Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:

That the name of Mr. Graham be substituted for that of Mr. Turgeon on the standing committee on agriculture and colonization.

Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):

I think I should make a statement regarding the second victory loan before the house adjourns. The main part of this statement will relate to commissions and other remuneration paid in connection with the sale of the second victory loan bonds. I make this statement because certain hon. members of the house have been good enough to call to my attention certain reports which are apparently circulating in some sections of the country. These are so obviously false as to suggest that they have been inspired by sources which have a selfish interest in undermining and impeding Canada's war effort.

Unfortunately it will be some time yet before all the payments have been made and the returns completed in connection with the loan, and therefore I cannot now give the actual dollar amounts of payments that will be made to those who rendered services in connection with the campaign. However, I can and wish to give the house the basis upon which the payments will be made.

First, let me deal with the commissions paid to individual salesmen. The basis of these commissions will be five-eighths of one per cent on subscriptions to the twelve-year

bonds and three-eighths of one per cent on the six-year bonds. This represents an increase of one-eighth of one per cent compared with what was paid in connection with 1941 victory loan, but it must be noted that this time no commission will be paid on subscriptions classified as employee subscriptions. Moreover, no commission will be paid on conversion subscriptions to the two and one-half year bonds which were not issued for cash, or on subscriptions from subscribers included in the special names category. Last year we found that fin a good many instances, particularly in the case of salesmen working in rural districts or other districts which for one reason or another did not represent good sales territory, the amount of commissions paid served to do little more than cover out-ofpocket expenses of the salesmen. Provision was therefore made this time for more extensive pooling of part of the commission by provincial and local committees so that fair treatment could be rendered to each salesman no matter what the type of sales territory in which he was assigned to work. My hope is that this arrangement will result in reasonably fair treatment to all the individual salesmen. In this connection it should be remembered that the salesmen used in the campaign were drawn away from their usual occupations, and had not only to devote their full time to the sales of bonds while the campaign was on but also had to spend considerable time in preparation and training during the three weeks period before the campaign actually commenced.

Next I deal with the remuneration to banks, trust and loan companies, Quebec savings banks and other savings institutions (province of Ontario savings offices, Alberta treasury branches, and La Federation des Caisses Populates Desjardins). No selling commission of any kind will be paid on sales made to the public by the various branches of the banks or these other financial institutions. However, we will pay a service fee for the varied services they rendered in entering subscriptions and handling the payment and delivery of the bonds to purchasers. This service fee will be at a rate of one-quarter of one per cent of the par value of bonds serviced by each such institution calculated in accordance with the regulations.

With regard to the remuneration to be paid to investment dealers and stockbrokers, provision has been made for investigation of the services rendered and recommendation to me of a fair basis of remuneration for such services by a committee consisting of the chairman of the national war finance committee, the securities advisor of the Bank of Canada, and the deputy minister of finance. In arriv-

Second Victory Loan

mg at this basis of remuneration, the committee will take into account the number of different types of personnel made available to the national war finance committee for varying terms of employment, -which extended over a period of four months in many cases, and will also have reasonable regard to the past record of performance of the various firms in connection with dominion loan campaigns.

The house may recall that the total expenses in connection with the first victory loan campaign, including not only commissions and other remuneration for services rendered but also advertising and publicity expenses, printing and distribution of bonds, et cetera, amounted to only 1-09 per cent of the total amount of the issue. It is anticipated that total expenditures in connection with the second victory loan campaign will represent a slightly lower percentage of the total issue. There has been some criticism in certain quarters of some aspects of the loan campaign. In my opinion these criticisms are unfounded. The campaign itself was a striking success, the reports I have received pay uniform tribute to the highly efficient organization which was developed, and I think the house will agree that the percentage cost figures which I have just indicated represent a very economical cost of raising a public loan of this magnitude and character.

In conclusion, I wish to express at this time and in this place not only the keen appreciation of the government and myself, out also I hope of this parliament, for the one services rendered in this very important campaign not only by members of the national war finance committee, which includes the provincial chairmen, but also by a great many other voluntary workers in provincial and local committees who gave unsparingly of their time and energy to make the campaign the success it proved- to be. Because, apparently, there has been a rumour circulating to the contrary, I wish to emphasize the fact that with the single exception of one provincial chairman serving in a western province and who because he is devoting his full time to the work of the national war finance committee receives a modest compensation, these persons gave their services without any remuneration.

Before I take my seat, it may be of interest to the house if I now give the latest figures we / have available in regard to the results of the loan. Figures compiled as at March 14th, show a total number of subscribers of 1,643,013, and- a total volume of subscriptions of 1993,884,350. Of the latter total, $841,766,350 represented cash subscrip-

tions, and the remainder, $152,118,000, represented conversion subscriptions. These figures are not as yet final but they will probably approximate the final results. The house, I think, will agree that these are astounding results for a loan offered to the public in the middle of winter and only one month prior to the due date of heavily increased income tax payments.

Mr. WRIGHT:

Mr. Chairman, as one of the members who asked that the committee on agriculture should be called together to consider the bills relating to agriculture, I should like to make a few observations on this matter.

Last year I was a member of the committee which dealt with pensions and returned soldier problems. That committee accomplished a good deal of excellent work. We met as a group of returned men, not as members of political parties, to consider the recommendations which had been made, and as a result of our work w*e offered certain suggestions to the government, which to a great extent were accepted. I was in hopes that when the agriculture committee met, the procedure would be something similar, that we would meet as a group of members representing agricultural constituencies, to consider the problems of the wheat growers of western Canada.

I am sorry to say that this was not the case. Even before the committee met, its work was prejudiced by the remarks of certain members on the government side of the house. The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross), speaking the day before the bill was referred to the committee, is reported at page 1382 of Hansard to have said:

The changes in policy this year, as brought down by the government, have been accepted by hon. members in the government and followers of the government in the house, and for that reason they will finally pass the house as they are. No number of speeches made by hon. members can change that position. They did not even know what was going to happen until it came down in the house.

Wheat Board Act

That is an entirely wrong spirit in which to refer any measure to a committee. We found when the committee met that the same condition prevailed in the committee. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) told us that we could make representations, but that it was altogether unlikely that the government would be prepared to accept them, and that it had already viewed these bills from [DOT]every angle. He pointed out that everything that could be said with respect to them had already been said in the cabinet, and it was doubtful whether anything we would recommend would be accepted, if it entailed any further expenditure of money.

Under such circumstances it was pretty hard in committee to get anything which would give western agriculture a better deal than it had been receiving in the past. We did, however, recommend certain changes. We recommended a change with respect to basic acreage, as covered in section 3 of Bill No. 12. But that recommendation was not accepted by the government, and the bill went through in almost the same form as that in which it had been presented to the committee.

There were many of us who thought that in the consideration of Bill No. 14, to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, a change should have been made to bring into the bill the principle of insurance. We were told that this was ultra vires of the British North America Act. It will be remembered, however, that when the government wished to introduce unemployment insurance it found a means to get round that difficulty; and I am sure, if it desired, it could find the means of developing from the Prairie Farm Assistance Act a comprehensive insurance scheme. A recommendation which was made in the committee that the government give further study to this matter was voted down. The fact that the committee on agriculture voted down a recommendation that the government should consider and study the matter of crop insurance does not seem to reflect the exercise of any great amount of intelligence. In the United States this matter has been considered for a number of years, and they have introduced a comprehensive scheme of crop insurance not only for wheat but for cotton and many other agricultural products.

These three bills taken together do not place the western wheat growers in any better position to-day than that which they occupied last year. Last year, under the prairie farm income legislation the farmers of western Canada were paid approximately $20,000,000. Under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, as it operated last year, they were paid something over $11,000,000. This year that act has been amended so as to exclude

those having crops of from eight to twelve bushels to the acre. Last year $7,000,000 of the money paid under the act was paid to this class. Wheat acreage reduction payments last year were made on the basis of $4 an acre; this year the basis is reduced to $2 an acre. This means that $11,000,000 less will be paid under the act next year.

The basic acreage under the wheat acreage reduction bill was changed. Under the new regulations it will mean that the bonus will be paid on a million less acres than last year. This means another $2,000,000 less that the farmers of western Canada will receive. In all, a total of $40,000,000 less will be paid under the regulations this year than was paid last year. If we take the crop we had last year, one of 200,000,000 bushels, and pay an additional 20 cents a bushel on it, as is recommended under this measure, we find that we have an additional payment of $40,000,000. On the other hand-

Mr. CRERAR:

I do not think the hon. member is discussing this bill at all. He is discussing other measures which were before the house on earlier occasions. This bill provides only two things: first, to change the price from 70 cents to 90 cents and, second, to include the word "mills". My hon. friend is discussing the acreage bonus, and matters of that kind, which have nothing to do with the bill.

Mr. MaeINNIS: On the point of order, while I did not take part in the discussion, my understanding is that all the bills were discussed interchangeably, or at the same time. I believe that was done to facilitate discussion on the whole question. If the hon. member for Melfort believes that that procedure is necessary on this occasion, I suggest he should be allowed to proceed.

Mr. CRERAR:

I would draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that an arrangement was reached in preliminary discussions, on second reading of these bills in the house. The bills were then sent to committee, and this bill was reported back without amendment. I suggest it is stretching the understanding too far if we are to permit the same discussion at this stage.

Mr. WRIGHT:

I was discussing the other bills only as they relate to this one. I have, however, completed that phase of the matter, and I shall not pursue it further.

With respect to the bill before the committee, we were informed in the committee on agriculture that we could not be told the price we were receiving for our wheat

Wheat Board Act

because the British government did not think it advisable to state the price at this time. But it will be noticed that the British government have allowed proper prices on other agricultural products. We know the price for cheese, and the prices for pork, bacon and other products have been made public. But there seems to be some deep dark secret so far as wheat is concerned. Perhaps there is a good reason for this secrecy, but I have never been able to see what it was. It seemed very unfair to me that the British government should be willing to pay their own farmers the cost of production, but that it should insist that the price paid to the farmers of western Canada should be less than the cost of production. That does not develop good-will or unity among British countries, but it is a condition which has prevailed up to this year.

Under the billion dollar gift to Britain that condition has been changed entirely. The matter is now in the hands of the Canadian government, and it seems most unfair to us in western Canada to know that our wheat is being sold to Great Britain below the cost of production, thereby compelling us to pay an unfair share of that billion dollar gift. Everything else going to Great Britain under that gift is being sent at a price which at least equals the cost of production. We in western Canada feel that our contribution to the gift should be at a rate equal to our cost.

There are three things these bills do not do which I believe they should do. It seems to me that the 8 to 12 bushel class should not have been eliminated from the provisions of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, and there should have been no change in the basic acreage provision in the wheat acreage reduction bill.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bradette):

The Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) was quite in order when he contended that hon. members should keep within the limits of the bill. Later on there will be another bill having to do with wheat acreage, but at the present time we are dealing only with the wheat bonus.

Mr. WRIGHT:

As I say, the rate should not have been cut. This amendment to the wheat board act provides for a . price this year of 90 cents a bushel, but I believe that this price should have been at least $1 a bushel, Fort William, plus participation certificates which would bring the farmer at least a parity price for his product. It seems to me that with these bills we are doing just what the hon. member for St. Antoine-

Westmount (Mr. Abbott) referred to about a year ago when he stated that some people believed they were thinking, when they were in reality only rearranging their prejudices. It seems to me that in these bills we are simply rearranging the payments to the farmers of western Canada. We are paying but little more than was paid last year, and with the wheat grower working under the conditions which prevail to-day, this seems to me to be most unfair.