Mr. BENNETT:

And one of these years,

1929, gives 229 million bushels, while the next year, according to the hon. member's figures, gives 113 million bushels, and upon that he built an argument. Now, Mr. Speaker, why cannot we, even though partisans, be fairly frank with one another? The fiscal year ended on March 31, 1929, and for that year there cleared from Canada to British ports 229 million bushels of wheat-cleared for British ports. For the year ending March 31, 1930, there cleared 113 million bushels, a falling off of 116 million bushels, and the hon. gentleman says that the falling off indicates what had happened under this government.

Mr. VALLANCE:

Oh no, read it all.

Mr. BENNETT:

Hold on, just wait till I

read it. The hon. gentleman said:

In spite of all that has been said about the British market having been lost before the present government came into power, in

1929 we exported 229 million bushels of wheat. Through the policies inaugurated by the late government we increased our exports of wheat to Great Britain from 29 million bushels in 1921 to 229 million bushels in 1929, an increase of 200 million bushels. It must be remembered that these are not my figures; they come from the bureau of statistics. Let us see what happened from 1929 on. The elections were in July, 1930, and in that year our exports dropped to 113 million bushels.

That was for the year ended March 31,

1930 which was several months before the government came into power, and the hon. gentleman desires to make it appear otherwise.

Mr. VALLANCE:

Follow what I said. I said that the elections were in July. Do not pick pieces out of what I said, read it all.

Mr. BENNETT:

The hon. gentleman perhaps will recall the words of scripture: Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.

Mr. VALLANCE:

I could apply a few quotations to my right hon. friend which are not in scripture but the rules will not permit me.

Mr. BENNETT:

The hon. gentleman said that the elections were in July, 1930, and in that year our exports dropped to 113 million bushels. Now, as a matter of fact, it was for the year ended March 31, 1930.

Mr. VALLANCE:

I said that.

Mr. BENNETT:

The hon. member did not say so. At least he blamed on this government the falling off in exports and now when he is confronted with his own statement-

Mr. VALLANCE:

They are not my figures.

Mr. BENNETT:

I had thought he would have offered an apology for misleading us.

Mr. VALLANCE:

I need not apologize for anything I said.

Mr. BENNETT:

The hon. gentleman

apologizes. Let me proceed a step further. I took the trouble to secure the British figures because since the preference was granted the British have made very accurate reports to their statistical department. These figures which are supplied by the Board of Trade are checked very carefully.

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

Our

figures are equally good.

Mr. VALLANCE:

At least they should

be.

Mr. BENNETT:

Our figures cover the exports prior to 1932.

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

Going to the British market for export.

Mr. BENNETT:

These Board of Trade figures are as follows:

ImDorts of Wheat into the United Kingdom from Canada, Argentina and Australia and all countries by crop years, 1930-31 to 1933-34 with the 9-month figures Alienist tn Anril 1934-35

1930- 31.

1931- 32.

1932- 33.

1933- 34.

1934- 35*

Canada

52.957.000

58.930.000 102,882,268

68,691,205

48,103,612

Argentina Australia

(bushels)

30.594.000

47.060.000 33,178,430 53,803,683 47,474,791

33.199.000

50.590.000 50.433,050 41,838,369 28,165,900

Totals

207.621.000

227.615.000 204,375,807 200,105,532 136,844,667

*Nine month period.

Grain Board-Mr. Bennett

As I pointed out the other day and as I desire again to direct to the attention of this house, Canada up to the end of May had provided the world with 32 per cent of all the breadstuff's bought by the world. For the reasons which I trust I gave with some clarity, this figure is constantly increasing. The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth said that percentage is not the correct way in which to measure but I think that percentages of the quantities of grain imported into a country from several countries is the proper way to gauge. One hundred per cent is the total percentage shipped by Canada, Argentine and Australia and the number of bushels sold has no relation to the ultimate in determining the question of the amount supplied by each. As I said, the figures I have given were supplied by the British Board of Trade.

There is another question to which I think some little attention possibly might be given; that is, the circumstance of this legislation being introduced into the house. Before the house adjourned at Easter there was placed on the order paper a notice in my name that a motion would be made to establish a wheat board. It has been said that I did not treat this matter as being of any more importance than other matters. Mr. McFarland stated clearly before the committee last year that a wheat board was the usual alternative but he would endeavour to maintain the existing machinery and have the benefits of a wheat board without establishing such a board. In view of that statement I thought that there would be no difficulty on the part of the house in understanding just what was the situation. I think the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) has misunderstood the purport of my observations. I said that at the present moment it was no longer posisble to contemplate relying upon Mr. McFarland1 to carry on his present operations. I did not know that Mr. McFarland was going to be ill when I placed the resolution on the order paper.

I do not think even my warmest supporters on the other side would credit me with having that information.

May I proceed a step further? Has anyone suggested that the standing committee on agriculture should discuss this matter this year? Mr. McFarland has been here several times and has any hon. member asked that the committee convene? Has any one desired that there should be an investigation before the committee on banking and commerce or the committee on agriculture? I have been away and it may have been that some of

the members of that committee asked that it should be convened but I have not been so informed. I have asked my colleagues and they tell me that to the best of their knowledge no such request has been made. We have a medium of communication between the people and their members through a parliamentary committee which has the right to examine witnesses; all this machinery has been there if it was desired to be used but no one has asked to use it. Is it fair to say that the government has endeavoured to prevent information being given?

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

With reference to what my right hon. friend has just said may I say that from the time the notice with respect to this bill was on the order paper in his name, the opposition refrained from saying anything with regard to it during the time he was ill. That was the attitude of the opposition. We felt it was a measure with which my right hon. friend would wish to deal himself. Although we would have liked to have had information earlier we waited until the right hon. gentleman was in position to deal with the matter himself.

Mr. BENNETT:

Since I came back to

the house no question has been asked as to when we were going to proceed with it. No one has suggested that the committee should meet. As far as my being able to deal with it before the committee is concerned, my knowledge would be just second hand. The witnesses who would be called before the committee would not be those who sit in Ottawa and receive reports, they would be those who have first hand knowledge. Last year Mr. McFarland said that he had not brought his papers in detail but could send for them if they were desired. Let us look at it frankly and see whether ot not there has been any effort by any hon. member to secure any information with respect to this matter. Would it not be more fair to say that in view of a pending appeal to the people it has been thought desirable to endeavour to discredit Mr. John I. McFarland?