At the least it has been put at 180 million to 200 million bushels; but whatever the exact figure is, it represents a large carry-over, and we have to compete oil the world market with both Australia and the Argentine, our greatest competitors who have year after year a fixed policy with regard to wheat.
Coming back to my friends in the comer of the house, let me say that I am one of those who believe as they do, that Mr McFarland through his stabilization effort* did render to the Canadian wheat grower a service, but let me ask them this question: If Mr. McFarland1 has been so efficient, why this bill? Why the original bill? It has been, said1 that Mr. McFarland was not as successful as he should have been, but I do not propose to go into the ramifications of his actions. It will not do any good to go that, far back to consider the many periods through which the wheat grower has gone. However, I do propose to discuss this bill as it is applied to the problems with which we are faced.
I should like again to direct the attention of t'he committee to the type of organization in existence in the Argentine. When the resolution was before the house, the house seemed to be of the opinion that there was more than one marketing agency in theArgentine. I hold in my hand a publication put out by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hanson) dealing with the grain situation in the Argentine, and giving a resume of the activities of the control board for the past year. In order to make my point that they do have more than oneagency, I should like to read one paragraph of this report. I might mention that I drew this report to the attention of thecommittee in order to convince the chairman, if he needed convincing, that the
Argentine had met only the control board. The paragraph reads:
There has been only average activity on the market here during the past month. Prices have remained fairly steady, with a slight upward tendency towards the end, when the millers wrere competing for parcels of good quality to meet current needs. The announcement of the control board that whilst it would buy new wheat at the same rates as last year it would buy no more of the old crop.
I think that proves beyond a doubt that the system in the Argentine is similar to
that being proposed by this bill. Australia has a board and provides subsidies to her growers of three pence, or six cents, per bushel marketed and three shillings, or seventy-five cents, per acre sown. In the face of the necessity of meeting competition of that kind I was convinced that it was necessary to take some action at this session. I suggest that the bill now before us is about as good a compromise as could be arrived at. There are some features of the bill which I should like to see improved, but taking it all in all, I think it must be commended. If the hon. member for Acadia will read section 7 of the bill he will find there set out the powers of the board and I believe he will agree that they are greater than those ever held by John I. McFarland. Mr. McFarland was subject to order in council the same as this board will be. One of the powers of this board is:
(a) to receive and take delivery of wheat for marketing as offered by the producers thereof.
That is a very essential section. The definition of producer is as follows:
"Producer" includes, as well as any person actually engaged in production of wheat, any person entitled, whether as landlord, vendor, mortgagee or otherwise, by contract or operation of law to the wheat grown by a producer or to any share therein.
It will be remembered that the five cent wheat bonus was paid only to the actual grower of wheat. I might interject here that I am a farmer but as I was not actively working the 'land behind the plough and the harrow it was not my privilege to receive any of that bonus, even though I was paying the operating costs and carrying the whole load.
Subtopic: CANADIAN GRAIN BOARD