Mr. THATCHER:

The point I am trying to make is that, if the tariff on British imports is again to be imposed, it would seem to indicate a lack of planning. I should like to have a statement from the minister while we are discussing this bill.

Mr. HOMUTH:

The hon. member has made a statement with regard to British tariffs under the British empire agreement, and he has said that the C.C.F. were opposed to what the minister has said, that that agreement was going to end in June. Is that a statement of policy of the C.C.F., that they are opposed to that?

Mr. THATCHER:

I do not suppose I can speak for our group.

Mr. HOMUTH:

You did speak for them; you said the C.C.F. group.

Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):

Mr. Speaker, we in this group definitely support the principle that a nation should have complete control over its exports and imports so as to protect the supply of goods which may be in short supply and also to protect its balance of payments. Unfortunately I was called out of the house before the minister spoke, so that I did not hear his remarks. I am not at all sure that the purpose of the bill is to do the two things I have enumerated. I am not sure whether the purpose of the bill is to help protect our balance of payments or to make sure that the supply of goods in short supply in this country will be taken care of.

I do not like the was' in which certain clauses in the bill are framed. It does look as though they might permit discrimination as between one industry and another. I do not think that is the intention of the bill; but, judging by the way certain sections are phrased, and I refer particularly to sections 5 and 6, that would seem to be the case.

I should like to see this bill referred to the committee on banking and commerce in order that it may be discussed in some detail. It will be remembered that last session we in this group took exception to certain sections of the proposal of the United States for the expansion of world trade and employment. We pointed out that those proposals provided for non-discrimination in trade. We felt that a nation should have the power to discriminate between the imports of one nation and those of another for the simple reason that one nation may have an unfavourable balance of trade with one country and yet be able to

balance its trade with the other nations with which it deals. Therefore we must be able to discriminate against the imports from a particular nation; that is, choose one source of supply.

It is interesting to note, in the report of the conference that met in London last year dealing with those proposals, that many of the nations took exactly the same stand that I took in this house, namely, that to protect their balance of payments nations must be allowed to discriminate against the imports of another nation. It seems to me that this bill is perhaps providing for that very thing. I may have misunderstood1 its purpose; but, judging by the way it is written, it would be possible for this country to discriminate against the imports of any one nation. It does not say that we have to discriminate against the imports of all nations, but we might discriminate against the imports of one nation, and in view of the fact that we have difficulty in maintaining a favourable balance of trade with the United States it is possible that we might decide to discriminate against imports from that country and encourage imports from Great Britain instead, because we have a surplus with Britain and a deficit with the United States, and if we could discriminate against the imports from the United States and encourage imports from Great Britain it would help to solve the difficulties we have regarding foreign trade. Therefore, to clarify matters, I would welcome seeing this bill sent to the banking and commerce committee.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Is the house ready for the question?

Mr. FLEMING:

May we not have an indication from the minister as to whether he will accept the suggestion and send the bill to the banking and commerce committee?

I think that would curtail discussion. If not,

I have something to say.

Mr. MacKINNON:

I am willing to move that the bill be referred to the banking and commerce committee after it has been given second reading.

Mr. BRACKEN:

Are we not going to have a statement from the minister?

Mr. MacKINNON:

Mr. Speaker, the purposes and essential features of the bill to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act may be briefly described as follows:

It is the desire of the government to have certain of the powers of the Canadian wheat board which are at present authorized by order in council continued by parliament in the form of an amendment to the Canadian Wheat Board Act.

During the war years and since, the Canadian wheat board has derived its powers and authority from the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935, as amended, and from orders in council passed under the War Measures Act and the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act. In this period the Canadian wheat board, at the request of the dominion government undertook a series of exceptional operations relating to wheat and other grains. It is not the intention of the government to extend the powers authorizing such operations in respect to grains other than wheat beyond July 31, 1947.

The bill proposes to provide the government and the Canadian wheat board with more powers than are provided by the present act, but with less power than was provided by order in council.

The general purposes of the proposed amendment to the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1035, are as follows:

1. To authorize the regulation by the Canadian wheat board of the interprovincial and export trade in wheat for the purpose of meeting the requirements of the wheat contract with the United Kingdom;

2. To make a corresponding adjustment in the pool period in relation to the wheat contract with the United Kingdom;

3. To make necessary changes in the provisions fixing the price to be paid to producers of wheat by the Canadian wheat board;

4. To permit the board with the special approval of the governor in council to deal in grains other than wheat.

With respect to wheat, the proposed amendments authorize the regulation of the interprovincial and export trade in wheat by the

board and the conduct of all of such trading through the board until July 31, 1950. In regard to other grains, the amendment enables the board, with the approval of the governor in council, to buy, sell and deal in other grains.

In addition to making provision for implementing the wheat contract with the United Kingdom, the proposed amendments provide for a five-year pool period from August 1, 1945, until1 July 31, 1950, during which time producers of wheat are guaranteed a fixed initial price of $1.35 a bushel.

Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the resolution proposes to continue in the hands of a government board very large powers with respect to the marketing of one of the chief agricultural commodities produced in this country, I would ask the government to give the house a good deal of information before we are asked to give second reading to the bill. At the moment I am not going to oppose any of the principles of this measure, but I do think the members of the house should know, and I think the Canadian people should know, something about what has been done by this board in recent months in order that we may be in a better position to decide what powers shall be entrusted to it in the future.

This resolution, as the minister has said, is preliminary to a bill to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. The resolution itself does not tell us very much, except that its purpose is to extend by legislation certain of the regulations made under the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, including certain guarantees to the wheat board, and the right to make certain expenditures in connection with the operations of that board.

The impression might be left from the terms of the resolution that this is a measure of minor importance. Mr. Speaker, it is not a measure of minor importance. Having regard to certain things that have occurred over recent years I consider it is of major importance to the great primary industry of agriculture in this country. Having regard to the government's wide powers in relation to marketing this particular commodity, wheat; having regard to the terms of the British wheat agreement under which this board sold the farmers' wheat at less than the world's price, and having regard to the government's policies with relation to coarse grains and to certain statements recently made by the government, I am sure that the house will appreciate that this is not by any means a measure of minor importance but one of major importance.

Canadian Wheat Board Act

As I said, I do not propose at this time to oppose any of the principles of the bill. I imagine its chief purpose is to make possible the carrying out of the British wheat agreement. Let there be no misunderstanding with respect to our attitude toward that measure. The government of Canada has made an agreement with another nation. That agreement we have either to respect or to dishonour. As one public man, I propose to respect the agreements that we enter into with other nations; but in giving this board the wide powers which are asked, I think it is only fair that the Canadian people should know what has happened in recent months and what the situation now is with respect to the tremendous business which the board is doing.

This wheat question occupies a rather anomalous position in the departments of this government. An international agreement of this kind would ordinarily be signed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent). But this agreement relating to an agricultural commodity was signed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon). I propose at this stage simply to ask the minister to furnish hon. members certain information before we are asked to give second reading to the bill. Then I should like to see the bill referred to the agriculture and colonization committee in order that all hon. members may get, not from the minister or from different ministers, but from those who are administering its operation, all the pertinent facts which may be required when we are dealing with such an important piece of legislation.

I wish now to indicate the type of information that we desire. If the minister will note it I feel sure he will endeavour to give us the information later on.

The first question has to do with the British wheat agreement. Six months of this crop year have now ended. I wish to ask the government if it will inform us now of four things in connection with the British agreement: one, the amount of deliveries made under the British contract to the end of January, that is, for the first six months of the crop year in which the government undertook to deliver to Britain 160,000,000 bushels of wheat; two, the amount of the sales or deliveries made abroad to countries other than Great Britain; three, the average price received per bushel on external sales outside the United Kingdom. We know what the prices are on the wheat supplies to Britain, and we have seen quotations of world prices from time to time. But we should like to know the average price received per bushel _on external sales to countries other than

Great Britain; four, we want to know the amount of surplus moneys which the wheat board holds on the first half of this year's crop. Hon. members will understand that the government has undertaken to sell this crop as follows: a large portion of it at $1.55 a bushel to Britain; a smaller portion at $1.25 for certain domestic purposes, and the remainder on world markets to other countries at prices exceeding $2, and up to $2.25 or more a bushel, and that the government has undertaken to pay to the farmers by way of initial payment $1.35 a bushel. As a result of the government receiving more money than it has paid out to farmers, it has large amounts of money on hand. I should like to know the amount of surplus moneys which the wheat board holds on the first half of this year's crop.

The fifth point has to do with wheat for milling in Canada. The minister made a statement with respect to this yesterday. Wheat for domestic milling in Canada has been delivered by the board at $1.25 a bushel, while the price to Britain was $1.55 and the world price was, as I have said, $2.25 or more. Yesterday the minister announced a change in that policy. Now he says that the domestic price is to be $1.55, not $1.25, thereby increasing the amount to be received by wheat growers by thirty cents a bushel on the amount that was used for domestic purposes. This is a change in policy which not only increases the amount the producer gets but at the same time increases the cost of the wheat used for feed for live stock in this section of Canada by the amount of the increase in price on the feed wheat used to feed live stock.

I think also the minister ought to say more than he said tonight with respect to the government's policy concerning coarse grain. In his statement of a few minutes ago I understood him to say that this measure would have nothing to do with the marketing of barley and oats. Is that correct ?

Mr. MacKINNON:

We just took the authority so that, if we were asked to assume that responsibility in the future, we could do so.

Mr. BRACKEN:

That gives me the opportunity to make one comment.

Mr. HOMUTH:

The minister can still take the authority.

Mr. BRACKEN:

I suggest that his wheat policy by itself means little unless we have a barley and oats policy as well.

I stated a few days ago in the house that the government was down on its cheese and bacon contracts with Britain. Now the gov-