[Stage Direction]
Mr. HUGHES CLEAVER (Halton) presented the first report of the standing committee on banking and commerce, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Inquiries of the Ministry

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved:
That the name of Mr. Stuart (Charlotte) be substituted for that of Mr. Emmerson on the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved:
That the following members be appointed to assist His Honour the Speaker in the direction of the library of parliament, so far as the interests of the House of Commons are concerned, and to act on behalf of the House of Commons as members of the joint committee of both houses on the library:
Messrs. Adamson, Aylesworth, Black (Chateauguay-Huntingdon), Bowerman, Cardiff, Castleden, Cloutier, Dion, Eudes, Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont), Gauthier (Nipissing), Gingues. Gladstone, Gourd, Grant, Henderson, Herridge, Howe, Jackman, Jaques, Kidd, Knight, Lapalme, Leger, MacLean, Marier, Marshall, Matthews (Brandon), McGarry, Mcllraith, McKay. Menary, Mullins, Nixon, Pearkes, Reid, Richard (Ottawa East), Ross (St. Paul's), Skey, Smith (York North), Stephenson. White (Middlesex East), Winkler, and Zaplitny.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries, notice of which I sent him this morning? Have requests been made on behalf of the inland fisheries, particularly by the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, for the proclamation of the Fisheries Prices Support Act, 1944, with a view to the exercise of power under sections 9 and 12 thereof, because of the serious decline in demand and prices of fresh fish from the Manitoba, Saskatchewan and other inland fresh water fisheries? If so, what is the decision of the government? If no decision has been made, will the government give the matter immediate consideration in order to prevent heavy loss of essential food supplies?


Hon. H. F. G. BRIDGES (Minister of Fisheries):: In reply to the hon. member's first question I would advise him that representations have been made within the past few days by the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan for the proclamation of the Fisheries Prices Support Act, 1944. In reply to his second question, I would further say that the
matter of establishing the fisheries prices support board is at present under active considera tion by the government.



REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN EASTERN DOMESTIC PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. CHARLTON (Brant):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and1 Commerce with reference to the statement he made when he announced an increase of 30 cents per bushel basis Fort William for western domestic wheat. Will the minister give consideration to the necessity of removing the present discrimination by a corresponding increase in the price of eastern domestic wheat?


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I do not admit at all that there is any discrimination between the price paid in the east and in the west. The eastern wheat grower is paid basis Montreal, $1.40 per bushel. The western grower receives an initial payment of $1.35 a bushel basis Fort William, Port Arthur or Vancouver. That is an advance. During the crop year 1946-47 the Ontario wheat producers received the following payments: ceiling price basis Montreal S1.26; treasury payment, S0.09; wheat flour equalization payment $0.05, making a total of $1.40 a bushel. This basis became effective on July 1, 1946 and will expire on June 30, 1947. There is very little Ontario wheat still remaining in the hands of the producers.



EMPIRE PREFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I should like to ask a question which arises out of a statement made yesterday to the Australian parliamentary labour party by Hon. Dr. Coombs, director general of reconstruction of all Australia. He said that, the "empire preference is doomed, no matter how much Australia* or other food-producing countries want to keep it". I should like to ask the government if they, are prepared to make a statement, between now and Monday, on empire preference, because if it is not made and empire preference is lost, Canada is going to lose a great many industries, and great unemployment will thereby be created.
Right Hon. L. "S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): The government is not prepared to make a statement on empire preference today or tomorrow. The
Inquiries oj the Ministry

matter of empire preference is a subject that is to be discussed by the representatives of the commonwealth countries at a meeting, in London which is to open on March 11, at which the position to be taken by the commonwealth countries at the international trade meeting in Geneva on April 8 will be discussed. I do not think it would be proper to make any statement in advance of the discussions which are to take place next month.


Thomas Langton Church: I asked about it ten days ago. It will be too late to wait until then.



FUEL OIL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. DONALD M. FLEMING (Eglinton): I should like to ask the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply a question as to the outlook for supplies of domestic fuel oil, particularly in the light of the reports of refusal of some of the companies to supply consumers who have not bought their equipment from them.
Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: My hon. friend will recall that coal control and the control of petroleum products were abolished at the end of the year, so that the matter to which he refers is not now in my immediate province. At the end of the year, while it was becoming apparent that the demand for fuel oil had been underestimated, the situation indicated an equitable distribution of available supplies.
As early as June of last year I called all the oil distributors into conference and urged them to examine the requirements for fuel and to make adequate provisions for taking care of these requirements. I also called together the producers of oil burners and asked them to state their needs and to meet with the distributors of oil to make sure that each understood the position of the other. A committee of the oil producers was formed, and I continued to correspond with them for several months. I received a definite assurance that supplies of crude oil had been purchased which would take care of the situation this winter. As part of the arrangement I provided priorities on steel for extra tankage and for distributing tank wagons. It seemed up to the end of the year that provision for meeting the fuel oil situation had been adequate.
I have traced down several accusations that oil companies will not take care of equipment sold by others. I found them entirely groundless. I think the situation is that the oil companies have contracted for all the fuel oil they are able to supply for the remainder 
of this season and are not able to take care of new installations whether by themselves or by others. That is as I follow the situation without having any special responsibility for it. I doubt very much whether my hon. friend can substantiate the accusation that the leading distributors of oil are treating the installers of oil burners in a discriminatory way.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: The other day I brought to the attention of the Minister of Labour a question with respect to the closing of the veterans' training school at Prince Albert. Has reconsideration been given to the matter of keeping it open?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: This matter is under consideration, and I hope to give my hon. friend a reply tomorrow.



RAILWAY FREIGHT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Transport? In view of the closing down of certain industries and the threat of the closing down of others because of the lack of rolling stock to move freight, will the minister make a statement on the situation?


Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport):: The position with reference to
rolling equipment of the railways at the moment is acute, owing to the shortage of box cars and the large demands of those requiring wheat in western Canada, feed for the east, the requirements of pulp and paper industry and many other commodities. There are simply not enough box cars to go the rounds. The transport controller, in conjunction with the railways, has given instructions to distribute box cars as equitably as possible among the various commodities, and is doing his very best to see that no industries will close down in the emergency. I can assure my hon. friend that every effort is being made to meet the conditions as they arise.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: May I ask a supplementary question? Has the minister been able to make arrangements with certain railways of the United States?

Inquiries oj the Ministry


Lionel Chevrier: The minister does not make arrangements; the transport controller does if occasions arise. However, the position of box cars in the United States is as acute as that of Canada.



PORT OF VANCOUVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. G. ARCHIBALD (Skeena):: May I ask the Minister of Mines and Resources a question, of which I have given him notice? Is the minister aware that the port of Vancouver is being used as a port of entry for foreign seamen to man ships put under foreign registry? Can we expect any help from the government in this matter?


Hon. J. A. GLEN (Minister of Mines and Resources):: The hon. gentleman did send me notice of the question, but I received it only on entering the house and have had no opportunity of making inquiries regarding the allegations contained therein. I shall make such inquiries, but I suggest that a question such as this, dealing as it does with a matter of policy, should be put on the order paper.



PEACE TREATIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has any answer been received yet, or has any word come to the government, regarding the submissions made by the government on a point of procedure with respect to the special deputies meeting to deal with the German peace settlement? Has the government put in any submissions yet in connection with the Austrian peace settlement?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): The information we have in External Affairs is that the matter of procedure, or rather the form of the report to be made by the deputies of the council of foreign ministers to their principals as to the procedure to be adapted for the association of other than the four great powers, in the preparation of the peace treaties, is still under consideration and discussion among the deputies. As to the second question, the statement to be put in by Canada on1 the Austrian peace settlement is still under consideration, but I hope that our statement will be ready within the next couple of days.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. O. WHITE (Middlesex East):: I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that Polish veterans engaged in agriculture are protected by minimum wages and that professional agitators are advising them to demand higher wages, would the ministry advise the house how the farmer who has spent his time teaching these soldiers Canadian methods and our language is to be protected? Would the minister consider returning to Europe those not suitable for agriculture?


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I see no urgency in the question and therefore I suggest to the hon. member that it be put on the order paper.



PRINCE RUPERT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harry Grenfell Archibald: May I ask the Minister of Finance a question of which I have given notice. When can the city of Prince Rupert expect a report on the Walsh report?


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: I assume that the question relates to the claim of Prince Rupert for damage to streets and sewers alleged to have been caused by wartime traffic. If so, the reply is that that claim, along with those of a similar nature elsewhere in Canada, is being considered. I cannot say when a decision will be made.



LOBSTERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. CHESTER S. McLURE (Queens): On a question of privilege, a few days ago there was sent to me a clipping from the Victoria Colonist, Victoria, British Columbia. This clipping stated that live lobsters shipped to Nanaimo, British Columbia, for fish culture purposes were secured from the Bay of Fundy. My question of privilege is this. I am sure the Department of Fisheries do not desire to take away the credit from my province, because the lobsters were secured from the briny waters of the Prince Edward Island shores.
James Horace King: When a member rises to a question of privilege he should speak for the purpose of protecting either his own privi-
Canadian Wheat Board Act

lege or that of other members or of the House of Commons itself. I am afraid that in this instance the hon. member is particularly interested in the privileges of lobsters.



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. CHESTER S. McLURE (Queens): Owing to the publicity in the newspapers of the maritime provinces with respect to Prince Edward Island, one of the nine provinces of Canada, this province is the only one not represented on the redistribution committee. I am not asking for representation on it myself, but 1 certainly think that our province should be recognized by representation on the committee.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, February 18, consideration of the motion of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act and to make provision for matters presently provided for by regulation under the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, 1915, including provision for the guarantee by the Minister of Finance of loans made to the Canadian wheat board on security of grain acquired by the Canadian wheat board and the payment of other expenses incidental to the operations of the board.
Mr. J. W. BURTON (Humboldt):: The question before us is simple, clear-cut and deserving of a straightforward answer. The resolution reads:
That it is expedient to present a measure to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act and to make provision for matters presently provided for by regulation under the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, 1945, including provision for the guarantee by the Minister of Finance of loans made to the Canadian wheat board on security of grain acquired by the Canadian wheat board and the payment of other expenses incidental to the operations of the board.
Surely no hon. member will oppose the adoption of that resolution.
Even the leader of the opposition, speaking to this resolution on Tuesday, February 18. stated-and I quote from page 575 of Hansard:
At the moment I am not going to oppose any of the principles of this measure, but I do think the members of the house should know, and I think the Canadian people should know, something about what has been done by this board in recent months in order that we may be in a better position to decide what powers shall be entrusted to it in the future.
CMr. Speaker.]
Then he proceeded to place on the record a whole list of questions to which he demanded an answer before he would even consider the bill which is to follow this resolution.
In my opinion many of those questions should have 'been placed on the order paper, or been asked at some more appropriate time. Surely that great party that used to be known as the Conservative party has not become so bankrupt of ideas and leadership that this represents their official stand on such an important question. If it is, then may I suggest that they should have used the word "regressive" instead of "progressive" when they added that prefix to their name.
On page 578 the hon. the leader of the opposition stated, and I quote:
There are two other questions. One has to do with the -wheat agreement in its relation to the expansion of trade, in its relation to what is spoken of as multilateral trade. In a few months Canada will be joining with some twenty-six nations in Geneva to begin negotiations to restore the widest possible measure of international trade, to try to increase our trade. 1 should like to ask the minister or the prime minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) or the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) if they do not think the United Kingdom-Canada wheat agreement makes more difficult of accomplishment the international trade organization proposals for expanding multilateral trade.
Throughout his address the leader of the opposition proceeded to cast veiled criticisms and questioned the advisability of continuing the wheat board as it is operated at present; yet at no time did he make a definite statement as to which side of the fence he and the Conservative party were on.
At the beginning of my remarks I stated that the question before us was simple and deserving of a straightforward answer. Now I should like on behalf of our C.C.F. group to place our stand on record.
1.	We are unanimously in favour of the wheat board continuing to be the sole marketing agency of our wheat. I will go even further than that and say that we desire flax and all coarse grains to be included under the act.
2.	Unless the bill which is to be brought down has in it some new principle not forecast in the resolution, we see no need to send it to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization.
3.	We will exercise our right to criticize any undesirable features that may be incorporated in the bill, and may even offer amendments in committee of the whole to help make it a better piece of legislation.
Permit me to deal briefly with the three points I have just enumerated. I shall speak on the third first, because we feel that the

Canadian Wheat Board Act
details of this bill cannot properly be discussed until we are in the committee of the whole; and while we contend that there may be many imperfections in the act as it is at the present time, yet they do not constitute any fundamental part of this resolution or bill.
Dealing with number two, we see no need of sending this bill to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization. This question of a wheat board and all that it means to the producers of this country has been so fully discussed in the past twenty-five years that the time has surely arrived when we must realize that it has been settled.
Consequently there is no need to worry you, Mr. Speaker, or other hon. members with lengthy quotations from authoritative sources. By this time the lines have been distinctly drawn between the great majority of producers on the one hand who claim that it is in the national interest that gambling in the foodstuffs of the nation should no longer be tolerated, and, on the other hand, those who believe that they have an inalienable right to exploit the marketing machinery of this country to the detriment of both the producer and consumer.
Here let me say that we at all times advocate that those who do the physical handling of our grain should have a fair and decent compensation for their services, but in our opinion that is all that they are entitled to.
As to the first point, concerning the continuation of the wheat board as our sole marketing agency, I may say that there again the lines have been distinctly drawn between those who exploit the farmer and the consumer on the one hand and the majority of the producers on the other. Among that group of producers there are many who see good in the wheat agreement signed with Britain, especially the long-term feature of that agreement and the stability it may bring; and regardless of the imperfections that there may be in the wheat board, they continue to support the board because only through it or a similar agency can that stability be assured.
I may say that these people are looking forward to the day when we shall have an agreement much more far-reaching in effect than the present one. Here I should like to thank the Minister of Trade and Commerce . (Mr. MacKinnon) for having tabled ' the memorandum on the proposed international wheat agreement before this discussion started. I am sure every hon. member will wish our delegates to that conference, which is to be held next month in London, England, every success.
May I draw the attention of the house to the fact that if and when an international wheat agreement is signed on our behalf, first of all it will supersede our present agreement with Britain, and, second, we shall have all the greater need for the wheat board to operate with all the powers it has at present. It is my duty to draw to the attention of the minister and his colleagues on the wheat committee of the cabinet the fact that there is an ever-increasing number of farmers who, while giving whole-hearted support to the wheat board, contend that regardless of what kind of agreement we have with other countries, our own internal price structure must be such that our farmers will at all times be assured of parity prices. In other words, they believe that the initial payment should be as near as possible to the price that the wheat board receives from the sale of our wheat under the present agreement; and then at the end of the year, a properly constituted fact-finding board, using the figures obtainable from the bureau of statistics, would decide what further payment was due to the farmers on their participation certificates, in order to bring their returns up to parity.
^ I realize, Mr. Speaker, that this word "parity" has been abused and misused; but all that these people are asking for is that the farmer be able to dispose of the products of his labour at a price which will give him the cost of production, and that he receive a fair share of the national income. May I appeal to the minister and his colleagues on the wheat committee of the cabinet to give earnest consideration to this question and endeavour at some time in the near future to bring in a bill which will satisfy these reasonable demands. In the meantime we-and I believe I express the wishes of the majority of producers-welcome this resolution and hope that we shall not need to wait too long before we obtain the other one.
May I also say that in supporting this resolution we are doing so not because we love the Liberal party and all its workings-it is not a question of supporting or opposing the government-but because we believe that the legislation forecast in this resolution is in the best interests of our country and the people who produce the foodstuffs of the nation, and believe that the powers granted to the wheat board under the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act should be continued until we have something better to take its place.
Having stated the policy of our group, Mr. Speaker, I submit that this parliament and the people of this country are entitled to a more definite statement as to where the Progressive Conservative party stands on this

Canadian Wheat Board Act

important question. We shall see what the bill is, and if the bill is in line with what this resolution forecasts, we will help to pilot it through the house.


Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, at this stage of the proceedings it is not my intention to make a long speech, but on behalf of the Social Crediters I want to state now that we are in favour of the principle of the resolution. We are also in favour of the Canadian wheat board and feel that it should be continued in operation. This does not mean, of course-as we shall show later- that we are in favour of all of the wheat policy of the government. It is my intention, as well as that of my colleagues, to make our stand known on second reading and in committee, and to ask for improvements in the wheat policy of the government. This, I believe, is sufficient to show the house exactly where we stand, and we hope that speedy action will be taken with respect to this matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there are some references that I intend to make to this resolution, some views that I wish to place before the house, and some questions that I desire to ask. I also wish to give support to the stand taken by the leader of this party that in the interests of the people of Canada as a whole-primarily of the farmers of western Canada but indeed of farmers in all parts of the country- this resolution and the bill founded thereon should be submitted to the committee on agriculture so that information may be available to the house and the country regarding the wheat question, in connection with which the government of the da37, through the instrumentality of the wheat board, is engaged in one of the greatest businesses in the Dominion of Canada.
Reference was made by my 'hon. friend of the C.C.F. party to the attitude taken by the leader of tihe opposition (Mr. Bracken). The leader of the opposition needs no defence on the part of any of his followers when the question of agriculture is being discussed here or anywhere else in Canada; for it was the leader of the opposition who in 1943 enunciated a policy on behalf of agriculture-


An hon. MEMBER:: This is good.


John George Diefenbaker: If there are any questions I shall be glad to answer them at any time. Some hon. gentleman said, "This is good." Well, sir, it was a good policy that was enunciated by the leader of the opposition, and much of it has been borrowed by the government, for which we are thankful. The chattering has already commenced. We listened in silence while the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Burton) was speaking-

.An hon. MEMBER: Reading his speech.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, in his case I call it speaking. Perhaps these interruptions might cease, unless questions are to be asked.
I was dealing with the attitude taken by the leader of the opposition, and as I look over his declarations made in 1943 the stand he took then has been followed not only by many individual members but sometimes by the government. Some of his expressions, such as "equality for agriculture" and "the assurance to agriculture of a fair share of the national income," together with his policies in regard to preventing a collapse of prices and 'the expansion of export markets, have been adopted in whole or in part. When my hon. friend, dealt in such fulsome terms with the resolution under which this government would take over not only all the wheat of the country but all the barley, all the oats and all the other farm products, he was being consistent, because in its policy the government is in fact carrying out the policy of my hon. friends to the left in socializing a large part of the production of one of the great industries of this dominion.
I was glad to hear the words of approval coming from my hon. friend. A similar system is in effect in England. I have here the British agriculture bill. I do not know the extent to which the government has followed this bill, but I would point out that in the explanatory memorandum issued by the minister of agriculture at the time this bill wras before the British House of Commons this statement was made in regard to agricultural policy:
The twin pillars upon which the^ governments agricultural policy rests are stability and era-ciency. The main method of providing stability is through guaranteed prices and assured irar kets, which are dealt with in part I of the bill.
To that there can be no objection. It goes on:
Part I provides, however, the necessary machinery which will enable the agricultural ministers to carry out periodical reviews of the general economic position and prospects of the industry, to fix prices to enable farmers to plan well ahead, and ... to promote measures to provide assured markets for the main agricultural commodities.
How does it say that can be achieved? Only by the socialization of the land of the United Kingdom, on the part of those who do not fall in line with the directions of the government. It goes on to say:
Stability, however, is not enough. It is equally important to ensure that the industry attains the highest possible degree of efficiency. In the government's view the state has both a duty and a right to see that the necessary steps are taken to this end.

Canadian Wheat Board Act


Mr. WRIGHT:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


John George Diefenbaker: I am reading now.


Mr. HARRIS (Grey-Bruce):: You said you would answer questions.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend never gets up to speak, much less to answer questions, but for the moment let me finish this quotation and then I shall be glad to answer the question.
One of the most important methods of promoting efficiency in agriculture is to ensure that farmers have made available to them the benefits of modern agricultural research, and knowledge of the most up-to-date farming methods.
Then it goes on to say-and I am not quoting at the moment-that in case there are farmers who will not do that, the government will have to take over the land.


Percy Ellis Wright: The question I wished to ask the hon. member was this. Is he aware that the farmers' union in Great Britain, which has a membership of over ninety per cent of the land owners of that country, approved the British agriculture bill, and that it was also approved by the counterpart in Great Britain of the party which the hon. gentleman represents?


John George Diefenbaker: The latter statement is incorrect. The first statement is correct. Now I ask the hon. gentleman a question. Does he think that in order to assure efficiency on the part of farmers who are not as efficient as others, the proper system is first to give them warning that within one year they must farm efficiently, otherwise their land will be taken over by the state? Does he think that should be done?


Percy Ellis Wright: The proper agricultural policy to follow in any country is the policy desired by the majority of the farmers in that country, and that is the policy that was followed in Great Britain.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is the attitude of hon. gentlemen to my left. They believe in socialization for everyone else, but because of the number of farmers in this country they are very careful not to take such a stand in regard to agriculture. No one could have been fairer than I was in giving my hon. friend the opportunity to approve for Canada that of which he speaks in such fulsome terms as having been adopted in the old country. Let me mention some of the principles of the British agriculture bill-because apparently he believes that is the proper course to adopt in this country. It sets out what are the duties of good estate management and good husbandry; then it 83166-39J
deals with "dispossession of owners or occupiers on grounds of bad estate management or bad husbandry." So that my hon. friend will have them, the sections in question are 16, 17 and 18. Those sections provide that when any farmer fails to carry into effect what the government orders him to do in the matter of his farming, and fails to do it for a year, then the government will step in and take over his land; and as a matter of fact the law officers are given power to enter and evict without any order of the courts.


Percy Ellis Wright: That is not a correct statement, Mr. Speaker.


James Horace King: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend may follow me, but at the moment I have the floor and am dealing with the sections I have mentioned.


Percy Ellis Wright: Will the hon. member read the section of the act referring to the taking over of the land?


James Horace King: Order. The hon. member who has the floor may not be interrupted without his consent.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The other evening you ruled out of order members of this group for not speaking to the principle of the bill before them. Now, is the bill respecting agriculture in the United Kingdom the principle of the resolution now before the house?


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: You don't know
whether it is or not.


Angus MacInnis: I want Your Honour's ruling on the point of order.


James Horace King: I have no hesitation in saying that the British bill is not now before this house.


Angus MacInnis: But it is the British bill that is being discussed.


James Horace King: This is a resolution stating that it is expedient to present a measure to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, and I would ask hon. members to confine their remarks to the principle of the resolution before the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I follow your ruling, as I always do. However I am not surprised at the attitude taken by hon. members, because at one time they say they have the same policy as the Labour party in Great Britain, and at other times, when that does not suit them, they become regressive-is that the word the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Burton) used? They become regressive, or digressive, and they change their position.
Canadian Wheat Board Act


Mrs. STRUM:: What percentage of the
farm lands of England is actually operated now by tenant farmers?


John George Diefenbaker: One lion, member
criticizes me for discussing the matter, and then another hon. member asks me a question in regard to the matter upon which Your Honour has ruled.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: Would you answer it,
please?


John George Diefenbaker: It is a very difficult position to be in. But I always place your ruling first, sir.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: That does not answer it.


John George Diefenbaker: At a later date an opportunity may come to read into Hansard the sections in question.
Having dealt in a generous way with what the hon. member for Humboldt had to say, may I return now to the resolution?


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: Confine your remarks to
oats and barley.


John George Diefenbaker: What is that?


An hon. MEMBER:: It was something
about barley.


James Horace King: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Sir, I do not
know how many of these interruptions Your Honour can hear; but I cannot hear them, because they are coming from all parts of the house.


James Angus MacKinnon: No, they are not.


John George Diefenbaker: May I say thisand in any event there will be agreement on this one statement-that this wheat problem is one which affects the welfare of many hundreds of thousands of farmers, as well as of Canadians generally. As I said a minute ago, it is one of Canada's largest businesses. Since 1939 the wheat board has dealt in some 2,200,000,000 bushels of wheat. It has dealt in that wheat, with Canadian money, voted by parliament, in part; and as I see it, the board is required to account to parliament for the expenditures made. The figures throughout the years are roughly these:
bushels
1939-	1940	
342,000,0001940-	1941	
395,000,0001941-	1942	
100,000,0001942-	1943	
168.000.0001943-	1944	
293,000,0001944-	1945	
353.000,0001945-	1946	
238,000,0001946-	1947 ... (approximately) 340,000,000
The leader of the opposition asked that
an accounting be made, and that an opportunity be given the house and the country to investigate the operations of the wheat board.

Only the other day-and I mention this in passing-an advertisement for a flour broker appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press. It was worded in the following fashion:
Required immediately flour broker between exporter and flour mill for well-established export house; must be well acquainted with all large mills and have cordial relationship with wheat board.
I do not know why it was asked that the applicant should have cordial relationships with the wheat board. But that was the advertisement, in any event, and it causes one to stop and ask why.
A great many farmers in western Canada want to know why it is that the difference between the world price and the amount they are required to receive for their wheat under the British agreement is not being taken, up by the government of Canada as a whole, instead of the loss falling wholly on the farmers. They want to know why today the price on the Chicago market is approximately $2.40 while they receive 86 cents a bushel less for their wheat. They realize that on the basis of the present prices, having marketed or being about to complete the marketing of 330 million bushels of last year's crop, the farmers of Canada lost, under the present administration, approximately $280 million which, translated into the case of the average small farmer with 2,500 bushels, means that he has lost over $2,000. The farmers want to know why during the next four years they are entitled to receive only $1.35, and not $1.55, the approximate parity price referred to by the hon. member on my left.
They want to know whether the administration staff of the wheat board is efficient, totalling as it does, in strength, approximately 700 in Winnipeg alone. They want to know why during the past three years approximately 1,200,000 duplicate participation certificates remained unclaimed. They want to find out whether some efficient method cannot be devised of ascertaining the names of the holders of these certificates. Unless they are ascertained the wheat board and the country are going to have an overage running into millions of dollars.
I suggest to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the same system might be applied as was applied in 1931 or 1932, when the administration paid five cents a bushel to the producers of wheat. At that time there were many certificates which were not taken up, and the government of that day placed the matter in the hands of the pools and the other wheat agencies. Those agencies, equipped with bonds of indemnity, in a short time cleared up the problem. The total amount paid to the agencies for this service was 50

Canadian Wheat Board Act
cents a thousand. The attitude of the government, as evidenced apparently by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, is that participation certificates cannot be paid because of these outstanding certificates.
I support in every particular the stand taken by my leader in regard to the necessity for the continuance of the wheat board, and that the time has come for an accounting so that we in parliament may find out how the moneys are being expended by the wheat board, and have the clear financial .picture of the board's business. It is not sufficient to give us a statement at the end of the year, encompassed in a compendium of fifteen or sixteen pages. We want particulars. We want the answers to the several questions to which I have already referred on behalf of the people of Canada. What has been the situation with respect to the wheat board? It has hidden behind governmental protection. One development in that connection was the Oatway case, wherein Mr. Oatway sued the board for a full accounting of its transactions between 1937 and 1942. That was a matter of interest throughout western Canada.
We want to know whether there was efficiency in the operation, whether proper principles are being adopted, and generally the entire set-up. Mr. Oatway started an action, and the government counsel, on behalf of the wheat board, raised the defence that the wheat board was an emanation of the crown and therefore could not be sued. The trial judge dismissed the application. An appeal was taken to the court of appeal of Manitoba, and the court held that proceedings against the wheat board could not be taken for an accounting. An appeal was then carried to the Supreme Court of Canada. Here was an individual asserting rights against the state, and what did the government do? Did they allow that individual to carry his appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada? They did not think it was sufficient to hide behind the defence that the wheat board was an emanation of the crown, so they passed an order in council denying anyone the right to ask for an accounting from the wheat board. If that is not autocracy, I ask what is? First they let a man go to the courts. Then they raise the defence of the state's freedom from action by the individual. Then fearing that that doctrine might not apply so far as the wheat board was concerned they hid behind the defence of an order in council passed and made retroactive in effect to deny the individual his right to his say in court.


Percy Ellis Wright: Page the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker).


Mr. TUCKER:: I do not agree with it wherever it is done.


John George Diefenbaker: I knew the hon. member for Rosthern would not, because after all, while my hon. friend and I disagree in many things, in these matters concerning the supremacy of the state over the individual we have similar views. I only wish that the ideas of my hon. friend could find their way into and permeate the mind of the government.
The Progressive Conservative party asks that this matter be sent to the committee on agriculture. We ask for something more, that the wheat board coming before that committee will not hide as it did in 1942 and 1943; for when we asked for information that might prove embarrassing, the defence raised was that although they were perfectly willing to answer it was not in the public interest to answer. In war time that excuse went down, but today "it is not in the public interest" must no longer be a defence for bureaucrats who endeavour to do the business of the country under secrecy, surreptitiously, and free from the control of parliament.
I suggest that the board come before the committee on agriculture and place all their cards on the table; let the people know the extent to which, by reason of inefficiency, demurrage amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars has piled up on ships destined for Britain. Let this country know why it is that Canada has not carried out the agreement with the British people. We gave them cheap wheat because their food situation was serious, and no one criticizes that; but our attitude on this side of the house is that when charity is done by a nation the loss should fall on the nation itself, not on the farmers as producers in the nation.
The British people are starting to criticize. They want to know why they are not getting our wheat. Because, Mr. Speaker, you cannot feed hungry people with cheap wheat that is not shipped when it is needed. They want to know why it is that in order to meet the wheat situation Britain is purchasing from the United States wheat at about $3 a bushel, from the Argentine at $3.27 a bushel, from Turkey at $4.04. On the other hand the farmer in Canada wants to know why in face of the world situation with wheat selling at those prices he should be compelled to accept $1.35 a bushel paid now and then wait another four or five years for his participation certificates to mature. All over the west the farmer is asking for the payment of his participation certificates annually, that he shall not have to wait five years. He is asking the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is not in the house just now, to make provision immediately for the payment of the participation certificates for 1943 to 1945.
Canadian Wheat Board Act


Mr. GARDINER:: The minister is out at the moment meeting the Minister of Food from Great Britain.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank my right hon. friend for mentioning that, because it is unfortunate that a debate on a matter so pertinent to the Department of Trade and Commerce should not have been postponed to an occasion when he could have been here.


James Garfield Gardiner: He will be back in a few minutes.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank my right hon. friend for letting me know that.
The farmers want to know something about the barley and oats situation, to which reference was made a day or so ago by the Minister of Agriculture. They want to know what the prices are going to be. The price of wheat is to be fixed under the statute at $1.35 a bushel forthwith, and the farmers want to know what the prices of oats and barley will be. The price of oats the Canadian farmer receives is from twenty-five to fifty cents a bushel less than the price at which our farmers could sell it in other countries, and the price of barley fifty cents a bushel less. What is the minimum price going to be if the government takes over barley and oats? The farmers want to know the circumstances connected therewith; otherwise the government is asking for blanket statutory authority for the wheat board to do what it likes with respect to oats and barley. If barley and oats are to be taken over by the government as in war time, the farmer has a right to know the terms upon which he will produce and the prices which he will receive.
I have given three or four reasons why this matter should be sent to the committee. I believe, sir, that this is an opportunity for hon. members in all parts of the house to make a declaration on behalf of the membership of this house that the time has come to assert the right of parliament to full inquiry and explanation by bureaucrats who administer large businesses under the state. We have the right to full information; othewise we shall be approving the placing in the hands of three men the right to expend millions and billions of dollars free from supervision other than a report satisfactory to the Minister of Trade and Commerce which is to be given at the end of each year.
There are other reasons why this matter should come before parliament. I have already dealt with the national well being, the well being of the producers and processors and of the country as a whole who have the right to full information.
Parliament has the right to know what the position of the wheat board is today; for its character has changed since 1935 when the board was set up as an independent agency for the marketing of wheat. It was then instructed, not by the government, but by statute. That position has changed over the years so that today the wheat board is operating under order in council and by regulations which can be set aside in whole or in part by order in council. If British experience means anything the only way in which they can assure a marketing policy when taking over all farm products-and in this case we are taking over the major portion of the farm products-is by acreage control and delivery quotas plus utilization of the land in accordance with government direction.
When this government came into power it was in railroad transportation, in part in wheat, and in part in radio. Today it is in public information, in aviation, in rubber production. Finally this resolution places them in control of practically all the field crops of the country. This indicates the trend away from parliament, a trend toward a form of socialization the like of which we have not had before in this country.
To sum up, we want to find out why the prices have been fixed by the government below world values; why each farmer should be required to suffer a loss to the extent that I have already mentioned; why the whole policy in reference to the wheat board was changed from government by statute to government by order in council, apparently a practice to be perpetuated in the days of peace-for that is what parliament is being asked to do.
During war time parliament was prepared to go a long way. We abdicated our power; we were willing, we were ready, we were desirous of doing everything toward uniting the country. The bureaucracy which was built up in war time, however, is not desirous of releasing any part of its hold now that peace is here. In this bill parliament has an opportunity to review the whole situation. Hon. members irrespective of party have an opportunity to assert their independence. I am asking the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) to join in this. Hon. members have an opportunity to make government agencies responsible to parliament, to make them responsible to hon. members for whatever has been done, and in committee enable the board to give explanations for its policies and to make excuses where excuses are found necessary.

Canadian Wheat Board Act
We are in agreement with the resolution; we intend to give it our support. On the other hand we are asking that parliament be empowered to investigate. The hon. member for Humboldt said that his party was opposed .to having it sent to a committee. Naturally he took that view. That is the attitude of the government in power in Saskatchewan which is operating public corporations. They want to give a general summary only. They are not anxious to agree to a principle which in their own province-


Mr. CAMPBELL:: On a point of order, at the last session the government of Saskatchewan offered to set up a committee, and I believe did set up a committee to investigate the matter.


John George Diefenbaker: They offered to do it. Offering to do a thing and doing it are two different things. They offered to do it, but they did not do it. They came out in blazing colours telling what profits they had made. The only reason they were able to show a profit at all was that they were not in the position of other private companies, of having to pay taxation within the province.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: They do not elect any Tories either.


John George Diefenbaker: I cannot answer interruptions that I do not hear, as I have said before. I am pointing out the facts. That is the reason I can understand the attitude of my hon. friends to the left. If they were to support us in asking that this matter be sent to a committee of parliament some member in the small opposition in the legislature in Saskatchewan might rise in his place and say: How about having the accounts of these various corporations submitted to a committee of the legislature? They would then find themselves in a difficult position to explain, having taken one attitude here and another one there. I am asking hon. members in all parts of the house to support us in the stand taken by the leader of the opposition that the time has come to have crown corporations answerable to hon. members of the House of Commons and to the representatives of the people; for without that declaration hon. members will be giving their approbation to a state of affairs which we accepted in war time but which should not be perpetuated in the days of peace.


James Arthur Ross: I wish to make a few observations on this resolution which says that it is expedient to present a measure to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
I wish first of all to support all the arguments made by my leader when he spoke on this resolution, and to endorse the questions which he asked' of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon). Like those of my party who have spoken before me, I trust that after the second reading this measure will be referred to the agriculture committee. Surely after all that has happened these many years we are entitled to some information. It is many years since we have received an accounting from the Canadian wheat board.
A previous speaker referred to the Oatway case. The government passed an order in council which would not allow any further procedure in the courts to obtain information.
Speaking in the house on Tuesday evening the Minister of Trade and Commerce said that in many commodities the Canadian price level is now materially below the world price level. I am sure that there is agreement in that. As a result of direction and controls by this government, chiefly through the Canadian Wheat board, and based upon statistics for certain given years which I am going to quote from the Searle index report of August 21, 1946, the marketing of the Canadian wheat crop from the prairies in 1943 meant a loss to the producers of wheat in that year of $145 million, or an average of 44f cents a bushel. The marketing of the 1944 crop meant a loss of $139 million, or an average of 57| cents a bushel. The marketing of the 1945 wheat crop meant a loss of $110 million, or 5T6 cents a bushel.
May I be so bold as to predict that for the marketing of the 1946-47 crop, as a result of the United Kingdom agreement and our domestic agreements, we shall have a loss of at least $180 million. That is based on the average loss of 55 cents a bushel. In these first three years for which I have given the actual figures, the total loss was $394 million on wheat alone from the prairie provinces. That amount, added to the $180 million that I predict for this year, will make a loss of $574 million in the marketing of the wheat crop alone. Similar statistics could be given for coarse grains and for live stock on the same basis.
Remember that we are already over the seventh month in, the marketing of this year's crop. When the agreement with the United Kingdom was signed, before the commencement of this crop season, wheat was selling on the open market at $2.05 a bushel. The contract was signed at $1.55. The price of wheat has risen consistently from that day on. I think it was about $2.10 at the start of this season and has consistently risen until No. 2 Canadian wheat, that is export wheat,
6ib
Canadian Wheat Board Act

is quoted today at $2.47 a bushel. That is a great loss. Hon. members of this house and the people should bear that in mind, because if we are to take seriously the statements of economists that we are due for some recession then I do not know ihow these people are to be reimbursed for the great losses they have taken during these years.
Yesterday it was significant to hear the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe), supported by another minister, say that there would be no subsidies on production in the future. True, he was talking about something else, but that was the general statement, and it is rather significant. I would remind the house that in 1945, the year prior to the signing of the United Kingdom-Canada wheat agreement, we in Canada exported in round figures 329 million bushels of wheat, and of that total some 113 million bushels were exported to the United Kingdom, the rest going to the various other countries-and we usually export wheat to 67 countries.
I do not think that the people of the country generally realize what the farmer receives net. While the contract price is SI.55, the wheat producer in the prairie provinces receives at point of delivery at the elevator less than $1.20 a bushel. It is quite true that he is given a participation certificate, but upon that certificate he may never receive anything.
Under the proposal which is to be included in the bill, these certificates are to be pooled until 1950. Every farmer in the west objects to this and thinks there should be a settlement annually on the certificates. The farmer may never receive any more than this sum of less than $1.20 a bushel. Certainly, on the basis of past experience some believe that he will receive a very negligible amount, if anything.
A week or so prior to the signing of the agreement last summer I received resolutions from farmers in my constituency. Farmers who signed the resolution were members of the Manitoba Pool Elevators Association and they asked that there be an initial payment of $1.80 on all wheat, whether for domestic use, for export or for other purposes.
Much is made of the statement which the Minister of Trade and Commerce made the other daj" on the price of wheat for domestic consumption in Canada. The newspapers carried headlines to the effect that this would mean slightly over $10 million for the farmers for the rest of the year, but they did not carry headlines, as they might have done, indicating that it had cost the farmers over $20 million annually ever since 1942, which is an unfair share of the burden of price stabilization. That is what they contributed to the price stabilization policy. This is not

retroactive. They have lost that every year from 1942 to this date, so that it is a step in the right direction.
Everyone knows that from the time the agreement was signed with Britain the cost of production has been rising daily. The bureau of statistics will point out that farm wages were at an all-time high last fall, and the farmer is the only man who is tied to such a condition today. The lumberman, the manufacturer of farm implements and others are exporting a great percentage of their output at prevailing world prices. All this adds to the cost of production. I am sure, as sure as I am standing here, that if the increase in freight rates now asked for by the railway companies is granted, or even a portion of that increase, it will add many millions of dollars to the cost of the prairie producer in marketing his wheat and other grains. That is another added cost that was never taken into consideration.
On the basis of the 55 cents a bushel loss that I have already given as my estimate, based on future markets, it may well be that we could provide the 160 million bushels annually for the first two years to Britain at a price of $2.10 a bushel, which is at least 35 cents below the present export prices, and then we could give to Britain, for nothing, 140 million bushels of wheat in the third and fourth year and be $50 million further ahead for the producer, less any extra that might be paid on participation certificates. That is the type of stability we have in that contract.
A great deal is made of stability. I realize that the Minister of Agriculture had a great deal to do with advising the Minister of Trade and Commerce with reference to the contract, and I am bound to say that in my opinion he has been very ill advised by leaders to whom he has a right to listen, some leaders in the federation of agriculture and in other important offices. When these people say that the farmers are all for this type of stability they have not taken into account the various consequences. They have ignored the rising cost of production generally and its effect on the production of this wheat. Whether hon. members opposite realize it or not, I would point out to them just what this means to the western producer. In the three prairie provinces, in which almost all that wheat is produced, the annual provincial budgets amount to $102 million, Saskatchewan's share being $52 million, Alberta $28 million and Manitoba $22 million. In every year from 1943 the marketing of their wheat has cost them a much greater sum than the entire cost of administration of the provincial governments; yet we hear all this controversy

Canadian Wheat Board Act
about taxation problems. That is what this government has taken from the pockets of the western producer of wheat alone, to say nothing of coarse grains and live stock.
Reference has been made to the Oatway case. The courts were denied by order in council the right to proceed with the case in connection with this man's participation certificates from the Canadian wheat board. In the face of all that, surely the government will permit this matter to go before the agriculture committee for further consideration so that we may be in a position to question officials of the board-something that has not been allowed for a good many years.
The Canadian farmer has never received a fair share of the national income from any government in Canada. During the first world war, according to the bureau of statistics, the farmers received about twenty-nine per cent of the national income. During this war, at the peak, they received eighteen per cent of the national income, which I think everyone will agree is most unfair to the primary producers of the country, in comparison particularly with the United States. There the government has guaranteed the agricultural producers at least ninety per cent of parity. During the war years, and for a period of two years following the war, those farmers were receiving for their products thirty per cent above parity, which is vastly different from the condition of our farmers in western Canada.
Something was said about barley and I understand that authority is to be taken in order that the board may handle barley whether they intend to do so or not. In this connection I should like to quote an article which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press of December 4, 1946, entitled "Topsy-turvy Politics":
There is a degree of irony in the official report that the Canadian wheat board has authorized the export, under permit, of a quantity of malting barley to the United Kingdom at a price of $1.80 per bushel. When carrying charges and malting premium are added the actual price, f.o.b. Fort William is $2 per bushel. This barley, it is officially stated, is being sold for human consumption, not for malting purposes.
Nothing could throw into clearer relief the folly of the United Kingdom-Canada agreement, under which for the present and ensuing crop years vve are selling wheat to the United Kingdom for $1.55 per bushel. Fort William. As a food cereal, barley is inferior to wheat. Yet the inferior cereal fetches $2 and the superior cereal $1.55. Indeed, the topsy-turvy, wrong-side-up, policy of the government is worse than this. On a basis of weight-the true food value of cereals-our wheat if priced equally with this barley would fetch $2.52 per bushel.
No doubt the answer that will be offered is that the wheat agreement compensates for the present great losses to our wheat farmers by 83166-40
guaranteeing them better than world prices in the crop years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Such an answer, however, is wishful thinking. The agreement imposes no obligation upon the United Kingdom to make good our present losses in the later years of the agreement, and so to argue is but to seek escape from present criticisms at the gravest risk of international ill-will later on. The United Kingdom government is not bound in any way, shape or form to compensate western wheat growers in later years for the beating they are now taking, and public men who say so are but adding heavily to the ill-service they have already done in signing the wheat agreement.
That is the article from the Winnipeg Free Press.
May I say that I was rather surprised to hear a couple of my friends to the left, both very good and practical farmers, the other day speaking against free enterprise and capitalism. I know that both these gentlemen- one the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. McCullough) and the other the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright)-are distinctly free enterprisers. They are both capitalists, and they cannot prove anything else by any dictionary in this land. Yet they went on to speak against the very type of thing they represent.


Mr. ROWE:: Maybe that is a question.


James Arthur Ross: The hon. member for Melfort even said that by these controls we have now under the wheat board, agricultural production is decreasing very rapidly; and with that I agree.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not right, even if you do agree.


James Arthur Ross: It is not decreasing?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, not under the wheat board.


William Earl Rowe: The minister has not been out talking to the farmers.


James Arthur Ross: I have not the figures before me.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have them before me.


James Arthur Ross: If you will refer to pages 159 to 162 of Hansard at which is reported the speech made by the hon. member for Melfort, you will find that he quoted figures from the bureau of statistics which set out exactly the decrease that has been taking place under several items.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will give you the right figures later.


James Arthur Ross: I pass on from that. Some reference was made to the new agricultural bill in Britain. Much has been quoted about Sir John Orr on food at this particular time. I just want to read from his remarks as

Canadian Wheat Board Act

reported in the Manitoba Co-Operator of January 15. The head note reads: "Sir John Orr Foresees Food as Beachhead for Attacking World Economic Problems", and he is quoted as follows:
Moreover, close government control over production, however necessary it may be in war time, in peace time would end free enterprise for the farmer who . . . would have to produce exactly what he was told to.
Farmers in this country and in the country where I come from-
That is Britain.
-do not relish such a system. What they need is an orderly market at fair prices. They believe they are quite capable of planning their own production for such a market.
He said further:
The farmers of the world outnumber all other workers together and supply the basic needs of mankind.
That is his version of free enterprise right there. I have another article on "Britain Eyes Nationalized Land Trend", but I am not going to quote it. However, it points out that if the farm owner over there now sells his property at anything over the price that he paid in 1939, it goes to the state. It is quite an article. This is what I want to come to about production. In the Searle Index for January 8, 1947-just last month-there is a paragraph under the heading "Farming Under Socialism", which reads:
The British Labour-Socialist government has just brought down legislation which will guarantee to British farmers prices for many crops. The price to be paid by the farmers, themselves, however, is that the government will exercise complete supervision and control over all farming operations. The legislation provides that if any farmer refuses to abide by the official regulations as to what to grow and how to grow it, the farmer may either be imprisoned, heavily fined or, if necessary, may have his farm taken from him. The first case heard was that of a farmer in Lincolnshire, Mr. Balph Bishop, who was sent to prison for four months and tinea $6,000 for sowing six acres more of a crop than the regulations provided. British farmers, therefore, it would seem, are paying a high price in the loss of their independence, liberty and freedom for whatever "price-security" the Labour-Socialist government is giving them.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: The Tories did not do so well in the by-elections either.


James Arthur Ross: Will my hon. friend stand up and say that he favours nationalization of land in Canada such as they have in Britain?


Mr. McCULLOUGH (Assiniboia):: If the hon. member will permit me to ask a question I should like to do so. He has travelled all over the world. I want to bring him back home. The simple question is this: Are you in favour of the opening of the grain exchange?


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, I doubt if there is any member in the House of Commons today whose record is so clear and so frankly stated as that of the hon. member for Souris with respect to the Winnipeg grain exchange. I think that my hon. friend will find that if he will refer to Hansard.


Edward George McCullough: State it now.


William Earl Rowe: You have heard it.


Edward George McCullough: What is it?


James Arthur Ross: When we get into committee on this measure I shall have much more to say. I hope that the minister will refer this matter to the committee on agriculture and colonization, as I asked at the beginning of my remarks, in order that we may have a frank accounting from the Canadian wheat board upon the handling of the producers' products throughout those many years.


Mr. WILLIAM BRYCE (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I would feel very remiss in my duty as a Manitoba farmer if I did not rise at this time and support such a resolution as this with respect to the Canadian wheat board. Having Canadian welfare and interest at heart, I am sure that I could not do anything else but support legislation like this. In the past I have always supported it, and I shall always continue to support that sort of thing until the produce of our farmers is no longer an object for speculators and profit-seekers to play with, but is rather put in the channels of consumption in the most efficient and economic manner to the benefit of both producers and consumers.
The resolution before the house asks that the same powers now provided by the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act be put into this act. The minister in his remarks, to be found at page 591 of Hansard, said:
The bill proposes to provide the government and the Canadian wheat board with more powers than are provided by the present act, but with less power than was provided by order in council.
Well, that is what we have been wanting. I do not see any objection to that. When the minister brings in the bill we shall then know where we are going. There may be something else in this bill that I do not know about, but when he brings the bill down I am then going to read it and find out just what my position is going to be on it. As far as the general tenor of the resolution goes, it is something that I have been fighting for ever since I came to this country, and I hope I shall be successful in the fight to maintain the Canadian wheat board.

Canadian Wheat Board Act
As I said, I am going to take only a couple of minutes to put forward my idea and say that I am supporting this bill. I see that my good friend, the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), has gone out. He brought me pretty near home when he began to talk about Britain. Do not rise, Mr. Speaker, because I am going to stay in order. I am not going to get out of order. But might I tell this hon. house that when Robert Burns in his poem said:
See yonder poor, o'erlaboured wight,
So abiect, mean and vile,
Who begs a brother of the earth To give him leave to toil.
-the man he referred to was a tenant farmer. In Britain today ninety per cent of the farmers are tenant farmers. The hon. member did not tell us that. Ask the minister of pensions, whose grandparents were born on a croft in Scotland. Britain is coming to the front today as she never did before. Everybody is up against it, but she is leading the way and I hope God spares me to see her make a success of it, because she will only be coming into what Robert Burns preached two centuries ago. To my hon. friend from Manitoba may I say that I do not quite agree with him. Of course he knows that.


James Arthur Ross: You do in a great many things.


William Scottie Bryce: I heard what he said. I have read it in the Winnipeg Free Press and the Prairie Farmer, and the grain exchange have sent me their literature. If he had told me I might have believed him, but I will not believe it coming from the grain exchange. I had the pleasure of visiting Britain a year ago. I met the food minister and the minister of agriculture; I went into the wheat situation and the bacon situation. The farmers of Britain are not complaining, as my hon. friends to the right would make us believe. They are more satisfied today than they have ever been. I shall not say any more, Mr. Speaker, in case you rule me out of order. I am going to support this resolution, and if the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) does not put into the bill anything to the detriment of the western farmers, I shall support it also.


Walter Adam Tucker: I do not intend to delay the house for more than a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, but certain things have been said on which I should make some observations. The first matter I should like to refer to is the recent raising of the domestic price of wheat to $1.55 a bushel. I should like to commend the government very much for that action. I may say it is something I have urged for the last year, and something I am 83166-40J
sure will meet with the approval of at least our party in Saskatchewan; I think I can go at least that far.
In regard to the attitude toward the wheat board, and whether or not what we are doing here amounts to socialism, I should like to say this. If there is one thing the farmer has come to think he is entitled to it is the same measure of security that he sees enjoyed by other people in society. He sees, and it has been accepted for many years, the statement made that fair prices should be paid in industry; that there should be minimum wages; that if a person is thrown out of work he may be assured of an income under the Unemployment Insurance Act, and so on. The farmer feels that he has enough to contend with in the possibility of crop failures, and sometimes to a certain extent the failure of markets, without having to face the possibility of having almost to give his crop away. I am one of those who in 1932 sold No. 1 northern wheat for nineteen cents a bushel. That did not even cover the cost of seeding and threshing alone; and the farmers certainly say to the people of this country that they are just as entitled to adequate fixed minimum returns for their labour, which is just as important as any other labour in the whole country, and that they are just as much entitled to fair minimum standards of living as the workingmen or anyone else.
When our opposition friends suggest that any steps taken to bring this about, by some system of the stabilization of markets and prices, and so on, verge on socialism I say they do not do themselves justice. Surely they do not oppose minimum wages. Hon. gentlemen opposite have not opposed a certain measure of protection for industry on the basis, as they say, of giving an assured income to the people employed in industry. Well, if down through the years the farmers of this country have had to pay millions of dollars in higher prices to the protected industries of this country in order to give that protection, surely they are entitled in their turn to protection against the vicissitudes of world markets and so on; and I do not think there can be any objection to that. Certainly I am sure there should not be any objection on the part of the Progressive Conservative party.
I am one with the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) in the suggestion that if the government enters into industrial or commercial activity it should not seek to hide behind any prerogative of the crown as against the subject with which it does business. Any suggestion that the crown should be able to enter into commercial and industrial activities and do what it pleases in regard to
Canadian Wheat Board Act

its dealings with an individual; break contracts, as it has done in Saskatchewan, and then hide-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Walter Adam Tucker: My hon. friends may laugh, but they cannot deny it. For a government to do that and then hide behind the prerogative of the crown so that the subject may have no redress I say has no place in a democratic country today. So I say that if our government is going to engage in business, handling wheat or anything of the same nature any subject should have the right to go to the courts and ask them to do justice between him and that commercial enterprise, just as he would have the right if he were dealing with a private individual or corporation. That was what I meant by my interjection during the remarks of the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright). I have heard a great deal from the hon. member's friends out in Saskatchewan to the effect that I talk one way and act another. But I say to them, and they know, that since I have been in the house I have fought just as faithfully and consistently for the farmers as any one of them has.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: How did you vote for dollar wheat?


Walter Adam Tucker: How did I vote for dollar wheat? That is a favourite, untrue statement that is made out in the west. At the time the motion before the house was for the second reading of a bill to raise the price of wheat from seventy cents to ninety cents. The present premier of Saskatchewan, then sitting in this house, moved that the bill be not read a second time but that we express the opinion that the price should be higher. As I pointed out in the house at that time, and as was admitted by the present leader of the C.C.F. party, if that motion had carried it would have meant leaving the price at seventy cents instead of raising it to ninety cents. The untrue statement is made throughout Saskatchewan that I voted against dollar wheat. I voted for wheat at ninety cents rather than seventy cents, and the people who voted for the motion voted in effect to leave the price at seventy cents. That cannot be denied.
May I just go on with this question that has been raised by the opposition. I think all hon. members will agree that we do not want to get this matter of the handling of wheat and the carrying out of our contract with Great Britain into a condition of chaos such as occurred, for example, in another country when controls lapsed by reason of the

fact that the legislature did not act in time. The powers under which we are able to carry out our agreement with Great Britain and handle this whole question of wheat in an orderly way lapse at the end of March as hon. members know. So I would say this to them. If this matter goes to committee is there any guarantee that it will not be held there so long that these powers will lapse? Once it has gone to committee, no one can be sure that it will be reported back in time to be passed by this parliament before the powers lapse. So I say, do not jeopardize this whole situation by saying this particular bill should be referred to committee, just because you want to look into the activities of the wheat board. Those activities can be looked into at any time by the agriculture and colonization committee; or, if there is any real demand for it, a special committee can be set up. I am sure no Liberal government would say that any body of men handling an important part of the business of this country should not be subject to check by parliament or, if parliament sees fit, by a committee of this house. But you do not have to endanger this bill and run the risk of throwing this whole situation into a state of chaos by insisting that the matter be referred to that committee. There can be such an investigation without having this bill referred. Therefore, so far as I am concerned, I am so anxious to see this programme carried on in an orderly fashion, and it is one which is in the best interests of the farmers of this country, particularly those of western Canada, that I do not think the suggestion that the matter be referred to a committee should be pressed.
I believe, however, that any crown corporation engaging in industrial or commercial activities on behalf of the government should lay i-ts operations before a committee of the house, and should do so as a matter of course. This is done today in respect of the activities of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, officers of both organizations appearing before committees of the house. Therefore I am sure no one would object to the activities of the wheat board being laid before a committee of the house, and considered thoroughly. But that matter should not be mixed in with this debate.
Something has been said as to this agreement not being in the best interests of the farmers of the west. I shall not take long to discuss the point, or to do more than to say that if it were not in the best interests of western farmers I do not believe it would have received the endorsation, of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. That is an organ-

Canadian Wheat Board Act
ization with the ability to look into 'the alleged disadvantages in the agreement, in the same way as hon. members who now criticize it. But apparently they feel that, on balance, the agreement is in the best interests of the farmers of Canada, and for that reason they definitely endorse it. If the representatives of the farmers think the agreement is in the best interests of the farmers of Canada, then I think we may safely take it for granted that the agreement is good for us.
But here is something I have often wondered about. I have seen members of the C.C.F. repeatedly rise in the house, as they have done today in respect of this measure, and endorse what the government has done. I have heard them say that the government is doing what is best for the people, and I have heard them attack the Progressive Conservative party because it has opposed' what we are doing. That is the attitude taken by the C.C.F. time after time in the House of Commons. But when they go out on the hustings in Saskatchewan members of the Liberal party are described by them as the tools of the vested interests, the hired servants of the big interests in the east.
I should like to see a little more sincerity in the speeches made by C.C.F. members in the west. I should like to hear them making the same speeches out west that they make here in the House of Commons, when they praise the government. If they did so, they would sound more sincere.


Mr. PROBE:: Mr. Speaker would rule it out of order.


Walter Adam Tucker: I have heard members from other parts of Canada applauding what the C.C.F. members say on the floor of the house. They come to me after and say, "Oh, they are not such bad fellows." But I say to them, "Just listen to them when they are out west on the hustings."


William Scottie Bryce: You have to defend the Liberal government out west.


Walter Adam Tucker: I have not heard you defending them much. Of course you may be different from the kind of C.C.F.'ers we have in Saskatchewan. If you do any defending of the Liberal government, then I have yet to see your type in Saskatchewan. I am afraid that if you did that in Saskatchewan you would be thrown out of the party. Others have been, and I warn you to be careful.
I shall conclude by saying that the basic idea behind the wheat agreement is that the farmer should have some stability of income; I think everyone will be in agreement with that. I do not think it is necessary to take
rigid control of everything the farmer produces on his farm in order to give him the security which he is getting by this measure.
I suggest that one of the basic ideas behind the wheat agreement is the fact-and I should like to make it as clear as I can, because this may be the last time I may speak in the house on this question-that there is provision in the agreement whereby, when it comes to fixing the price for the crops of 1948-49 and 1949-50, if we have supplied wheat from the crops of 1946-47 and 1947-48 to Great Britain at a price lower than she would have had to pay for it on the world markets, that factor will be taken into consideration in the fixing of the price for the last two years of the agreement.,
I know the suggestion has been made that the British people are hard traders; but that does not mean a thing. The farmers of western Canada understand-and I am in agreement with them on this-that when the British people made this agreement they took into consideration the fact that they might be getting wheat cheaper in 1946-47 and 1947-48, and that if they got such wheat cheaper than the world price that fact would be taken into consideration when fixing the price for the last two years of the agreement. I, for one, believe that they will live up to their agreement. I believe this means that, although we may be taking less today, as the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) said, it means that in the last two years of the agreement, relying upon the word of the British people we shall get more than we otherwise would.
To say, therefore, that the farmer necessarily is losing because he is selling for less than the world price, and that he is necessarily losing that much, is to suggest that one does not believe the British will live up to their agreement. I believe they will. I believe that the government of Canada will see to it that the farmers, not wishing to take the last cent from consumers in these days when there is so much starvation and want, will not suffer loss in the days ahead. The farmers of Canada, by taking a far-sighted view, and by not insisting upon getting the last cent in the present time of crisis, will receive consideration for that action. In the long run, over a period of years it will be found that the leadership being given to the farmers of Canada by the outstanding farm leaders who have asked the farmers to take this farsighted view, has been good leadership; it will be found that they followed along the lines of true statesmanship; and that the government, accepting their advice, also acted along the lines of true statesmanship and as true friends of the farmers of Canada.
Canadian Wheat Board Act


Mr. F. S. ZAPLITNY (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, there are, I believe, a few points that should be cleared up before this debate is concluded. First of all, I would refer to the charge made by at least two hon. members to my right with respect to the standi taken by the C.C.F. in relation to the nationalization of land. I refer to this only because a charge has been made, and we have been asked directly to answer it.
It seems to me that the best way to answer is to quote directly from the platform of the C.C.F. as presented at the last election. I shall quote from it, so that there may be no equivocation:
The C.C.F. has always stood for the private ownership of the family farm, family home, and other personal property. It will build an economic system which will protect farmers and workers in this ownership and avoid the evictions, foreclosures and losses which they suffer under capitalism. In fact, the C.C.F. will make it possible for the people to acquire all the personal property necessary for a high standard of living.
I suggest that settles the question as to where we stand in respect of the ownership of land.


Gordon Graydon: Not yet.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Perhaps not to the hon. member's satisfaction.


Walter Adam Tucker: Is it not the fundamental policy of the C.C.F. that the programme you lay down one year may be changed at next year's convention?


James Arthur Ross: Next day.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: If the hon. member had asked about the policy of the Liberal party in connection with changing, leaders, I could tell him more about it. I did not hear the hon. member's question clearly, but I am informed the question was as to how long this has been in the C.C.F. programme. My reply is that it has been the stand of the C.C.F. right from the beginning.


Walter Adam Tucker: My question was this: Do you not lay it down, as a fundamental plank in your whole set-up, that your platform will be decided by your convention, and that what you say there can be changed by your next convention, with the result that a plank can be written off, such as the non-socialization of land?


Mr. KNOWLES:: Cannot the Liberal party change its platform?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: This is a democratic party.


Mr. FRASER:: Since when?


James Arthur Ross: Page the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
Mr. ZAPLITNY': Since this is a democratic party, as a natural consequence its members have the right to decide what the policy of the party will be.


An hon. MEMBER:: Page the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge).


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: That kind of question sounds strange.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Do you believe in the socialization of dairying?
Mr. ZAPLITNY^: It is not a strange remark for those who claimed that we were a dictatorship, and now claim that we are a democratic party.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Harold Winch.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The points to which I shall refer in connection with the resolution have to do with the charges which allege that the C.C.F. advocate controlling the farmers to death. I do not think that is the real issue. The issue is, are we or are we not in favour of the orderly marketing of farm products? I think that is the principle of the resolution, and that principle we are supporting. The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker) who, I regret, is not in his seat at the moment, in his anxiety to throw something at the C.C.F. went to some lengths this afternoon to try to prove something that is not so. I do not want to get into an argument about it, but I should like to quote briefly from the platform of the Progressive Conservative party in the last election to show that even that party was in favour at that time of orderly marketing and a few other things along that line. For example, point No. 2 of their agricultural programme comes out in favour of maintaining a high demand for farm products by a state-guided and planned programme of full employment. Apparently they are not afraid of state guidance and planned economy at election time, however fearful they may be about it today. Point No. 8 of their agricultural programme was to bring about-not advocate but to bring about-a more efficient land use, including the extension of soil surveys, withdrawal of poor lands from cultivation and the formation of community pastures. How would they go about withdrawing poor land from cultivation? If the land was being cultivated there must be somebody living on it, and if they withdraw that land from cultivation they would have to tell the fellow to get off it. That is certainly strange in comparison with the attitude of the Progressive Conservative party today.

Canadian Wheat Board Act


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: That is being done every day, from your province to the irrigated areas in Alberta, and the people are very happy about it.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: In its election platform the Progressive Conservative party comes out in one of its planks for state guidance and planned economy for agriculture. But the next minute they turn around1 and attack the C.C.F. party on these very points.
The question was asked directly this afternoon of two members of the Progressive Conservative party whether they were in favour of or against the grain exchange. We did not get an answer to that question, and I am not so much surprised. But we do have a partial answer as to their attitude on the wheat agreement itself, which seems to be in issue today. I quote from the Winnipeg Tribune of October 19, 1946, an authority which I think the Progressive Conservative party will accept. This was at the time of the by-election in Portage la Prairie. The Winnipeg Tribune says:
On the wheat agreement Mr. Bracken repeated that he was not protesting that it was made with Great Britain.
That party is either for or against the wheat agreement. Apparently at one time, in the election, they were in favour of it, but now they come into this house and we hear a different story.


Gordon Graydon: The people in Portage la Prairie understood them all right.


Percy Ellis Wright: Probably they did not.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Everyone knows that one by-election does not win a general election.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: In fairness to the hon. member who is speaking, if hon. members want to ask questions they should rise in their places.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind my speech being made a cooperative effort, and I say that advisedly because it brings me to my next point.
The hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) apparently thought the C.C.F. members were a little more kind to his party in the house than they were when they got out on the prairies, and he said that they made two different kinds of speeches. That sounds a little strange coming from him, because last summer we had the spectacle of seeing the hon. member for Rosthern, who out on the prairies is quite a champion of cooperatives, so he says, rise in his place in the house and vote for the taxation of cooperatives.


Walter Adam Tucker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, that bill lifted a lot of taxation from cooperatives. It took far more taxation off cooperatives than it put on them, and the hon. member knows that or he does not know anything about it.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Apparently there was a lot of taxation to take away from the cooperatives.
The issue is whether we are in favour of or against orderly marketing. If we are to be serious about this we should not let the campaign of the grain exchange and their friends throw us off the track. I realize that terrific pressure has been brought to bear on all hon. members by this well-organized and perhaps well-financed campaign by certain interests to throw doubts on the Canadian wheat board and on the marketing methods that they are using. I am afraid that some people, if I may repeat a phrase that I heard today, have, been falsely advised, and I am afraid that it is the members particularly of the official opposition who have taken this campaign a little too seriously. After all, we must realize that these people who are against the wheat board and against orderly marketing are opposing it for a purpose. What is that purpose? It is not hard to guess. They want to get their big feet into the profits of wheat dealing.


Arthur Leroy Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I object to motives of gain being imputed to members of this party in the House of Commons, and I ask that the remarks be withdrawn.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I am afraid that the hon. member misunderstood or did not hear what I said. I did not suggest that it was the hon. members of the party to my right who were in the grain-dealing business. There may be some, by sheer coincidence, but I was referring to the grain trade generally, which is not, I think, directly represented in this house.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Still on the point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said that there were certain people who were falsely advised and that it was the members of our party. He may be right, but we are not taking that from him. Then he went on to say that these people wanted their feet in some big business. If he did not refer to us my point of order is not well taken and I ask forgiveness, but I understood him as best I could. Either my understanding is bad or his explanation was not very good. Perhaps we can let it go at that.
Canadian Wheat Board Act


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I wish to quote from a clipping which I have saved up for a few years. It refers to a grain dealer in Winnipeg whose name I shall not give because this is not a personal matter at all, but who left an estate of 1250,000 when he died. In reporting this, the newspaper makes this comment:
This proves that grain dealing is much more profitable than grain growing.
There is something in that. I do not think the people who labour to grow the grain should get only the crumbs while somebody else runs away with the loaf. Surely food is something in which there should not be gambling and speculation for the .profit of a few. The farmers of this country during the war faithfully carried out their part of the contract. They produced the food and are doing so today, and we do not want to see anybody moving in on them and hi-jacking them on the way to market. That is why wre are in favour of this resolution.


Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South Centre):: This resolution is a most important one; it is in that class of things which, if it is not possible to cure them, may have to be endured. I wish to join with any other hon. members who have recommended that this is a matter which should go before a committee and say that I shall certainly vote in favour of any motion of that sort. I shall certainly vote in favour of this matter being examined in committee.
This resolution is a most violent departure from our way of life so far, and we should not embark upon a gamble of many millions of dollars without at least having it examined in the laboratory of a private committee. I do not think that would delay matters greatly; I do not think it is unreasonable to ask the examination of a matter of so great public importance, but it is unreasonable to deny that sort of examination.


Mr. T. J. BENTLEY (Swift Current):: I am sure that the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), who is not in his seat at the moment, would not want to leave an impression that was not correct. In his remarks this afternoon he referred to the Saskatchewan government and their reluctance to submit their crown companies to an examination by a committee of the legislature. In reply, I should like to put on record a paragraph from the Votes and Proceedings of the Saskatchewan legislature of January 30, 1947.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas John Bentley: I wish to correct a statement, and that is why I am doing this. I have not yet been called to order by Mr. Speaker. The resolution is as follows:
(Mr. A. L. Smith.]
On motion of the Hon. Mr. Douglas (Wey-burn), seconded by the Hon. Mr. Corman:
Resolved, that a select special committee be appointed to prepare and report, with all convenient speed, lists of members to compose the select standing committees-


James Horace King: Order. As I have already pointed out to the house, hon. members should confine their remarks to the principle of the resolution which is under discussion.


Thomas John Bentley: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, when an hon. member has made a statement I should think another hon. member should be permitted to put on the record the other side of the question to correct a wrong impression. I point out that the committee was appointed, as will be found from an examination of the Votes and Proceedings of the Saskatchewan legislature which I hold in my hand. I was quoting from it to emphasize the point rather than just making the bald statement. If it is not in order to do that I shall just make the statement to correct the impression left by the hon. member for Lake Centre. A select standing committee has been set up for that purpose.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.


Mr. BRACKEN:: When this matter came up the other day I asked a number of questions seeking certain information. Is the minister now prepared to give whatever answers he feels he can give with respect to the information I then asked for?


James Angus MacKinnon: The leader of the opposition asked a question with respect to the shipments made under the United Kingdom contract. The answer is as follows: wheat shipped under the United Kingdom contract, August 1, 1946, to January 31, 1947, amounted to 57.000,000 bushels. Under the contract the United Kingdom may take 640.000 long tons of wheat in the form of flour during 1946-47. The United Kingdom places flour orders with Canadian mills, who in turn are provided with wheat at the contract price. The United Kingdom has now booked all the flour provided for under the contract for 1946-47. Actual shipments are a matter between Canadian mills and United Kingdom authorities. My understanding is that a satisfactory shipment of flour has taken place and that the Canadian wheat board has continually made wheat available to Canadian mills for this purpose. From August 1, 1946. to January 31, 1947, about 15,000,000 bushels of contract wheat will be required by Canadian mills to meet flour orders placed by the United King-

Canadian Wheat Board Act
dom; that is, actual wheat shipments to the United Kingdom under the contract and flour shipments from contract wheat would amount to approximately 72,000,000 bushels in the first six months of the crop year. That is the answer to the first question as I understand it.


John Bracken: Then there has been some gain within the last month on the rate of deliveries prior to January?


James Angus MacKinnon: There has been some gain. These are the figures for the first six months.
The leader of the opposition asked for the amount of sales or deliveries made to countries other than the United Kingdom and the average prices. These questions were placed on the order paper by the hon. member on February 11, 1947, and I presume they will be answered in the regular way on Monday next. In the meantime I shall be pleased to
anticipate the answers to these questions and give the information now. This is a long statement and probably I may be excused from reading it.


John Bracken: Perhaps the minister can say what the total amount is and leave the details to appear in Hansard.


James Angus MacKinnon: It will still be quite an impressive statement.


John Bracken: If it is difficult for the minister to extract that figure I do not mind leaving it for the present. Can the minister say what range of prices the wheat brought which was sold to countries other than Britain?


James Angus MacKinnon: I take it, Mr. Chairman, that this statement will appear in Hansard.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


James Angus MacKinnon: The statement follows:
Export Clearances of Canadian Commercial Wheat By Months
August to January, 1946-47
	August	September	October	November	December	January
			(bushels)			
United Kingdom ....	5,578,190*	8,295,456	7,132,016	11,419,092	8,511,254	12,753,608South Africa 	446,455	289,600	340,000	632,590	Egypt (Alexandria).	340,262	345,000	349,067	1,419,294	655.8 io	668,000Persian Gulf 	322,676*	334,000	Malta 	186.667	186,667	168.000	181,097	362,133Belgium 	1,164,933	936,876	481,600	Brazil	698,133	345,099	Colombia 	
Costa Rica 	
Ecuador 	
El Salvador 	145,600	38,il7 33,333
37,333		
						16,666
France 	 India 			342.98 i	1,665,924	325,i26		
						
Ireland 	368,733	875,658	Netherlands 	
Norway 	
Peru 	672,000 284,200	1,673,977 933,521	336.000 224.000	328,533
Portugal 					325,900	329,280	
Switzerland 					1,009,702		
Total 		6,551,574	10,151,113	12,474,273	20,449,265	10,683.544	14,200,390
Othersf						
Barbados	
British West Indies.	1,000	2,2 9 i	633Dominican Republic. Ecuador 	3,337 14,500	6,674	'i66	....Honduras 	10,000Jamaica	5,743	4,200	3,689	8i6	1,213St. Vincent	2	1	40Trinidad 	2,410	333	31	2,340United States 	4,661	Total 	18,837	14,710	6,610	8,849	848	14,226Grand Total 	6,570,411	10,165,823	12,480,883	20,458,114	10,684,392	14,214,616
*584,930 bushels United Kingdom amount loaded in July, 1946, and 24,103 bushels of Persian Gulf loaded in July, 1946. (Board of Grain Commissioners).
fAssumed shipped in month sold except for Ecuador (14,500 bushels) reported by Board of Grain Commissioners.
Canadian Wheat Board Act

Sales of Wheat for Export Flour-August 1 to January 31, 1947
(Excluding Bonded Mills)
(In Terms of Bushels of Wheat)
August	September	October	November	December	JanuaryUnited Kingdom ... British	5,008,186	5,731,639	801,160	4,816,381	713,814	9,844,984Br. So. Africa ...	1,836	459	....	....Ship Stores 	3,672	3,672So. Rhodesia 	918Br. W. Africa 	28,202	5,391	8.230	3,726	5,039	12,477Gambia 	5,350	Gold Coast 	39,254	Nigeria 	14,067	....	Nyasaland 	459	1,837Sierre Leone 	21,002	2,983	5,314	15,196	2,065Bermuda 	13,174	4,987	17,090	8,195	10,314	12,567Br. Guiana 	84,510	87,862	71,887	71,100	48,600	54,900Br. Honduras 	
Br. W. Indies	18,184	-	9,000	3,375	7,798Antigua 	21,607	14,430	10,805	14,405	10,803	10,805Bahamas 	52,404	27,920	40,017	36,742	31,050	19,958Barbados 	81,748	34,551	49,068	36,067	56,196	21,780Dominica Isl	19,125	7,200	12,600	12,600	9,000Grenada 	31,238	12,262	8,953	4,725	8,717	7,698J amaica 	605,037	288,470	195,415	141,988	180,341	180,932Montserrat 	9,000	5,400	3,600	3,600	5,400St. Kitts 	28,800	14,400	14,401	16,200	16,200	14,400St. Lucia 	18,000	11,250	14,400	14,400	9,000	11,250St. Vincent 	28,800	14,625	9,000	9,000	9,000Trinidad 	520,763	288,225	235,350	228,825	262.359	228,600Newfoundland 	146,104	292,594	87,012	30,144	3,348	32,704Alaska 	....	....	....	315	68	Belgium 	....	4,500	11,480	1,820Belgian Congo 	15,004	9,360	5,738	5,738	4,130Bolivia 	4,592	Brazil 	485,150	608,884	607,715	111,072	123,612	153,607Catelli (Macaroni) ..	8,451	3,570	China 	1,339,628	983,152	1,015,717	849,987	668.241	333,223Colombia 	10,103	5,003	4,548	8,721	1,240Costa Rica 	24,831	5,508	21,919	14,233	20,425	9,184Cuba 	33,065	4,590	3,672	Denmark 	....	5,053	Ship Stores 	....	517	Dominican Republic .	....	62,211	1,836	37,655	30,765	29,838Ecuador 	63,611	17,676	4,819	50	10,098	23,989Finland 	
France	-	6,889	Fr. W. Africa 	6,196	18,513	2,088	Fr. Guiana 	
St. Pierre &	-	-	18,369	(6,776)Miquelon 	5,175	1,800	1,521	900	Fr. W. Indies	3,600	2,700	48,617Guadaloupe 	60,588	27,549	18,369	3,388Martinique 	
Germany-Br. Zone|	10,076	73,467	-	....	18,369	3,388Mennonite Relief j	2,250	9,183Greece 	251,678	208,768	39,798	66,883	173,262	51,368Greenland 	21,141	Guatemala 	47,402	11,123	18,850	16,311	1,836	15,122Haiti 	44,078	16,528	11,132	24,144	36,275	34,660Honduras 	15,827	3.222	1.836	7,463	4,592	Iceland 	12,640	2,525	40,408	9,598	28,286	51,375India 	....	....	89,054Iceland 	....	- ....	....	32,143Italy 	74	....	3,600	171,048	397,913	784,367
Canadian Wheat Board Act
Sales of Wheat For Export Flour-August 1 to January 31, 1947-Con.
August	September	October	November	December	JanuaryLiberia 	3,420	2,411	Mexico	4,900	1,680	Netherlands	N. E. Indies	22,959	N. W. Indies	28,197	13,391	16,703	22.66 i	20,64 i	27,i,86St. Eustatius 	900	84	371	270	270N. Guiana	18,983	9,334	7,430	8,707Nicaragua 	11.016	4	8,262	10,255	1,836Norway 	273,923	178.394	147,851	178,483	288,756	255,199Panama 	35,236	8,262	5,508	19,058	19.973	1,132Peru 	4,018	2,407	2.412	1,953Philippines 	629,710	196.307	335.809	344.276	337,883	341,516Portugal 	23,877	(2,295)	9,184	4.500	13,300	22,670Azores and Madeira.	5.233	1,800	6.428	8.271Cape Verde 	6.430	1.836	Macao	2,295Port. E. Africa	3.M3	4,i3i	3,672	9,is4	19.516Port. Guinea 	l.iii	Salvador 	8.729	5,629	2,985	1,606	1.606Spain 	4.500Canary Islands	22,096	(18,000)	4.590Sp. Honduras 	1.606	1.723Switzerland 	2,296	2,296	U.N.R.R.A	536.472	88.627	150,i86	45.089	101.019	52.344Venezuela 	317.617	179,730	111.972	93,896	202.367	166.701Virgin Islands	7,160	1,836	225	2.455	Class II 	6,194.476	3,841,705	3.366.673	2,699.980	3.278.123	3.242,696United Kingdom 	5,008,186	5,731.639	801,160	4.816.381	713.814	9,844.98411,202,662	9,573,344	4,167,833	7,516.361	3,991,937	13,087,680
The next statement ia sales of Canadian wheat to countries other than the United Kingdom, by months, 1946-47, and the range and monthly average of class 2 export prices, basis No. 1 northern in store Fort William-Port Arthur. I suggest putting that on Hansard.


John Bracken: That is with respect to prices?


James Angus MacKinnon: With respect to prices.


John Bracken: Can 'the minister not give us now the range in prices?


James Angus MacKinnon: The range was from $2.05 to S2.27J a bushel.


John Bracken: Up to what time?


James Angus MacKinnon: Up to the first of January of this year.


John Bracken: That does not include the last six weeks?


James Angus MacKinnon: No. The statement follows:
Sales of Canadian Wheat to Countries Other than the United Kingdom, by Months, 1946-47, and the Range and Monthly Average of Class II Export Prices Basis No. 1 Northern in Store Fort William-Port Arthur
1946		Price Range Average $ per bushel Price High Low 8 per bush		
August	Barbados. Dominican Republic 	2 05	2 05	2 05September	British West Indies, Barbados, Jamaica, St. Vincent, Belgium, Colombia. Dominican Republic, India, Ireland, Peru 	2 07	2 05	2 07October	British South Africa, Jamaica, Trinidad, Belgium, Brazil, Costa Rica. Ecuador, Honduras, India, Ireland. Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador, Switzerland	2 20	2 12	2 15JNovember	British South Africa, Jamaica, Trinidad, Belgium, Brazil, Ecuador, France, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Switzerland, United States..	2 34	2 21	2 27JDecember	Jamaica, St. Vincent, Trinidad, Belgium, Netherlands, Norway 	2 34	2 17	2 26|1947 January	Barbados. Jamaica, St. Vincent, Trinidad, Belgium, Colombia, Peru	2 32	2 26	2 27i
62S
Canadian Wheat Board Act

A question was asked as to the visible supply of Canadian wheat. On February 7, 1947, the visible supply of Canadian wheat was 129,700,000 bushels.
A question was asked regarding quotas on authorized acreages. There should be no doubt as to the position, in regard to marketing quotas on authorized acreages. In announcing the government's wheat policy on July 30, 1946, I stated:
In connection with deliveries there was, of course, no restriction on ,1945-46 deliveries, and it is the intention of the government to instruct the Canadian wheat board to accept all the wheat that producers wish to deliver in 1946-47. The best information we can get indicates a continued over-all world shortage of wheat and wheat flour in the coming year. Deliveries in the last three years of the pool will depend upon conditions of production and of markets. It will be provided in the new orders that the deliverable quantities will be determined by the governor in council before each new crop year, but in any event, the deliverable quantity shall not be less than 14 bushels per authorized acre. The latter provision should safeguard wheat producers against an extreme reduction in deliverable amounts, should the available markets be smaller than we expect.
During the discussions of the United Kingdom contract during the last session I stated, Hansard 1946, page 4846 that the authorized acreage in the prairie provinces stands at about 22,000,000 acres. The actual figure at the present- time is 22,100,000 acres. The position, is therefore as follows: There is no restriction on deliveries for the present crop year. For 1947-48, 1948-49 and 1949-50 producers are assured of deliveries of at least 14 bushels per authorized acre. I need not add of course that -if markets continue to be available in good volume there will be no restriction on wheat deliveries in any year during the contract-.


John Bracken: You intend to continue the power to have the restrictions if you feel they are necessary?


James Angus MacKinnon: If it is necessary. It is hoped that all wheat offered will be taken. The minimum of fourteen bushels an acre will enable us to see that there is an equitable marketing of wheat in the event of a very heavy crop.


John Bracken: The fact is -then that you are keeping the power to accept as little as fourteen bushels on- 22,000,000 acres. It is the question of j"our power I am asking about. You are continuing to keep that power?


James Angus MacKinnon: That will appear from the bill.


Robert Fair: The western newspapers, shortly after the United Farmers of Alberta convention in Calgary, reported that the Minister

of Agriculture had stated there, in reply to a question, that farmers would1 be able to deliver all the wheat 'they grew during the period of the contract at the initial price of $1.35 per bushel. I wonder if the Minister of Trade and Commerce agrees with that statement.


James Angus MacKinnon: I do not happen to know what statement my colleague made.


James Garfield Gardiner: And I did not hear what statement was made just now over there.


Mrj FAIR:: The Minister of Tirade and Commerce does not know. Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture would answer, and if he is not correct, then his colleague can correct- him. The report caused a good deal of discussion and embarrassment among the farmers of western Canada. The Minister of Agriculture knows the statement to which I refer.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not hear what it was.


Robert Fair: That wheat grown and- offered for sale during the contract period, would be accepted at $1.35 initial price.


James Garfield Gardiner: The statement I made was the statement which the Minister of Trade and Commerce has just got through making. He said that if it were at all possible to market wheat for that period of time, delivery of all would be taken, and to make it absolutely certain it would not be lower than fourteen bushels to the acre it is stated in the bill, or was stated until now in the order in council, that the amount should not-be less than fourteen bushels an acre, no matter what the market was or how big the crop might be. But it is the intention, as stated by the Minister of Trade and Commerce a few moments ago, that if the wheat can be marketed in the period it will all be marketed, quotas being provided only to make it possible for those a distance from the market to deliver along with the others.


Robert Fair: Then we must take it that the newspaper report is inaccurate. Some people have been misled by that statement in the press and it is a good idea to have it cleared up now.


James Garfield Gardiner: Whatever the newspaper report was, the statement was made to the United Farmers of Alberta. They were all present and they will state what I say is correct.


Robert Fair: It is better to have it understood here.

Canadian Wheat Board Act


James Angus MacKinnon: Another question was asked regarding participation certificates. In announcing the government's wheat policy on July 30. 1946, I stated:
After the ten cent payment on the 1945 crop has been made-to bring the initial payment up to $1.35-the plan is to place the remaining surplus from that crop in a five-year pool with the succeeding four crops of 1946, 1947. 1948 and 1949. Participation certificates will be issued in the usual way, but payment on these certificates will not be made until after the conclusion of the five-year pool at July 31, 1950.
In other words, the deliveries of all five years will be bulked in one pool with the same initial price of $1.35 ruling throughout the period and the surplus resulting from the marketing of these crops will constitute the participation payments.


John Bracken: In connection with that statement, may I ask the minister whether, in the bill which he proposes to bring down, the policy is to be continued of paying no participation certificates until the end of the five-year period? Is that policy to be continued in the measure to be brought down?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes, it is.


Mr. HANSELL:: I should like to ask the minister a question with respect to the wheat board, although I do not know whether this is the time to ask it or not. I have received, as perhaps other members have also, quite a voluminous correspondence regarding whether or not the wheat board is eventually to terminate its operations. I do not know how this has arisen. There must have been a rumour somewhere. Perhaps it went over the air. Perhaps some speaker at some farmers' convention made a suggestion. I do not know what happened, but it was peculiar to me that suddenly I received three or four letters one day, three or four letters another until the pile became rather high, asking me whether or not the wheat board was going to terminate its operation. My reply was something like this, that because of the present wheat contract it appeared as if it were necessary for the wheat board to continue its operations at least until around 1950, so that I did not think there was any reason for alarm, but that I could not, of course, foretell what the government's wheat policy might be in 1950. Would the minister make some statement that would set at ease the minds of our farmers who are anxious for the continuance of the wheat board and fear that the government is going to change its policy?


James Angus MacKinnon: The bill that will be before the house will clearly show the position of the wheat board for the next few years and what will happen at the termination of
the United Kingdom contract. However, I can assure the hon. member that it is the intention-and that is why this legislation is before the house-to have the Canadian wheat board continue.


William Earl Rowe: I should like to ask the minister what policy on participation the government proposes to follow under the new act with reference to wheat marketed in other provinces such as Ontario and Quebec.


James Angus MacKinnon: No decision has been arrived at regarding policies on wheat grown outside the designated areas, those designated areas being western Canada and certain parts of British Columbia. If it is decided to operate a pool in any other part of Canada during the life of this contract it will be a one-year pool.


Robert Fair: In order that there may not be any misunderstanding with regard to the question I asked a few moments ago, may I read from the Alberta "Wheat Pool Budget" of January 31, 1947, the following under the heading, "Will take all wheat":
The Canadian government, through the wheat board, will take all deliveries of wheat up to July 31, 1950. This statement was made by Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner, while addressing the annual convention of the United Farmers of Alberta, in replying to a question from one of the audience.
Hitherto the understanding has been that the only guarantee the government would make with regard to deliveries of wheat was the acceptance of a minimum of fourteen bushels per authorized acre. The authorized acreage in western Canada is around 22 million, which would imply the acceptance of 308 million bushels in a single crop year. Mr. Gardiner said that in some years marketing quotas might be required throughout, but in the end the government would accept all wheat marketed in the five-year period ending July 31, 1950.
This is the official publication of the Alberta wheat pool. If the members of the pool who were at that convention understood anything different, then I cannot see why this should have been allowed to go out. I might say that a similar statement was made in the newspapers in western Canada immediately after the convention.


James Garfield Gardiner: The statement which has just been read corrects what was said all over western Canada. It was said all over western Canada that, under the order in council as it was, there could not be more than fourteen bushels to the acre delivered. A member in that meeting got up and asked for a correction of that, and I corrected it much in the words of this report, which was not submitted to me before it was printed but which, nevertheless, to all intents and purposes does give
Canadian Wheat Board Act

the explanation which was given. The explanation was that what the order in council said -I am not saying what the bill is going to say because the bill is not before the house- was that quotas could be established1 by the wheat board, but in no year could the quota established be less than fourteen bushels to the acre. They might establish more but they could not establish less; and I made it clear to them that was the position and is the position now. I did not say what the position is going to be other than that I expected that it would be somewhat similar to what it is now.
In dealing with the future, I made it clear that in the years when a limitation was imposed, we had from 200 million to 600 million bushels of grain stored in our elevators and a limit had to be put on deliveries under the quota system in order to make it possible for everyone to get some wheat into the elevators. In other words, it was stated here this afternoon that there was a certain number of bushels of wheat marketed in one year and a greater number marketed in another year. The reason for that was that there was no place to deliver the entire crop of wheat in 1942, with the result that we had 600 million bushels of wheat stored in our elevators and much on the farms. Therefore we said to the farmers that they could deliver first only five bushels to the acre, then ten bushels to the acre, and so on, and finally reach the point where we could not take in any more. I said that, in my opinion, that condition would not arise under this agreement, that there was very little if any possibility of the condition arising, while this agreement is in existence, where there would be a blocking of our elevators because the world was not prepared to take our wheat; and because of that I did not expect that under this regulation, if it continued as order in council or however it continued, the wheat board or anyone else would limit the deliveries of wheat. In reporting the matter to the house, the minister indicated that there would have to be some very unusual circumstances arise before any limitation would be placed on delivery. Therefore in my opinion, and I still hold that opinion, by the end of the three-year period it will be possible to take delivery of all the wheat; and if it is possible, it will be taken. As a matter of fact I have said in the house before, and I say it again now, that there is not any authority in this country that could stop the delivery of wheat if there is any place to deliver it. Every hon. member knows that and knows the reason for it.


Robert Fair: I brought this matter up just in order to clarify it, because it is indefinite. The second paragraph in the article said:
Hitherto the understanding has been that the only guarantee the government would make with regard tq deliveries of wheat was the acceptance of a minimum of fourteen bushels per authorized acre.
The first two lines of the statement read:
The Canadian government, through the wheat board, will take all deliveries of wheat up to July 31, 1950.


James Garfield Gardiner: The minister gave you a guarantee a little while ago that it would be utilized only if conditions such as I have described arose, and said that those conditions were not likely to arise.


Robert Fair: Then I do not see very much justice in this acceptance. At the present time prices of wheat on the world market are high and farmers are allowed to deliver all the wheat they can. In the latter part, of the period, when I think the government and most of the farmers of western Canada believe the price of wheat will be down, they may be allowed to deliver only a 14-bushel quota under certain conditions at the guaranteed price of $1.35.


James Garfield Gardiner: Would my hon. friend suggest that the quota provision be taken out altogether?


Mr. QUELCH:: The point is this. If on July 31, 1949, the elevators should be plugged so that the government would not be able to take the rest of the wheat that had been growm in that period, nevertheless the government should still undertake to pay $1.35 a bushel for the wheat which might be in the hands of the farmers at that date, to be delivered at a future time. The guarantee we want is that the government will pay $1.35 a bushel for all wheat grown within that period, whether or not it is possible to accept delivery of it. If they will guarantee that the $1.35 will be paid at whatever time the wheat can be accepted by the government, that is the guarantee for which the farmers are asking. Up to date the government has not made it clear whether or not that is the policy.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not free to say what is in the bill, because the bill is not before the house. I think I know what is in it, but I believe it would be much better to discuss the questions now being asked when the bill is in the hands of hon. members. I believe that all these points can be cleared up then to the satisfaction of all hon. gentlemen. At the moment, however, I do not feel free to discuss the bill.

Canadian Wheat Board Act


Victor Quelch: I should like to make it clear that, as far as this group is concerned, we shall bitterly oppose any proposal to limit the price of $1.35 a bushel to less than the total production during the period in question.


James Garfield Gardiner: You will not oppose it any more strenuously than I will.


Victor Quelch: I am very glad to hear that we have the support of the Minister of Agriculture; and with the support of the Minister of Trade and Commerce I think we have good reason to hope that this will be the case, especially if the Minister of Justice will also support it.


Robert Fair: In reply to the question asked by the minister, I would say that I have no objection whatever to a quota being established in any section of the country or all over the country, if necessary, if the elevators cannot accommodate all the grain that may be hauled. I consider it only fair that the quota should be established, provided that all the wheat is accepted before the end of the contract period.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the main part of this provision.


John Bracken: The minister did not answer one or two other questions, and I would ask whether or not he is prepared to do so.


James Angus MacKinnon: I have another answer.


John Bracken: It was with respect to moneys now held by the government on sales of wheat in excess of payments made to the farmers that I was interested.


James Angus MacKinnon: This is it; I was just waiting for an opportunity to give this answer to the further question of the leader of the opposition. The question related to the surplus in the hands of the board on January 31, 1947, on the 1946-47 operations. This question cannot be answered, or the reason that the board is in the midst of its 1946-47 operations. I would hazard a guess, however, that the board would not have a surplus on the 1946 crop account as at January 31. The board would 'have a large liability in regard to country stocks, because over seventy-five per cent of the accepted wheat marketings have been delivered by producers. Against this liability only a part of the marketings to diate have been delivered to the board' at the lakehead or at the Pacific coast and have been subject to sale. As the crop year progresses, the board will reach a surplus position. This is inevitable with a fixed initial price of $1.35 a bushel, while 160,000,000 bushels are being sold to the
United Kingdom at $1.55 a bushel plus carrying charges, with about half the domestic requirements being sold on the same basis, and a substantial quantity of wheat being sold as wheat or as flour to a wide range of countries at the board's class 2 price, which up to date has ranged from $2.05 a bushel to $2.49 a bushel.
I would not hazard a guess as to the final surplus on the 1946-47 crop account. It will depend upon the course of world wheat prices for the remainder of the crop year and the rate at which the railways can move the remainder of the 1946-47 wheat deliveries. There were otheT questions, but I do not think they refer to this bill.


John Bracken: From what the minister has said I gather that the wheat board has paid the wheat growers $1.35 a bushel for more wheat than it has received payment for?


James Angus MacKinnon: That is the answer.


John Bracken: Therefore at the moment there is no surplus in this account?


James Angus MacKinnon: That is right,


John Bracken: I can very well understand how that may be the position. The minister rather hesitates to make an estimate as to what the surplus of money will be at the end of the crop year.


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes.


John Bracken: Would he venture a guess as to whether it would be less or more than $100,000,000?


James Angus MacKinnon: Well, I have discussed that point with the officials of the wheat board, and they do not care to hazard a guess.


William Earl Rowe: It is quite obvious that at a certain period it will be a very substantial sum. It must be. Could the minister tell the committee what rate of interest the board receives on that money as surplus, or how the money is handled?


James Angus MacKinnon: I have just explained that up to the first of the year there was no surplus. When a surplus does exist the rate of interest obtained varies up to three per cent.


William Earl Rowe: When there is a surplus is it deposited in the banks? Is that the policy of the board?


James Angus MacKinnon: It is temporarily
deposited in the bank and then invested in proper securities.


Percy Ellis Wright: During the debate on the resolution, the hon. member for Lake Centre made a ugorous attack on the wheat board.
Canadian Wheat Board Act

I do not think it was justified. Listening to the hon. member, I thought he cast doubt, if not suspicion, on the operations of that board. Then he proceeded to say that we in this group were opposed to having the statement of the wheat board referred to a committee of the house. I want to correct that statement. In 1942, 1943 and, in fact, at every session I have asked that the statement of the wheat board be referred to the agriculture committee. Now I would ask the minister if he would be prepared to say that those statements of the wheat board which have not already been submitted to a committee of the house will be submitted to the agriculture committee this session. If that point were cleared up, I believe it would straighten out the minds of many people as to whether or not this bill should be referred to the committee.


James Angus MacKinnon: I was going to make a statement on that point, but I thought the matter was pretty well covered by the remarks of the hon. member for Rosthern. I can say that the operations of the wheat board for 1945-46 have been compiled and are being audited. When that is completed I shall lay the report on the table of the house and ask that it be referred to the committee on agriculture and colonization.


Percy Ellis Wright: The report for 1944-45 has ne\ er been placed before that committee. Will the two reports be forwarded to it?


James Angus MacKinnon: We are agreeable to having it considered at that time.


James Arthur Ross: Can we not go through all the reports we did not consider during the war years? Did the hon. member for Melfort get all the information he wanted in those other committees?


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes, I got everything I asked for.


James Angus MacKinnon: The reports for 1944-45 and 1945-46 were not before the committee. They can be dealt with.


John Bracken: If I understood correctly, in the measure to be brought forward, the minister intends that power will be given to assume control over the marketing of coarse grains-oats and barley. Is that correct?


James Angus MacKinnon: When the bill is submitted the leader of the opposition will see that it provides for certain powers in connection with coarse grains, giving authority to the board to deal in them.


John Bracken: Then the answer is yes. Mr. MacKINNON: Yes.
fMr. Wright.]


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: In answer to the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe I understood the minister to say that surplus money, or money not paid out to farmers from the sale of wheat, was invested in the bank, in proper securities.


James Angus MacKinnon: My answer was that it was placed temporarily in the bank, and then invested in proper securities, such as government bonds.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: Does the wheat board invest in securities funds received from the sale of wheat? It seems to me that those funds should be payable back to the farmers.


James Angus MacKinnon: Those funds will be paid, just as soon as it is possible to pay them. In the meantime, however, for the benefit of the farmer-producer, we are getting the best possible interest.


William Earl Rowe: Did the minister place any of it on the stock market?


John Bracken: The minister has answered fairly the question I asked respecting moneys received from the sales so far made of the 1946 crop. Can he advise the committee how much money the wheat board is holding now in respect of crops of previous years, which moneys have not been paid out on participation certificates?


James Angus MacKinnon: That information is not now available-


John Bracken: I would not expect it to be, immediately.


James Angus MacKinnon: -but I shall consider the question of the leader of the opposition.


William Earl Rowe: In replying to the question of the leader of the opposition, would the minister give a list of the securities held, and the rate of exchange the wheat board receives on the money lying in the bank from previous years?


James Angus MacKinnon: The policy of the wheat board is to invest any surplus funds from time to time in proper securities, and on the advice of the Bank of Canada. I am sure that when the operations of the wheat board for the last crop year are being considered by the committee on agriculture, that question could be answered in detail.


William Earl Rowe: Would the minister undertake to give those details as to the securities now held by the wheat board, and the interest paid by the bank to the wheat board on moneys not invested? I should think the Bank of Canada would give advice as good as could be given by any other bank, and I should think these would be selected securities. I

Canada Grain Act
can see no reason why the house should not have a list of the securities held by the wheat board, and the interest paid by the banks on moneys not invested in securities.


James Angus MacKinnon: I do not know any reason why that information should not be given. My ansrwer was that it would be given when the accounts of the board are before the committee on agriculture, and before that, if possible.


William Earl Rowe: I was left in some uncertainty as to the minister's statement respecting the government's policy in relation to the wheat of Ontario, Quebec or the eastern provinces.
I understood him to say that he had not yet reached a decision on policy. May we take that as an intimation that there may be some change or amendment, in order to define a policy in respect of wheat in these other districts?


James Angus MacKinnon: Ontario-grown wheat has been handled under a certain policy for this year. That will be continued until June 30, the end of the year. Some time between now and June consideration will have to be given to the policy for the next year.


William Earl Rowe: Then we are to understand that the marketing of Ontario wheat is under a year-to-year policy?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes.


William Earl Rowe: The marketing of western wheat is under a five-year policy?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes, that is right.


William Earl Rowe: The effect of the price on Ontario wheat would be considerable, and from year to year alterations could be made? The Ontario wheat grower is at the mercy of the whims of the government, which changes its policy from time to time, and writes a new policy each year. Is that not correct?


James Angus MacKinnon: I think that is exactly what the Ontario growers want. But we are dealing with t-wo different matters when we consider western wheat and Ontario wheat. This bill to a great extent deals with wheat grown in the designated areas.


William Earl Rowe: But it affects the price of the wheat grown by Ontario farmers. The Ontario farmer takes fifty cents less and may not get it, while the western farmer takes fifty cents less and hopes to get it.


James Angus MacKinnon: As I said earlier today, the Ontario farmer gets $1.40, as against $1.35 advance received by the western farmer.


John Bracken: Did I understand the minister to say that some sales of wheat had been made at prices at high as $2.49 a bushel.


James Angus MacKinnon: That is wheat or flour.


John Bracken: Some sales have been made at prices as high as that?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes.


James Arthur Ross: During this crop year?


James Angus MacKinnon: Within the last few days.


John Bracken: May we have copies of the bill?


James Angus MacKinnon: Immediately, I understand.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. MacKinnon thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 23, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



CANADA GRAIN ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 4, to amend the Canada Grain Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-Grain may be loaded per car order book by subsequent owner.
John Bracken: I understand that certain changes were made in the committee. Would the minister explain just what amendments the committee made?


James Angus MacKinnon: No changes were
made in this section.


John Bracken: I understand that there
was more or less general agreement with the bill as it was amended in committee, but I thought at this stage the minister might explain the more important changes made in the committee on agriculture.


James Angus MacKinnon: Briefly, Mr. Chairman, there was general agreement among the members of the committee on the bill as amended. The principal amendment was against giving the board of grain commissioners the right to postpone weigh-overs. The act provides
Canada Grain Act

that the period of time elapsing between consecutive weigh-overs shall not be less than nine and not more than fifteen months. That was extended to read "shall not be less than nine and not more than twenty-two months". That was accepted by the committee, and that was the principal change.


John Bracken: When we reach that
clause, perhaps the minister will make clear exactly what changes were made.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Weigh-over in all terminal elevators.
James Arthur Ross: As a member of the committee on agriculture, I should like to make my position clear on this clause. The bill as introduced provided that the weigh-overs could be postponed indefinitely, and to that we were opposed; but, after the commissioner had explained the situation, an amendment was moved and accepted providing that the time between weigh-overs shall not be less than nine and not more than twenty-two months. I am decidedly of the opinion that there should be a check-over annually, but if twenty-two months will enable the board to meet the difficulties it was experiencing I have no objection to that amendment. I am firmly of the opinion, however, that an annual check-over is all-important to the grain producers.


George Hugh Castleden: It is understood, is
it not, that this extended time will be used by the board only in the case of emergency when storage congestion makes a postponement of the weigh-over necessary?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes. As a matter of fact we do not expect a recurrence of the conditions we had during the war when there was a tremendous wheat surplus and acute storage congestion, making a weigh-over very difficult.


William Scottie Bryce: This will assure us of a
weigh-over once in every crop year, even though the time has been extended to twenty-two months?


James Angus MacKinnon: From the evidence
given in the committee, I gathered that a weigh-over was guaranteed in every crop year.


John Bracken: I did not hear the discussion in the committee on agriculture, but I suggest to the minister and to those working under his direction that the clause in the original act was put there to prevent certain malpractices; and I suggest that if wider

powers are now being given to the department, the department should interest itself in seeing that the full limit of twenty-two months is not taken advantage of without ample justification, because it would only be inviting trouble if the annual check-over were not made. There should be an exceptionally good reason for departing from that practice.


James Angus MacKinnon: That is quite correct.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
On section S-Schedule One amended.
Joseph William Burton: This refers to rapeseed, sunflower seed, soybeans and peas produced in the western division. Has the minister the quantities of these seeds that are produced?


James Angus MacKinnon: I am sorry I have not that information here.


George Hugh Castleden: Is it the intention that the board shall handle this matter?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes.


Arthur Leroy Smith: In western Canada recently we have had some people who have been making some sort of edible oils out of weed seeds. Has that anything to do with this section? I notice the word "rape". I do not know what the word "rape" is, having regard to seed. Would the making of edible oil out of weed seeds be related to this section?


James Angus MacKinnon: I am not sure that I followed the hon. member. This is simply to continue the power to handle the seeds referred to. Some of these are used in the making of oils.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Would it cover a person who grows mustard as a crop, because at some time I want to say something in this house about mustard seed and the government's policy with respect to it? I also want to say something about these weed seeds which formerly were a nuisance but are now being converted into edible oils. The restrictions on these two things are really beyond belief, but I do not want to speak about them on this section even if I am in the right church but in the wrong pew.


James Angus MacKinnon: I think that would come under agriculture.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Thank you.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
Schedules One and Two agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Postal Service


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Postmaster General) moved the second reading of Bill No. 17, respecting supplemental payments on mail contracts.
Arthur Leroy Smith: I wish to say a few words about the additional payments which the minister is permitted to make to mail couriers. The general effect of that provision is that the Postmaster General may at the end of one year, if in his judgment the contract has been let at too low a figure, adjust the contract upward, and for succeeding years he may then fix such additional amounts. I believe that the whole principle is bad. One may go into any other field of human endeavour-and I agree that these things are let by tender-and if he accepts a tender to do so-and-so at a price which is too low he necessarily bears his loss. That truth is the whole virtue of doing things by tender.
If I read this bill correctly, if a man has tendered and receives a courier's contract, as some hon. member called it, at too low a figure, he can come back and say, "I took it at too low a figure." It is then adjusted upward and will continue on that basis. In other words, there is no yearly tender which would overcome the whole difficulty.
I am not suggesting for one moment that the Postmaster General would do this, but it may happen. We will assume that the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) and I applied for a mail contract-


Mr. MACKENZIE:: The hon. member
would not get it.


Arthur Leroy Smith: That is the brightest remark the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) ever made. Let us assume this simple fact. The hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) applied for a contract, and to spread the thing out widely we will say that his bid was $1,000. I applied for the same contract and my bid was $800, and I was therefore the lowest tenderer. Looking at the two of us, I am sure that the Postmaster General would try to give me the contract even though my tender may have been higher than the other, but we shall leave that out, and assume that it is done on the basis of the amount of money that it is going to cost the country. My bid is accepted and I have the contract. Then at the end of one year I go to the Postmaster General and say to him, "I tendered much too low; I lost money on this contract." I suggest to him that he raise my contract, and being such a kindly disposed person, naturally he would raise the
contract and he would no doubt make it $1,200. I would then carry on from year to year on the basis of $1,200. I know it is infra dig- if I may use that legal expression-to talk politics in this chamber; but let us assume that t'he present Postmaster General were not there; that some minister who knew something about patronage took his place. A simple thing could happen-


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: We never
know; that may happen.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I have no ambition in the world other than to be the Postmaster General of Canada. I am a bit lazy; I do not like to work very hard. Let us assume that a postmaster general took the place of the hon. gentleman. That postmaster general may be just a little bit politically inclined, and a mail contract was coming up. The politically minded gentleman who was the postmaster general might be the Minister of Veterans Affairs. The hon. member for Souris puts in his bid of $1,000 and I put in my bid of $800. I am a friend of the politically minded postmaster general; I come back in a year and have my contract raised to $1,000 or $1,001 or $1,200, and I so continue. My point is this; that will be the simplest way in the world of exercising political patronage. May I at once absolve myself of making any accusation of that kind against the present incumbent of the office because I am not doing so; but I am perfectly certain that if I were the postmaster general I would protect myself against even the suspicion of a charge of that kind.
With respect, sir, I ask reconsideration _ of the section because of the invidious position in which the highest minded man in the world can put himself. I know that when some of us are speaking politically we say what per-, haps pleases our own side most. I thought I heard someone to my left say "hear, hear", and I was about to say, in response to that, that they know exactly what I am talking about, but that is neither here nor there.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do not put words in our mouths; we were silent for once.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The hon. gentleman asks me not to put words in his mouth. I will not do that but it might be of great assistance to him at some time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is very good.


Arthur Leroy Smith: My definite and serious suggestion is-and I would make it irrespective of whether the party over there were in power or we were in power or any of the other groups to my left were in power, and I mean it equally-do not do it. I consider it
Postal Service

unfair; it is unwise to put any minister in that position. I think I may say, in fairness to this government, that they think they are open to attack in a number of legitimate places. The attack that I speak of may be illegitimate and yet a lot of people would believe it.
I suggest to the minister that he leave this whole thing on the basis of tender, without assuming and absorbing a lot of punishment which probably would not be coming to him but which he will inevitably get the minute he raises contracts. People will say, "Of course he did it for A. He was a friend. He did not do it for B because he was not a friend." With great respect, sir, I suggest that that section should be altered or deleted from the bill.
Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead): There is another phase of the same question with which the minister must be familiar. A number of mail contracts have expired. In the ordinary course, tenders have been called, and the department over which the Postmaster General presides has declined to enter into contracts because it considered that all the tenders, even the lowest, were too high. That has happened a number of times. I mean tenders for the same service have been called more than once. The result is that the carrier has been asked to continue on an indefinite understanding as to both the duration of his contract and the remuneration he is to receive for his services. That, I submit, is a thoroughly unbusinesslike way of carrying on the government's affairs, and it tends to deteriorate the service and to create dissatisfaction and suspicion among those who are carrying and those who would carry the mail.
The reason advanced by the minister for what I consider an objectionable provision in the bill, the provision to which the hon. member for Calgary West has just referred, is a compelling reason for accepting the lowest of the tenders that have been called for, and it would be enlightening to me and possibly to many other members of the house if, in the course of his remarks, the minister could say how many rural mail contracts have lapsed in the last year and how many times tenders have been called and received and none accepted. I understand that the number is considerable. Would the minister give his attention to this phase of the matter when he is discussing the appropriate clause in the bill?


Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: The hon. member for Durham (Mr. Stephenson) is unavoidably absent tonight, quite a delegation 
from his riding being in the city, but I know that were he here, he would have something to say, because, after listening to the minister the other night, he remarked to some of us about some cases in his own part of the province.
I believe the minister said that the rate of remuneration paid to letter carriers in the country could be raised by himself, as this bill calls for; and the minister made the statement that certain letter carriers had had their remuneration increased because they had asked for it, owing to war conditions, I suppose, and other reasons. The hon. member for Durham pointed out that if a letter carrier too humble to ask for the increase had not applied for it he would not get it. He put that question to the minister and the answer was that such a letter carrier would not receive it. I cannot put my hand on the minister's statement but he remarked in effect at the time that, unless letter carriers asked for the increase, they would not get it. In the opinion of the hon. member for Durham, it is altogether unfair to letter carriers, of whom there are a number in his riding, to say that, if they do not ask for the increase, they will not get it.
There are no rural routes in my riding although there are delivery men, but I agree with the hon. member for Durham that, if the minister raises the rate for a letter carrier on one route, because the increase has been asked for, it is not fair to the letter carrier on the next route, merely because he is diffident about asking for the increase, to withhold it from him. I hope that, when the minister rises to speak, he will clarify that position. It does not sound reasonable or sensible to me.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: I would not support this bill if it were of a permanent nature, but it is a temporary measure to take care of a situation that has arisen during the war, and we hope that the minister will be able to bring in for the next session a policy which we shall be able to support. Subsection 2 of section 3 of the bill might not be altogether fair to some of the carriers who are not close to large centres, being more or less in settlements on the outskirts. It is provided that payments under a mail contract shall not be supplemented under this section unless the person entitled to payment under the contract makes a written application. I submit that notice should have been sent out to all the carriers so that they would all have had an opportunity to take advantage of this provision. I know of several cases where they are getting a pitifully small pay,

Postal Service
and they did not know until recently that they could have a bonus if they made application for it and if the application were allowed.
I should think it would be possible for the department to work out a schedule of rates that could be paid to full-time carriers. For instance, if the carrier were working full time on pavement, there could be a settlement for that pavement per mile, and in the schedule the department could take care of different kinds of road such as gravel road, dirt road, or prairie or bush trail. It would be practicable to work out such a schedule for these carriers working on a full-time basis, but in the case of the carrier working only part time we shall have to get back to the old system of calling for tenders.
I differentiate between the full-time carrier and the man who works only part time. We are all agreed that the full-time carrier should have a rate of pay which he knows he will receive and does not have to apply for, and that rate can be fixed in accordance with a schedule of the kind I have mentioned. Moreover, the carriers should come under the civil service commission and be able to receive the benefits which accrue to civil servants in the form of pension and so forth.
These are just a few suggestions, and I hope that the department will be able to devise a policy that will give our postal carriers a better deal and a measure of security.


Mr. N. J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln):: I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for The Battlefords so far as subsection 2 of section 3 is concerned. In some of the areas with which I am familiar, outside of the larger urban centres, men do not have the opportunity, and the postmasters are sometimes not so alert in acquainting these rural delivery men with all the provisions of the postal regulations. I think the point raised by the hon. member is timely.
Speaking more particularly with regard to subsection 2 of section 3, I think the minister should devise some plan to make sure that every carrier has this opportunity and is acquainted with the regulations. I also wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) in what he said about the advertisement contracts. Recently in my district-and I have brought this particular case to the attention of the minister-I believe there was an instance where a contract had been advertised two or three times and still the most unsatisfactory service is being attempted to be given on this particular route. It seems to me that some means ought to be devised whereby the constituents on the route could be better protected. In the instance I have in mind, the situation has prevailed for
some time. I know the people on that route at the present time are getting most unsatisfactory service. Someone advised me

I believe it was the superintendent-that it is being advertised again, and I understand that on the 28th of this month it will be allocated to someone. It seems to me that there ought to be some way by which these rural people could have a satisfactory service and not be subject to the unpleasant circumstances that develop in connection with contracts such as those to which the hon. member for Stanstead referred to, and which I can confirm from my own experience.
There is just one other matter to which I wish to refer, and it was touched on by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith). Going back over the years I can recall clearly an instance where there was a definite suspicion that the very thing referred to by the hon. member for Calgary West actually happened. I was familiar with the circumstances and I feel quite satisfied that such did happen. Therefore I believe that the minister ought to put some provision in the bill in order to protect himself in the proper way.
As a final suggestion-and I overlooked mentioning this before-in this arrangement to supplement contracts which had been made does the minister not feel that, before he makes an award, protection might also be given by providing in this bill that he will again call for tenders before he makes an increased award? I say that advisedly, because I have seen the operations of this thing for quite some time. I suggest to him that he embody in the bill something requiring that another tender be called for. Then, if satisfactory tenders cannot be obtained, I would not object to having the minister, particularly the present one, make the award that he thinks is fair and reasonable. In that way the people on these routes would not have their services disturbed, and yet no suspicion would creep in that something had been done a little bit under cover. With these few suggestions, I am quite willing to allow the bill to go through second reading and to be dealt with on the separate clauses.


Mr. MAURICE LALONDE (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I feel it my dutyr to congratulate the Postmaster General (Mr. Bertrand) on this bill. As an hon. member on the opposite side said a few moments ago, this bill is not of a permanent nature and gives the minister powers to deal with a situation of emergency that arose out of the war. As far as my district is concerned, it is true that many routes are now without carriers. The public interest is deeply concerned in this matter because, if
Postal Service

the minister has not any authority to pay out moneys provided for a subsidy in order to level out the situation, a bad situation may develop for the carriers and more particularly for the people in general. In my riding, I have one of those instances in which the carrier gave up the route, for good reasons, I suppose, and does not carry out his duties. There are about sixty-two constituents on this rural route who have not received their mail for more than two months because the Postmaster General has not the power, as the law now stands, to enter into a temporary agreement with this carrier. Consequently this route is without any carrier at all. I understand that there is a proverb used in my riding to the effect that when one wishes some misfortune to befall his neighbour, he wishes him to become a Tory, or to get a stepmother, or to get a mail contract.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Which is the worst?


Maurice Lalonde: I think the C.C.F. would be the worst.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was bad.


Maurice Lalonde: Not too bad after all.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is an answer for him.


Maurice Lalonde: I think in all fairness we should give the government, and more particularly the Postmaster General, in order to meet this dire and acute situation, the same powers as exist in his department as far as these contracts are concerned. I have no hesitation at all in giving my support to this bill, because I know that the hon. member who is at the head of this department will do his duty in all fairness to every carrier concerned. Subsection 4 of section 3 reads:
No supplemental payments shall be authorized under this act later than sixty days after the commencement of the next session of parliament following the coming into force of this act.
That is the kind of protection I like and approve. I do not know why the house should not give this bill its unanimous support, because it is in the public interest that the situation which now exists in the department should be corrected as soon as possible.


Mr. G. S. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):: I wish to say just a word to the Postmaster General (Mr. Bertrand) in regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett). Where the department advertises for tenders-and the minister has already indicated that he considers this a proper and fair method-and the tenders received are considered too high, I understand that in some cases the department will notify the former carrier, the man who previously had the con-

tract, suggesting that he renew the contract at a figure lower than that of his tender, while in other cases the department will call for tenders a second time.
I should like the minister to explain this. Where the department has advertised for tenders; the officials consider the tenders too high, and the former contractor is invited to accept the tender at a lower figure, I should like to know what investigation is made or what basis is used to arrive at the figure suggested by the department. It seems to me that the contractor, who knows the route and knows the conditions, is certainly in the best possible position to arrive at a reasonable figure, instead of being advised by the department at Ottawa that the tender is too high and that he should accept a much lower figure. So that when the minister speaks I should be glad if he would give some indication as to whether that is a common practice, and some idea of the number of contracts handled in that manner.


Mr. R. J. HENDERSON (Lambton-Kent):: I am very much in accord with a good many of the principles of this bill, which has been introduced by the Postmaster General (Mr. Bertrand) to rectify a condition which, over the years, has grown up in my constituency and my province and, I suppose, all over Canada. It has been the duty of the department, when the four-year period was up and a mail contract terminated, to relet the contract to the same carrier, if he would accept it, rather than allow it to go up for tender; and I assume that some of these low figures which have been and are being paid to mail contractors refer to contracts that have been carried on for perhaps ten, twelve or fifteen years. These were carried on until the war began; then, rather than upset the whole rural mail system and call for tenders all over again, the Postmaster General saw tit to give bonuses on some of these smaller contracts.
Of course I live in the banana belt, where we have good roads and our mail contractors are smiling, pleasant fellows. I have read over all the contracts in my constituency, I believe, and I could not see that there was anything but great fairness on the part of the Postmaster General in the amount of the bonuses he has given. He has practically standarized the contracts in my part of the country at about $40 a mile.
Since this matter has come up, and since that letter went out last fall, it has been my privilege to get in touch with a good many of our rural mail carriers. I remember one, a friend of mine from Oil Springs, who has a mail route of 27-5 miles. About eight years

Postal Service
ago he tendered for that route at $875. He could do it at that figure in those days because then you could buy four or five gallons of gasoline for a dollar; you could buy a set of tires for much less than you have to pay today, and you could operate an automobile for much less. When the war came along, however, he found that he could not drive 27-5 miles a day, 300 days in the year, for $875, and he was given a war bonus of $225, which brought his contract up to approximately $1,100, or very close to $40 a mile. His contract ran out a year ago. We took up the matter with the Postmaster General, who did not wish to open it to tender again, and who gave this contractor the assurance that, if he would accept the contract at $875, he would still be given the bonus of $225 for practically a year, but he could not assure this tenderer that the full $1,100 would be paid during the term of the contract. I got in touch with that young gentleman, and he said he could do it, and do a good job. He is quite well satisfied at $40 a mile; and when any definite figure is being considered I would suggest that probably $40 a mile might be taken as an over-all figure. Most of those to whom I have spoken about the matter are quite well satisfied with this figure.
There is another matter I should like to bring up. I believe that when a mail contract is terminated and tenders are called, the age and physical condition of those tendering should be taken into consideration. I know of one contractor who is eighty-eight years of age. About the beginning of the year, he tendered again and got the contract. He never intended to carry it out. He wanted to get it in his name so that, after a month or so, he could transfer it to a friend of his. At the same time, there was in that neighbourhood a young veteran, a farmer boy, who had a very bad leg, so that he could not carry on the heavy and arduous duties of farm life. He would like to have obtained the contract, but he was not a particular friend of this old gentleman. Therefore I suggest to the Postmaster General that when a contract runs out, before it is relet, the age and physical fitness of the tenderer should be taken into consideration. I do not believe that anyone over sixty-five years of age should be given a mail contract. I am up in that age group myself; I can speak for the men in that class, and I know I would not want to undertake a mail contract. In any event, when we get through with our new social legislation which will be coming up soon, any man who reaches the age of sixty-five will be taken care of anyway. I just offer that suggestion from my own experience.


Mr. C. E. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I consider that the principle of the bili is wrong and, unless the minister is able to convince me to the contrary, I shall certainly have to vote against it. It seems to me that the whole principle of contracts is being violated. It is being left wide open to political skulduggery and deceit. The main thing that strikes me is that, once a contract is entered into, that contract should be lived up to unless it is such a bad contract that it should be cancelled. If a mail contractor has undertaken a contract he is unable to fulfil, then I think the only sensible thing to do is cancel the contract and call for tenders all over again, and, when the new tenders are considered, various considerations should apply. If a man has been giving good service, I believe that should be taken into consideration. Merit should play a great deal in awarding this second contract, and if the contract is being let a second time a competitive price should be considered. That is the only reason contracts are let out by tender: so that a competitive price can be secured. Usually the lowest bid is accepted.
Under the bill, the Postmaster General (Mr. Bertrand) is given authority, even after tenders have been called for and a contract given, to raise the contract price. What will happen to the man who lost his contract because he was a little high in his tender? There is no element of fairness in a provision of that kind. I can see the reasoning, too, in a situation where a man has accepted a contract at too low a figure. To deal honestly in the matter, some consideration should be given that person. He should not be expected to do a day's work-and the carrying of mail is hard work-without receiving sufficient pay.
But the whole situation lends itself not only to political skulduggery but also to deceit. I cannot submit to the principle of the measure because, as was pointed out before, a man can put in a low bid deliberately, and then come back to the Postmaster General and have the bid raised above those of his competitors.


Ernest Bertrand: He would be badly caught.


Charles Edward Johnston: No, he would not be caught, because all he has to do is to send in a written petition giving sufficient reasons. Who is to decide whether those reasons are sufficient? The Postmaster General decides it. I am not implying that he would be deceitful in this respect; but it must be remembered that he is not on the ground. He cannot be all over the country at one time and, under the provisions of this measure, he could easily be misled. He could fail in judgment.
Postal Service

In my view it would be entirely too dangerous to let the provision stand as it is. If there are a number of cases of this kind- and there probably are-I would rather see the contracts cancelled entirely and new tenders called for. Then, after competition and merit are taken into consideration, new contracts could be awarded. The minister may point out that there are so many of these it would be a tremendous task. I do not think it would. If there are a great number of them it shows the inefficiency in the method of awarding the contracts in the first instance. That would not speak well for the Post Office Department. So that, generally speaking, I do not think there are a great many of these contracts which are let unfairly. It seems to me that from the point of view of business and good management it would be better to withdraw the bill and bring it down in some other form.


Mr. G. R. WEBB (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker,
this subject has been pretty well covered. However, there are one or two points of which I wish the minister would take note, and to which I would ask a reply at his convenience.
In the first place, I wonder how long it is since these routes have been surveyed. I know the map in my constituency is antiquated. A new highway has been built along the St. Lawrence river and many people have constructed homes adjacent to it. Up to the present time, however, no provision has been made for mail delivery anywhere along that road.
My second point is as to the extension of routes. I believe it is the desire of the department to serve all the people of Canada as well as possible in the matter of mail delivery. Yet in my constituency along many of the routes there are people who, to my way of thinking, should be served, but who are not receiving this service. I fully realize that an extension of a route means an expenditure of more money to the carrier. However, I would ask the minister to give these two matters serious consideration, because if we are to serve some of the people I believe it is important that we should try to serve all the people, if at all possible.


Mr. P. C. BLACK (Cumberland):: Mr Speaker, I have not taken part in the debate thus far. I am going to support the bill, although it does not go as far as I should like to have it go. The service is not satisfactory in every respect, although I have no complaint with respect to rural mail carriers and letter carriers in my constituency. While there may have been some favouritism in connection with 
the letting of contracts in the first instance, on the whole the postal service is well handled, and those who are responsible for the different routes certainly earn any money they receive. They show great courtesy and give a first-class service to their people.
I do not know what the number of routes is in other constituencies, but I know this service in the county of Cumberland is extensive and most important. We have forty-three rural route contractors, thirteen stage services and twenty-two side services. Under existing conditions, with steadily mounting expenses, I do not think any of these persons who are carrying out this important service are receiving adequate pay for the work they are doing and the equipment they have to use.
I should like to read a paragraph or two from a letter I received lately, because I agree with a statement made in it that the rural mail carriers, having in mind the work they do, are the poorest paid of any of the employees of the Post Office Department The letter states:
You know about the work I have to do-
And I do.
-and what the roads are like, blocked in winter and a foot of mud in the spring, and so rough in the summer that a car does not last long. 1 have to keep up a ear, also three horses for winter and spring. I think you will agree with me when I say I should have 50 dollars per mile or more . . .
And I do agree with that.
I have mentioned my own because you know the conditions and most of the contractors are in about the same position as I am.
What applies to this man would apply to the other carriers. He continues:
We are able to carry on along with our farm, but I think a courier, on these long routes, should have a day's pay without having to work half the night on a farm to help make a living. In regard to the contract system, I consider it very bad. The good contractor, all equipped, costing him a lot, and giving good service, at the end of four years his contract is opened. Some person w'ho could not figure a contract tenders very low, gets the contract, is not financially able to do the job, and the patrons suffer on account of poor mail service. The good contractor is out with his equipment on his hands. The Postmaster General will tell you from the floor of the House of Commons that the contracts go to the lowest bidder, if the bonds are good. This is not always right. I feel the contract system has outlived its usefulness and should be replaced by permanency and a mileage basis of at least $50 per mile. I could go on and cite you many more cases. If you can help rural mail contractors in Canada to get proper pay for the work they do it will go a long way to improve the rural mail service for the people.
I am in agreement with what is stated in this letter.

Postal Service
The Postmaster General (Mr. Bertrand) made some explanation with respect to the bonuses and lack of bonuses in connection with men operating these routes. I do not understand why some of these services having the same mileage carry substantial bonuses, either wartime or operational, while contractors on other routes are not given any bonus or any allowance. I say they should all be put on the same basis. The Postmaster General, in my opinion, should make a real explanation as to why in these post-war years, with costs increasing, some are favoured with bonuses, while others do not receive them. I think this legislation should deal in equity with all, and the Postmaster General, before this bill goes through should make an explanation as to why this condition should continue to exist, and all carriers should not be given a living allowance having regard to today's costs.


Mr. C. E. STEPHENSON (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, when the resolution came before the house last Wednesday, unfortunately I was out of the chamber and the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) stated that I was not in the house. When I heard of that I hurried back here to get on record for fear the papers might say I was absent. Tonight I was called out of the house and the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicoI) stated that I was called away again. So I am speaking tonight in order that the papers may know that I am here.
Everyone who spoke on the resolution seemed to agree that the bill should be referred to a special committee where this whole question could be discussed, but it is now apparent that it will not be referred to a committee. I would suggest that that be done another year at all events, because I feel that many things could be done to improve our rural mail delivery, which I consider to be one of the most important services which the Dominion of Canada renders to the Canadian people.
I understand that a five per cent bonus was paid to take care of the gasoline used and that another bonus was paid, provided that the mail drivers applied for it. Many drivers applied for and got the bonus, but many other drivers did not get the bonus simply because they did not apply for it.
Last year, a notice was sent out to the rural mail drivers asking them to return a letter saying whether or not they were willing to accept a mail contract at the original rates, which would mean that they would have to deliver the mail without any bonus.


Ernest Bertrand: That is the reason why we had to prepare this legislation, 83166-41
because all those to whom we wrote asking if they were ready to renew their contracts at pre-war prices said that they could not do so, and we had to do something about the matter.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: The fact remains that many of the rural mail drivers did not apply for the bonus and therefore did not get any, while those who were wise enough to apply for it got it.
I have already brought to the attention of the minister that, following the notice which was sent out to the mail drivers, a letter was sent telling them to ignore the notice as the bonus would continue to be paid. The Postmaster General (Mr. Bertrand) stated in the house last Wednesday, as reported at page 352 of Hansard:
These bonuses are about to expire on March 31, unless they are extended by virtue of any new law which might be passed. We think it would be unjust to limit these contracts to the price they carried at the time they were passed, and we wish to include the bonus in the extension of the contract after March 31.
A certain number of these contractors never asked for any increase, and have carried on in that way. Of course we are giving bonuses only to those who did ask.
Apparently those who asked got the bonus and those who did not ask did not get any bonus. Again, if the bonus is continued, apparently it is left to the Postmaster General to say how much the bonus shall be and who shall get it. I do not think that is right, because I suppose those who make the biggest kick will be those who get the bonus. We ought to pay this bonus on a basis that is fair to all, on a mileage basis, if you like, or any other basis that is fair, and not just leave it to be paid to those who apply for it.
If a committee of the house were set up to studj' our rural mail delivery I am sure that much could be done to improve the service. It is a disgrace that His Majesty's mails should be carried through this country in some old car with a sign wired on the back reading "His Majesty's rural mail". I do not think we can be proud of that. A committee might well be set up to consider how the rural mail service in Canada might be improved.
(Translation):
Mr. GEORGES H. HEON (Argenteuil): Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at length on this measure. The numerous speeches already made by hon. members of this house are proof enough of their high regard for His Majesty's rural mail contractors. This feeling is due, first, to the very important services rendered by these men and also, perhaps, to the fact that they are highly valued electoral agents.

Postal Service


Maurice Lalonde: Have you ever had experience in this connection?


Mr. HEON:: No, because I have always been in the ranks of the opposition in this house. Mr. Speaker, I am requested to approve the principle of an increased remuneration for rural mail contractors under certain conditions left to the minister's discretion. For those of us who come from rural constituencies and are cognizant of the troubles of all kinds encountered by rural mail contractors, such as the recent storms, when His Majesty's mail was carried and delivered on time, it would be illogical and indecent to oppose the bill. I am, therefore, among those wrho will vote for the bill.
A while ago someone mentioned patronage. In some quarters the fear has been expressed that there might be some form of patronage. Those who are familiar with the work of the Postmaster General (Mr. Bertrand) know-we might as well admit the truth-that the Post Office department is the one where petty patronage is most in evidence, and that is the most distasteful form of patronage that can be dispensed by a minister. Personally, I think that no one can be perfect, and as long as human nature remains what it is and political customs do not change, patronage will never be completely eliminated. Why should we delude ourselves about that? We can only ask the hon. the minister to dispense patronage intelligently.
As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, *while my name does not officially appear on the patronage list because I am not recognized as an orthodox liberal, my only request to the minister is that he should continue to deal more graciously and even more kindly than he has done in the past with the rural mail contractors in the constituency of Argenteuil.
(Text):


Mr. G. R. PEARKES (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add my word of appreciation and thanks and also bring to the attention of the Postmaster General (Mr. Bertrand) the efficient manner in which my rural mail has been delivered on Vancouver island and the courteous manner in which his couriers have rendered every possible service that they could to me.
My constituency is covered by a great many rural routes and the conditions of these routes vary tremendously. In some cases it is a fulltime job; in other cases it is only a parttime job. In some cases the couriers are
|Mr. Heon.]
restricted to carrying mail; in other cases they can carry passengers and freight if they have space; but there is one condition which prevails over every route, namely, the great increase in the number of boxes which are now being established on all routes because of the general influx of population into rural Vancouver island. I could cite innumerable instances. I have one before me, a route thirty-five miles long which contained 250 boxes. An additional twenty-five boxes have been added during the last six months.
I should like to suggest to the Postmaster General that, if bonuses are to be paid, perhaps one of the conditions which would earn a bonus would be an increase in the number of boxes which have to be served, because quite obviously the costs go up. The more stops that have to be made, the more mail that has to be handled is a change in the original terms of the contract.
I suggest that a review should be made of the means of distributing the mail to some of the outlying points. I shall cite only one instance, the village of Port Renfrew, which gets a mail delivery once in every ten days by Canadian Pacific steamer. There is now a bus service into Port Renfrew three times a week, and naturally the inhabitants of that area wonder why they can get their mail only once in every ten days when perhaps an alternative route would enable them to get the mail two or three times a week.
I was surprised to learn that the Post Office Department is not required to advertise mail contracts when they expire. If they consider the rate of payment is reasonable and the service being rendered satisfactory the department can renew the mail contract under such circumstances without submitting it to a new tender. I understand that that is correct. That is the statement I have from one of the senior officers of the Post Office Department.
Finally, I wish to support the suggestion made by the hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Campbell) that consideration be given to placing the full-time rural mail courier on a civil service basis with all the rights and privileges of a civil servant in so far as hours of work, holidays and pensions are concerned.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The rural mail courier problem has been an issue long since under consideration by the department and on different occasions by the house. I realize that it was never more desirable that we curtail expenditures rather than increase them.


Ernest Bertrand: Hear, hear.

Postal Service


William Earl Rowe: The minister says, "hear, hear". I am glad the voice of the government is beginning to talk in that way, even though they practise extravagance in many respects.
In view of the important place the rural mail courier has in the public service of the dominion, I could not vote against the evident desire to bring about something closer to equality with other services as is indicated by this measure. Every hon. member and the country have appreciated the splendid service given by the mail couriers, but they have felt for a long time that the system under which they serve the public has become long since outmoded. I am disappointed that the Postmaster General has not seen fit to work out some other plan by which he can give these people reasonable remuneration, instead of the measure which is now before us. A review of policy in that regard is long since overdue.
I realize that this matter has been discussed in the house on many occasions during the last few years. The inequality of the pay of these men has been much more emphasized during recent years. I know that you, Mr. Speaker, or any hon. member who knows rural mail couriers do not feel any great degree of pride when you see His Majesty's rural mail coming down the road. You can tell it without a sign, usually by the clatter of the car, an old, tired, worn-out horse or the rattle of the buggy. The mail courier endures hardships in difficult periods of the year. It is an arduous service; it is a responsible service. If the mail courier is not operating efficiently not only is he certainly subjected to the criticism of his patrons and the citizens throughout the country, but the Postmaster General and his department clamp down on him speedily, and they must do so in order to maintain the service to the high degree of efficiency which has been maintained over the years.
I believe that the competitive principle which has been mentioned here tonight is only going to be aggravated by this bill. Probably the minister does not think so. I know he will agree with me when I draw to his attention the fact that he is going to be allpowerful. I expect that he will increase the rate of every mail courier in Dufferin-Simcoe, because he has always been most kind to me and he knows they are about the most underpaid couriers of any place in Canada. He will have that privilege, but I wish to point out to him that it will not relieve the competitive feature of the present mail courier and the hazard of his job. The present Postmaster General or one from our party, which may be in power after another election, will be up 83166-41J
against this problem. The rural mail courier will know that the Postmaster General is able to increase the rate-


John Ritchie MacNicol: Change "may be" to "will be".


Ernest Bertrand: This law is for one year only.


William Earl Rowe: I understand that. There must be a degree of uncertainty in the Postmaster General's mind when he does not make it any longer than that.


Ernest Bertrand: No.


William Earl Rowe: Even that is long enough. I wish to point out that that which is supposed to be for one year only is often, by precedents, carried on for many years. Mr. Jones may be carrying the mail on a rural mail route. He is probably a veteran of the first great war and may have some physical disability, a heart condition, or something else which prevents him from taking hard work. Probably he has been carrying the mail for several years. Then somebody who does not understand the difficulties of his task, does not understand that his roads are worse than roads in some other district, underbids him. He says to himself, "Oh, they have passed a new act; they have amended the act; I will underbid the mail courier by two or three hundred dollars. I know a member of the House of Commons who happens to be on the Liberal side of the house, and he stands in pretty well with the Postmaster General. I will go down and get the Postmaster General to increase that rate." The Postmaster General may say that he would not stoop to anything like that.


Ernest Bertrand: This law will be in effect for only one year. After one year the Postmaster General will not be able to increase any contract which has been bid too low. If what the hon. gentleman said a moment ago comes about and there is some other postmaster general in office I shall be sorry for that poor postmaster general because he will not be able to do what the hon. gentleman has in mind.


William Earl Rowe: Well, Mr. Speaker, time
brings great changes and we might find another postmaster general assuming as great powers as the present Postmaster General proposes to exercise under this bill because, under the bill, he can give the rural mail carrier anything he likes. He can revise the contract if it is too low. But it does not add to the man's security. Will the Postmaster General tell us now that he intends this for
Postal Service

only one year? Does it mean that the increases are for only one year? Will they be reduced after one year?


James Horace King: I would remind the hon. member that the house is not in committee and questions cannot be put to the minister at the present stage.


William Earl Rowe: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. Probably the Postmaster General has been interrupting me more than I have been questioning him. However, I think he is fair and I am sure he is sympathetic, at least to many mail carriers. I would therefore urge that he and his department give careful consideration to the revamping of the whole system of rural mail carrying in Canada.
I do not believe there is any service that is rendered more efficiently and courteously, nor is there any service that is more underpaid. Can one conceive what the situation would be in the civil service if jobs were held on a competitive basis as these jobs are-and, by the way, there seems to be a greater number of jobs every day. Can one imagine the insecurity which these men have to put up with while giving the service they do? The eivil service should be the backbone of the country's administration, as it is in old England. We have in Canada a Civil Service Act and a Civil Service Superannuation Act, and yet for this particular class of service there is no security. A man may sell his farm because he is unfit for that type of physical labour and, when he takes a contract for delivering mail, he must be prepared to bid lower than anyone else. No matter how tow he takes a contract, he has to carry it out; and, after three or four years, when his horse and buggy and his automobile, when he can operate it, are all worn out, then someone else may bid even five dollars lower than he does and the courier loses his position.
Can one conceive of any such situation in any of the departments in Ottawa? What would you say, Mr. Speaker, if some man in my riding could come here and tender for a job at $50 a year less? Would he get it? I urge on the government the most serious consideration of this whole question, because it is something that transcends party politics. It is vital to the service of the dominion, and it is only fair to those who have been carrying our mails that they be put on a secure basis. _
This is something that we have discussed in this house on many occasions in the past, and I realize, of course, that the minister faces some difficulty in trying to carry out the suggestion which has been made by cer-

tain members that he should pay $50 a mile across the dominion. I have talked with other postmasters general in the past and with officials in the department, and I know there are many difficulties to be considered. There are districts where one could not get mail carriers at the rate of $50 a mile and others where one could get them for less. Surely, however, a system could be inaugurated to take the place of this outmoded plan. Just as we have customs officers in certain districts, we could have mail carriers in their respective districts on some comparable basis.
I know there are some routes that are difficult. There are bad roads in the winter and in the spring and fall, while there are other places that' are served by good roads. Again, in places near an industrial area where wages are high it would be impossible to get anyone to take the job at the same rate that might be paid 250 miles away. I suggest, however, that a new policy be inaugurated in this important branch of the government service. I am glad that the minister has expressed the fear that he will not be able to put this proposal into effect for more than one year. It. is a sort of shotgun prescription for an emergency and not a permanent policy, and it indicates that the minister is doubtful about the policy which he is at present administering. Sooner or later I hope that he will give our rural mail carriers at least equality with other public servants.


Mr. L. E. CARDIFF (Huron North):: I should not like this opportunity to pass without saying a word on the question of rural mail carriers, because I have received many complaints from my part of the country. There is so much difference between one section and another that it is hard to standardize mail carriers even in one county. It is hardly fair to expect the minister to know the exact amount of bonus that should be paid in each case, or the supplementary payment that should be made, because even in a single county there are varying conditions. I do not speak for any other part of the country, but in my own constituency there are sections where we get twice as much snow as in others, and naturally it is worth a lot more to carry the mail there because of the bad roads with which the carriers have to contend.
I am not like the hon. member for Lambton-Kent; I do not live in the banana belt. We have in parts of Huron as much snow as one finds anywhere in the dominion, not all the time, of course, but most of the time, and it is difficult to maintain the service. Had it not been for the fact that a bonus was given or a supplementary payment made, many of these carriers in the war years would have quit.

Postal Service
Someone has said that many of these men are too timid to ask for relief. One chap whom I know very well came to me when he received a letter stating that the bonus would be cut off. He wanted to carry on for fear he would lose his contract. But I asked him what was the use of his working for nothing. I said I certainly would not carry my contract if I could not get the bonus. He would not be making money at the job; he would be working for nothing. A man is worthy of his hire, no matter whom he works for and carrying mail is a responsible job and calls for good citizenship. I hope the minister will give this matter his careful consideration.
I do not think the minister should be saddled with the responsibility of having to say what each of the carriers should receive, but in consultation with his advisers he should see to it that these men are fairly treated in all sections of the country, because I do not think it is possible to strike an average. Sometimes I wonder if there could not be some floor set on a mileage rate on rural routes, and then, when dealing with a section where there are bad roads and a great deal of snow, if that standard could not be raised, or some system like that adopted. The system now in effect is unsatisfactory. I will grant you that the contracts of many of these men are their own responsibility. They made the contracts too low. After they had been carrying the mail for a short time, they found they could not do so at the figure in the contract. Then they come back to members of parliament and those responsible for the administration and try to have the contracts raised, when it -was their own fault in the first place that they were too low. But, after all is said and done, I think the carriers are responsible men and should be paid for the work they are doing.


Mr. L. PHILIPPE PICARD (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I came to this house in 1940 after the winter election, the one which has been called by many the surprise election because it came as a surprise to everybody who had talked about having an election and did not believe it would come and about the people having no confidence in the government. In any event, in 1940 we fought a long election campaign in the winter, and I had to cover the snowbound constituency of Bellechasse. I had to cover thousands of miles- not in a day, of course-in the two months of the election campaign. I had occasion quite often to meet on the road the rural mail carrier who was going from one point to another in his little sleigh drawn by an old horse and who was, as many hon. members
have said, very much underpaid for the hard work he was doing. To reassure my hon. friends opposite, I may say that the rural mail carriers did not want to take the candidates as passengers, because they feared that, if they took a Liberal candidate or a Conservative candidate, in the event that either party won it might hurt them afterwards. The result was that I had to furnish my own means of locomotion, which was sometimes by snowmobile and sometimes by sleigh. I can assure you, sir, that the mail carriers could not afford a snowmobile, being paid, as they were, in such a scandalous manner. However, this is not the fault of this or any one previous government but is the result of practices that have been carried on from year to year and from one government to another; I1 refer to the tender system under which is developed the practice of people underbidding one another to perform a public service for a sum of money that nobody would accept for one-third of the work that has to be done; afterwards they have to make sacrifices in order to carry out properly the duty entailed, and, on most occasions under great hardships on account of the weather.
On many occasions this question has come before the house, and public-spirited members have proposed this or that scheme to improve the lot of the rural mail carrier. We have had these proposals from both sides, and I think we competed with one another on all sides of the house in making them. Everybody expressed the intention of being fair to the rural mail carriers. It is a matter that could be left out of party politics entirely.
One of the most promising measures that was introduced in this house, or that sounded most promising, was brought in by the then member for Wellington South, Hon. Mr. Guthrie. He made the very sound proposal to revert to a system of so much per mile, depending on the hardships encountered or on the difficulties because of the condition of the roads. But he stopped short as most other people have when they brought this question before the house when it came to the method of selecting these mail carriers. He stopped short in his proposal and could not find a solution of how to appoint these people to carry on that public duty; and I think that is the hard point in the problem. Hon. members have all stated that it was necessary to improve the lot of the mail carriers, but no one on either side of the house has yet suggested a practical and just way of appointing them. How can you go about the appointment of a mail carrier by the civil service commission? Can you ask a man
Postal Service

who is going to carry mail to try an examination? Will you appoint him because he has a better-looking horse, a stronger-looking horse or a faster car than some other man in the community? What is to be the criterion which the department will use in appointing a man through the civil service commission? It would be the ideal thing if mail carriers in the rural districts could be appointed on a permanent basis as is done in the cities. That would be quite right. But what education will they be expected to have? What will be the basis of judgment for the department? It is one of the hardest things to determine in order to do it justly. As it is at the moment, many of the associations would like to have those who are now appointed made permanent; then, when they retire, they would like the successors to be appointed by the civil service. But nobody has yet suggested what qualifications will be necessary for a man to have in order to carry mail from the station to the village post office. That has always been the drawback.
I have gone quite rapidly tonight through some of the old Hansards because I had read about this before, but I have not found in the three or four proposals that were brought before the house the correct answer to the problem. Everybody has stated that the mail carriers were underpaid and scandalously underpaid. I might take just a few moments to quote from Mr. Guthrie's speech of April 16, 1929, in which he said:
I suppose that lack of experience has something to do with the unsatisfactory conditions which attended the first tenders and the first contracts, but as time has gone on, conditions instead of improving have gradually become worse until today we find a system established throughout practically the whole length and breadth of this country under which certain men who are practically employees of this government and of this country, for the purpose of carrying His Majesty's mails, are not receiving an adequate return for the services they perform. Indeed, so inadequate is the return to our rural mail couriers that the matter has become nothing less than a public scandal.
In a certain district of Ontario, as quoted by Mr. Guthrie, the mail carriers were getting $40 a mile over the year. Well, in our districts in Quebec it has taken the war and pressure to bring the rate from $20 to $40, while now in other parts of the country where there is even less snow it is much higher than it is at the moment in Quebec. I do not blame anybody for that. If our people are silly enough to underbid one another and quote too low a figure, it is not the fault of any other province. But the fact is that the people are underpaid, and we must find a system whereby we can remedy the situation.

Another proposal brought forward a few years later, in 1936, by my predecessor in this house for the constituency of Bellechasse would not be acceptable, I think, to many who consider that these men should come under the civil service. Mr. Boulanger at the time introduced a bill proposing that the then postmaster general was to award to whomsoever he deemed proper, contracts for the transportation of mail up to the amount of $1,000 per year, and that the contractors should be paid according to a fixed rate per mile per day established by the postmaster general according to conditions and circumstances. At that time, in 1936, he was fixing an amount not lower than thirty-five cents and not over seventy cents per mile per day unless so otherwise authorized by the governor in council. But he left the then postmaster general or his officials as the sole judges of who should be selected or to whom the contract should go. There was considerable merit in this proposal, but I doubt if it would be acceptable to the house.
The measure now before t'he house is one way of trying to repair, shall I say, an injustice to certain people, which is caused not especially by the government but rather by a system and by the people themselves, because if in a certain village they agreed with one another that they should not underbid, they might get a better price. Yet if they ask a little more than the average price for the district, even though for the same type of country in another province the rate is twice as much, the officials of the department come along and say, "No; this is much 'higher than the average for this district," and they ask for more tenders until they find someone willing to take it at a cut rate.
As an example, a chap in my constituency had a contract at $35 per mile per year. His route was very long; I believe the total amount of the contract was about $1,300. He could not make both ends meet at that price and asked for an increase. At that time this bill was not contemplated. His application was refused; they told him it was not possible, so he let the contract go to tender. Well, a man in the same district put in a tender at $1,100. He cannot do the work and make any moneyr. During the summer time he can barely operate his car and figure out a small depreciation, while in the winter he will ruin a horse or two over the long route he has to travel every day. So I, like other hon. members, cannot feel that any of t'he systems proposed up to t'he present is perfect. I 'believe permanent appointments should be the ultimate aim, but in that case how can we judge as to the qualifications of those applying? It is

Postal Service
certain, however, that we should have a per mile basis for each 'type of road in the country or each district, according to whether or not it is snowbound1 part of the year, because the man who tenders receives the same amount when he carries mail in the good days of summer and when he endures the hardships of winter. I believe a minimum of some sort should be established so that at least these people will have a decent living.
I believe this bill should commend itself to *hon. members, because it does aim at correcting the present situation, though perhaps in an awkward way. It is not perfect; no perfect system has been- recommended even during this discussion, or by the officials who have been working on the matter, who are of no party and who have no ambition to please either the left or the right. They have not found a perfect system either. I believe the proposed measure will bring about some kind of relief, and I think we can trust the officials of the department. I do not always like the decisions .they give in my cases, but generally I think they are fair people working not in the interests of any one party but in the interests of the country as a whole. So that I think they may be trusted to avoid abuses and carry on under this bill, as they have carried on previously, in trying to improve the service.


Mr. LEWIS MEN  ARY@Wellington North: I should like to say a word in support of these mail carriers, who are inadequately paid. I know of one route in my section of the country forty and a half miles long for which the carrier receives $850 a year. Sometimes he has to get through snow ten feet deep, and often he cannot get through at all. That amount is altogether inadequate for the work he does.
I am going to support this bill. I believe the payments should be adjusted upward so that these carriers may receive what they are entitled to. After those adjustments are made, I believe the only businesslike way to let these routes is by tender, because one man is as good as another. I also believe that any returned soldier, either of the first war or of the last war, should receive the preference in the letting of these tenders, because he may be unable to work, and if he can get a mail route he will be able to earn a living for himself and his family.
I do not care to take up any more of the time of the house, but conclude simply by saying that I intend to support this bill.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I shall be very brief, Mr. Speaker; there has been too much talk so far.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I know hon. gentlemen opposite would like to hear me.


Mr. FULTON:: More than your own party do sometimes.


George Alexander Cruickshank: For once the opposition agree with me. Everyone is in favour of something being done for the rural mail carriers. For once I agree with my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair). In any legislation the minister brings down we would ask that the carriers of the province of British Columbia be treated exactly the same as those of the province of Quebec.


Ernest Bertrand: Better.


John George Diefenbaker: At the risk of repetition I wish to say one thing; that is, that I am entirely in favour of continuing the bonus on the mail contracts provided for in the order in council passed under the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act. But being in favour of one section, namely section 4-and I refer to that only to make myself perfectly clear

and being in favour of the assurance of a fair and proper return for the mail carriers, I cannot accept the principle contained in this bill of placing the minister in the position of being able to determine how the expenditure of several hundred thousand dollars shall be made, that determination to be based upon his opinion that the public interest will be promoted thereby. I have before me Durell on "The Principles and Practice of the System of Control over Parliamentary Grants". I have gone through that book as well as I could. I can find no record of any instance where a minister ever asked parliament to give him the blanket right to expend hundreds of thousands of dollars, whether for a period of one year or less, his position to be uncontrolled by parliament and to be determined only by the question of the public interest.
The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Picard) mentioned his difficulties during an election campaign. If, perchance, this should be an election year-and sometimes, having regard to the legislation before the house, one wonders whether or not it is-what a power is going to be placed in the hands of the Postmaster General (Mr. Bertrand) to dispense beneficence, to distribute funds under a blanket order, the determination to be based on the public interest. In a case like that, the public interest is very apt to be synonymous with political interest.
As far as section 3 is concerned, I am unalterably opposed to parliament granting any minister the blanket right of a blank
Postal Service

cheque, to be expended by him in such a way as he shall determine, free of any responsibility to parliament. I quote from page 2 of Durell, where he is referring to our democratic system, and where he says:
The bedrock on which the English system is built is the principle of the maintenance by parliament of control over the grants which it makes. It is one of the old standing principles of our constitution that the House of Commons should control the finances of the country. That is the right, privilege, and duty of the house. It has been achieved by means of struggles lasting through centuries, beginning from tile fourteenth century down to the seventeenth century, when it was fully confirmed, and since then it has never been practically disputed. The cardinal principle on which the whole of our financial system is based is that of parliamentary control, and by this is understood not the control of parliament in its constitutional sense as composed of sovereigns, lords and commons, but by the Commons alone.
Sir, there is no excuse for parliament to grant this power.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: What do you suggest as an alternative?


John George Diefenbaker: That is a very proper question. I suggest that, if the present rates are too low-and I believe in most cases they are'-then, grant the bonus to all, and place all in the same position.
Here is the position of affairs. There are 4,034 contracts in respect of which bonuses have been granted between March 1, 1943 and December 31, 1946. There are 4,164 contracts, as I understand it, where bonus has not been granted because it has never been asked for. It came as a surprise to me, and certainly to those who haul the mail in my constituency, that there was any provision for the granting of bonuses. They were never made aware of the fact. Those 4,164 are not receiving bonuses today because they never asked for it. Yet we are going to place the minister in a position of being able to determine who of these shall be in receipt of his beneficence and who shall be in receipt of favoritism. That certainly will creep in, however fairly the minister may desire to administer this.
Blanket powers to a minister in a parliament which is endeavouring to regain its power! I am opposed to that. I want to see the mail man receive what is proper and due. Grant him a bonus; grant them all the bonus. But do not place us in a position of having granted a minister the right to determine at his discretion who shall and who shall not receive these additional amounts. That is a dangerous principle. As I look over this book on parliamentary grants, I have endeavoured to find one example-just one-in all the history of British parliamentary government,

but I have been unable to do so. When the minister replies, to sum up the debate, I challenge him to give us one example where any minister has been placed in a position by parliament in Canada to favour one and to deny the other moneys passed in blanket form by parliament.
I shall support section 4 and I refer to it only because I want to make myself clear. I shall support the granting of the bonus to all contractors, in view of the fact that apparently they are all operating at such a low level as to be unfair to both their interests and those of the country. But I deny the right of any minister to have handed to him three or four or five or six or eight hundred thousand dollars to dispense at his discretion, to be determined, not upon a basis of fairness or right, but the basis of public policy and public interest. Public interest and public policy, when the expenditure of money is placed in the hands of a minister, tend to become, as I said before, political interest and political consideration.


Mr. EUGENE MARQUIS (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) in respect of bonuses, but I do not agree with him in his statement as to the merits of the other sections.
The hon. member has said that the bill will give too much power to the Postmaster General (Mr. Bertrand). All will admit that, during the war, mail carriers were not properly paid and that the government did not give them the money to which they were entitled. As a principle of justice, is it not now a just procedure to have legislation passed to pay back these mail carriers the money they should have received during the war?
These people contributed their war effort; they made sacrifices, but they were not justly paid. All will admit that. In many places when they were receiving $25 a mile to cany the mail they were not receiving adequate compensation. It is only a matter of justice and right that they should be given the money to which they were entitled.
Someone asks: Why not ask for tenders? I say that, if tenders are asked for, we shall not compensate those who have made sacrifices during the war and who, in some instances, did their job for nearly nothing. The purpose of the bill is to render justice to those to whom it is due, to compensate those who suffered and wrho made sacrifices during the war. Others could not have been found in the war years to take over these contracts at the same price.

Postal Service
The Postmaster General now tells the House of Commons that these people have made sacrifices and have spent money in the public interest. He asks us to compensate them justly and fairly. Who can do that best? Surely it is not the hon. member for Lake Centre or myself. It is the man in charge of the department, the Postmaster General himself, who must make the adjustments because some of the carriers have received bonuses while others have not. Some received five per cent and others ten per cent. It is the purpose of the bill to give to all a bonus on the same level, and to give compensation for a service performed. These people will not be repaid for the money they lost during the war years, but will now begin to receive a just compensation. It is for this reason we should support the bill.
If this were a permanent provision, to be effective for years to come, the hon. member's contention would probably be right. But the provision is for a special adjustment to repair a past injustice, one brought about, not voluntarily, but through increased living costs and heavier expenses. I am sure there is no other way of compensating these mail carriers. I believe it is impossible to fix a general rate. How can we say that we shall pay $50 a mile in Kamouraska and $75 a mile in Lake Centre? I would not object to receiving the same rate as is received in constituencies of hon. members opposite for the transport of mail. But when only $20 or $25 a mile is received I say it is only fair and just that the minister should have power to adjust that compensation. It is a matter of public interest; it is a matter of justice. It is a question of administration and the one who is in charge of the administration of the postal service is the Postmaster General. I think, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that we should unanimously support this bill.
Mr. W. CHESTER S. McLURE (Queens): Mr. Speaker, I have been listening for some time to the remarks made by members from all the different provinces and, lest you and the Postmaster General (Mr. Bertrand) might consider that the mail couriers in my constituency of Queens are perfectly satisfied with their present remuneration, I think it is my duty to say a few words on their behalf.
The mail couriers in our province are the finest citizens that we have. They are carrying on responsible work, and they have to do this work 310 days out of the year. They are granted two days holidays. Yet all these men are underpaid.
In supporting the resolution and this bill, let me say that I consider that the bill is a means of legalizing the bonuses which have 83166-42
been paid and which are to be paid. But why should we legalize them on the basis of the vast difference between the contracts that now exist? When the bonuses were granted a year or two ago the department must have estimated them on some cost basis and, as far as I can find out in my constituency, they were basing the cost at around $40 a mile We have seventy-eight mail contracts in the constituency of Queens, and of those seventy-eight fewer than ten per cent have received the bonus.
The rate per mile on the different contracts in the constituency of Queens varies from $18 a mile up to $40, some at $55, a few at $74, and one, I think, at $110. I take no objection to even the highest rate, for it is not too high. What I am objecting to is the lack of uniformity throughout the whole constituency.
Let me give a few illustrations of the discriminations that are caused by the present method of tendering. In different places two men tendered on different contracts covering a distance of 8+ miles. I know the routes perfectly well and the conditions are the very same in both. Yet one man gets $47 a mile, while the other man is doing his work in the very same constituency for $35 a mile.
In two other places that I noted in the list, the route to be covered is 18+ miles, covered by horse and cutter in the winter; in the summer, if they can get the luxury of a car they do so. One man gets $650 and the other receives $800.
I have seen another case where two men have practically the same distance to cover. One man covers miles and the other 21 miles. The man covering 21^ miles gets $850, while the man with the 21-mile route gets $1,550.


Ernest Bertrand: Would the hon. gentleman give the names and numbers of these routes? Then I shall have the details by tomorrow morning.


Mr. McLURE:: I shall give them to the Postmaster General when I have finished. The $1,550 rate works out at only $5 a day. After all, surely, with a horse and buggy in the summer and a horse and cutter in the winter the man and the horse are worth $5 a day for carrying His Majesty's mail. I am taking objection only to the discrimination between these different contracts. If we can have uniformity of remuneration among these contracts-and I hope the Postmaster General will bring legislation for that purpose before the house at an early date-then all our mail couriers will be more or less satisfied.

Postal Service

At the present time I cannot agree with the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Henderson) when he says that his people would be satisfied with a $40 per mile basis. That is not sufficient for the men who do the arduous work of carrying the mail in this country. There can surely be devised in this house some system which will be satisfactory to all. For instance, the contracts could be based on a certain cost per mile, plus the number of boxes to be served, plus an allowance for proper equipment so that we could have standard equipment for all the mail couriers throughout the country. I do not wish to labour this too much because I know that the postmaster general is anxious to reply to the many questions which have been brought before him tonight. But I do wish to say, on behalf of the mail couriers in my constituency, that they are not in all cases satisfied, not nearly satisfied, and I am certain that they are not paid enough.


Mr. J. M. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention
of taking part in this debate and propose to add only a word. But as I listened to the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker) and, following him, the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Marquis), it seemed to me that it was worth while adding just a word to what has been said.
In the first place, it appears to me that the background of this is rather odd. I have not been able to understand as I listened why it is that some of these bonuses have been paid and some not. It seems an odd procedure that a large number of couriers who are not quite as well informed as others did not get this bonus for the reason that they were not informed and did not write in. That is a curious background for the thing.
But the point I wish to make is this. It seemed to me that the argument made by the hon. member for Lake Centre was absolutely unanswerable. We want to see justice done. Then let us do it here, not leave it for somebody else to do it. There is no difficulty in writing into this act what is to be done to create a fair situation in regard to all these men. Then why not do it? Unless the Postmaster General (Mr. Bertrand) can suggest some difficulty in the way, I see nothing in the world to prevent us from carrying out what the hon. member for Lake Centre has suggested. Surely he is right in saying that the whole idea of granting a substantial sum of money and then leaving it to be dealt with, not by the direction of this house, but in the discretion of the minister, is a most extraordinary proceeding, and surely, unless

there is some overwhelming reason for it, this house should not consider it for one moment.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The speech delivered by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) has prompted me to participate in this debate. Parliament should be very careful about passing this type of legislation. It is clearly unfair to the couriers who did not know that special consideration would be given if they made application. There is no question about it that the cost of delivering mail has gone up all across Canada. The Postmaster General (Mr. Bertrand) should bring in an amendment to the bill providing for an increase of ten per cent, twelve per cent or fifteen per cent across the board. I am sure that we are inviting trouble if, we consent to this sort of legislation.
I should like to remind the house that similar provision was made for compensation to the lieutenant-governors of certain provinces. The Secretary of State (Mr. Gibson) reported that the lieutenant-governors of Nova Scotia and Quebec were given an additional $4,000 a year, the reason being to cover the costs of extraordinary expenses incurred by these lieutenant-governors on account of war conditions. The payment was recommended by the Secretary of State at the request of the Department of Finance. That type of procedure, the selecting of certain lieutenant-governors in certain provinces or the selecting of certain mail couriers in certain communities and giving them additional take-home pay which is denied to others who have exactly the same arguments is establishing a dangerous precedent. I personally would like to support the argument advanced by the hon. member for Lake Centre that section 3 should be dropped and that the Postmaster General should make a recommendation for increases, because hon. members of all parties are agreed that those who have carried His Majesty's mail have been working for next to nothing, and should have additional compensation.


Mr. W. GARFIELD CASE (Grey-North):: I asked the Postmaster General (Mr. Bertrand) if this bill meant that in the future these contracts would not be put up for competition. The answer was, in effect, that it had been customary to take the contracts on the present basis, with which I quite agree. I have no objection to the compensation which is sought at the present time, but I would say that there is one thing the rural mail couriers are seeking. and that is full recognition as civil servants. That is one thing they' want. They

Postal Service
consider that they should be recognized and granted superannuation in accordance with the Civil Service Act.
Beyond mentioning that, I have very little to add other than to say that I consider- and I think I can speak with some feeling- that rural mail couriers in my riding certainly face tremendous difficulties and hardships in carrying the messages from one part of Canada to the other and from all parts of the world. There is no one more welcome on the back concessions of Canada than the rural mail courier. I certainly hope that due recognition will be paid to him and to his arduous task.
I agree with the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) that any special consideration which may be getting the attention of those in authority for the rural mail couriers should be brought before parliament and voted here. For the protection of the minister himself, that is a sound position to take.
In my association in the house with the present incumbent of the office of Postmaster General, I have the very highest regard for him, and I would not for one moment 'hesitate to entrust him with the things that I am critical of at the moment. But we all move on. No one knows what the future has in store for any of us, and I consider that the sound position to take is that any consideration which is being given to the rural mail couriers at the present time-and, goodness knows, they are entitled to greater consideration than they have received-should be recommended by the minister to parliament and passed there.


Ernest Bertrand: This bill is very simple in itself, and had to be expected after what we had to do during the war. There have been useful suggestions made by the different speakers, and I thank them very much. I should like to be able to accept them all but unfortunately it ds impossible.
In years gone by, there has been a great deal of discussion about rural mail contracts, and the idea of a yardstick has been brought forward many times. About ten years ago, a gentleman by the name of McKinnon organized an association of rural mail contractors. He received $5 from every one of them and came to Ottawa and lobbied every member of parliament at the time. He wanted to change the contracts and to put them on a mileage basis, but I must say that it was found to be absolutely impossible.
In the department there is one officer who is in charge of this special branch of the work, who has been in that position for over twenty-83166-42J
five years. Of course he would be the first one to accept a mileage basis yardstick; but, if hon. members stop for one moment to consider the large number of cases that we have and that most of these contracts are different because of geography, weather, the weight that is to be carried, the roads that are travelled, the mountains, the summer weather, the winter weather; different because some couriers use one automobile the year round and others have to use automobiles, dog sleighs and, at different times snowmobiles and so forth, they will see that it is impossible to have a yardstick. It is almost impossible to have a certain number of them. We would never succeed. The amount that would be paid per mile would be the minimum in all cases. If it were an average it would be unfair to those who have difficult roads, and it would be unfair to the department if it were given on the basis of easy roads. It would mean that in the last instance a large number of people would tender for an easy road, for example, at the minimum price.
Then would come questions of patronage which do not exist today; because, if there were several tenders at $40 a mile, for example, how would the Postmaster General grant the contract and to whom? Of course, in the case of veterans, we could always give the preference to the veteran, and to the veteran who had the best service in the war. But there would be many instances where there would be others besides veterans, instances where there would be no veterans, and it would be a straight case of patronage. When the war broke out it was found, after a while, that we would have to do something to help these poor mail carriers. Now a contract is a contract and there are two ways of looking at the matter. As the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) said, when a contract is let we should expect the man who has made the contract to fulfil it.
In ordinary times this might be satisfactory. Certainly it is satisfactory if you are dealing with a company like the Canadian Pacific Railway Company or the T. Eaton Company or any other such concern which is well able to carry out its contract even if it loses a considerable sum of money. But it was not possible to apply this principle in this case at the beginning of the war with such a large number of rural mail carriers who generally, it must be admitted, are not rich people. They have to earn their bread from day to day by means of their automobiles, trucks, buggies or dog-sleds.
It was therefore unanimously agreed-I do not recall that there were any critics at the
time-on October 31. 1941, that a cost of
Postal Service

operation bonus of five per cent should be given mail contractors whose rates were established on or before April 29, 1941.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Unanimously agreed by whom?


Ernest Bertrand: An order in council was passed and was published and, when I say that there was unanimous agreement, I mean that there was not the slightest criticism. Under the circumstances I think I am justified in saying that it was unanimously agreed to by the House of Commons, although the matter was not specifically discussed in the house. And so everyone received five per cent except those who had not established their contracts on or before April 29, 1941. On March 24, 1942, there was another order in council, P.C. 2310, which was passed amending the previous order in council, in order to clarify the situation and to apply that five per cent to temporary mail contractors, because the Minister of Justice thought at the time that the first order in council applied only to the full-time mail contractors; that is, mail contracts that were not temporary but for the full time, namely, four years. On March 24, 1942, another order in council was passed, P.C. 2311. It empowered the Postmaster General to enter into temporary agreements for the conveyance of mail.
That is where the bill which is being presented today really takes its root. The first order in council was to apply to everyone, but this was a different one. It was an order in council which was absolutely independent of the previous one.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Also unanimously agreed to?


Ernest Bertrand: Unanimously agreed to by all those who received the benefit. It was found that the question of fulfilling the contract was becoming very difficult because automobiles were getting older; it *was difficult to procure tires; gasoline has been increased a second time; there was a great fluctuation in the labour market; costs of every kind were going up and there was a scarcity of equipment. Therefore P.C. 2311 was not a general increase to all contractors, because all of them did not ask, and as a matter of fact did not need, to be helped. A large number of contractors were satisfied to carry on their contracts. They had their equipment and were satisfied to make a fair return on their work at that time.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: When this order in council was passed granting the extra bonus, were all mail carriers and drivers notified about it?


Ernest Bertrand: I do not know
whether all were notified. Legally everyone is notified when the order in council is published according to law.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: May I ask the minister another question?


Ernest Bertrand: Yes.


James Horace King: Order. I would suggest to the hon. member that he wait until the house is in committee. The minister is not allowed to reply to questions at this stage.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: I asked the Postmaster General for permission.


James Horace King: Nevertheless I would suggest that the hon. member wait until we are in committee. That is the proper procedure.


Ernest Bertrand: I think I answered the hon. gentleman anyhow. In the legal sense everyone was duly notified and quite a number of them came and asked for the bonus. I shall be able to give the figures.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: May I ask a question?


James Horace King: I have already suggested to another hon. member that the proper time for questions is when the house is in committee.


Ernest Bertrand: A number of members have asked what the rule was that was used in granting this bonus. The contractors came, of course, to see the officers of the department and said that they could not carry on their contracts any Longer without assistance, and they gave their reasons. The gentleman who is in charge of the matter is an old officer of the department and he knows whether the price was too low or not, because many people were coming and he acquired a large experience. Besides that, quite a number of contracts were becoming extinct, and if the gentlemen did not want to renew, the department had to ask for new tenders. We found at that time that, whenever we were asking for new tenders, these new tenders were at a very much increased cost to the department, because the gentlemen who were tendering were afraid that the cost would continue to rise and they would lose money. That is one of the reasons why this order in council was passed, in order to give a bonus to those who did not want to carry on their contracts. We found, from the statistics, that,, wherever we were asking for tenders, the cost wras much more than it was where we were contracting with the man who had the contract and were giving him a little bonus in order to induce him to keep his contract and carry on. Hon. members will realize that at that time it was very difficult to get the

Postal Service
necessary equipment, and the tenderers were asking a high price in order to cover the possible increased cost of the equipment and so forth. I want to give hon. members a few figures.
During the period beginning January 4, 1946, which is recent, to March 29, 1946, the tender rate-that is, for all the tenders that were accepted during this period-was $274,587; up to June 28, 1946, $507,470; and to September 27, 1946, $833,774. The old rate in the first period, instead of $274,587, was only $206,003; up to June 28, 1946, instead of $507,000, it was $385,000; and up to September 27, 1946, instead of being $833,000, it was only $635,776. That is not a perfect comparison because it does not give the mileage. But, reduced to mileage, it gave from January 4, 1946 to March 29, 1946, an increase of 33 per cent; to June 28, 1946, 32 per cent and, to September 27, 1946, 31 per cent. So that at all times we kept these figures in mind and we realized that, by giving what I would say was a good increase as a bonus, we were still keeping the cost of our contracts below the price asked by tenderers. It was with the knowledge that had been acquired, because quite a number of them were being dealt with, that different amounts were given. I know this is against the ordinary rules that governments have to employ, but we were in extraordinary times. We had to have rural mail carriers to handle the mail; otherwise we would have been short in many places and there would have been greater inconvenience than was experienced.
I gave the figures the other day on the resolution, but I wish to give them again. During the period from March 1, 1943 to December 31, 1946, there were 4,034 contracts where bonuses were awarded at a price of $3,282,412. This is an increase of 36 per cent, and it carries a mileage of 44,244. During the same time we contracted by tender another amount of contracts. From March 1, 1943 to December 31, 1946, 4,164 contracts were awarded, and the new rates brought the contracts to a total price of $3,333,455. That is an increase of 36-6 per cent.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Were those operational or war-time bonuses?


Ernest Bertrand: They were both, because the first bonus of five per cent disappeared very fast. When we renewed the contract we gave the second bonus. The first one that disappeared was included in the other one. Those contracts covered a mileage of 44,244 miles. During the same time we contracted by tender for 4,164 contracts, only 130 contracts more than the contracts with
bonuses. The cost of those contracts ran up to $3,333,000, almost $75,000 more than the others. It is true that there were 130 contracts more. The increase on the tenders is 36-6 per cent, but where we find the difference is that these -contracts which cost more than the others, although there are one hundred more, cover only 35,590 miles instead of 44,244 with bonuses. So that it is evident that the contracts with bonuses were more advantageous, to the department at least, than the contracts granted by tender. I may say that they also gave more satisfaction to the contractors because they were asking for help and they preferred to keep their contracts with a little bonus rather than to take the chance of having to tender.
The hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lockhart) asked me if the guarantors are released when the contract is abandoned. I have to admit that is so. In years gone by, these contracts were for four years, with a guarantor who was responsible; if the contractor did not carry out his contract, the guarantor had to carry it out; otherwise he would be liable in damages. Two or three years ago, we found we had difficulty in getting contractors if we did not give them the option of cancelling their contracts on three months' notice. There is now provision in all these contracts that, if the contractors want- to get out of their contracts and get their guarantors out, they can give notice of three months and we will accept that.
Order in council P.C. 2311, passed in March, 1912, was replaced by order in council P.C. 5833, which was simply a clarification of the previous order. The last one, P.C. 4960, was passed on June 17, 1943. The main section of that order in council reads:
That the action taken under the power granted by these orders in council shows that the rates negotiated represent a smaller percentage increase in operation costs than is shown in the cases of tenders invited, and is therefore economically sound.
It has been in operation ever since. When the emergency powers act ceases to have effect, all these bonuses must disappear. We notified our contractors at the time the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Stephenson) saw me, and it was almost a catastrophe, because we had all these contractors telling us they did not want to continue their contracts without the bonus. More than that, they did not want to tender anew where that situation prevailed, because they were not sure what it would cost. They came to us through their members of parliament and were all very well received. Last year, when I put through my estimates I said I would try to introduce legislation this
Postal Service

year to take care of these cases. Some of those having contracts with bonuses are willing to renew if we incorporate the bonus; that is covered by subsection 1 of section 3 of the bill. But, as has been said, a certain number of contractors did not ask for the bonus granted by virtue of the last orders in council; some of them were absolutely satisfied to carry on their contracts in that way. Some might have been shy about asking, but I think hon. members will have to admit that it is not for the department to go around and tell these gentlemen who have contracts that, while they do not have an absolute right, they might come and, if they can, prove that their contracts were being carried on for too little, and they would have a chance to get a settlement. Some came; some did not. A certain proportion of these gentlemen are willing to renew their contracts, though we are not giving the bonus any more. We shall only do so if we get the power, but we have not done so for quite a long time, almost a year. In the case of the contractors who want to renew their contracts, we are ready and willing to give them a similar amount, calculated in the same way that we have calculated the bonuses of which we are speaking at the present time.
I can quite understand the attitude of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker). I always listen to him with pleasure. I always come in when I know he is going to speak, even when he speaks in favour of a bill of rights, and if I do not agree with him I always enjoy listening to him because he argues like a good lawyer. His only defect is that he goes to excesses in his arguments; he always goes too far. He quoted from a well known author this evening; but, after all, we are only asking the power to renew contracts with bonuses for those who have not such bonuses already, and that for a period of one year, or until sixty days after the opening of the next session. The Postmaster General cannot in any way do wrhat the hon. gentleman has in mind, because there is a section of the act which says that we cannot grant the bonus to a contractor who has not had his contract for more than one year. If I were asking for tenders today, and one man should tender at a very low price of $800 as against perhaps $1,000, hoping that after one year he could ask for $1,200, with a chance of getting it, in no way would I be able to grant that request, because after one year from now. the law will not be in force. Of course, in six months I could grant it to a man who ma3r have had a contract for six months already, but when that man put in his tender six months ago he could not have known that this legislation would fMr. E. Bertrand.]
be introduced. So that there is very little in this bill, and I feel that we are simply rendering justice to these people. It is a temporary arrangement giving the force of law to something which will help us get out of a situation created by the war, and I believe the house might well approve it.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister was speaking about the bonus. In looking over a sheet I have before me concerning mail routes in Peterborough county, I find they are not at all equal. Here is a man who was receiving $475, but who now gets-


William Ross Macdonald: Order. When the house is in committee of the whole the debate must be strictly relevant to the clause under consideration. There has been a very wide discussion on the general principle of the bill and, unless the committee decides otherwise, I would suggest that hon. members abide by the rules. The first section has to do with the short title.


Mr. GREEN:: Mr. Chairman, it has always been the rule in this 'house that when we are in committee there can be a general discussion on the first section. That has been the case during the eleven years I have been here, and I suggest that there is no reason at all' why a different ruling should be made at this time, regardless of what kind of discussion took place with the Speaker in the chair.


Ernest Bertrand: All right; go ahead.


William Ross Macdonald: Of course I am in the hands of the committee, but I should point out that according to my recollection, a debate in committee is allowed on the general principle of the bill when there has been no discussion on second reading. When there is discussion on the general principle on second reading the committee considers the sections, section by section, according to the standing order.
I would draw the attention of t'he committee to standing order 58(2) which states:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under discussion.
I understand, however, that there is unanimous consent of the committee and that it is the desire of the minister that there be a limited discussion on the general principle at this time.


Howard Charles Green: And it is also our right.

Privilege-Mr. Diefenbaker


Gordon Knapman Fraser: When the minister was closing the debate, the Deputy Speaker refused to allow hon. members to ask questions. The minister mentioned a few things concerning which I should like some information.


William Ross Macdonald: I would suggest that, if there is a section on which the hon. member's questions could be asked, he reserve them until those sections are reached. Perhaps sections 3 or 4 would be suitable.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They might be asked under those sections, but I am afraid that when we reached 'them I might be declared out of order. Therefore I should prefer to ask them now.


William Ross Macdonald: I can assure the hon. member that he will not be called to order if his questions are pertinent to the section before the committee.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: In order to clear up the situation, it would be better if the minister were to answer now. He said that the operational and war-time bonuses were all included in the figures he gave us.


Ernest Bertrand: For a certain time. There was a five per cent bonus for increase in cost, and when there was a renewal the second bonus included the bonus of five per cent granted in 1941.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The information before
me shows the facts concerning a man who was receiving $475 and who received a war-time bonus of $50. On what were those bonuses based? Another man with a contract for $560 received $140. That is not equal treatment; they are out of line. Here is another one receiving $575, only $15 more than the man receiving $560, and yet he got $275 as a war-time bonus. On what were those bonuses based? How did the Post Office Department conclude as to how payments should be made? Was it on a mileage basis, or on the contract price?


Ernest Bertrand: In mjr explanation I said that there was no definite rule because many of these contractors did not get anything. Some came and asked for a small amount because they wanted to carry on, and were satisfied with that small amount. Generally they asked for a certain amount which would allow them to carry on and to live from their contracts. If I had all the contracts before me, by referring to individual files I would be able to give the reason why the amounts mentioned were granted. But without the information before me I cannot do that.
By the way, it is now eleven o'clock and I would ask that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again tomorrow, so that I may have my officials here to help me.
Section stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, February 21, 1947