That has nothing to do with the point which I am discussing. I asserted that, practically from the beginning of January, 1920, until that crop was finally sold, the prices secured were very much greater than any member of the Wheat Board or any person connected with it expected to get-higher than the initial price. And why? Because of conditions that existed in Europe. One fact that contributed more than anything else to the success of the Wheat Board in 1919, was the threatened coal strike in Great Britain in the summer of 1920, because it is a well known fact that the British Government at the time bought grain at every place which they could buy it, stored it in every warehouse in Great Britain and paid any price that was asked for it, in order
that the United Kingdom might be provided with food reserves against a possible tie-up of transportation.
This is, however, slightly off the line of argument that I wish to take. I say that it is not necessary in the first place that all the provinces take action to implement legislation based on the report submitted now to the House. The whole idea behind this is that through co-operation of federal and provincial legislation, the wheat producing provinces that are directly affected can have created, a board that will largely, if not altogether, function along the lines of the board of 1919. My right hon. friend argues against this. He states that there are many obstacles and difficulties of a legal character in the way. That may be. I am not a lawyer and I cannot say.
Subtopic: REPORT OP COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND COLONIZATION