Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):

There is just one in this case.

Mr. QUELCH:

There is only one in so

far as these regulations are concerned, and section 17 reads:

Wherever a quota of the grain produced on any land becomes deliverable, any producer entitled to a definite share of the crop as landlord, vendor or mortgagee, shall be entitled to have delivered in his name a share of such quota proportionate to such person's said interest in the grain, and shall have equal rights of delivery accorded to producers under the act. . . .

Does that mean that out of his five bushels delivered the farmer will be able to get only a portion for himself, and that the mortgage company will have a portion and the landlord a portion? Surely it means that. I should like to be corrected if I am wrong.

Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):

The farmer will have the permit. Let me quote:

. . . for such purpose the permit holder shall make the permit available, but the enforcement of this provision shall be the direct concern and responsibility of the interested parties themselves and no legal obligation shall devolve on the board in respect thereto.

Mr. QUELCH:

But that does not alter

the situation. It merely means that the board itself is not taking legal responsibility for enforcing it. The fact remains that the provision is there which compels the farmer to divide his quota with certain interested parties.

Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):

The farmer will have the permit, and he will get delivery.

_ Mr. QUELCH: According to section 17, it is supposed to be divided among the various parties. The board will not assume the legal responsibility of enforcing the provisions, but through the courts these other people can insist upon a share of the quota being delivered to them., According to section 17, the farmer

[Mr. QuelchJ

can be compelled by law to deliver a certain portion of the five bushels to the mortgage company and the landlord, and I suggest that it will be hard enough for him to carry on with five bushels.

Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):

Has that not

always been the law?

Mr. QUELCH:

No, it has not always been

the law. The farmer has not been compelled to deliver only five bushels to the acre.

Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):

I am referring to the proportions that are delivered.

Mr. QUELCH:

Yes; but the farmer has not formerly been in the position where he has been able to deliver only five bushels, or possibly two or three. He has been able to deliver the whole crop. Out of the five bushels he will have to pay his threshing bill, so that if a man threshes forty bushels to the acre, five bushels will not cover that expenditure.

Mr. DONNELLY:

How could he get by last year?

Mr. QUELCH:

Last year he was allowed to keep the whole five bushels.

Mr. DONNELLY:

Who allowed him?

Mr. QUELCH:

He had a special permit, and the five was quickly increased in the heavy producing districts to ten to the acre. In the Morrin district, the five was increased to eight almost immediately.

Mr. DONNELLY:

Who allowed the farmer to retain the five bushels to the acre?

Mr. QUELCH:

The provincial government at that time took steps to guarantee the farmer's retention of the first quota.

And only the provincial government can do it.

Mr. QUELCH:

Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton. West):

I

have here a long statement which I intend to put on Hansard on another occasion with an accompanying explanation, but first I wish to deal with a large number of categorical questions that have been asked me to-night.

Progress reported.