July 4, 1935

IND

Angus MacInnis

Independent Labour

Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver South):

I would like to direct a question to the acting Minister of Fisheries. I am in receipt of a complaint from fishermen on Vancouver island in regard to the use of traps on the shone from west of Sooke harbour as far as Sheringham and east of the harbour as far as Beechey Head. I think the chief complaint of my correspondent is that the regulation, that is as regards the thirty-six hours a week close season, is not being carried out. I wonder whether the acting Minister of Fisheries could make a statement in that regard.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   SALMON TRAP REGULATIONS
Permalink
CON

Grote Stirling (Minister of Fisheries; Minister of National Defence)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Acting Minister of Fisheries):

The hon. gentleman wrote me a letter which he handed me yesterday, and also intimated that he wished to ask a question to-day on this matter. The situation is that the regulations call for the observance of the forty-eight hour weekly close season by the traps. A fishery patrolman is placed on duty in the trap net area each season to see that there is compliance with these requirements. In addition to that the district fisheries inspector makes periodic inspections.

Complaint having been made, it will certainly be investigated further, but I may draw the bon. member's attention to the fact that it has been suggested to the fishermen concerned, that if they will, they may recommend the appointment of an honorary fisheries guardian who can represent their interests and make observations continually as they see fit. The department has no reason to object to that suggestion.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   SALMON TRAP REGULATIONS
Permalink

VALCARTIER RELIEF CAMP


On the orders of the day:


LIB

Ernest Lapointe

Liberal

Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

May I ask the Minister of National

Defence whether he has any information he could give the house with regard to conditions in the relief camp at Valcartier where two thousand men are reported to have quit work, and what steps, if any, are being taken by the government?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   VALCARTIER RELIEF CAMP
Permalink
CON

Grote Stirling (Minister of Fisheries; Minister of National Defence)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Minister of National Defence):

One thousand nine

hundred and eleven men decided yesterday not to work and they are quietly remaining in the camp for the present, carrying on such

Grain Board

camp duties as are necessary for the preservation of the camp and the comfort of the men. It has been intimated to them that if they have a statement which they desire to make with regard to their conditions, a representative of the government will proceed there in due course to listen to what complaints they have to make and to give consideration to them.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   VALCARTIER RELIEF CAMP
Permalink

LOAN TO NEWFOUNDLAND


On the orders of the day:


CON

Edgar Nelson Rhodes (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance):

On Tuesday the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) raised a question as to whether the guarantee which was given regarding a certain advance to Newfoundland had been referred to in the 1934 report of the director of unemployment relief. He will find that the guarantee is referred to and the reference will be found on page 44 of the report. I may say further to my hon. friend that the guarantee was also referred to in the budget speech of this year and also appears in the public accounts. No demands have accrued under the guarantee.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   LOAN TO NEWFOUNDLAND
Permalink

CANADIAN GRAIN BOARD


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee on Bill 98, to provide for the constitution and powers of the Canadian grain board (as amended). Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Smith (Cumberland) in the chair. On the short title.


LIB

James Layton Ralston

Liberal

Mr. RALSTON:

about 75,700,000 bushels. In January we bought 1,000,000 bushels; in March we sold

4.000. 000 bushels; in April we sold 1,200,000 bushete and bought 600,000 bushels, leaving a net sale of 600,000 bushels. So it appears that in March and April the net sales were 4;,600,000 bushels. That leaves an amount on hand as of April 22, of 72,000,000 bushels.

Then from April 22 to June 24, 1933, the amount on hand was practically constant, there being just one sale inside of those two months. That was a sale of 850,000 bushels; and there was one purchase of 640,000 bushels, so that for these two months the quantities on hand remained practically constant. Prices at that time were stiffening considerably. From July 1, to July 19, 1933, there were various substantial sales. Twenty-nine miflion bushels were sold1 between those dates. Then, from July 20 to August 12, there were purchases of 34,500,000 bushels leaving a net result on July and August operations of 77,000,000 bushels on hand. During the fall there was purchased 56,000,000 bushels of wheat, so that the total special wheat as of December 31, 1933, stood at

133.000. 000 bushels, phis the pool wheat standing at 76,000,000 bushels.

Then, from January to the middle of June, 1934, we sold 38,000,000 bushels of wheat, and there were very substantial liquidation operations. For the two months from the week ending June 16 to that ending August 11, there were no sales, and prices were still going up. In fact there was a purchase of

3.000. 000 bushels. From August 11 to December 31, 1934, we purchased 61,000,000 bushels, and up to May 31, 1935,-the end of the present year-we sold 6,000,000 bushels, leaving a total, as I have said, of 152,000,000 bushels of special wheat phis 76,000,000 bushels of pool wheat.

With those -figures before the committee here was the situation which presented itself: What appeared to be the position was that although there may not have been a misunderstanding, it did seem as though there had been a misunderstanding or some misapprehension as to the task which the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited should carry out. In any case what had happened was, as is shown by the figures, that from time to time the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited not only did not sell wheat but in fact went into the market and bought it. These figures are given in more detail in the report of the committee. That wheat was bought not necessarily from producers but it was bought on the market and from the public at large. As was stated by Mr. McFarland before the banking and commerce

fMr. Ralston.]

committee of last year the purchases in the latter part of July, 1933, were purchases back from speculators who had taken wheat and whose hands, I presume, were regarded as being too weak to hold it. The result was that about 34,000,000 bushels was bought back.

That is the situation the committee found. And as a result of recognizing that situation and the danger in connection therewith the committee has made the first and I believe the most important restriction appearing in the bill. I believe the restriction about which I shall speak represents the most important difference between the bill sent to the committee and the one now reprinted and before us. Provision has been put in the bill stipulating that the Canadian grain board is absolutely prohibited from purchasing wheat from anybody but a producer. I repeat, the grain board is prohibited from purchasing wheat from anybody but a producer. In other words, it is no longer possible for the grain board to go on the market and with whatever idea they may have in mind-either of stabilizing or supporting a market or purchasing wheat and holding it for a higher price- buy wheat from anybody but the producer. I believe the committee was unanimous in feeling that that provision was quite necessary. At least if it were not made it seemed to us, I believe to all members of the committee-I am speaking at least for the hon. members associated with me-that a Canadian grain board would get an entirely wrong impression of its job, and that we might again witness a series of operations in purchases and sales which might result in a further accumulation of wheat purchased from other than the producer.

What appeared w'as this, that somehow or another the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited, backed by government guarantees, had failed to appreciate the magnitude of the task undertaken by it, in attempting to stabilize and support the market, or to carry on the operations they were carrying on. What I mean by that is this: The

real object I think of this House of Commons and of the people of this dominion was to endeavour to see that through these times of stress and strain it might be possible for the producer to get a fair price for his wheat. It was the producer the country had in mind in connection with the legislation, and it was hoped that it would be the producer that would be had in mind in connection with this whole transaction. But no matter what the motive was, what turned out was this, that in the endeavour let us say to assist the producer, or in the endeavour to support the market, or in the endeavour to stabilize the

Grain Board

market, or in the endeavour to bring out the financial transactions on the right side of the book, the result has been that the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited instead of dealing directly with the producer and paying him so much money for his wheat has felt that the only way they should operate was by acting almost as Atlas and attempting almost to support the world price by operations on the Winnipeg grain exchange. That may be one way of doing it, but it has turned out to be I think a disastrous way.

Let me give a reference from a memorandum that was read by Mr. Mclvor to indicate to the committee the magnitude of the task which seems to have been undertaken. Mr. Mclvor who is assistant sales manager I think of Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited said this:

In stabilizing the futures market as he has done Mr. McFarland has been required-

Note this:

-to stabilize not only the wheat in Canada being delivered by the farmers, but the flour in Canada, the flour in the United States, the flour afloat, the flour in the British Isles and foreign countries, Canadian wheat in United States in transit, and in non-reporting mills and feed plants in bond, wheat out of bond, wheat on ocean passage and in British and foreign ports, wheat in non-reporting mills in process of grinding, other grains hedged in wheat futures and spreads with other markets.

That is a pretty colossal task, and regardless of the sincerity with which the task was approached it seems to me that the task as set out there was a task too great for any organization, and particularly too great for any one man. The way it appears now-some may say this is hind-sight-it would seem that the best way to endeavour to get the best price for the producer would be to deal directly with the producer. It will be agreed by members of the committee generally that the plan which is now provided in the bill now submitted to this committee of the whole is largely along the lines of the Argentine plan; that is to say, where the board stands by, is ready to purchase from the producer at a minimum price, but at the same time permits the ebb and flow of commercial transactions so long as the producer is assured that he has that back log at all times if he wants to approach the board as a purchasing agency dealing with the producer, and not attempting to assist the producer by supporting the structure of world prices. Because after all it is a pretty big job even with Canada's proportion of the supply of wheat in world markets for Canada to attempt to regulate the whole structure of world prices. So that is the first and I think perhaps the greatest improvement

92582-26S

that has been made by the committee in the bill as it is now presented to this committee of the whole. No longer will we have to support world's markets. It may be that the board will have to take a loss in its operations ; that is to say, in selling its wheat. That is another matter. But so far as the producer is concerned the board deals directly with him.

What is the next change? The next change is in the 'matter of sales policy. I feel satisfied from what was said 'before the committee that there was some misunderstanding of the method at least which was to be adopted in connection with the handling of this transaction. As I endeavoured to point out on the committee the orders in council would seem to me to plainly provide for the marketing of the 1930 crop, and the operations which were to be conducted subsequently seem to be ancillary and supplementary to that first job. But quite a different idea was held by Mr. Mclvor. That was apparent from the transactions as disclosed to the committee, the high lights of which I have given to this committee of the whole this morning.

What seemed to be wanting, and what has been remedied I think by this bill, is the matter of a sales policy. The original bill, it will be remembered, provided that the board should undertake the orderly marketing of wheat, ibut it gave unlimited power to buy and sell. This bill, as I have pointed out, gives only the power to buy from the producer, and this bill expressly contains provisions indicating parliament's desire and direction that sales shall foe made.

Many of the witnesses who were heard before the committee felt that the lack of what they called a sales policy was one of the principal causes of our difficulty at the present time, operating as it did to cause the carry-over which we have to-day. One witness, Mr. Smith, at page 155 of the evidence, spoke of the operations of the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited and said he would continue the policy of handling this business through the open market in the same way that Mr. McFarland had done, "with the addition of a definite sales policy which apparently has been lacking." It seems to me that that was the whole core of our problem. A sales policy had been lacking in connection with the operations of the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited. The same witness at other places in the evidence spoke of the same thing, and other witnesses spoke of it as well. What has been assured in this bill is that what we tell this board is that they are to sell, and not to buy except from the producer.

Grain Board

What has been the result of this lank of sales policy? Well, there is some difference of opinion with regard to it, and I do not propose to enter upon the controversial stage of it 'this morning because I think this bill represents what has been referred to in the press and around the corridors as more of a compromise, and I am hoping a helpful compromise in order to deal with a very serious problem.

It has 'been pointed out repeatedly in the country, and I feel that the committee should have this before them, that the result of not having a sales policy, that the result of not selling, has not been beneficial to our market. Some of the witnesses were not prepared to agree with that. Some of the witnesses suggested 'that it was after all a cold-blooded business, that you sold to a man if you offered him the goods at the lowest price. I have here Broomhall's weekly letter of April 10, 1935, and this is what he says with respect to Canada's sales policy:

Canada has sold more wheat in the past week, but her prices are too high to enable her to get a good share of the international trade, and this applies to the buying of British millers and still more to be continental trade, although official returns of exports, indicate that Canada's trade with the continent is not so stagnant as it often appears from market reports. Canadians are hound to recognize that they are not selling sufficient to reduce their stocks to anything like a normal quantity by 31st July next-as we said in our review of 26th March we are doubtful if the total shipped during the current season will reach our estimate of 30.690.000 quarters, especially as we hear that some British millers recently made a further reduction in the percentage of Canadian in their gristing mixture-

The committee will note that:

*-especially as we hear that some British millers recently made a further reduction in the percentage of Canadian in their gristing mixture, being encouraged to do so by the better gluten content of this season's Plata- we recently published a letter from a Liverpool miller suggesting that Canadian wheat, in view of its high price, ought to be quoted per fine ounce.

Which was a bit of biting sarcasm. Broom-hall's letter of March 27 says:

If any country puts its wheat out of the reach of buyers, that country loses trade and its shipments fall short of our estimate. Canadian prices recently have been held so high that continental countries have gone without ir bought elsewhere, and United Kingdom millers are using as little as possible of the relatively dear Canadian northern grades. We do not apologize for our estimates, but put the blame upon whom it belongs.

And on the next page of the same letter:

It is. however, a very debatable point as to whether Canada's best interests are served

by a policy of splendid isolation. If Mr. McFarland were to approach the trade in a spirit of friendly cooperation, and adjust his prices to a reasonably competitive level, it is quite probable he would be agreeably surprised at the amount of business waiting to be done.

As I pointed out in the committee and as I wish to emphasize here, apparently the result has been that we have been losing our place in the British market to the Argentine. The point has been made repeatedly that Canada is maintaining her percentage of British imports of wheat, that is so but the point I wish to make here, and as I indicated to the committee, is that while Canada is maintaining her percentage of British imports, the United States has lost her place in the British market and that place has not been taken by Canada but by the Argentine and other countries. I have a table here I should like to present to the committee.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN GRAIN BOARD
Sub-subtopic:   PURCHASE, STORAGE AND MARKETING OF WHEAT AND OTHER GRAINS
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

Is that from the evidence?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN GRAIN BOARD
Sub-subtopic:   PURCHASE, STORAGE AND MARKETING OF WHEAT AND OTHER GRAINS
Permalink
LIB

James Layton Ralston

Liberal

Mr. RALSTON:

Yes, I read it to the

witness, Mr. Mclvor. For the five year period 1923-24 to 1927-28 Canada's percentage of imports of wheat and flour into the United Kingdom was 34-5. For the same period the United States percentage was 28-62; the Argentine percentage, 16-26; Australia, 11-55 and others, 8-88. For the five years period 1928-29 to 1932-33 Canada's percentage was 33-04; the United States, 13-21; the Argentine, 20-7; Australia, 17-91 and others 15-1. This period included 1932-33 when Canada had fifty per cent of Great Britain's imports. These figures therefore give Canada the full benefit of any enlarged proportion of British imports. The percentages for the year 193334 were 35-36 for Canada; -18 for the United States; 24-4 for the Argentine; 21-24 for Australia and 19-13 for other countries. For the nine month period from 1934 to April 30, 1935, the percentage for Canada was 36-56; for the United States it was -23; for the Argentine, 31-4; for Australia 20-64 and for other countries 11-14. A comparison of the five year period, 1923-24 to 1927-28 with the period 1928-29 to 1932-33 shows that Canada lost 1-46 per cent in the proportion of British imports. In 1933-34 our percentage rose to 35-36, an increase of two per cent and for the nine month period 1934-35 it rose to 36-56, showing an increase for the five year period of three per cent. For the five year period 1928-29 to 1932-33 the United States furnished 13-21 per cent of the imports; this dropped to [DOT] 18 per cent for 1933-34 and rose slightly to -23 per cent for the nine month period 1934-35. In that time the Argentine raised her proportion from 20-7 per cent to 24-4

Grain Board

per cent in 1933-34 with a further increase to 31-4 per cent for the nine month period 1934-35.

It seems to me that those figures indicate that the Argentine is taking Canada's place when it comes to the matter of getting the business which Great Britain has to give. If one wants further confirmation it is to be found1 in the figures placed on Hansard by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) at page 3645. These figures show that Canadian imports of wheat into British markets dropped from 52,957,000 bushels in 1930-31 to 48,103,612 bushels for the nine month portion of 1934-35, whereas the Argentine exports to Great Britain jumped from 30,594,000 bushels in 1930-31 to 47,474,791 bushels in the nine month period of 1934-35. In other words, Canada was down about ten per cent, while the Argentine in- , creased by about fifty per cent. I submit that those figures indicate that the sales policy which Canada has been following or the want of a sales policy has not been good for this country. If I wanted further corroboration of this I would remind the committee of what the Prime Minister said when he came home from the wheat conference in 1933. I think it was in the first speech which he made in Montreal, when he said that he was surprised at the activity of European countries in regard to the matter of raising wheat. He pointed out that the question was the restoration of international trade in Canadian wheat and he is quoted in the Montreal Gazette as follows:

One solution was through harmonizing the interests of the two groups and he was glad to say that common sense and reason had prevailed and an agreement had been signed on August 21st last which went towards the solution of the problem.

63 cents in gold-Liverpool for four months. "Wheat import countries by their greater acreage had demonstrated clearly that they did not again intend to be placed' in a position where they would face either starvation or have to pay ransom prices."

My right hon. friend pointed out at that time that because of the fear which these countries had they had increased their production of wheat from 900,000,000 bushels in 1930 to

1,220,000,000 bushels in 1933. That increase had been brought about by a fear of starvation and also a fear of ransom prices. I am afraid that the sales policy which has been pursued by Canada has contributed to some extent to this increase. I should also like to refer to a statement made by Sir Edward Beatty in January of this year. In a characteristically temperate statement Sir Edward reviews the whole wheat situation and says:

I disagree with those who suggest that it is improper for this country to attempt any 92582-268J

measures to protect its wheat producers against fall of the price of their product to the lowest depths. Wheat is far too important in the economy of this country for us to accept unmoved the prospect of its price falling to the levels where its producers are beggared. I believe, however, that it is equally dangerous for us to believe that we can prevent the price of wheat, as recorded by a great world market such as Liverpool, from reflecting even a temporary condition of overproduction, or that we can persuade buyers abroad to pay premiums larger than justified by superior quality for Canadian wheat compared with wheat from other areas. The subject is one of overwhelming importance to this country, and to every citizen. It is to be hoped that our policy will be framed with full realization of this fact. I feel that this task should be given to the best available skill and experience in this matter, and that the most careful examination should be made of the views of our customers, rather than that we should take the risk of drifting into a state of hostility between buyer and seller.

Perhaps that statement will have more weight with some hon. members than, with others but it does stand to reason that if we hold our wheat above world prices these countries will turn in self-preservation to raising their own wheat or to buying wheat from other countries. What is the situation in Canada? Does it need any argument to convince anyone that the thing to do in this country is to get our wheat moving? Wheat lying in elevators, wen though it is backed by the guarantee of the government of Canada, will not assist in paying transportation charges or wages on steamboats or railroads. It is not going to assist in the income of mem at terminal ports, nor is it going to assist in the general activities which are incident to the constant movement of traffic across the country. It all will help. It may be said by some that we cannot afford to sell our wheat too cheaply even for that purpose, but I think the committee came to the conclusion that we cannot afford to hold our wheat indefinitely in the hope that something will turn up. The fact that this wheat has been rolling over and over and has now reached the enormous quantity of 225 million bushels is something that brings home to our minds more forcibly than anything else the importance of adopting some policy. And so there are inserted in the 'bill subsections (b) and (c) of section 8, which tell the board definitely what its job is. Subsection (b) is:

to market from time to time all wheat or contracts for the purchase or delivery- of wheat which the board may acquire, for such price as it may consider reasonable, with the object of promoting the sale and use of Canadian wheat in world markets.

So far as I am concerned, that means what it says. It means that you are to sell wheat

Grain Board

with the object of promoting the sale and use of Canadian wheat in world markets; and that involves the selling of Canadian wheat at the world price in order that we may promote its sale and use in those markets. There have been many times when the spread between Canadian and Argentine wheat has been such that it would seem to some that there would be an opportunity of disposing of Canadian wheat if we were prepared to take what the world considers a fair price. While I am on this question of world price, I may observe that in connection with the Ottawa agreements one of the conditions is that the 6 cent preference shall apply only if we are willing to sell our wheat at the world price; and with respect to the inquiries made in the House of Commons in England rather recently as to whether or not they were going to continue to extend the 6 cents preference to us in view of what they thought to be the Canadian attitude in regard to selling Canadian wheat at world prices, at the time the question was raised as to what the world price was, Mr. Hore-Belisha indicated that the world price was the quoted price at Liverpool. So that when we direct the board to dispose of Canadian wheat, for the purpose of promoting the sale and use of that wheat in world markets, we must be prepared to take what is regarded generally as a fair price for wheat. Subsection (c) of section 8 is:

to sell and dispose of stocks of wheat and contracts for the delivery of wheat acquired from Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited and the wheat represented by such contracts as speedily as may be reasonably possible, having regard to economic and other conditions.

That does not mean that we are to hold wheat indefinitely or add to our stocks of wheat by buying; it means, so far as I am concerned, to dispose of our stocks of wheat as speedily as may be reasonably possible. No one is talking about a fire sale; the endeavour is to get rid of our wheat, making the objective of our activities the reduction of the excess rather than the increasing of it. I believe that these sections will commend themselves to the committee of the whole as they did unanimously to the special committee.

Subsection (j) is:

to offer continuously wheat for sale in the markets of the world through the established channels: Provided that the board may, if in its opinion any existing agencies are not operating satisfactorily, take such steps as it deems expedient to establish, utilize and employ its own or other marketing agencies or channels.

That again is another indication to the board of what parliament desires with regard to the carrying out of its duties. Now these,

in my opinion, are two substantial changes with respect to policy which are made in this bill, and I submit that they are farreaching and should commend themselves to the committee and to the country. I will not at this time discuss the question of responsibility. What we are trying to do is to deal with the situation as it exists. The next point that comes up, and one to which I will not direct very much attention, is the point with regard to the minimum price. I may say frankly- and here I am speaking to my western friends

that it did seem that perhaps this provision for a fixed price and a participation certificate might be regarded as erring on the side of adequacy-let me use that word. But thinking the thing over, I feel that Canada has this obligation. This accumulation has piled up and we have a special situation to deal with, and I can only hope that the board will have wisdom and judgment to be able to satisfy the western producer and at the same time to do justice to itself in relation to its responsibilities. I am prepared to concede that there he a fixed price and that at the same time there be a participation certificate, so that if the board succeeds and its operations are profitable any profit may be distributed to the producers.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN GRAIN BOARD
Sub-subtopic:   PURCHASE, STORAGE AND MARKETING OF WHEAT AND OTHER GRAINS
Permalink
UFA

Donald MacBeth Kennedy

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. KENNEDY (Peace River):

Is there any provision in the bill that ensures that the minimum price will be a fair price?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN GRAIN BOARD
Sub-subtopic:   PURCHASE, STORAGE AND MARKETING OF WHEAT AND OTHER GRAINS
Permalink
LIB

James Layton Ralston

Liberal

Mr. RALSTON:

My hon. friend can read the bill as well as I. The provision is that there shall be a fixed price.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN GRAIN BOARD
Sub-subtopic:   PURCHASE, STORAGE AND MARKETING OF WHEAT AND OTHER GRAINS
Permalink
UFA

Donald MacBeth Kennedy

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. KENNEDY (Peace River):

I ask the question because my hon. friend has said something about a fair price. My question is this: Is there any provision in the bill, except a hope, that the minimum price shall be a fair price?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN GRAIN BOARD
Sub-subtopic:   PURCHASE, STORAGE AND MARKETING OF WHEAT AND OTHER GRAINS
Permalink
LIB

James Layton Ralston

Liberal

Air. RALSTON:

The words "fair price" are not used in the bill. The provision is that there shall be a fixed price, a price fixed by the board and approved by the governor in council; and I expressed the hope that the board would be able to fix a price fair to the producer, at the same time doing justice to its responsibility in the discharge of its duties imposed upon it under the act. I realize that the board has a difficult task; I realize also that my hon. friends from the west are faced with a difficulty. I am discussing practical difficulties. At the same time, if my hon. friends from the west will permit me to say so, when I spoke as I did I wanted them to feel that the east-at any rate I am speaking as one from the east- while realizing the difficulties felt that there

1" JULY 4, 1935 4231

Grain Board

was a great measure of adequacy in this provision for a minimum price plus a participation certificate; and I am sure that if the fishermen of the east, the lumbermen, the cattlemen and the buttermen of the east had the same provision some of them at least would be exceedingly happy.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN GRAIN BOARD
Sub-subtopic:   PURCHASE, STORAGE AND MARKETING OF WHEAT AND OTHER GRAINS
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

And the west too.

Mr. RALSTON; My hon. friend is quite right-the west too. But it is because of the situation that exists, which I in common with ever3-one else in the house wish to see remedied, that I am in favour of this provision and will give it my support.

And now I come to the final point. In view of the very adequate provisions of this bill-* some of my friends shake their heads, but in my view it is a pretty comprehensive bill-I for one feel, and I so expressed myself in the committee, that we ought to deal with the situation as an emergent situation and should not tie anyone down forever to a permanent policy with regard to Canadian wheat. This bill on the face of it and without some reservation of some kind indicates that the Canadian government is going into the wheat business unless another parliament takes positive action to repeal the act.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN GRAIN BOARD
Sub-subtopic:   PURCHASE, STORAGE AND MARKETING OF WHEAT AND OTHER GRAINS
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

It is not suggested that one parliament can bind another.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN GRAIN BOARD
Sub-subtopic:   PURCHASE, STORAGE AND MARKETING OF WHEAT AND OTHER GRAINS
Permalink

July 4, 1935