I do not know very
many quarter-section farmers in western Canada; there are a few of them. But all those I do know are carrying on mixed farming. I do not know of any farmer who farms a quarter-section of land who is depending largely for his living upon his wheat. He is depending upon wheat for the kind of thing which was mentioned earlier in the debate by the hon. member for Yorkton; that is, he sometimes has to depend upon it to pay his past debts; if he does not get the wheat, he just is not able to pay. I agree, however, that there is some danger in these cases, if someone does not protect the interest of the individual farmer, of actions being taken in cases, where perhaps, they should not be. But, again, I would suppose that these cases are limited in number. The experience I have had with mortgage companies, particularly- and they get about as much criticism as anybody-is that in times like these they are not looking for more land. I believe that so long as a person is able to get along without running further into debt, he will not find much difficulty in getting whatever is available under this legislation, to help him carry on.
To answer this question in another way, I would say this, that if we once accept the condition that we are going to take only
230,000,000 bushels, and the further fact that we are going to allow the farmer only a quota in order to make up his part of that 230,000,000 bushels, I believe if he operates the matter properly, he can get better returns under this arrangement than he could under the other. In many instances it will depend upon the farmer himself whether he does or not. If, for example, he were putting in sixty acres of wheat, or anything over sixty acres, of a quarter-section of 160 acres, I think he could work out a plan under this scheme whereby he would get more cash this year than he would under the other system that is proposed.
Subtopic: REQUEST FOR TABLING OF MEMORANDUM BT GENERAL MCNAUGHTON ON SUPPLY OF SKILLED MEN
Sub-subtopic: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE