July 4, 1935 (17th Parliament, 6th Session)


James Layton Ralston



May I say a word again with regard to the matter of policy in disposing of this wheat? As far as I am concerned the policy is expressed in the words used in subsections (b) and (c) of section 8. I think those subsections are aptly drafted to indicate to the board the general desire of parliament that wheat should be sold rather than held if opportunity offers and if it is reasonably possible to do it. Nobody has suggested a fire sale; no one has suggested that the wheat will be disposed of in two years. What I have suggested is that in two years we would have experience of the plan, which is a different plan from that which has been in vogue so far, a plan whereby the producer will be paid his minimum or fixed price and the country will then take the responsibility for disposing of the wheat. The producer then, as I see it, will not be affected by the market but will have had his fixed price. That policy is different from the policy which has been followed to date, because so far we have been endeavouring to assure the producer his price by attempting to affect the world market. I hope I have made it clear that subsections (b) and (c) of section 8 express my idea as to the directions we should give to this board, and I think they go as far as we can go in that direction.

Full View