Mr. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, in line 31 the word "the" should be stricken out before the word "producer" and "producers" should be substituted for "producer"; in line 32 delete the first word "a"; and in the thirty-third line strike out the word "year's" before the word "operations," and after the word "board" in the same line insert the words "during the crop year." The phrase "the crop year" is defined in the grain act and it will be recalled that in the interpretation section of this act it is provided that the words used in this act shall have the meaning given to them by the interpretation section of the grain act.

Mr. GARDINER:

Referring to line 37,

paragraph (e), the same paragraph to which the Prime Minister has been referring, would the words "such certificate shall not be transferable," prevent anyone from getting a garnishee against these certificates?

Mr. BENNETT:

"Such certificates" appears in my copy-there is an "s" added, but there may not be in the hon. gentleman's copy. I would not like to express an opinion on the point the hon. gentleman raises, because the law of the province would govern with respect to that; it would be a matter purely of provincial law. In general my answer would be no, for it is essential that there should be an affidavit that there is a debt due by the board to the individual in question and it could not in my opinion be properly affirmed that there was a debt due under the circumstances indicated. But each province has its own law governing the question of garnishees, and I would not care to express a definite opinion upon the point.

Mr. LUCAS:

I realize that under this section we cannot fix a price, but I do believe there should be something in the bill to the effect that the fixed price should bear some relation to the cost of production or be a price which would enable the farmer to carry on. There is a possibility that the fixed price might be set so low that the board would not get any wheat at all, and if that should happen this bill would be of very little benefit to the producer. I wonder if the Prime Minister could see his way clear to meeting that difficulty.

Mr. BENNETT:

I tried to explain to the committee that there was one thing I was not prepared to do, and that was to lay down a

rule by which a fixed price might be determined, because we might include four factors and omit the fifth which might be the governing factor. To undertake to indicate in a bill of this kind all the factors which would be considered by the board would be something in my opinion that would be injurious to the very interests that the hon. gentleman desires to serve. It will be observed, however, that this price must be approved by the governor in council, and if in fixing that price disregard has been had of factors that should have been considered, then obviously it would be the duty of the government, whoever might comprise the government, to deal with the matter in a proper sense. I have no idea at the moment as to what price would be fixed, but I think I could name immediately five or six factors that would govern in fixing a price. For instance, the entire world's production would be a factor; the demands of the importing countries would be a factor; the cost of production averaged would be a factor. It would be very difficult to say that the cost of production in every section of western Canada would be the same. In the evidence before the committee one gentleman spoke of a cost of production that in my judgment was entirely too low, and in other cases I heard suggestions made which the farmers regarded as too high. All these are factors. The first factors I mentioned deal with supply and demand in reality. I could name many other factors if it would serve any useful purpose, but I still think it is undesirable to undertake to state in this bill all these circumstances or contingencies that would have to do with the fixing of the price; but inasmuch as the government must ultimately take responsibility for approving the price I think the interests of the producers may be said to be adequately safeguarded.

Mr. SPEAKMAN:

I should like to make one comment on paragraph (e), emphasizing one point and perhaps enlarging on what was said by the hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Lucas). The clause which provides for certain sections coming into force only by proclamation may be looked upon as the centre around which the entire value of the bill will revolve. As I see it, the bill makes fairly adequate provision to enable the board to carry on their operations of buying the crop from the producer and marketing it. It gives them full power to bring order out of chaos, and to the degree that wheat is in their hands to prevent speculation and gambling in that commodity. I think it will

Grain Board

be realized that the entire power of the board to carry that into effect will depend upon the board handling at least a very large percentage of the wheat. This will depend wholly upon the provisions of this bill as to the fixed or initial price. In this respect I think the phraseology of the amended bill is a distinct improvement upon the original bill. As the bill was originally introduced it provided that an initial payment should be made, but under other provisions of tJhe bill it was obvious that that payment would be based upon the expectations of what the wheat might sell for in the final result. Under the previous bill that initial payment would have had to be made low enough to safeguard the board and make sure that the final proceeds would cover not only the payment made to the farmer but the costs of operation. I think this is a distinct improvement which has been brought about by sending the bill to the special committee. It makes the proper provision for the payment of what is in effect not only an initial payment but a minimum price.

May I emphasize again the point that the whole success of this bill will depend upon the minimum price being set at a point where the wheat will be delivered to the board. This price might be set so low as to make the legislation inoperative. The trade is being left perfectly at liberty to carry on exactly as it has carried on, except that the hedging support which was given in the past under the stabilization scheme will be withdrawn and the trade will be obliged to take their own risks or find someone else to hedge their futures. If the disparity between the initial payment and the market price is too great the trade will be able to carry on as at present. I believe we have present this evening representatives of the present and future governments. I am not saying who will be the future government, but I think I am safe in saying that its representatives are in the chamber at the present time. I want to impress upon the members of that government, and on the members of the present government in the interim, that there lies the crux and the centre of the power of this legislation. If the price is set high enough, the great bulk of the wheat will be sold through the board and it will not find its way into private hands and the purpose of the bill will be accomplished. Order will thus be brought out of chaos and speculation in our foodstuffs will be reduced or will disappear altogether. I do not think it is too much to say that the responsibility will rest upon that government of deciding whether or not this legislation will be operative and whether or not 92582-2701

the grain exchange will be permitted to carry on its operations. Upon that government will rest the responsibility of deciding what is going to be the final result of this policy.

I realize the error of placing any restriction upon the board and the governor in council in the setting of a minimum price. The Prime Minister outlined some of the difficulties in this connection, and I think I can see still others. It is impossible to set up legislation as a guide to what that minimum or fixed price should be. I realize that, and I realize also that the inability of parliament to make this bill effective by law places a greater responsibility upon whatever government may be called upon to exercise its discretion. I do not think that can be too thoroughly understood by the people of this country and by the producers whom this bill seeks to relieve. In the final analysis it will rest upon the government in power at that time to say whether or not this bill will serve its purpose. The producers should be in a position to know exactly who is responsible for the success or failure of this legislation.

Mr. RALSTON:

Could the Prime Minister indicate the terms upon which contracts for future delivery of wheat are to be acquired from the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited under section 5? Is it contemplated that these contracts will be taken over at cost or will the board simply take the place of the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited with the banks?

Mr. BENNETT:

As I said in committee,

it is contemplated at the moment-of course what I say is subject to revision-that the board will take the place of the producers limited in connection with wheat but not in connection with other grains.

Mr. RALSTON:

There will be no profit

or loss so far as Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited are concerned in their operations in wheat?

Mr. BENNETT:

That is what is contemplated at the moment, but I want to make it abundantly clear that conditions may arise which may vary that statement.

Mr. BENNETT:

I have some slight

amendments to suggest to this section. We propose to strike out the word "market" in subsection (b), line 5, and substitute therefor the words "sell and dispose of". The beginning of that clause will then read, "to

Grain Board

sell and dispose of from time to time." Then strike out the words "or contracts" in the fifth line and the words "for the purchase or delivery of wheat" in the sixth line.

Mr. RALSTON:

I thought that was done

in the committee.

Mr. BENNETT:

That was the intention.

Then in subsection (e), line 19, add the words "to the minister" after the word "writing," and delete the words "to the minister" at the end of line 19 and the beginning of line 20. This is simply changing the position of the words; the clause will then read "to report in writing to the minister on Friday of each week. Then substitute the word "its" for the word "the" in line 21, the clause then reading, "showing as at the end of the preceding week its purchases and sales of wheat." Then strike out the word "period" in line 21 and substitute the word "week". The clause will then read, "sales of wheat during such week." Then delete the words "to the date of such report" at the end of line 24 and the beginning of line 25. That is already covered by what has been said. "Auditors" should be with a small "a". In clause (f), at the end of line 27, the word "other" should be struck out; there is no need of it.

Mr. RALSTON:

With regard to the amendment to clause (e) I am wondering whether the Prime Minister is quite satisfied that as amended it requires the board to bring the report of the financial operations right up to date, or whether it will not confine the report of the financial operations to the particular week under discussion. It depends on what he has in mind.

Mr. BENNETT:

I think it is intended to make clear that the very point the hon. gentleman has in mind shall be before the auditors. Let us look at it as amended:

to report in writing on Friday of each week to the minister, showing as at the end' of the preceding week its purchases and sales of wheat during such week and the wheat on hand and contracts to take delivery of wheat then held, the cost of the same to the board and the financial result of the board's operations, which report shall be certified by the auditors of the board.

Mr. RALSTON:

I think that is all right.

Mr. BENNETT:

If the hon. gentleman prefers to have the words "to the date of such report" remain, I have no objection.