Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):

Mr. Speaker, I do not suppose the discussion of this bill will be protracted. I listened with a great deal of interest to the explanation given by the minister, and possibly, if the condition which we face in the wheat-producing areas were not something of an emergency condition, the arguments which he advanced would be much more valid and much more acceptable. The difficulty is-I am not going to discuss the price, because we shall come to that a little later; but since he mentioned it, may I say this-that what we call the initial price, with the huge world surplus which is piling up and in sight at the end of July, is in all probability likely to be also the maximum price.

Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):

You cannot

guarantee it.

Mr. COLDWELL:

No, you cannot guarantee it, and you cannot guarantee that it will be the initial price only. I hope of course that it may be much below the price which the farmers will actually receive, but with

1,150,000,000 bushels, about the average of the estimates which have been made, as the possible surplus during the coming crop year, in all probability the initial price will be the maximum price. That, I think, is an answer to some of the things the minister has said.

As far as the legislation under this bill is concerned, it is an interesting experiment, and from that point of view I hope it will encourage our farmers to think and to act even more cooperatively than they have done in the past. But it seems to me that the bill ought not to be called a cooperative marketing bill, because after all it is a bill which more or less deals with selling agencies. To my mind the word "cooperative" is used in this country much too loosely, and I have often thought that we ought to have an act of parliament or of the legislatures in order to confine the term to what it really ought to mean.

Political parties too?

Mr. COLDWELL:

Someone suggests political parties. Well, when a political party aims at really only one thing, the setting up of a society in which the principal means of production and distribution and so on, now monopolistically and privately owned, shall be owned and operated cooperatively for the common good, that political organization has a right to call itself a cooperative movement in the strict sense of the word.

Mr. MARTIN:

Except land.

Mr. COLDWELL:

The bill continues the open market institutions and open market operations, and I should like again to put this on record. Ever since I have been in western Canada, nearly thirty years now, I have found groups of farmers in ever-increasing numbers asking that their grain shall be marketed through a marketing agency which shall not be subjected to the speculative market and speculative institutions. This demand was insistent even before the great war and certainly at its close. I have here an interesting old document which I should like to read to confirm that point. It is an extract from the record of the 1919 convention of the old Saskatchewan Grain Growers' Association, in which a resolution was moved by Mr. C. C. Stoliker, of Wilkie, and seconded by Mr. Freeman of Parkbeg. Mr. Stoliker is still living; I am not sure about Mr. Freeman. The resolution reads:

Whereas the profits to the Canadian producer from the wheat crop of 1917 and 1918 were restricted by a fixed price which the federal government established in the interest of the consumer, and especially of our allies across the sea;

And whereas throughout the period of the war and at this time, the farmers of Canada, in loyal response to the government's call for greater production have incurred the consequences of poor farming methods in order to secure immediate results;

And whereas the cost of living, and of all commodities entering into the production of wheat, are now as high as, or higher than, at any time during the last two years;

And whereas these conditions of cost will prevail throughout the period of preparation, seeding and harvesting the 1919 crop;

And whereas the government of the United States has, by fixing the price of wheat for 1919, guaranteed the farmers of the United States against financial loss;

And whereas, in the absence of any assurance or intimation that the price of the 1919 Canadian wheat crop will be fixed by the Canadian government, there is much alarm and unrest among farmers, and especially among those who have suffered by reason of poor crops during the last two years;

How familiar that sounds!

Therefore be it resolved that this convention ask the government to take steps, without further delay, to fix the price of the 1919 crop on the same basis as that of 1918.

There is an interesting comment on this resolution from a gentleman who to-day is Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). May I read it:

I am in favour of the resolution. I am in favour of it for the reason that I think it of greater importance to-day than I did a year ago, to bring to the attention of the government and the House of Commons of Canada that the greatest industry in this country is in greater peril to-day than it has ever been in its history.

Cooperative Wheat Marketing

How much truer that is at the moment.

We are accustomed to put things up to the government. I think we have that habit overdeveloped and do not take enough responsibility ourselves. Remember that governments cannot do impossibilities. They have to deal with facts as they are. But I hold the view that the Canadian government has not attached and does not now attach the importance to the agricultural industry of this country that it should. My reason for saying this is this: A year ago I was asked to take the position of director of food production, to tell you men how to grow more wheat. I took that position because I thought it was a duty. You will remember I asked the Canadian government to get out of your wray, to get off your backs, to set you free to do all you could, to treat you as every government treated the munition manufacturer. How was he treated? He secured a contract with the government and it contained clauses protecting him-

Mr. MANION:

Such as the Bren gun

contract.

Mr. COLDWELL:

-in case of cancellation of his contract owing to the cessation of hostilities. Not fully protecting him, of course, but making it sure that he would not go bust over the job.

I asked a year ago that in order to get more land broken up in 1918 for the 1919 production that they wanted me to do, that more men should be obtained to start in that business.

Here we see the origin of some of the troubles that we have at the moment.

I said that the farmer must be in a position to get credit to do the work and spend the money necessary. Surely that was reasonable and logical?

But it was too much, apparently, and the price of the grain for 1919 was not guaranteed. Anyone who says the Canadian government entered into a contract with the farmers to raise rvheat in 1919 is not stating the fact. I asked them to do that but they did not. The Canadian government asked us to grow as much wheat as we could in 1918 and in succeeding years on the ground that the wheat was required, and in reply to the request for the fixing of a price they said the world conditions would take care of that. But that did not go with the manufacturer. The government said the financial burden would be altogether too great on the country in case of loss, that it would go broke. Well, if all the farmers of the country go broke, it is just as safe for the whole country as it is for the farmers of the country. The load can be much more easily carried by the whole population than to make one industry the goat.

I conclude the quotatirn with these words:

I speak from my heart. There is no protective principle in this resolution. I have been over it very carefully and it is clear of anything of that nature. The situation is the most serious our industry has ever faced.

I wanted to read this statement in order to show the house, and particularly members from other parts of Canada, that the problem of the cooperative marketing of wheat and

the question whether we shall market in this way or through a single selling agency, a wheat board, is something that has not arisen out of the present conditions in western Canada at the present time but has been discussed for a considerable number of years. Part of the dissatisfaction that has been expressed recently regarding the proposed wdieat policy we are about to consider is due to the fear that the continuance of open market methods will interfere with producers' organizations and w'ith what we term orderly marketing.

This bill is called the Wheat Cooperative Marketing Act, 1939. In my opinion that is a misnomer.. The western producers have struggled for a great many years for an orderly system of marketing under their own control, and my criticism of the bill is largely that it tends to perpetuate the private interests and may create something of a chaotic condition in the marketing of western wheat during the coming year if the act is proclaimed. I notice that this opinion is confirmed in the second submission made by the western committee to the government. I turn to page 14 of that submission, a copy of which I was able to get, and there I find that the western committee on the federal wheat policy for 1939-40 met the government two weeks ago or so and made this statement with respect to Bill No. 82, the bill before us:

With reference to this bill the committee wishes to say that it is its unanimous opinion that under existing conditions the method proposed is impracticable and no organization could undertake to operate successfully such a selling agency as contemplated in the face of present marketing uncertainties.

That apparently was their considered opinion; and I believe it was presented to the government some days after the letter was written from the grain growers and from the pools to which the minister referred and which he placed on record. This, I understand was on April 24. Therefore it is the latest opinion of these organizations which are interested in orderly marketing and in the farmers' organizations all across the country; and even some of the elevator companies were represented on that committee. It states tersely the view which I held even before I saw that opinion.

I cannot say too emphatically that the bulk of the farmers of western Canada and the business men workers who are dependent on the farmers want an orderly system of marketing their produce; and they want a producers' marketing board. In common usage to-day, that producers' marketing board is spoken of as the wheat board, although when

Cooperative Wheat Marketing

we speak of the wheat board we think of something which will become much more comprehensive in the future. It seems to me-the minister will have opportunity to correct me if I am wrong-that under this bill the pools and groups of private elevator companies will be competing with the board, which will have the obligation of marketing the unsold 1938-39 surplus during the next crop year. To me that seems to be not a cooperative but a highly competitive system, one which will create a very difficult situation both for the board and for the others. If I am wrong I want to be corrected by the minister at the first opportunity.

Mr. GARDINER:

Does the hon. member mind if I correct it now?

Mr. COLDWELL:

I shall be glad.

Mr. GARDINER:

Perhaps I did not make that clear. This bill was proposed, of course, before the discussions took place with regard to the necessity for the wheat board to operate this year as a result of the surplus which may be in existence at the end of the crop year, and also without a knowledge of what the price situation may be for next year's crop. We are not clear yet on either of those points. My argument a moment ago was that this legislation should be on the statute book. There will be very little chance of its coming into effect if the condition which prevails at the moment continues throughout the next year, but there is always the possibility that circumstances may develop making it possible for some of these organizations to operate. All the different types of organizations have indicated that should these conditions disappear, which at the moment they do not expect will be the case, they would be prepared to operate under legislation of this kind.

Mr. COLDWELL:

Well, perhaps the other angle had better be discussed on the other bill. There are one or two questions on the other bill that the minister might clear up. I was thinking particularly of what is going to happen to the grain in excess of 5,000 bushels the limit provided in Bill No. 63.

One other thing I want to say in regard to the cooperative institutions of western Canada. Last night I listened attentively to the all too short and what I regard as one of the ablest addresses in many respects that I have heard in the house this session; I refer to the address of the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore). But in the course of his remarks he expressed doubt as to the wisdom of such agencies as the western farmers have been trying to build up. For example he doubted the wisdom of endeavouring to market through

FMr. Coldwell.]

a single selling agency. He pointed out that in the last few years our economy has changed fundamentally; that industry all across Europe and America has built up its cartels, monopolistic enterprises which function not only within a nation but are international in their scope, and control prices not only through national monopolies but through international agreements among monopolistic enterprises. That, of course, is true; these cartels have been set up during the last twenty-five years or so. The hon. member went on to criticize the unorganized producers for endeavouring to protect themselves in the face of these huge combines, saying that in his opinion, from the point of view of the very countries in which these cartels are operating, it was inadvisable for a country like Canada to endeavour to set up single marketing agencies for the orderly marketing of grain and other farm products. To my mind cooperative selling agencies of a national type are simply logical developments on the part of producers to protect themselves and their commodities in a very highly organized world. I think this bill is weak, because it tends to perpetuate the competitive organizations and the competitive features that render the farmer more or less helpless in the face of organized industry and organized finance.

The hon. member for Ontario said last night that no state would allow its supply of bread to come under the control of a foreign organization. As I understand it, many states are to-day controlling their wheat and their bread, and in the face of what is going on in importing countries and other exporting countries Canada must organize its industry in order to meet the conditions with which it is faced in its marketing. The western pools were formed by farmers to handle their products cooperatively, and, what is sometimes overlooked, originally to find markets. The cooperative wheat producers did for a time spend a great deal of energy in finding markets. So that when we hear markets referred to as the possible panacea for the difficulties facing both agriculture and industry in this country, we have to bear in mind that the western producers who are to-day asking for some protection in their marketing did endeavour to find markets, and have urged that the government of Canada change its trade policies in order that markets may become available to them for their products. For, as we have said so frequently, we cannot overlook the fact that our imports in reality represent our income. It was because of the hard necessity of the years following the great war that the individualistic farmer, who had carved out his holding from the prairie by his

Cooperative Wheat Marketing

own individual enterprise, turned to the idea of cooperation. He saw, as the minister pointed out this afternoon, that when his products were plentiful and he had to market them all at once in the fall of the year, prices were depressed. The bulk of the grain was marketed in the three months following September 1, as a rule, and invariably there was some price increase in the months that followed. So the middleman profited at the expense of the farmer, who therefore believed -and still believes, if I may say so-that since industry was organized so that it could feed its products to the market in a fairly orderly flow, he ought to endeavour to organize himself, not in an endeavour to command an unduly high price but in order that he might be in a position to regulate the flow of his product to the markets so that it might proceed in a fairly orderly fashion also. As those of us who come from the west know, orderly marketing became somewhat of a slogan in western Canada. As was indicated by the old resolution which I placed on record just now, it was the actual experience of the operation of the wheat board of 1919 and 1920 that convinced the western farmers that there was a better way of marketing than through the futures system, the grain exchange and the speculative markets. Whatever may be said by royal commissions or by people representing the grain trade, as we call it, that sentiment is strong to-day, and it accounts for the determined fight that has been put up by the farmers of the west and the voluminous petitions we have received even from the worst drought areas, asking that the wheat board be continued.

I welcome any bill which will assist those who, because of weather and other conditions, lose their crops; but the point of view I am expressing is, I believe, the opinion of a majority of the people of that region, that the orderly marketing system, the wheat board, is of supreme importance and must be maintained at all costs. I know that is the tenor of letters I have received even from the most drought-stricken parts of Saskatchewan during the past few weeks. In 1922 the Liberal government actually placed upon the statute book legislation providing for the setting up of a wheat board, but that legislation did not become operative. It was because of that fact that the producers' cooperative movement, which the minister outlined quite correctly this afternoon, arose in western Canada, and established the wheat pools. But I would point out that the first love of the western farmer was always the wheat board. I remember how the hon. member who now sits for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) was elected in the city of Regina in 1921; I remember the great banner stretching from near the post office across to one of the financial buildings on the other comer, bearing in huge letters the words, "Vote for Motherwell and the wheat board." And Mr. Motherwell was the only Liberal returned from the province of Saskatchewan in the election of 1921, all others from that province being Progressives, who also were pledged to the establishment of a wheat board.

Mr. TUCKER:

He was elected at a byelection, was he not?

Mr. COLDWELL:

No, at the general

election of December, 1921. There is something else about the pools that I think should be borne in mind. They are ultra democratic, for every member of the pool enjoys one vote and can exercise only one man's influence, irrespective of his holdings or of the amount of grain he markets. I think that is something of a testimonial to the innate democracy of the people of western Canada.

As the minister said, at first these pools entered into handling agreements with private companies, and I would stress that point. That led to considerable dissatisfaction and to a demand that the pools, either themselves or through subsidiary organizations, operate their own elevators. That led to the organization of Pool Elevators Limited, now the largest elevator concern of its kind in the world, I believe. The minister gave the figures, which I jotted down. I think he said there were now 154 pool elevators in Manitoba. 1,069 in Saskatchewan and 424 in Alberta. According to the report of the pool for 1936, these elevators serve 76-19 per cent of the shipping points in the three prairie provinces. This indicates how determined the farmers were not to adopt a system of the kind suggested by this bill; but, since they could not get a wheat board to market all their grain through one channel, they desired if possible to devise a pool which would have the same effect, though the pools came into being only after the disillusionment of the farmers in regard to the possibility of getting a wheat board.

The wheat pools, these cooperative organizations, came into the field for one purpose, that of orderly marketing. It was not, I point out to the hon. member for Ontario, a monopoly or a cartel, nor did they desire to hold up the consumers overseas. The pools were organized to relieve the farmers of the necessity of throwing their grain into the laps of elevator companies, speculators, millers and exporters during the fall, thus depressing prices

Cooperative Wheat Marketing

unduly. I think perhaps there is one feature of this bill that may deserve commendation; it may have the effect of strengthening producers' cooperatives, but I do not like the other provisions with regard to the formation of what are loosely called pools but what in reality may be elevator companies. I would emphasize once more that the western producers never wished, nor do they wish now, to hold up the consumer nations. They simply sought to regulate the flow of their products to the market in order that they might obtain a reasonable return which would provide them with a decent standard of living. This bill creates a number of private associations and so-called pools which, as I said before, may come into competition with the wheat board or farmers' pools, but that is a matter that must be cleared up later in this discussion.

I do not think at this stage I need say more. I have outlined the point of view I hold with regard to this measure. The farmers of western Canada have to sell their commodity in the open markets of the world and have to buy their clothing, their gasoline, their oil and everything else in not only a closed market but, as the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Young) showed yesterday, a market in which the price is set by monopoly. So they want their wheat marketed through the agency of a national wheat board; they want a minimum protected price that will guarantee to them and to their families a reasonable and decent standard of living. They are persuaded, as I am persuaded, that the irreducible minimum which should be guaranteed by the government this year is 80 cents basis No. 1 northern at Fort William.

Mr. STEVENS:

On a point of order: Could the minister table the statement of the United Grain Growers, from which he quoted? I think that according to the rules the document should be tabled, and I am sure the minister would have no objection.

Mr. GARDINER:

I did not really quote from it, but was content to summarize the effect of the contents. I have no objection, however, to letting the hon. member see it.

Mr. STEVENS:

It would be helpful.

Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):

Mr. Sneaker, I do not propose to occupy much time in a discussion of the merits of the bill. The bill is not necessary. There is no demand for it, and already on the statute books we have machinery sufficient to take care of the situation the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has outlined. I believe as a

matter of fact the present machinery would do the work much better than that set out in the bill.

On February 16 the minister stated in the house that in due course he would introduce measures based on the recommendations of the Turgeon commission. I presume the bill now before us, which provides for the cooperative marketing of wheat, is to carry out the recommendation contained in the commissioner's report wherein it was suggested that small pools might be organized and operated. I suggest, however, that this bill goes much farther than any recommendation found in the Turgeon report. For instance, I cannot find where Judge Turgeon recommended, as appears in section 2, paragraph (d), that elevator companies should organize themselves into associations or what might be termed pools, and that these could be guaranteed against any loss on a price below 60 cents as provided in the bill. In two or three places in his report Judge Turgeon admits that the grain trade could not function in an emergency, and that the board provided under the Canadian Wheat Board Act was the one organization which could function. There is provision in the bill for declaring emergency years, and in those years the board should function.

Therefore at least in some sections of it this bill is really -.a act to succour the grain trade, to save it; so that if the bill becomes inoperative-which it may, when we have a return to normal times; a condition we all hope may develop, and the minister spoke very hopefully this afternoon of that condition returning-then these companies would be prepared to go ahead as usual. I do not know whether the minister provides for the dissolving of any of these cooperatives after they have been in operation for a year or so. Should they then dissolve, if we get back to normal conditions, and continue as they have been doing for twenty-five or thirty years?

On former occasions I have stated that the government cannot divorce itself from the marketing problem. The marketing of all our wheat cannot be carried on successfully, with fair remuneration to the farmer in the next few years, unless there is government support. Certainly this bill is providing government support to more than one organization. Under the Canadian Wheat Board Act we now have a wheat board, and through it we can get everything for the producer that this bill suggests. Why not be honest about it and admit that hon. members now supporting the government were wrong in opposing that measure? Admit it now, and fix a proper

Cooperative Wheat Marketing

minimum price for a period of years, as I suggested on one other occasion. Let the wheat board function, and do all it has the power to do under the act. It could take care of the situation for which the minister expects this bill to provide. Why allow the grain firms to form themselves into associations? Why allow them to incorporate themselves, as is provided in paragraph (d) of section 2?

Then the bill provides, further, under section 3, for initial payments to be made by the selling agency, and stipulates that that initial payment shall be 60 cents. I am not going to discuss that feature to-day, but I believe all are agreed, not only in the house but outside of it-and I refer to western Canada-that 60 cents does not meet the situation, even as an advance, as it is described in the bill.

The bill provides further, as indicated by the minister that there will be paid to the selling agency-

. . . the amount, if any, by which the initial payment together with storage, carrying and transportation charges and operating expenses exceeds the average sale price.

So there is not much encouragement there for the firms that will be in the association or cooperative to hold the prices up, because they are guaranteed against any loss they might incur.

Further, the average sale price is to be computed after the sale price realized by the selling agency has been adjusted in a manner to be prescribed by regulation, as if the wheat had been sold in store at Fort William. The bill makes the further provision that no payment shall be made to primary producers by a selling agency subsequent to the initial payment, unless such subsequent payment is first approved by the governor in council. Of course that would mean approval by the minister. To a great extent the working out of the act will depend on the minister. Here again is an instance of "heads I win, tails you lose," in favour of the grain firms which will form themselves into associations.

Why is it necessary for the government to bring in all this conglomeration of organizations and assist them to continue in business when it is recognized in the Turgeon report that in an emergency they cannot function properly? Why is it necessary to give assistance to them in order that they may carry on if we have as we have now, machinery under the Canadian Wheat Board Act to do all that is suggested in the bill?

From information I have received, and inquiries made particularly from individual farmers, I find that they are completely confused as to how the bill will be carried out. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) has brought up an important question; in fact, he covered some of the points I had intended to cover. I shall not repeat what he has said. He did ask the important question, however, as to what the board's selling policy would be in competition with associations or cooperatives to be set up. The board will have a surplus from the 1938 crop, and we should know what it is going to do and what its policy will be in competition with the associations. It is important that hon. members have an answer to that question.

The minister insists that the bill be placed on the statute book, and there is no doubt it will pass. I think, however, that if the government is going to give support to cooperatives or associations, the first ones to consider should be associations of producers alone. Second, it should give consideration to the three pools in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta. They are deserving, and if it is necessary to succour any group, they should be saved. They are properly equipped and have rendered a great sendee to the producers of western Canada-there are, I might point out, 1,069 in the province of Saskatchewan- and are deserving of support in view of the services they have rendered. I refer particularly to the services rendered to the government of Canada by the three organizations I have mentioned in the period from 1930 to 1935, in the stabilization operations carried on under Mr. John I. McFarland. So I would say that if there is any organization to be saved it should be the pool organizations. They comprise from fifty to sixty per cent of the producers, particularly in Saskatchewan, and the producers have a capital investment in the pool elevators through the deductions which have been made in selling their grain over a period of years, and which represent an investment in the elevator.

I want to remind the house of what was in the mind of Right Hon. R. B. Bennett when it became necessary in 1931 for the federal government to make good the guarantees which had been given to the pools by the provincial governments. He had in mind th* saving of thousands of farmers of western Canada who had an investment in these elevators as I have just described, amounting in many cases to a good many hundreds of dollars. At that time he was criticized for coming to the rescue of the pools, by the

Cooperative Wheat Marketing

very grain firms which under the terms of this bill may organize themselves into associations; and he was criticized also by certain individuals who supported grain trading or open market operation. It was from these very people that we encountered the severest opposition when we were considering the Canadian Wheat Board Act. When the price was set at 87i cents for the 1935 crop the greatest objection and criticism came from these same companies. They maintained that 70 cents was a sufficiently high price.

This legislation gives the minister very wide powers. Under it he may prescribe rules and regulations and take unto himself almost unlimited power.

I think a definite time should have been fixed for the act to come into force. I note that the United Grain Growers think that this is not an opportune year to commence operating under this legislation. With all the machinery we now have to take care of the situation which this bill proposes to take care of, the bill is in my opinion unnecessary and should be withdrawn. It does not help individual producers very much, and we have other legislation under which marketing facilities can be provided.

The bill also discriminates against small elevator operators and certain independent dealers in western Canada. I have on my file a letter from an elevator company in Fort William which will not be able to join in any of these associations, and they say that there are more than twenty such firms in western Canada which will automatically be put out of business in favour of the big corporations. The track buyer, the commission man, and the local grain dealer serve a useful purpose in western Canada, but this bill discriminates against them all.

I took a few notes while the minister was speaking and I want to refer to one or two things he said. He pointed out that this bill was designed to place facilities at the disposal of farmers who wished to continue pooling operations. I say that we already have the necessary machinery.

He stated that in only one crop year in the last forty years has the price been below sixty cents, and in only eight years during that period has it dropped below seventy cents. I should think that the results might vary considerably with different companies, and that there would be difficulty in adjusting the final average selling price.

I would also ask the minister who will dictate, more or less, the selling policy. We want an orderly marketing policy, but I do not think this legislation will conduce to that end.

The minister referred to the objection made by the pool. They do not, of course, approve the 60 cents. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has quoted from the submission of the committee that interviewed the cabinet on April 24, and it is quite apparent from what the committee say, on page 14 of their submission, that they are not in favour of Bill No. 82. Nor do the United Grain Growers think it advisable to proceed with the bill this year.

I do not think it is right and proper to place upon the statute book a bill which is to remain there indefinitely and be the subject of so much criticism and discussion that finally no one will know whether it is good, bad or indifferent, with the likely result that the position will be about the same one year from now. regardless of conditions in the country. It is true that the bill can be considered in more detail in committee where we shall have the oppotunity of asking questions, but I do not think the bill is necessary at all. Following the statement made by the minister on February 16. this measure and others dealing with agriculture should have been brought down shortly thereafter and referred to the agriculture committee, where there would have been opportunity for careful consideration and hearing representatives of the grain trade and others interested in the legislation. But in view of the lateness of the session it is impossible to proceed in that way now. I regret that a bill of this importance has been introduced in the last few days of the session when it is impossible to give it proper consideration.

Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):

Mr. Speaker, I find myself largely in accord with the two previous speakers, but I wish to deal with the bill from a slightly different angle. We in this group have received letters and resolutions from various parts of Alberta asking for a continuation of the wheat board, and also that the wheat board be declared a 100 per cent marketing agency. This bill is for the purpose of helping to establish a voluntary system of pooling of wheat by guaranteeing a minimum initial price of 60 cents a bushel. It is quite evident that the minister's objective is the elimination of the wheat board as a marketing agency. From the very first the minister has shown his dislike of the wheat board. One of the minister's first actions, or perhaps I should say one of the first actions of this government, was to sabotage the wheat board in 1936 by passing order in council No. 2202, and that action undoubtedly cost the farmers of western Canada many millions of dollars.

Cooperative Wheat Marketing

The minister has referred to the high prices which the farmers received for their wheat in 1936-37. When, in his speech in this house on April 5. he referred to that matter, I interrupted to point out to him that the greater part of the wheat had already passed out of the farmers' hands before those high prices were obtained. The minister replied:

No. I intend to place on Hansard a list of prices throughout the period, and the answer to my hon. friend's question will be found in those prices.

All the minister did was to put on Hansard a list of prices during the year. I took the question up with the bureau of statistics, and I find that, by the end of November, 130,000.000 bushels of the 202,000,000 bushels of wheat had already passed out of the farmers' hands. In November the price of wheat had reached only $1.08. but by the following July if. had gone as high as $1.50. So that, instead of the farmers of western Canada benefiting by these high prices of wheat, we find that the majority of them received below $1.08, which gave an average of about 85 cents street price, and it was the grain trade instead of the farmers that benefited by the higher prices.

I have always been a strong supporter of the wheat pools; but owing to the wheat situation which exists to-day I do not believe that a voluntary pool can adequately deal with the situation. I do not believe that we shall ever be able to put the wheat-growing industry on a sound basis until we establish a 100 per cent marketing agency, a wheat board with producer-representation thereon. I am aware of the fact that the Turgeon commission advised against a 100 per cent wheat board, mainly upon the ground that the farmers were not unanimous in their demand for one. That stand, of course, is absurd, because the people of any country are rarely unanimous in their demand for anything. I would say that in a properly functioning democracy it is the duty of the government to bow to the will of the majority of the people and to introduce legislation which will be most beneficial to the greatest number of the people; and I am satisfied that so far as western Canada is concerned the majority of farmers are in favour of a 100 per cent wheat board.

In so far as the commission's report is concerned I have little faith in it. It showed a weak and timid attitude. It told us practically nothing new. It made no really constructive proposals. It cost the country in the neighbourhood of $114,000 and provided the government with an opportunity of squandering the taxpayers' money. I say that because this government has repeatedly

71492-225J

taken the stand that the only money which is available to it is the money which it can tax from the people's pockets, and to-day we have a sales tax of 8 per cent which falls heaviest upon the poorer classes. Therefore I can find no justification for this government taxing the people to that extent to pay one man connected with that commission $200 a day plus expenses, as was done in the case of Colonel Ralston, at a time when wheat was around 55 cents a bushel.

What is the real problem which confronts us when we approach the question of wheat marketing? I would say it is, how can we market on a fair basis a commodity which is surplus to world requirements and one which, under normal conditions, is likely to remain surplus? Some hon. members may wish to challenge that statement, so I should like to quote briefly from the proceedings of the conference on markets for western farm products. I quote first of all from a statement by Doctor C. F. Wilson, of the bureau of statistics, to be found on page 21. He stated:

The unusually large world production of 1938 has once again upset the balance, and a world carry-over in 1939 between 1,000,000,000 and 1,100,000,000 bushels appears almost inevitable.

On page 25 he states:

Again, it so happened that 1938 acreage and the 1938 yield have produced considerably beyond effective consumption requirements, and excess supplies have again accumulated.

Further down the page he refers to the farm outlook for 1939 as indicated by the United States department of agriculture, and

says:

The present world acreage of wheat, approximately 285,000,000 acres, is about 15,000,000 acres or 5 per cent above that necessary with average yields to produce a crop equal to the usual needs.

Then Doctor Wheeler, of the United States department of agriculture, states at page 81:

The wheat surplus producing countries of the world are raising more wheat than the importing countries of the world are willing to take. That is the essence of the world wheat problem.

Those statements show clearly that not only have we a surplus but that under normal crop conditions and yields that surplus will continue to grow. The reason why such a condition exists is put forward very clearly by Doctor Wheeler at page 82 of the report. He states:

In the 1920's the exporting countries were producing on the average around 750,000,000 bushels of wheat for export. The importing countries were prepared on the average to take this much, or more, wheat at what would seem now to be fairly high prices. In the present crop year the wheat exporting countries of the world will produce something over 900,000,000

Cooperative Wheat Marketing

bushels of wheat for export, but in the meantime the requirements of the importing countries have fallen around 550,000,000 bushels. In other words, while exporting countries have increased the available supplies by 150,000,000 bushels annually, in years of ordinary weather, the world import requirements have fallen by at least 200,000,000 bushels a year.

Then on page 89 he sums up the situation as follows:

That is the picture of European wheat imports as I see it. My conclusion is that exporting countries cannot count upon a return to the level of the 1920's in the European or in the world import requirements for wheat. If this is the correct picture of the situation it is important to consider it with respect to available present and future surplus supplies of wheat in the exporting countries. That subject does not fall within the scope of the present discussion, but I should like to suggest, on the basis of considerable study of the matter, that the present wheat acreage of the exporting countries will in years of ordinary weather conditions, such as 1938, produce at least

250,000,000 bushels more than the importing countries are prepared to take. With the maintenance of the acreage in the exporting countries anywhere near the level of 1938, the only thing that could prevent such excessive production would be the kind of droughts over extensive areas that occurred in North America in the period from 1933 to 1937.

It is interesting to note that the condition is becoming further aggravated in the European countries. I noticed in the Evening Citizen of yesterday the following statement reported from London:

Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith, minister of agriculture, announced in the house a bonus scheme to bring 250,000 acres of pasture land into production. A bonus of two pounds ($9.35) an acre will be paid for grass land ploughed under in 1939. The idea behind the bonus scheme is to increase the arable land of the country so that in war time it could be used to grow food.

This is not a very bright picture from the point of view of the grower, and I do not believe that there is before the house at the present time or on the order paper one bill which will deal adequately with this situation. I say that in spite of the flood of bills which we have before us at this time.

During the years of the drought the minister and the members of the government were continually stressing the fact that our main problem in western Canada was one of drought. Now that the drought is gradually coming to an end we are told that our main problem is a surplus of wheat. When we are growing an abundance of wheat the problem is a surplus, and when there is a light crop of wheat the problem is drought. It seems strange that this government cannot introduce a policy that will deal satisfactorily with normal conditions.

IMr. Quelch.] .