relief. If normal conditions prevailed, each of them would employ at least one extra man, and in that way we would take care of 50,000 men. From the standpoint of business for the railways, what would it mean? A crop yield of 500,000,000 bushels for export might easily mean an earning of between $50,000,000 and $60,000,000 for our railways. What about the increased purchasing power of our western people, who with a good crop could purchase from the producers in eastern Canada? The government is thoroughly familiar with the situation, and understands what it means to Canada to keep the west intact and the morale of the people at such a plane that they will carry on and produce to the limit. Undoubtedly the morale of the western farmers has been put to a very severe test during the last two or three years, but our flag is not at half mast and the people out there are prepared to carry on and do their best. They are facing the coming season with a spirit of confidence, optimism, courage and fortitude, and after the experience of the last three years I am sure they are prepared to go forward and do better. Certainly they will profit by their experience. There is no way in which a government could invest a few million dollars to better advantage than by assisting the farmers in some way either through a bonus or by whatever means may be adopted. I am sure these farmers in the dried-out area would be only too willing to have any bonus or further assistance that might be given by the government applied on the debt that they have shouldered in respect of the relief they have received. At least 90 per cent of the people intend to repay their debt; I know that most of these farmers would not accept the relief they are getting to-day without the desire to give something in return. They do not consider themselves paupers and are not accepting charity; they intend to pay.

Farm Reliej-Mr. Perley

I should like to tender on behalf of the farmers in the constituency I represent an expression of appreciation of the gift cars of fruits and vegetables which came from eastern Canada. Two hundred or more relief cars came to our assistance, some of them to my constituency. I want the house and the country to realize that those people in western Canada appreciate the splendid spirit which was shown, there is no doubt that the action of our friends in the east has done much to create a more friendly relationship between the two sections of our country.

I am willing to leave the matter with the government in the belief that they will do what they think best. No doubt some consideration of western problems is necessary. I believe the Prime Minister knows just as much as or more than any other hon. member in this house about western conditions. He realizes, as I fully realize, the important position the western provinces hold and the outstanding part they will play in bringing back to normal the state of Canadian economic conditions. We all realize the part the western provinces will play in balancing our trade and furnishing exports. With those thoughts in mind I am sure the Prime Minister wants and intends to do the right thing, and I am prepared to leave the matter with the government and to support whatever measures they may consider right and proper. I trust the great majority of the people of Canada, and in the west particularly, are prepared to leave the matter there.

Hon. members to your right, Mr. Speaker, all realize, and I believe hon. gentlemen opposite who speak their minds will admit, that Canada is indeed fortunate to-day in having such a man as our present Prime Minister ai the head of affairs. I am willing to leave the matter there, merely suggesting to the member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) and to his Alberta friends that since they opposed the principle of government assistance by way of bonus, if any of their people prefer to give back any of this ten million dollars that they received probably the treasury would be only too pleased to accept it at the present time. As I said before, I am prepared to leave the matter to the due, right and proper consideration which I know the government will give to it.