Mr. NEILL:

I notice that there is no provision under section 1 for the cancellation of a man's driving licence. It is provided in section 2 that if he is culpably negligent and kills a man he can be subject to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months, which perhaps means a day, and to have his licence cancelled for a longer or shorter period. That is all right, but apparently there is a discrepancy between the two sections. A man who kills another wantonly while not under the influence of drink is only liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, and perhaps not more than a day, but a man who drives while under the influence: of alcohol and is caught doing it, but hurts nobody, must get a penalty of not Less than two months. I suggest that that term dhould be cut down to thirty days and that his licence should be cancelled for a period. Cancellation of the licence would be for wealthy people

Criminal Code Amendment

a more serious penalty than a fine. I notice that under section 1 it is proposed to do a>way with the opportunity of paying a fine, but I think that when no accident happens to punish a man whose one and perhaps first offence is that of being, not drunk, but under the influence of drink, with a penalty not exceeding six months and not less than two months is rather steep. I think the effect which is sought could be secured if he were imprisoned for thirty days or even less because no decent man likes to go to gaol even for ten days, and in addition take away his licence for six months.

The last two sections of the bill I do not think are necessary; to me they seem undesirable. As regards section 1, which appears to reflect the observations of both the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) and the sponsor of the bill (Mr. Church), I should like to see enacted some provision of this kind.

Mr. W. R. MACDONALD (Brantford City):

No doubt something should be done

to curb the recklessness of the drunken driver. Just how to accomplish it is a matter of some doubt. The automobile has been in existence for but little more than thirty years, and the law relating to its use must be developed gradually. It has been said that the streets are made for pedestrians and horse-drawn vehicles. It may be true that that is what they were made for, but surely we are not spending all these millions of dollars on highways to-day just for horse-drawn vehicles and pedestrians. Conditions have changed, and though our streets wTere made for pedestrians and horse-drawn vehicles, the automobilist has some rights on those streets, just as much, in fact as either of the two other classes of travellers. True, he may not drive recklessly, but neither may the pedestrian be reckless; he must cross the street when it is safe; he cannot deliberately stop in front of an oncoming vehicle; also the horse-drawn vehicle must be driven with care.

We do not need to pass laws putting a speed limit on horse-drawn vehicles, but it seems to me that the present law regulating the speed of motor vehicles is capable of improvement. I recognize, of course, that this is a provincial matter. In Ontario the speed limit is thirty-five miles an hour, and to-day if you travel along the highways of that province at thirty-five miles an hour you are hindering traffic, you are lingering along the highway. Scarcely a motor travels along the highways in the daytime at less than fifty miles an hour. The automobile companies publish advertisements in which they announce that -their particular cars will travel

at seventy, eighty or ninety miles an hour. They are allowed to build and to sell cars to travel at ninety miles an hour, and we are allowed to buy them, but the law says: You must not go faster than -thirty-five miles an hour. Yet no one is prosecuted who travels well above that slow speed. It occurs to me that the public would have more respect for the law if the speed limit were increased to, say, forty-five or fifty miles an hour in the daytime, and for night travelling thirty-five or forty miles; and compel drivers to obey the law. If that were done there would not be so many accidents. We all agree that -there are too many drunken drivers, but just how that mischief can be curbed is to my mind uncertain. I am not so sure that they will be deterred by increased gaol sentences, but I agree with the suggestion made -by several hon. members that there should be a provision in the act for suspending the licence of anyone found guilty of driving while" drunk. The present term of imprisonment is long enough, but there should be added to that in every case the suspension of the licence for a period. Then anyone who had driven a car while under the influence of liquor would realize that such a thing simply could not be done; a-nd others would know, from the fact that he -could not drive his car, that he had broken the law, and that he had not only paid the penalty of imprisonment but had had his licence suspended. The licence might be suspended for a term of three months or six months or even a year, as might be determined. I suggest that the provinces would do well to consider an increased speed limit by day, and that it would help to make -the highways safe if the -licence of anyone convicted of driving while intoxicated were suspended.

Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):

I had not intended to speak on this question but the argument so far has been unfair. The man who drives a car after becoming somewhat tightened- up by good liquor is blamed, but in my opinion the person that sells the liquor or the government that sells it is just as blameable. The government that sells the liquor is just as much to blame as the man who drinks good government liquor that makes him unfit.

Mr. J. J. KINLEY (Queens-Lunen-burg):

The suggestion has been made that a part of the penalty for driving while intoxicated should be the suspension of the licence. I would point out that the licence is issued by the provincial government and an order for the suspension of any licence might be an invasion of provincial rights. We all agree,

Criminal Code Amendment

however, that the automobile is perhaps the most hazardous means of travelling to-day and demands our attention. In my experience I have found the truck a considerable hazard. There are great big trucks with trailers, and an automobile coming on the road and wishing to pass one of these trucks is in great danger of meeting someone who cannot be seen coming the other way. Some provision should be made to limit the width and length of trucks. Trucks are used in trade, which is to some extent interprovincial, so that we have jurisdiction to legislate with regard to them. With transportation what it is to-day trucks are numerous on every highway, the loads are so large, and the trucks themselves so high and wide that everyone regards them as a source of danger. I think the width of the truck should have some relation to the width of the road, because there are many narrow roads that are almost wholly taken up by a truck, and the long truck is a real menace on the curves.

Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):

I am afraid I shall not have time to-night to answer what has been said and to give all' the explanations I should like, but I may assure my right hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) that I will give the matter all the consideration it is entitled to and that every provision of the bill before us will be studied prior to the bringing down of a bill which the government intends to introduce to amend certain sections of the criminal code.

May I say in answer to some hon. gentlemen who have taken part in this debate, more particularly my hon. friend1 from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), that there are at present very strict provisions in the criminal code governing the very matter which he has been discussing. The hon. gentleman discussed the subject as if there were nothing in the criminal code to protect pedestrians and those who make use of the highways, and urgedi that something should be inserted in the criminal code for this purpose. I assure him that there is something in the criminal code, so much so indeed that, unfortunately, the courts have declared' some of its provisions to be too severe. They have pointed out that it is impossible to get convictions because the sentence is too drastic, and applications are being made to reduce the penalties imposed by the law as it stands.

With regard to the remarks of my hon. friend from Broadview (Mr. Church), I would make this observation as a matter of principle. Personally I believe that the best governed country is not the country that has the

largest number of laws. I remember reading this sentence in the Latin poet Juvenal: "The commonwealth abounded in laws, and corruption abounded in the commonwealth." What is important is, not that there should be such a large number of laws but that there should be good laws which are respected, observed and upheld by the people for whose benefit they have been enacted.

My hon. friend from Broadview (Mr. Church) introduces some rather strange bills for the purpose of amending the criminal code. Sometimes his bills sin on the side of leniency. For instance, last year he introduced a bill under which, if it had passed the house, the person convicted would not have had to go to gaol at all; he might have served his sentence under the care of a constable in the court house. The hon. member thought that the sentence imposed by the criminal code was too severe. Some of his other proposals err on the other side.

As regards section 1 of this bill, this is far from being a new proposal. As the law stands, a driver who is intoxicated is subject to a strict penalty. My hon. friend proposes to change that and make it apply to anyone who is under the influence of liquor. This has been proposed many times, especially when the country was under prohibition. At that time, however, there was more reason for the proposal. The mere fact of drinking liquor was illegal; the purchase and drinking of liquor was illegal, but now it is a legal trade throughout Canada, and if you made it a crime for any man who drinks a glass of wine or liquor at meals to drive his car afterwards-because he would be to some extent under the influence of a stimulant-you would, I suggest, be going very far indeed. Most people cannot afford to have a chauffeur to drive them carefully when they have their liquor inside or under the back seat. For ordinary people I think this would be a very harsh proposal to insert in the criminal code.

I am afraid it is nine o'clock.

Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :

In rising to take part in the debate on the budget I desire in the first place to join with other members of the house- in expressing my appreciation of the very fine manner in which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) presented the budget to the house. His speech was not only delivered in the best of form but the subject matter was so well arranged that those of us who are not accustomed to budgets could readily discern the real intent and meaning of this budget.

I would remind the house that only two hon. members have spoken on the main motion since the Minister of Finance moved it some days ago-the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) and the speaker who preceded me in this debate (Mr. Tomlinson). I think probably the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen) was correct when he stated that the leader of the opposition probably had something in mind when he moved his amendment in the first speech delivered following the presentation of the budget by the Minister of Finance. I am inclined to think that probably what he had in mind was that a budget so well delivered, and which would be so clearly understood by the people of Canada as well as by hon. members of this house, required the staging of a debate which might for the time being at least lead the mind of the people of Canada away from the importance of the budget address itself. But I am inclined to think that from the point of view of the party that he happens to lead the leader of the opposition chose the most unhappy topic for discussion.

A number of hon. members have called attention to the fact, which I wish to emphasize by mentioning it again, that when the late government came into power there were 117,000 unemployed in Canada, and when they went out of office, according to figures quoted from the other side of the house on a number of occasions, there were half a million unemployed people in Canada. In other words, the policies which were announced in 1930 as a cure-all for unemployment, after having been tried out for five years, proved conclusively to be no cure. That has been emphasized throughout the debate of the past week. Unemployment was not cured by those policies. The condition of unemployment has been improved by the policies which have been put into effect since the present government came into office. It has not been improved as greatly as hon. members and people outside the house would like to see; nevertheless it is improved, and as far as employment is concerned we are on the upgrade.

I wish to confine my remarks to-night mostly to a question which has been discussed in connection with the proposed amendment, and was discussed also by the leader of the opposition in the speech he delivered before moving his amendment-the question of wheat. Certain hon. members, especially those on the other side of the house in all three groups that are in opposition to the government, more particularly those who come from western Canada, have addressed the greater part of their remarks to the question of wheat. As I represent a constituency in a province which produces more wheat than any other province of Canada, in fact produces more than half of all the wheat produced in Canada even when it is suffering from drought, I think I should reply to some of the remarks bearing on that question. However, before dealing with the questions raised by other speakers may I make a few general remarks concerning wheat.

The question of how wheat is to be marketed is of great importance to all the people of Canada, but it is of particular importance to the people who produce it. It is also of great importance to the people who have put their money into the greatest wheat storage system to be found in any country in the world. We have storage capacity in Canada for 419 million bushels of wheat. In the year that we have just passed through we produced only 229 million bushels of wheat. The people who have equipped this country with storage capacity for 419 million bushels are very anxious that wheat should go into that storage, and as in some years there is only half enough wheat grown, or a little more than half, to fill the total capacity of those elevators, it stands to reason that certain people who have an interest in those elevators will put forth an effort to obtain wheat to store in order that they may collect storage charges on it. And all the people of Canada, who are interested in bringing about better conditions for our transportation systems, are interested in the production of wheat in this country. I might go on to deal with the governments of the different provinces and the government of Canada, and relate to this house the great expenditures which have been made necessary in order to maintain people during recent winters because of the fact that wheat did not grow in the same abundance as in some preceding years.

These general statements are of importance in discussing this matter. But I think all hon. members will agree that a matter of the utmost importance is the price obtained for wheat, and the men most concerned in that are those who produce the wheat. After

The Budget-Mr. Gardiner

all, the person who buys the wheat is concerned1 only with the difference between the price at which he buys and the price at which he is able to sell. It does not make so much difference to him whether the price is low or high, but it does make a great difference to the person who produces the wheat. I make that statement in order to emphasize this: It will be found by those who do not know the farmers of western Canada, and will be admitted by those who do know them-I am speaking of the rank and1 file of farmers who produce the wheat-that they are much more concerned about the price they obtain than about the agency that obtains that price for them. What the farmers of western Canada want is the very best possible price obtainable for the wheat that they grow. If they can get a better price by one. system rather than another they are very likely to be in favour of that system.

In order to place the variations in price on record, I ask the house to bear with me while I go back over a certain period of time. I should like to go 'back to the year 1908-09, not to deal with every year since in detail but in order to indicate in five well-defined periods the prices that have ruled for wheat produced in Canada.

Taking the years from 1908-09 to 1913-14, before the war, I find that the range of wheat prices was from S4-4 cents in 1912-13, which was the lowest price obtained in that series of years, up to 116-1 cents in 1908-09. That is, the lowest price obtained in that period was 84 cents-using round figures-and the highest price $1.16 at Fort William.

The next period is from the first year of the war, 1914-15, to 1922-23. That takes in the war years and those immediately following the war, until the wheat pool came into existence. During a considerable part of that period we had a wheat board; during the entire period wheat prices were influenced by the fact that we were in the midst of a war or had just been in a war. The lowest price obtained during that period was Sl.lOjt; the highest price was $2.24 at Fort William, and prices varied within that range. May I add that we had a wheat board during that time for the purpose of keeping down the price of wheat, not for the purpose of keeping it up. That wheat board was brought into 'being in order to control the price downward, so that the allied countries would not have such great difficulty in financing the feeding of their armies and their people.

Then in 1923-24 we had the organization of the wheat pool, and the lowest price obtained during the time the pool carried on in western Canada as a contract pooling

organization was in the first year they operated. That price was $1.07 a bushel. The highest price was obtained during the second year they operated, 1924-25; that price was $1.68|, and prices varied between those two levels during that period.

Now I come to the period when we had stabilization, under Mr. McFarland, beginning with the year 1930-31, and continuing down to the year 1934-35. During that period the lowest price of wheat was 54-3 cents per bushel at Fort William, and the highest price was 81-9 cents per bushel. What I wish to point out to this house is that the lowest prices ever obtained for wheat in the history of the Dominion of Canada were those obtained during the stabilization period under Mr. McFarland. I am not going to say there were no influences other than the fact that Mr. McFarland was stabilizing prices that brought about the low prices obtained in that period, but nevertheless that was the fact.

Two crop years have passed since then, and during those two years we have had a wheat board. Part of the time that wheat board was under the chairmanship of Mr. McFarland; part of the time it has been under the chairmanship of Mr. Murray. During the first year the average price received for wheat was 84-3 cents per bushel, three cents more than the price received in any year during the stabilization operations. During the period from August 1, 1936, to February 27, 1937, the average price obtained for wheat was $1.13-7. In other words, as between this year and last year wheat has advanced from an average of 84-3 cents to an average of $1.13-7 cents. And may I call your attention to the fact, Mr. Speaker, that this is the highest price that has prevailed during any year, or a considerable portion of any year, with the exception of the war years and those years that were influenced by the fact that there had been a war, including a period partly covered by the wheat pool, with the exception of the one year, 1908-09, when the average price was $1.16-1 per bushel. If the price that has prevailed during the past few weeks continues until the end of the year, Mr. Speaker, this year we will have the highest average price for wheat that we have had in any year, with the exception of those years that were influenced by the war.

If the thing that is most important to the producer is-and I believe every hon. member of this house will agree that it is- the price that he obtains for his wheat, then I think the record of the present government in the matter of price is something of which it need not be ashamed. I am leaving

The Budget-Mr. Gardiner

out of consideration the methods that have been employed, and disregarding for the moment everything that has been said by way of criticism. We have reached the point where we can show the members of this house, the country, and more particularly western Canada that we are obtaining the highest price for wheat that has been obtained in Canada since the beginning of the stabilization activities of Mr. McFarland, and the highest price that has been obtained for wheat in other than a war period, since we started to produce wheat in anything approaching its present volume in western Canada.

We have had some criticisms levelled at the government, more particularly by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley), with regard to speculation. May I say, Mr. Speaker, that the records show very clearly that with regard to the operations of last year, or with regard to the crop now being marketed, there has been probably less speculation than in connection with the marketing of the crop during any of the periods to which I have been referring. Let us go back to 1920, the first year during which we had an acreage under wheat somewhat similar to the acreage we now have, and let us take the three years before the wheat pools came into existence. The average amount of wheat exported from Canada each year during the months from August 1 to the end of November, which is usually the close of navigation, during that period of time was 75,500,000 bushels. Then coming to the period when the pools operated, when we had the highest wheat production we have ever had in Canada, the average amount exported during those same four months of each year was in that period 101,000,000 bushels.

Now taking the period when we had stabilization, from 1931 to 1934-35, the average amount exported in the same four months of each year was S3,400,000 bushels. Coming to the year 1934-35, however, the year during the greater part of which the present board operated in selling wheat, in spite of the fact that the old board did not export wheat itself but_ only sold 12,500,000 bushels of wheat during that time, there was exported from Canada, apparently by the trade-taking into account the 12,500,000 bushels sold by the board'-94,465,000 bushels. Then coming down to the present year, under the Murray board, during the first four months of this season 102,103,000 bushels of wheat were exported from Canada, and this in a year when we had the smallest yield since 1919. Well. Mr. Speaker, 102,103,000 bushels is greater than the average amount exported in any one of the periods to which I have referred, and

31111-103J

during that period of time what we have been pleased1 to call the private interests in the dominion have been handling the wheat of western Canada. But may I point out what I called the attention of the house to the other night, that the organization which bought, and I presume exported about half of that wheat, is the wheat pool organization. During the period wheat has been sold in the ordinary way; 102,000,000 bushels have been sold into export, and actually gone into export, out of the Dominion of Canada, during the first four months. Well, that is an indication to the people of this country when we are considering the question of speculation that there has been less of it proportionately than in preceding years. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that when the pool has handled 47 per cent of the wheat of western Canada in that period of time, members of the house coming from western Canada who seek to prove that there has been great speculation in the marketing of wheat during this particular year are really attacking-if they are attacking anybody- the organization that handles the greater proportion of it. That organization was no doubt the wheat pool.

The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) has gone back to the old statement that some one said before the committee of the house in 1935-I think he said it was Mr. Mclvor-that fifteen cents a bushel profit had been made by the farmers of western Canada through the stabilization activities of Mr. McFarland. That is not exactly what Mr. Mclvor did say. What Mr. Mclvor did say was that the price was fifteen1 cents higher than would have been obtained if another method he had in mind had been followed. When pressed for an answer as to what that meant, he stated that if wheat had been dumped upon the world market, instead of held off, the price might have been fifteen cents lower. He emphasized, even that was only an estimate. His final statement on the point is to be found at page 412 of the report, as follows:

A. It was a hypothetical question and it was a hypothetical answer.

Mr. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):

Would you just read the part of the evidence that Mr. -

Mr. GARDINER:

I have only forty minutes.

Mr. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):

Read it all- what he said it meant as to the marketing of wheat.

Mr. GARDINER:

The final statement he made in the evidence is to be found at page 412, and is this: "It was a hypothetical question and it was a hypothetical answer."

The Budget-Mr. Gardiner

Mr. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):

Marketed all the wheat they produced in four years.

Mr. GARDINER:

And even in making a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question there was only one possible condition upon which it could have been based, and that was upon the spread as between the price of Canadian wheat and wheat coming from the Argentine or Australia.

Mr. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):

What does the minister think about it-

Order.

Mr. GARDINER:

That spread has been higher during the present year than it was during the years to which he referred.

Hear, hear.

Mr. GARDINER:

Then the hon. member for Qu'Appelle went on to say that some representative of Joseph Ranke and Company, or a subsidiary of Joseph Ranke and Company, had stated that wheat might have been ten cents a bushel higher last year. From that he deduced the argument that the farmers of western Canada had lost ten cents a bushel on wheat.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there are a few things we ought to know, and the first thing we ought to know is that Joseph Ranke and Company is one of the three great millers of wheat in the British Isles. Joseph Ranke belongs to the organization of millers which controls 80 per cent of all the milling in the old country. Of course, Joseph Ranke and Company, and others who are engaged in the milling business, have been interested in keeping the price down rather than in putting it up. There is a reason for that-the same reason the producers have in wanting to put the price up. I have not any doubt that an agent of Ranke and Company talking to someone who, after all, was interested politically or otherwise, might have made some particular statement with regard to this matter. But I presume that even the member for Qu'Appelle would admit that the gentleman of whom he was talking might have been two cents out on his price. That is, there might have been an advantage of eight cents instead of ten cents.