TRANSITIONAL MEASURES

[Stage Direction]
CONTINUATION OF ACT OF 1945 UNTIL mat 15, 1947
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice) moved:: That, whereas subsection one of section six of The National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, 1945, chapter twenty-five of the statutes of 1945, as enacted by chapter sixty of the statutes of 1946, provides that subject as thereinafter provided, that act shall expire on the thirty-first day of December, one thousand nine hundred and forty-six, if parliament meets during November or December, one thousand nine hundred and forty-six, but if parliament does not so meet it shall expire on the sixtieth day after parliament first meets during the year one thousand nine hundred and forty-seven or on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and forty-seven, whichever date is the earlier:	Provided that, if at any time while
that act is in force, addresses are presented to the Governor General by the Senate and House of Commons respectively, praying that that act should be continued in force for a further period, not in any case exceeding one year from the time at which it would otherwise expire and the governor in council so orders, that act shall ;ontinue in force for that further period.
And whereas it is considered desirable to continue the said act in force until the fifteenth day of May," one thousand nine hundred and forty-seven;
The following address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General of Canada:
To His Excellency Field Marshal The Right Honourable Viscount Alexander of Tunis, Knight

of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, Knight Grand Cross of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Knight Grand Cross of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Companion of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India, Companion of the Distinguished Service Order, upon whom has been conferred the Decoration of the Military Cross, one of His Majesty's aides-de-camp, General, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of the Dominion of Canada. May it please Your Excellency:
We, His Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the House of Commons of Canada, in parliament assembled, respectfully approach Your Excellency praying that The National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, 1945 be continued in force until the fifteenth day of May, one thousand nine hundred and forty-seven.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on Friday I indicated to the house that an address would be moved praying for an extension of the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, 1945, until May 15. 1947. This procedure is provided for in section 6 of the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, 1945 which, after establishing the day upon which the act will expire, contains the following proviso:
Provided that, if at any time while this act is in force, addresses are presented to the Governor General by the Senate and the House of Commons respectively, praying that this act should be continued in force for a further period, not in any case exceeding one year, from the time at which it would otherwise expire and the governor in council so orders, this act shall continue in force for that further period.
As matters stand at the present time the act will expire on the 29th of this month. As the house is aware, the legislation introduced by the government at the beginning of the session, which was intended to give permanent effect to certain orders and regulations made under emergency powers-or, perhaps I should say, rather than "permanent effect", effect for a further length of time of a year, or thereabouts, in most instances-has not been fully dealt with by parliament, and none of it has received royal assent. As yet opportunity has not been presented to introduce a bill which is to continue in effect the orders which are required for a limited period beyond the end of March.
In order that the measures which are to be provided for in this legislation may not expire before the legislation becomes effective, it is necessary to extend the life of the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, 1945, sufficiently to enable parliament to complete its work and royal assent to be given to the resulting statutes.
As I indicated on Friday, I think it would be unsafe to plan for the completion of that legislation within a period of less than approximately thirty days after the conclusion of the

Transitional Measures Act
Easter recess. I should like to make it plain that the government has no desire to continue beyond the end of March any orders or regulations of the governor in council, except those to be appended by way of schedule to the Continuation of Transitional Measures Act to be based on the resolution standing in my name on the order paper, and except the orders and regulations of the governor in council to be replaced by the following bills:
An Act to Amend the Canada Grain Act;
An Act to Amend the Militia Pension Act;
An Act to Amend the Customs Act;
An Act to Amend the Feeding Stuffs Act, 1937;
An Act to Amend the Inspection and Sale Act, 1938;
An Act to Amend the Fertilizers Act;
An Act to Amend the Immigration Act, and to Repeal the Chinese Immigration Act;
An Act Respecting Import and Export Permits;
An Act to Amend the Militia Act;
An Act to Amend the Patent Act, 1935;
An Act Respecting Supplemental Payments on Mail Contracts;
An Act to Amend the Department of National Defence Act;
An Act to Continue the Revised Regulations Respecting Trading With the Enemy (1943);
An Act to Amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935;
An Act to Provide for the Sale and Export of Agricultural Products.
Then there is a bill, not yet before the house, relating to the compensation of government employees.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: It is before the house now.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The resolution is before the house, but the bill has not been introduced.
The government is therefore prepared to revoke, effective the first day of April, all orders and regulations of the governor in council, with the exceptions I have mentioned. Submission will be made to council promptly to effect such revocation.
I am further prepared to give the undertaking, on behalf of the government, that as soon as the bills to which I have referred receive royal assent, orders and regulations of the governor in council which they replace will be revoked.
It may be that I have been just a little too concise in what I have said. But it may also be that what the government's plans are is perfectly clear. I should like what I have said to stand exactly as I have said it, as the
government's undertaking. Perhaps however I might elaborate a little so as to explain what the plan is.
We have before parliament, at various stages, these bills which I have mentioned. We also have a resolution on the order paper which will be used as the basis for another bill, called the Continuation of Transitional Measures Act; and to that bill will be appended, as I have explained to the house before, a number of orders in council, approximately fifty-five in number.
Now, it is not necessary to continue in force any orders in council which derive their validity from the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, except those orders in council and regulations which are to be [DOT] appended to the Continuation of Transitional Measures Act, and except the orders in council which are to be replaced by the legislation before the house, namely the list of acts and bills I have mentioned. Therefore the government is prepared to revoke, as of April 1, all orders in council except those I have mentioned. And as soon as the bills I have mentioned receive royal assent, they are also prepared to revoke all orders and regulations which the legislation itself replaces.
I do not know that I need say very much about the necessity for the bill. If we saw any reasonable probability of all this legislation becoming law before March 29, I think we would not ask for this extension. But every one of us knows that it is utterly impossible, in the time that remains before us, between today and March 29, for this legislation to pass its various stages in this house and in the other house, and to receive royal assent.
The matter is so important, and the results would be so disastrous if there were to be an abrupt termination of all these orders and regulations on March 29, that the government has a responsibility to begin-and to begin in time-to see to it that that result does not ensue. That is the reason we are proposing, on this 18th day of March, this address to His Excellency; and a similar address will be introduced in the senate.
I do not think that on this occasion I should outline in any detail the consequences of these orders in council lapsing. However, I might say just in passing that if they do lapse, rent control will disappear; eviction control will disappear; price control will disappear; the supplements to old age pensions now payable under orders in council could no longer be paid, and labour legislation which provides for a system of collective agreements between employers and employees would cease to have any effect. The effect of such an abrupt lapsing of this emergency legislation would be
Transitional Measures Act

confusion, if not chaos. My colleagues who are more intimately connected with the various phases of the matter could go into the thing more fully than I am prepared to do at the moment, but I think it is realized, whatever our views may be about controls, that this would be no way to end controls. To those who do not believe in controls at all on principle, the argument I think must be convincing that controls must be abandoned or dropped in a little more orderly way than this would be. To those who believe that there must be some measure of control in some of these fields for some time to come-and that is my belief-the importance of not permitting a lapsing of this control legislation on the twenty-ninth day of March is very great indeed. I am therefore moving the resolution.


Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) has gone a long way in accepting the suggestions made during recent months by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) and those on this side of the house, that statutes such as this which grant extraordinary and emergent powers should be brought to an end at the earliest possible day. I think consideration should be given to the repeal of the War Measures Act, another act in the same position as the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act; for as long as acts such as these stay on the statute book there is a continuing invitation to governments to utilize them and thereby abrogate the powers and prerogatives of parliament.
A lot of legislation has been introduced at this session and I think it has been passed with reasonable dispatch on the part of this parliament. When the minister spoke on February 4 last, as reported on page- 82 of Hansard, he set out in detail the various bills that were to be introduced by the government to take the place of orders in council. If it had not been for the fact that some other legislation was introduced which was not emergency .legislation, such as that dealing with the Chinese exclusion act, in my opinion there would have been no necessity for the minister to ask for any extension of this par-: ticular statute.
I think the time has come to put a stop to unnecessary departures from constitutional legislative practice and process. I think this is a step toward the restoration of the sovereignty of parliament over a bureaucracy noted by its multiplicity and even by its anonymities, a bureaucracy which in many cases is still above the law of this country, denied, as the individual is, the right of recourse to the courts against those acts that

are done to him individually and which he believes to be unjust. The minister might well continue the step he has taken today and make provision immediately to do away with those portions of the orders in council which deny the individual the right of recourse to the courts when at any time he is treated any differently by order in council or by regulation from others in the same class.
Our experience has shown that when you do not trust the courts, injustice and unfairness is the natural consequence. Now that we are taking this step forward, and a step forward it is, to deny extraordinary powers by way or order in council, I suggest to the Minister of Justice, through you, sir, that now is the time to show that, the emergency having passed, the courts of this country should be trusted to protect the rights of the individual. I am going to ask the minister when he gets the opportunity to take the house into his confidence in regard to whether or not parliament in fact has the power to pass this legislation at all.	.
At the time the bill was originally passed in the fall of 1945 the doctrine of emergency that had been enunciated in the privy council by Lord Haldane in 1922 and 1923 was still believed to authorize the dominion- parliament to entrench upon the legislative jurisdiction of the provinces under the guise or excuse of emergency. Within the last year a decision has been rendered by the privy council in the case of Attorney General for Ontario and the Canadian Temperance Federation. ' This case arose in connection with the Canada Temperance Act. I should like very much to have the minister explain how it can be justified under the excuse of emergency to pass large portions of the legislation that is being submitted to parliament, indeed the address that is now before parliament. If I understand that authority aright, and it has been interpreted on a number of occasions, not by the courts but by outstanding jurists and writers of jurisprudence, the doctrine of emergency no longer exists, and the excuse for the dominion parliament to entrench upon the legislative ambit of the provincial legislatures under the British North America Act no longer holds.
I intended to ask the minister to do what he has already indicated would be done, namely, to repeal or revoke all orders in council passed under the War Measures Act and continued under the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act as of March 31. That has been done. The other day I had occasion to suggest to the minister that he give us a list of all orders in council that were in effect

Transitional Measures Act
at the present time. I did that on March 14, and my remarks and the answer of the minister appear at page .1370 of Hansard. At the time it was impossible for the minister-or difficult, he said-to set forth in detail the orders in council that were in effect. Apparently now there is no necessity of having a list of those that are in effect and those that are being repealed, because all will be repealed as of March 31. But I am sure, sir, that I should not be denied the opportunity of saying this, that it was a serious situation that was revealed, that the people of Canada were subject to laws of which the cabinet was unable without great difficulty to set forth a list. We had an experience not so long ago of a secret order in council, and I am going to ask the minister when he replies to advise whether or not there are any other outstanding orders in council which will remain secret or are at present secret.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will say at once that I know of none.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister says he knows of none. I presume by that he is guarding against the possibility that one might turn up which later on he might locate. I do not know about that. At any event I accept that assurance from him that there are none.
Next, if we pass this transitional bill covering a period of six weeks there is nothing to prevent the government from passing orders in council during that six weeks over and above those comprised as an appendix to the omnibus bill. Section 2 of the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act will still remain in effect, whereby the governor in council may make regulations and orders in council to facilitate the readjustment of industry and commerce, maintain and control and regulate supplies and services, prices, transportation, property, rentals, employment, salaries and wages, and so forth, and assist the relief of suffering and the restoration and distribution of essential supplies and services in any part of His Majesty's dominions or in foreign countries. I therefore think that the minister's declaration should go further and that he should undertake that no orders in council will be passed on and after March 31 under the powers contained in the act in regard to any matter other than those covered by the list of subjects and the orders in council appended to the omnibus bill, except by way of repeal of existent orders. I think too that he should give us the undertaking that in asking for this extraordinary undertaking departmental heads and officials shall be denied the right of passing regulations further and other than those now in effect.


James Lorimer Ilsley: You mean taking the price ceiling off? That is what it means.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not mind dealing with that, but the minister specifically refrained from it and I am simply following him. I am asking for the assurance that parliament shall not go through the motions of denying the right of the government to pass orders in council under the transitional powers act with the government still in the position of being able to pass orders in council by reason of the continuance of the act for a further period of six weeks. In other words I want the assurance that the act will no longer be in effect except in so far as it is necessary to carry out the provisions made by the orders in council printed as an appendix to the omnibus bill. With that assurance, sir, we of the opposition are prepared to give support to the address that has been moved. It will mean that in giving that support parliament would now be making its declaration of supremacy and a declaration on the part of all of us that hereafter except in a very few matters the rule of bureaucracy in this country which continued throughout the period of the war and since will have come to an end.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Big-gar):: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to give support to this resolution. We believe that pending the passage of the omnibus bill it is essential that the government have power to continue controls in the interests of the Canadian people. We all remember the chaos that occurred in the United States about the first of July last year when their controls went out of existence because of the negligence of congress of that great country. The government of the United States at that time was unable to restore in very large measure the conditions that had existed prior to that period of chaos, and we would not be a party to anything that would bring about a similar condition in this country. Those of us who were in the United States last autumn when the president announced the removal of the remaining controls will remember the manner in which prices skyrocketed almost within a few hours of the removal of those controls.
As I listened to the discussion this afternoon and to the points made by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) my mind went back to the period following the first great war. I remember how at the close of that war hon. gentlemen who now comprise the government of this country criticized very
Transitional Measures Act

bitterly the former administration because it had been necessary to utilize orders in council to do many of the things that must be done following a war of the magnitude of the war of 1914-18, as it had been following the second world war. I have in my desk at the moment one or two acts passed by my hon. friends to my right when they were in power from 1930 to 1935, such as the "blank cheque" legislation, the Natural Products Marketing Act and other acts of that kind giving the government of the day powers to pass orders in council to do many things which in the opinion of many of us should be done only by parliament. But it seems necessary that parliament must at times give authority to the government to do the things which it must do in an emergency.
I approach this question from a different point of view from that taken by the hon. member for Lake Centre. Parliament is sitting now, and I do not think the controls that have been lifted already during the sittings of this session should have been lifted without some discussion in this house. The cost of living has jumped during the last few months, and in my opinion this house should first have had the opportunity of discussing what should be done with regard to the controls which have already been removed.
As to the right of parliament to decide what shall be done, the bill which is to be introduced by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) to secure from parliament powers in the fields covered by the omnibus bill is I think now the proper procedure for this house to follow. As far as this group is concerned we are not anxious to see the government destroy those controls which work to the benefit of the Canadian people. Indeed we should like to see some of the controls which have been removed put into effect again to improve the conditions of our people at this time. And so, Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to give the government this exten-tion of six weeks.
It has been suggested that this should not have been necessary had we not been dealing with other legislation which was inconsequential, but the only bill mentioned by the hon. member for Lake Centre as being in the latter category was the Chinese Immigration Act. As I recall it the discussion of that measure took only one day.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is correct.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: And if my memory
serves me correctly, that day was February 11.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is correct.


Major James William Coldwell: Since then it has not been discussed and it certainly has not delayed the business of this house. It was an attempt, with all its defects, to remove something that never should have been placed upon the statute books of this country.
My hon. friend makes a great deal of the denial of the right of the citizen to bring an action against the crown. That has not been the result of anything which the C.C.F. group has done in Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: May I just interrupt my hon. friend to say that he has not interpreted correctly what I was saying, which was as to the right of the individual to have recourse to the courts being affected by an order.


Major James William Coldwell: I was thinking of
what the hon. gentleman had to say the other evening when he did raise that question. So far as I know, only one government in this country has granted by statute the right to bring an action against the crown, and that is the C.C.F. government of Saskatchewan. Under clause 3 of the Crown Corporations Act of that province, a crown company can sue or be sued. I just wanted to mention that because this question has been raised two or three times in the house.
May I say that we are in favour of giving to the government the extension of power for which they have asked. May I add that if things move slowly through this house and it is necessary to extend the time beyond May 15, we shall be prepared to assist in granting that extension.
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to see the government take this step, which we consider a step forward, to relinquish some of the unusual and extraordinary powers which they felt they should have to meet the emergency situation brought on by the war. We should like to see the government take steps as soon as it is possible in the interests of the Canadian people to relinquish more of these powers and to restore to parliament its full sovereignty. We are prepared to support the resolution to extend the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act for a period of six weeks. We hope that in that period we shall be able to make sufficient progress to make it unnecessary for the government to ask for any further extension. We shall honour our commitment to assist in every possible way to get these bills through so that there will not be any necessity for asking for that extra extension.


Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: 
Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The hon. gentleman should not use this resolution as a pretext to discuss old age pensions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, like the
Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) I am referring to old age pensions only so far as this resolution deals with the matter. If you will recall the remarks make by the Minister of Justice, he said that this resolution has to do with orders in council covered by a long list of acts which this house is now dealing with, plus the orders in council which are a schedule to the omnibus bill. There are fifty-five or more of them. He specifically named old age pensions. My point is that when I asked the government a few weeks ago abput this matter, the answer was that the subject of old age pensions is under discussion with the provinces, and that was given as the reason why it could not be expected that the matter would be dealt with in this house at the present time. I submit if that is the reason why it cannot be dealt with before March 31, that can go on being the reason for the entire life not only of this resolution but of the omnibus bill.
I call upon the government to realize that in the meantime the old people are suffering. The government has the power now, between now and March 31-even if it were to give to the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) an undertaking not to pass new orders in council after that date-to amend order in council P.C. 6367 of August 10, 1943, and raise the amount of the old age pension. This order in council included in this schedule
is different from other orders in council in this document. The others, whether I agree or not, are for the most part orders which are on the way out, orders which hon. members to my right at any rate wish to get rid of. But so far as the old age pension order in council is concerned, no one suggests that it is on the way out. We hope it is on the way up. If the government's reply is that they can do better later when they get an agreement with the provinces, well and good. But let us not wait until that maximum of $50 a month, shall we say, is attainable. Let us have an act or order in council right now improving the position of old age pensioners, in order to avoid suffering even for another month. That is my whole plea. I ask that this necessary resolution be not used as a basis for delay.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Just in the interests of clearness, may I say that there are two other classes of orders in council in the same category as the old age pension orders in council. There is the one relating to the veterans' preference in the civil service, and the one relating to labour relations. The whole three classes of subject matter are to be dealt with by legislation later in the session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister is perfectly right in referring to those other two; and I will say in support of him that those and the old age pensions order are the three which he named when he first spoke on this matter on February 10. I would support him wholeheartedly if he would treat all three as emergency matters and bring in now legislation relating to them rather than using this as a basis for interminable delay.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, the house is being asked for authority for the extension of the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act of 1945 as amended in 1946. I contend that the enforcement of the orders in council, should be a responsibility of the government of Canada instead of being left to the municipalities. By the time parliament deals effectively with this whole control matter the war will have been over for more than two years, and in the meantime all business is being hamstrung. Business men do not know what orders in council have been passed that are still not repealed. I know this because I have received letters from magistrates and other persons from which I gather that people have been fined under certain orders in council, and when I have looked them up, having gone to a great deal of trouble to search the records, I find that some of those particular orders under which people were convicted had
Transitional Measures Act

expired or had been repealed. The list of those still in effect should be published.
No business man can conduct his business satisfactorily today. The small business man is complaining of the handicap he i3 under through some of these irksome controls. It is all very well for certain hon. members to applaud and to support this legislation, but I can assure them that in the city of Toronto a large section of the police force is engaged in the enforcement of over 100,000 of these orders in council that should have expired right after the war was over. Take the housing situation. The summer will be gone before anything effective can be done by this parliament to aid it and remove some controls. The government has dilly-dallied with this question right along and it will not be before May 15, or four months after the first meeting of parliament, that we shall be able to deal with it. We might as well grant an extension to the end of the year of the whole act of 1945 as amended in 1946.
In the United States they got rid of their controls as quickly as they could. It is true that prices rose considerably for a short time, but they fell by the law of supply and demand when it was found that people were not buying the goods at the prices that were being charged. I do not see why these controls should be extended and played with by bureaucrats as they are in this country. As a member of parliament, I do not know what orders in council are still unrepealed, nor does the public know. I am sure the people do not want this legislation and a wide spread control system continued indefinitely. It leaves the administration and enforcement of these controls to the municipalities and is putting a burden on .the taxpayers. Building inspectors, architects and others engaged in that line cannot get on with their work because they do not know what the law is under all these various controls that have been set up. I would not object to a reasonable extension if an effort was made to eliminate them, but I hope that between now and May 15 all the unrepealed orders in council will be tabled.


Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Before the minister rises to reply may I make one observation and ask one question. It has to do with the omnibus bill. The proposed schedule to that bill is before us. The house will know, and the minister will know, that the member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) said that this resolution would have the general support of this party, but he asked one assurance, namely, that no orders in council be passed during the extension
	|
period on matters other than those in the uncompleted legislation we have before us. The minister has indicated that he will likely give that assurance.
There is one other point. The minister has not yet introduced the omnibus bill. He has made no statement with respect to it. I think the house would appreciate having that bill before us before Easter. I hope the minister, will give an affirmative answer to the suggestion that he introduce the bill and make a statement with respect to it before the Easter recess.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker-


James Horace King: I have to advise the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


James Lorimer Ilsley: With regard to the first request, made in the first instance by the member for Lake Centre and later by the leader of the opposition, the government is quite prepared to give an undertaking that no orders in council will be passed under the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act relating to any matters other than those dealt with by the orders and regulations of the governor in council which are being continued. I do not mean merely the ones in the schedule to the act, but the orders and regulations of the governor in council which deal with matters that are dealt with by the other bills, a list of which I have read as well.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But you may amend some of those.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. It must be remembered that if we do pass any orders in council under the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act in that field we must table them within fifteen days and they may be dealt with by parliament. But I am prepared to give an undertaking to stay in that field.
To make myself technically correct, I should say that it will be necessary to continue, not to revoke, the orders in council relating to the appointment and remuneration of persons in connection with the administration of those orders to which I have referred. That will be dealt with in the bill that will be placed before the house. It is a small matter, and I mention it only to keep myself technically correct.


Mr. MacINNIS:: You are not concerned about being correct, apart from the technicality.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The other question was with regard to the omnibus bill. I shall introduce the resolution. I am prepared to do so at any

Transitional
appropriate time and make an explanation in broad terms of the legislation that is to be based upon that resolution. If the resolution goes through I am prepared to introduce the bill itself, and will do that before the Easter recess.
At the moment I am not prepared to deal at all competently with this constitutional point. I do not understand that the emergency doctrine was abrogated by a decision of the privy council. If it has been varied, it has been in the direction of the extension of the powers of the dominion rather than a limitation, by the Canada Temperance Act case. I can go into that matter fully when I introduce the legislation on the continuation of the transitional measures bill.


James Horace King: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion? Carried.
Some lion. MEMBERS: No.


Mr. CAOUETTE:: Mr. Speaker


James Horace King: Order. Before the minister spoke I told the house he would close the debate.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: On division.


James Horace King: I declared the motion
carried on division.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Horace King: I shall put the question. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion? Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: On division.


James Horace King: Orders of the da.y.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Mr. Speaker, it seemed to me I heard several voices say "No. In the circumstances the government would like to have a division on this.


James Horace King: Call in the members.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Mr. FRASER:: Mr. Speaker, the motion was carried. I don't see how you can call in the members.


Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford City):: I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted for the resolution.


Mr. ISNOR:: I was paired with the hon. member for Colehester-Hants (Mr. Stanfield). Had I voted I would have voted in favour of the resolution.



PRIVILEGE

James Horace King: Order. I will not permit the hon. member to discuss the conduct of the Speaker.


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: I desire to raise a question of privilege. I submit with great deference that this house should not, without the unanimous consent of the house, revert to other items of business that have already been decided upon and passed. I would have raised this question prior to the vote being taken except that some people might have regarded it as a move whereby this group was opposed to the resolution, which we are not. I raise the question now and say that I do not think the Prime Minister's influence in this house should be any greater than that of any other member.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Horace King: Order. I would ask the hon. member to resume his seat. I repeat that over twenty members rose, and according to the standing order it is the duty of the Speaker to call in the members. Moreover, as nobody protested at the time, I think-


An hon. MEMBER:: They did.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I protested.



MR. LOCKHART-MR. GRAYDON-PROCEDURE ON EMERGENCY POWERS RESOLUTION

Mr. N. J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, I rise either on a question of privilege or a point of order. A few minutes ago you declared this resolution carried. One minute afterward you called the orders of the day. Then for some strange reason, to suit the whims and fancies of a few, you asked-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Horace King: Order. I would ask the hon. member to resume his seat.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: On a question of
privilege-


James Horace King: I ask the hon. member to resume his seat. When the Speaker saw over twenty members rise in their places to ask for a recorded vote I believe it was the duty of the Speaker to call in the members in order to have a recorded vote.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I protested before they stood up.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: What I am asking is this: The resolution having been declared carried by you, and the orders of the day having been called, on what authority or under what rule of the house-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


James Horace King: Order. I would ask the house to pjroceed with its business. Orders of the day.



QUESTIONS AS TO AVAILABILITY IN PETERBOROUGH AND NANAIMO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['There is a new clause 5. Since clause 3 and clause 4 are going to stand, Mr. Chairman, I think we had better allow clause 5 to stand also.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Mackenzie the house adjourned at 10.50 p.m.\nWednesday, March 19, 1947']
Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I know quite well that I do not have to sit down for any hon. member in that corner of the house.


An hon. MEMBER:: Stand up.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I should like to ask the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply a question based on many wires and letters which I have received.


James Horace King: Order. I would ask hon. members to preserve more decorum in the chamber.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I should like to ask the minister of reconstruction a question based on letters, telegrams and long distance calls I have had from my riding. The minister made

Inquiries oj the Ministry
the statement on March 4 that he had not heard of any shortage of nails during the past two months. My question is this: hardware stores, contractors and carpenters in my riding-


James Horace King: I would ask the hon. member to make his question brief and to the point.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Carpenters have not been able to get nails. I should like to ask the minister where they can get a few kegs of nails, because there are none in the Peterborough district.


An hon. MEMBER:: In the hardware store.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: There are none in the hardware stores.


James Horace King: If hon. members are anxious to put questions they must be anxious to get the answers. I would ask them to moderate their voices.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Where can they get any nails?


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: In response to a complaint about the shortage of nails in the Toronto district made in this house some two weeks ago I made inquiries and found that there was a stock of 5,000 kegs of aluminum nails in the warehouses. These were not selling well, although it is admitted that the aluminum nail is as good as the steel nail, and perhaps better for some purposes.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, no.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my hon. friend will write the Aluminum Company of Canada I can assure him that he will get as many aluminum nails as he wishes to buy.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: A four inch aluminum nail is no good.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend did not specify a four inch nail. I am speaking of two inch and two and a half inch nails.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: You cannot put up studs without four inch nails.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am trying to give my hon. friend some information.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I will keep quiet.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The production of nails is high as compared with any previous year. Hon. members are well aware that during the steel strike stocks of nails became exhausted, and at present all pipe lines have not been filled up. I realize that Peterborough may be pretty well out on the pipe line; nevertheless I can assure my hon. friend that there 83166-94i
is no real reason why any builder, for priority construction particularly, should have any trouble in getting nails. If my hon. friend refers to so-called non-essential building which hon. members opposite say should be stopped, then I am not particularly worried about whether nails can be had or not. But for any priority work, or for any essential purpose, nails are now available.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: These are veterans' homes.


Mr. G. R. PEARKES (Nanaimo):: May I ask a supplementary question, based on two wires from Nanaimo saying that the building of houses has been stopped because no nails can be bought in Nanaimo? Can the minister do anything to assure a reasonable supply?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am informed that between 600 and 700 tons of rod per month are being shipped to Morrison Steel and Wire Company, Vancouver, for the manufacture of wire nails. This is fifty per cent above the shipments from eastern mills to Morrison in normal times. British Columbia is getting a greater percentage of the total nail production, compared with normal times, than any other province. I know that there can be no real shortage in that area.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday on the orders of the day the hon. member for Wellington North (Mr. Menary) asked for some information with regard to the price of fiax in his district. For the crop year 1946-47 the price of flaxseed is $3.25 per bushel-No. 1 Canada eastern flaxseed basis in store Montreal. The flax producer delivering the top grade of flax in Toronto would receive $325 per bushel less a handling charge of five cents per bushel and less freight charges of 24 cents per 100 pounds Toronto-Montreal or a net price of $3,064 per bushel. The Hanover-Montreal rate is 27 cents per 100 pounds. Lower net prices are accounted for in the grade spreads for grades of flaxseed lower than No. 1 Canada eastern flaxseed and also discounts for tough and damp flaxseed.


POSTAL SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. A. CRUIOKSHANK (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, not that I have any particular brief
National Defence Act

for the gentleman mentioned, not even on March 17. I quote from an item in the Ottawa Journal of March 17-and I think I am in order, Mr. Speaker, because this is a matter that affects everybody:
Late this afternoon there was no trace of Mr. Sullivan nor his family around Chelsea.
"It was five o'clock in the afternoon," related Mrs. Jeanne Bambriek, postmistress at Chelsea, when a little girl came around and asked for the Sullivans' mail. I gave it to her and she walked back down the road to deliver it."
Chelsea, I understand, is in this district. I would ask the Postmaster General, has any postmistress any authority to relate anything about anybody's mail, even Pat Sullivan's, or to say to whom it was given or when?


Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the question was
pretty long and I should like to see it in Hansard before answering. I did not hear it clearly.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Read it in Hansard
tomorrow.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I will take good care that I do.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
.SERVICE ESTATES-CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENT
Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Defence) moved the second reading of and concurrence in an amendment made by the senate to Bill No. 19, to amend the Department of National Defence Act.
Mr. FULTON:: Will the minister explain the amendment?


Mr. CLAXTON:: Mr. Speaker, section 2 of Bill 19 as passed by the house would facilitate the administration of service estates of members of the armed forces who die during their service as such members. When the bill came before the senate it was found that two or three, certainly a very small number of members of the armed forces, had died while they were in veterans' affairs hospitals and before what would have comprised their service estates could be paid to them during their lifetime. It is possible that such a case may occur again, that a member of the naval, military or air forces of Canada may be discharged, undergo treatment under Veterans Affairs and die before what would constitute his service estate is paid to him during his lifetime. It is to cover this possibility that the amendment is introduced.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is the amendment acceptable to the minister and the officials?
(Mr. Cruickshank.]


Brooke Claxton: Yes. The amendment is to insert in line 30 on page 1 of the bill, after the word "or", the words "of former members". The amendment was suggested by the law officers of the crown and was acceptable to the members of the other place and to the department.
Motion agreed to; amendment read the second time and concurred in.


AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, March 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gardiner for the second reading of Bill No. 25, to provide for the sale and export of agricultural products.
Mr. JEAN -FRAN QOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):	Mr. Speaker, this is a bill which
I have read with great care. We have been told so often that the ideal of the Liberal party was to give the private individual a chance that I am greatly surprised at this kind of legislation being sponsored, not by Mr. John Stracliey in England but by a Liberal government. I cannot conceive how a Liberal government would sponsor such legislation.
If what has been said about assistance to other countries of Europe is true, I would draw the attention of the minister to the first line of the preamble, where he will see that, whether inadvertently or not, the United Kingdom is not mentioned among the countries which were and still remain in grave distress for want of adequate food supplies. The question is not that of assistance to any other country, the United Kingdom, France or any other country. The question is whether this is a true democracy, whether we have private initiative any longer in this country, or have we a planned economy for good? We are told:	Oh, this is only for
a year-we will change it next year. How many times were we told during the war: This measure is only for the time of the war, and as soon as the war is over we will go back to normal. How many times did I tell the then leader of the opposition that he was wrong in that, that it was the duty of members of parliament to act as a brake to prevent this country from falling into ruins; and he said:	Well, I am patriotic and I
close my eyes during the war, but after the war we will see to it. The war has been over now for two years and still this thing is going on.

Agricultural Products Act
After all tlie denunciation we have heard of controls from all comers of the house I was surprised to see only thirteen members rise a moment ago to express their dissatisfaction with the continuance of controls. They speak one way and vote the other way. The members who are logical and have the courage to stand by their guns are very few in this house, and that is why parliament is falling into discredit in this country. It is because the actions of members of parliament are different from their public speeches. I want the Minister of Agriculture to understand very well that I am not discussing his case particularly. I am not discussing the case of the Right Hon. James Gardiner, Minister of Agriculture in the King government. I intend to discuss the case of any minister of agriculture. He will have control of all agricultural produce in this country except wheat, which is something formidable. He will have control even of the feed of animals. Did you ever think of that? I wonder how many members of parliament have read this legislation contained in Bill No. 25, establishing a special case, something that no one would have dreamed of in this country. Under it the Minister of Agriculture is being authorized by parliament to pass certain regulations and is being given by parliament more powers than any minister of agriculture ever had in any country.
Naturally the Minister of Agriculture will choose his own advisers. He will have power to buy and sell the agricultural produce of this country. He will have the right to establish boards, and he will have the right to tell every farmer in this country: "You will produce such and such agricultural product. You will sell it to me. If you do not sell it to me, you may be found guilty of an offence and sentenced to a fine or to jail, or to both." With the approval of the attorney general of Canada, who is the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilslcv), and the attorneys general of the provinces, the fine may go up to $5,000 and the imprisonment to two years. The man who will not obey the order of the Minister of Agriculture may be sentenced to two years in jail and to pay a fine amounting to $5,000 as the maximum; because that man will not have obeyed the Minister of Agriculture, he will be found guilty. As a Liberal I cannot approve that.
We are supposed to pass legislation. I want legislation passed by this parliament-meaning passed through all stages in the House of Commons, the Senate and having the sanction of the Governor General-establishing what an offence is. That is the way it is done in tlie criminal code. Who ever gave a blank
cheque to anyone regarding the imposition of fines and imprisonment in this country? Where is the civil liberties league? We do not hear of them when we need them. We must do the work of the so-called civil liberties league. They are in existence only to defend rascals who have been traitors to this country.
Coming back to the bill, may I say that no farmer will approve it when it is explained properly to him. No farmer will say this bill is all right if he has an opportunity to read it. I know the farmers. I live among: them. They abide by the law but they want sensible laws. They want laws which appeal to their sense of justice. They do not want to receive orders from anyone. They will not understand why such immense powers have given to one man, however worthy he is of the confidence of his fellow citizens. Even if the Minister of Agriculture deserved the confidence of the whole house-and it is possible that he has it-he may die tomorrow, and his successor as minister of agriculture will have the very same powers, powers undreamed of by any Canadian public man. This is going to be done as a matter of course.
Yesterday excellent speeches were made by some of our colleagues who explained their points of view. Those who were in favour of the bill spoke very well too, but they did not convince me. It is said in the bill:
... it is necessary by reason of the existing national emergency that parliament-
That is all of us.
-confer authority to enable the government of Canada to fulfil its obligations.
In the dark, outside of parliament, the government of Canada has assumed tremendous obligations to other countries; and now we are called upon to give our sanction or approval to ail that. How is it that none of those agreements are published as an appendix to this bill? Some explanation may be given occasionally about it. We do not know what it is all about, and when we ask for some information we get it drop by drop. We have to fight for the information. It cannot be given properly because everything has been done in the dark. We have complained bitterly time and time again that parliament has been informed only after the thing has been done. We were informed of the accomplished fact. Parliament has never been consulted about the emergency-and I use the word which is used here-of passing such agreements with all other nations. And we are crazy enough to call it trade. It is the Santa Claus trade, with respect to food which is not paid for. When the words "sell and buy'' are used in this bill, it is only an optical
Agricultural Products Act
[Stage Direction]
illusion. The minister will sell and buy nothing, in the legal sense of the word, but he will give away our birthright to other nations, because what will be given away by him will never be paid for by the other nations. It will be paid by the taxpayers of Canada; it will be paid by the farmers as well as by the labour men; it will be paid by the man in the street as well as by the millionaire. And now the minister is asking to be empowered with the authority to give away our birthright to all other countries, while there are people in this country who are badly in need of what he will give away.
I am strongly opposed to this. More than that, I take it quite seriously, and if I rise today I do so as a matter of duty. I do not rise for the pleasure of making a speech. When I make a speech it bores me as much as it does those who may listen to me. But I have a duty to fulfil, and I want to act in accordance with the solemn promise I gave my electors twenty odd years ago when I was elected. I told them that I would come here as a bulldog, one of the watchdogs of the treasury. That was a nickname that was given to me then and I never thought that one day I would be proud of it, as I am today.
Take the second section of the bill. All agricultural products except wheat-and even feeds are included in agricultural products- will be covered. The Minister of Agriculture is the one man who will deal with the agricultural reserve and agricultural production of the Canadian farmer. That must be well understood. What will he do? Subject to the reservation I have just made about the illusion of purchase and sale, there will be orders in council in virtue of which the minister may, first, sell or export agricultural products to the government of any country or any agency thereof, and, second, pursuant to agreements made by the government of Canada with the government of any such country or agency thereof, purchase or negotiate contracts for the purchase of agricultural products. This is a note I have made to make easier the understanding of the bill.
Not only is the minister empowered to buy according to the orders in council passed by this government, and also to sell accordingly, but there is a subsection which would not stand in any court. It is that we will empower the minister to purchase on behalf of the government of any country or any agency thereof-most incredible! Think of that, sir! Not only will the minister act on behalf of this country, but we empower him to act on behalf of other countries. What other countries? And what would he do? Third, by
fMr. Pouliot.]
order, he may require any person to give such information respecting his facilities for the storing or processing of agricultural products, and at such times, as the minister may designate in such order, and then enter into contracts for the storing or processing of agricultural products. That will be found in section 3 (c) and (d). This I find most despotic.
How is it that members of parliament who have denounced bureaucracy approve the following sections?
William Ross Macdonald: Order. I have not interrupted the hon. member, but may I draw his attention to the fact that on second reading it is not permissible to discuss the sections of the bill but only the principle.


Mr. POULIOT:: Well, sir, there are several principles involved in each section. However, I will demonstrate it to you. In the first place, I am opposed to this bill because it is a socialistic measure and I shall be unable to face my constituents and call myself a Liberal if I support this measure. They will tell me, "You are a member of the C.C.F.; you are a socialist; you are more socialist than the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar." That is why the hon. gentleman was so anxious to have a division yesterday, and to his great surprise some members voted against the bill on second reading-I mean the amendment. I beg your pardon, sir. Sometimes I make a slip, but too many thoughts come to my head.
Considering the principle, I am against socialism because I am for the right of the individual to try his luck in life, in the struggle for life. In my view it is the only reasonable chance that a man deserving to be called a man has to win success in life. That is the first point.
I am against a planned economy; I am against control. That is why I was one of the thirteen who voted against the so-called address presented by the Minister of Justice a moment ago. I am not only a Liberal; I am for the liberty of the individual. I am for the liberty of the individual to engage in trade and make a success of his business and contribute thereby to the prosperity of the state. That is my understanding of the whole problem.
That is principle No. 1, and the opposite is the planned economy sponsored by my hon. friends the socialists. When I say "socialists" I do not mean all the members of the C.C.F. group, because some of them are Liberals at heart.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: With a small "1".

Agricultural Products Act


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, that is something; and even if they are acknowledged by their chief it means they are bold enough to speak in caucus, which shows that they are sincere Liberals.


Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: Some of the Liberals are liberal at heart.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not agree with the philosophy of my hon. friends because it is undermining ouir parliamentary institutions and substituting for them an all-powerful, allignorant bureaucracy. That is the idea of technocracy; it means the superiority of the man who is not responsible to the people over the man who is the shock-absorber for all the policies of the government. It means that those gentlemen who come with their mortarboards are supposed to tell the farmer what he needs. They say, "You will have to grow turnips this year." But there may be a feud between them; one may say, "No, you will grow carrots", while the other may say, "You will grow onions." They will be all mixed up. Why not let the farmers decide what they want to do in order to make a success of farming in this country? But no; we have these fellows w'ith mortar boards who will teach everyone how to manage with the plough and the other agricultural implements. And my hon. friend does it for their good. He taught school for a time, and everything he said to the children, as with all school teachers and professors, was "for your good, my boy. Do it for your good."


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Not always.


Jean-François Pouliot: I hope not. The very best way to promote the welfare of our farmers is to leave them alone and give them a chance to cultivate their farms and sell their products as they see fit.
That is one thing. Not only will the minister be the omnipotent master of all agricultural produce, but we give him the right to establish one or more commodity boards. How many there will be we do not know. He may authorize and require them to exercise and perform all or any of the powers and duties he is given under the previous section, with reference to such agricultural products as he may designate. Well, sir, that is formidable. Here again we have a delegation of power. We give the minister certain powers to establish boards, and then we will confer power upon those boards which aire not now in existence. We assume the responsibility for all those unborn babies of the Minister of Agriculture. If they do something wrong and a member
complains about it he will be told, "Well, on March 18, 1947, you voted for it, and you cannot complain now."
These are not the only institutions the minister may establish. He will have more than that. He will also have advisory committees, which he will select himself. There he will have these geniuses that the socialists are so fond of finding in large numbers in the civil service. It will be Pelion on Ossa, mountain upon mountain. There will be a mountain of agricultural products which will serve as a pedestal for the Minister of Agriculture. He will be on top of that mountain; and the number of bureaucrats making up the boards will have to be so great as to make a mountain just as high as the one on which the minister sits, in order that they may be in a position to confer with him about what they think the farmer needs. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but the minister will dispense with the merit system and the civil service commission, and choose his own men. That is in section 7. This is another principle in which I am interested. If ministers are to be empowered to do awray with the civil service commission, why leave the commission there at all? It would be just as well to abolish the commission. Either the civil service commission is useful or it is not. If it is useful the minister cannot ask the house for the privilege of appointing whomever he pleases on the boards and committees. If the civil service commission is worth something, then this bill is bad. and if this bill is bad-


Mr. GARDINER:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not mind an hon. member who does not know the rules, or does not pretend to lecture the rest of us, breaking the rules continuously, but the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) is breaking one very simple rule that he knows as well as any other hon. member. I refer to "Beau-chesne", second edition, page 218, citation 759:
On the motion for the second reading, it is out of order to discuss the clauses seriatim.
The hon. member has discussed them all up to clause 7. I submit that he is entirely out of order and ought to be called to order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will tell the minister to keep quiet and not get excited about it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not excited; I just want to keep order.


Jean-François Pouliot: If one does not know the rule I will not say anything; I shall name no one, and will be most indulgent. How can we discuss a bill, sir, without referring to it? I cannot speak of the man in the moon; if I do so you will say I am out of order because
Agricultural Products Act

I am not discussing a relevant matter. It reminds me of what I said one day when I complained of the promise of a million jobs which had been made by two ministers who are here today. I was called a demagogue because I referred to it. I believe the time has come when members of parliament should enjoy a certain degree of freedom. My discussion is not intended to be unpleasant to the minister or any other hon. member. I desire to discuss my views with all sincerity, to try to inform hon. members and have them read the very bill now before us. I want members of parliament to realize their full responsibility, because the minister has signed those absurd agreements with the United Kingdom giving away our birthright, not even for a mess of pottage but for nothing at all; and it is because he has given away our birthright that we must now salute profoundly and say, "O.K., U.K."


James Garfield Gardiner: Say what you like but stay within the rules.


Jean-François Pouliot: I tell the minister not to get excited. I may be very cruel at times, though I am not cruel now. I tell him that I was in this house before he was, that I was never defeated in Saskatchewan, and that I know my onions though I am not a farmer.


James Garfield Gardiner: I was never defeated in Saskatchewan, either.


Jean-François Pouliot: I did not say the minister was. I know, sir, how to choose my words and my expressions so as to remain in order all the time.
Now, sir, I have something here most interesting about Mr. Strachey, dear Mr. Strachey. I saw him, and I have some old clippings about him which I found in my files. According to one of these clippings, in this country which is fighting communism, some years ago this man said that he was not a communist but that he had communistic leanings. You know, sir, I have great admiration for my younger colleagues and especially for the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming). The other day he defended and vindicated the honour of this parliament. He said something very proper in respect of a speech which was made by Mr. Strachey in the west, and which was quoted by my hon. friend.


James Garfield Gardiner: You are out of order again, in quoting from a previous debate.


Jean-François Pouliot: No; we cannot quote verbatim from a previous debate but, according to the rules, we may refer to it.
Not a very long time ago, when Mr. Bennett was in power, he had two great 
advisers. He had John Strachey, who was deported from the United States as an undesirable, and also Trebistch Lincoln, who was a Hungarian Jew, a Presbyterian minister, a member of the Anglican clergy, a suspected spy and a murderer. Those two were his favorite advisers. I regret very much that the British government has decided to send Mr. Strachey on a mission to Canada. That is another reason I am opposed to the agreement-signed by the minister. I would not have anything to do with Mr. Strachey.
In addition to that, the hon. member with the Scottish brogue (Mr. Bryce), who spoke last night about the Conservative member of parliament in Great Britain who made the statement that the farmers of Canada were trying to fleece the United Kingdom, did a very good job because he also defended the honour of this country.
The question is not one of sending agricultural products to any other country for re-export, for the benefit of traders over there, whoever they may be, under the false pretence of saying that it is done to alleviate the misery of the people. No. The point is that we must first look after our own people, and begin again to have real trade, trade under which exports are paid for, not by the taxpayers, but by the purchasers. If we cannot have trade of that kind, let us have barter.
I tell you, sir-and these are my concluding words-that the time is coming when we shall have two parties in this country. One will be an all-Canadian party, composed of people born either in this country or outside it- and that is of no importance. It will be composed of people who consider Canada as their paramount country, who consider Canada before any country of the world. On the other hand, we shall have a party composed of colonials, imperialists, Witnesses of Jehovah and members of the Ku Klux Klan-all the bums, and all the people who think differently and who are not bums, put together. The fight will be between Canadians and non-Canadians. And, judging by the feeling of the people, I am sure the Canadians will win. This is why I am opposing this kind of legislation, which is against the interests of our own country.


Hon. W. EARL ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with keen interest to the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). I realize he needs no lessons with respect to the rules of procedure, because he has sat in the house for a long time, and comes of a family with wide parliamentary experience. It is many years since I first

Agricultural Products Act
listened to the hon. member in the House of Commons. But I can say to him now, sir, that this is the first time I have found myself in agreement with much of what he has said.
The main principles to which the hon. member referred-and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) seemed to think the hon. member was referring to certain sections in the bill-are fundamental, and are seriously affected by the proposed legislation. I cannot agree with everything the hon. member said; indeed, some of his observations were not exactly relevant. I did not meet the two gentlemen to whom he referred as having been the advisers of the Right Hon. Mr. Bennett, when he was Prime Minister. That, however, is beside the point.
I feel that hon. members in this party ought not to be misunderstood either by Your Honour or by the Minister of Agriculture in respect of their attitude toward this marketing legislation. I believe that there is a great shortage of food, and that at the present time hunger exists in certain parts of Great Britain. There can be no doubt as to her need. Nor has anyone any serious doubt so far as Canada's obligation, if we may so describe it, is concerned. Whether we belong to the British commonwealth of nations or not, when the country which has taken so much of our products for so many years is in short supply, it is only prudent or sound business practice for us to endeavour to supply her with all the food we can possibly produce. Great Britain has been our greatest outlet for at least half a century. I believe there is no one in the house and perhaps but few in the country who do not appreciate the sacrifices Great Britain made during the war to save civilization. No member of the allied nations sacrificed so much during the war, and no member has suffered so much following it. Therefore I believe we might consider our part as that of a continuing ally in this post-war period.
Matters connected with trade have long since been the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Commerce. Yet we see that this bill is introduced by the Minister of Agriculture. I should have expected the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) would have been its real father. The fact is, however, that it is presented1- one might say mothered-by the Minister of Agriculture.
We observe that it is to be effective for only a year. I do not know who will take the child at the end of that time. However, if hon. members to my left would care to adopt it I feel they would not want to change its manners very much. It will have been trained 83166-95
along the lines they approve, where every line of industry in the country would be strait-jacketed.
I do not believe the principle involved in this bill, whereby control is left in the hands of the minister, and through which he continues to make agreements, fix prices and tell us how much we are to receive for our products, is the best means of meeting the obligations which fall upon us as a member of the British commonwealth of nations.
I believe I can speak with some knowledge respecting the attitude of farmers; and in this I find myself in full agreement with the hon. member for Temiscouata who, I believe, understands the farmers in his district. One of the fundamentals which I have felt would be surrendered last by the farmer is his freedom of choice, and his right to do business in his own way, whether that way is or is not considered to be the most scientific by those who now seek to control his activities. I am satisfied that government policy during the last three or four years, and that government policy of today has been based upon a terrible fear of inflation. Price ceilings, controls and restrictions may have done something to avoid inflation, but what was done was done at the farmers' expense and it certainly did not help to provide food for Britain. Had we had higher prices for many lines of farm products, prices that were not arbitrarily fixed by controls, I am satisfied there would not be as manj' hungry people today in Great Britain.
Much has been said about what happened after the last war, but simply because something is said' loudly and emphatically in this house does not necessarily make it a fact. History shows that during the last war there was a greater percentage of increase in agricultural production than we had during this war. There was a great increase from 1915 to 1920 in preparation for the day when food would be short in Europe following the war. True the minister or any hon. member may say that we are producing more now than we did then. We produce more industrial products also. We are a quarter of a century older.
I recall, and I believe the Minister of Agriculture will recall that in 1921 we sent 255,000,000 pounds of bacon to England. We did not have a strait-jacket bill like this one. It is true that our farmers received high prices for that bacon; it is true the price was higher to the consumer, and I do not mean that we should take the last drop of blood from the British after what they have suffered. I am 100 per cent in favour of the donations that this country has made to Britain in the time

Agricultural Products Act

of her peril, but I submit that, had we had less fear of inflation, had there been higher prices for agricultural products, we would possibly have been in position to give Britain another $2,000 million which would represent little more than the loss we have taken in selling agricultural products under would prices.
There is no economist who has shown this house or this country that we are on the right road tow'ard finding a solution for the relief of the starving people of Europe, and Britain. No one can tell me that the production of eggs, butter and other lines of mixed farming products would have fallen during the last year had prices risen. If that is not the fact, then why was the ceiling removed from the price of eggs this week? I think our first duty is to find more food for what I would term our old customer, and anticipate as our future customer. It is the humanitarian duty of a great agricultural country like this to produce every pound of food we can.
True, the consumption of cereals is not as great as the consumption of many other lines. From 1913 and 1914 up to the present the British consumption of animal products, vegetables, fruits and many other lines of mixed farming products has been 150 to over 200 per cent above the consumption in 1912 and 1914, just before the first, great war. The present consumption of cereals is only 89 per cent of what it was during those years. It is natural that the products dealt with by this bill are those in which we can anticipate a growing market when more normal times return.	.
I consider that the minister is asking a great deal when he asks this house to pass a bill giving him the all-absorbing powTers referred to by the hon. member for Temiscouata. In order to avoid repetition I shall not go into the details because they have been discussed at length. As a farmer I reluctantly can conceive a situation arising where I shall have to ask the Minister of Agriculture when I can start seeding, how much I can sow and what I am going to get for the products I sell. There is a principle involved that is a vital one, and there is also a practical side to it.
What I am about to say I say in all sincerity because I do not want to arouse any bitterness at this stage of the debate. I am not speaking recklessly; I am speaking, as the hon. member for Temiscouata mentioned, more or less from a sense of duty to an agricultural riding, a duty to the people of this country. It is our duty as Canadians to do what we can to solve these terrible shortages. I should like someone to show me how you can have ceiling prices, sometimes at unattractive levels, and expect

to increase production. The old law of supply and demand has worked down through the years and increased prices have brought about increased production.
Reference has been made to the havoc and recklessness following the last great war. Some have referred to the United States of America having lifted their price ceilings, but I do not know that that affected the United States very greatly. United States farmers for two years now have received fifty per cent more for their agricultural products. I can see where they will be able to buy more tile drain, fences, steel roofs, and erect more buildings and thus keep the wheels of industry going by increased purchasing power.
I know that great emphasis has been placed upon what happened to the economy of this country after the last war, but that was not all caused by high prices. True, this kind of bill is a war baby; this kind of bill is what sometimes follows war. True, following the last war wheat rose to something like $3.25 a bushel, and it even sold for $3.40 a bushel at some points. The government of the day fixed the price of wheat and established the wheat board, but that board was discontinued when the war was over.
However, it gave the people an appetite for controls, planned economy if you will, for boards, regulations and a new economic doctrine. The same thing happened all over the world. In this country we had our wheat pools in western Canada, but I shall not go into that because they have been dealt with before. Then we had the fiasco of 1929 when we told the world what they would have to pay for our wheat. We all know the sad tragic story of what happened. That was about to be repeated in 1939. No one knows better than the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley), that we were about in the same position as we were in 1929. Had it not been for the war, we would have had the same tragic results with reference to wheat.
If we are to strait-jacket every line of agriculture in Canada we are apparently starting with the industry which it was thought would be the last to be controlled. We thought the farmer was the one who was free. I have heard businessmen say that they were going to buy a farm because, if the government kept on getting more socialistic, or if another government even more socialistic came into power the farmer would be the last free man. Now we know he will be the first to be strait-jacketed; he will be the first to be put more or less under restraint. True,

Agricultural Products Act
we are told this is only for one year, but perhaps practice makes perfect and nothing corrupts like power unless it be more power.
I do not need to say that this bill involves a dangerous principle. It is not sound economically to place in the hands of any one minister power to fix prices and control the production and sale of agricultural products as this bill does. I do not think it was sound economically to carry price ceilings to the extremes we did and then expect our farmers to produce more when they had to sell their products at fifty per cent less than the United States farmers were getting just across the line. Our production in Canada would have been substantially higher but for those price ceilings. I know the Minister of Agriculture might reply:	Compare our production today
with what it was from 1930 to 1935 or from 1920 to 1925, and so forth. But he knows the answer to that. We all know how mechanization has revolutionized agriculture in recent years and resulted in greatly increased production in many lines. I wish that the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. McCubbin) was in the house at this moment. He and other farmer members would remember what happened in 1919 and 1920 and 1921. He would remember what prompted the farmers in those days to take loads of light hogs off the market and take them back home, as I did, and put seventy-five pounds more apiece on them. In those days the people of Europe were starving; the people of Britain were almost starving, and greater production was needed in Canada. There was the incentive of price and we produced more food and fats and lard for Britain and Europe. That is how we increased our production so enormously in those years; in 1921 we produced and sold 225,000,000 pounds of bacon. During four years in that period our production increased faster than in any three or four years in the last decade.
Even though the minister is asking for this power for only one year, it is not the type of power that should be placed in the hands of any one minister. It is another illustration of the dangerous trend we see in these days, similar to the socialistic trends that started to develop not only in Canada but overseas following the first great war. We know the history of Russia in the years from 1917 to 1920 and how the same phrases were used then. They talked of getting parity between town and village, and then everybody would be happier and production would be increased. But it was Lenin himself who said that that policy had failed and Russia returned to the policy of giving her people returns according 83166-95J
to what they produced. We all know how in Germany democratic socialism grew into nazism. We all know what started fascism in Italy. But whether it be fascism in Italy or democratic socialism in Germany, then later nazism, or whether it be so-called socialism in Canada, it all leads eventually to the one thing, and that is a totalitarian state governed by a bureaucracy. Surely after twenty years of experience the time has arrived when we should stop, look and listen before we sow even the kernel of that kind of seed in Canada. I have been amazed to hear people say that we should have a planned economy in Canada; that we should not have any big businesses, and the government should take them over. This kind of socialist legislation that we have before us is the seed that brings forth that type of fruit.
My hon. friends to my left have suggested that we have not enough controls. They believe that some businesses are too big, and yet they assume that they are big enough themselves to run them all.
It has often been glibly said in this house that we have just come through a war that was caused by the capitalists, but proclaiming it loudly does not constitute it a fact. The wrar was a socialist engendered war. The socialists brought in the sword and perished by the sword.
So far as I am concerned I propose to vote against this measure. Reluctantly I acquiesced in extending the emergency powers of the government for another month. I believe that even that is more than they should have asked for. But when it comes to this measure, Mr. Speaker, I say in all sincerity that I can never be a party to putting into any minister's hands or the hands of any department or of any government the, control of the individual such as is sought in this legislation, whereby the government would be in a position to tell the farmer: You will obey me; you will do as I say; you will sow7 what I command and you will reap what I tell you; you will sell at my price; and if you do not follow my orders you will be committing an offence for which you may be fined up to $5,000 and be sentenced to gaol for two to five years. That is going a very long way in controlling other people's lives. We are taking some wild economic chances, but this is one power that I am not going to give to the minister, and if I do nothing else I know that, in taking that stand, I am representing the people who have elected me. We must return to sane and sound common sense. Call it free enterprise, individual initative; call it liberty, freedom, or anything you like-that is the system under which this country has developed and pros-

Agricultural Products Act
pered and that is the system we should follow, not socialism, not C.C.F.ism or any other ism, because all these isms eventually mean the same thing or nothing at all. We must return to the truth enunciated in the Scriptures and earn our bread by the sweat of our brow and receive reasonable recompense for services rendered.
I think the minister will be well advised to review the agreements he has made with Britain. I hope he makes no more of the kind he has made. As a member from Montreal said the other day: Now that we are buying and selling as a nation, we are dealing in national cartels and if any fault is to be found against us for what is done under these agreements it will not be the Winnipeg grain exchange that will be charged or the live stock dealers; it will be Canada herself, because it is this nation that will be dealing with Britain.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that we can produce more food and send more food to Britain if the farmer is allowed to run his own business. The harder he works, the more he expects to earn; and higher prices should bring greater production. That greater production should adjust prices so that the British consumer will not be hurt. Canada's economy cannot afford such novel agreements whereby we are forced to sell our products at less than world prices. This country must maintain a sounder type of economy to be able to play her part in the British commonwealth of nations.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take only a few moments to express myself on this bill, which is entitled, "An act to provide for the sale and export of agricultural products." The leader of this group the other night explained our position, and I agree with him and will vote accordingly.
The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) who spoke a few minutes ago, uttered, I believe, a good many words of wisdom. I agree with him in a great deal that he said. I am not imputing any wrong motives but I rather fancy that when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) drew the hon. member's attention to certain parliamentary rules and standing orders it was not particularly because the speaker was out of order but because he had aroused the minister's ire. I believe the hon. member was speaking the truth with a good deal of passion because he was exercised with respect to the principle underlying the bill. Were it not for the fact that this is simply enabling legislation of a transitional nature I might perhaps choose to vote differently on the matter.
I Mr. Rowe.]
The fact is that there is a cunningly devised scheme abroad for the enslavement of the world, and legislation of this kind-in fact, any legislation-must be scrutinized with every care. The thought must be kept in mind that there is a scheme abroad to enslave the world and to destroy humanity. We must beware lest by the legislation which we pass in this house we aid and abet the programme designed for that purpose. As I have said before, say again now and perhaps shall have occasion to repeat a good many times in the future, there are only two ways of life. Let us make no mistake about that. There are only two programmes in the world and they are designed to accomplish two separate purposes. There is totalitarianism on the one hand-I do not care what you call it; you can call it communism, authoritarianism, dictatorship or whatever you like-and I put socialism there. That is where I "positionize" the philosophy of socialism.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is quite a word.


Ernest George Hansell: You may not find that word in the dictionary, but many good words have originated outside the dictionary. Perhaps I might be credited during my lifetime for originating one word anyway.
There is, on the other hand, the way of life known as democracy, the freedom to exercise one's own initiative; and there is a programme designed for the purpose of realizing a greater and more effective democracy. Either we believe in a regimented state where control is the order of the day and human beings are compelled to obey bureaucratic orders from the big bosses at the head of the state, or we believe in a free society where the order of the day is inducement rather than compulsion. I say that because one of the necessary things in a world slave state is - world control of food. We must diagnose very carefully where agricultural legislation fits into this world picture. Members of parliament have a responsibility. Sometimes I think the decorum of this house is sinking to-


An hon. MEMBER:: The basement.


Ernest George Hansell: Well, to a "degradated"
state, and I sometimes wonder whether we as a parliament recognize our responsibility.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are you "positionizing"?


Ernest George Hansell: I will not mention anyone in particular, but I must confess that I do not like all these catcalls and all this "shut up" business. I do not think in my life I ever told a man to shut up. I may have told him to stop talking, but I was

Agricultural Products Act
not brought up in a home where "shut up" was permitted to be said. However I am not dealing with that now.
Members of parliament have a tremendous responsibility in this complex and befuddled world. We might talk about nails and they are important to the builder who cannot get any. We might talk about fish traps. We might even talk about the increase in the price of agricultural products, and certainly the farmers have a right to expect all they can get for their production. Those things are important to the people who might be involved. But even those things are important matters of but passing interest. What I am trying to put over here is that the responsibility of members of parliament, as they scrutinize legislation, is to ask what effect it will have upon the nation or upon the world, because we are one unit in the world of nations. Consideration must be given to the effect this or that legislation will have upon the world twenty, fifty, one hundred or even a thousand years from now. The great statesmen of the past have always done things in the light of the effect on future generations. Any legislation which is to fit into a programme purposely designed to bring about a world socialist authoritarian state must be looked upon with tremendous care and given the closest scrutiny.
I notice that some hon. members have been urging the minister to make promises as to what he is going to do a year from now with respect to agriculture. I am not one of those. The picture may change in a year. I believe we should have some adequate marketing legislation, but it should be marketing legislation which will put the power where it belongs, namely in the hands of those who produce and have the production for sale, not in the hands of powerful bureaucrats. I am not asking the minister to make any promises about future legislation. We will deal with that when we come to it. As far as my small voice is concerned, if I see anything in legislation which fits into this evil scheme of things I shall raise my voice in opposition. I am following our group's position with respect to this bill, because I realize that the government is responsible for the filling of certain contracts; and we are assisting them for the coming year.


Mr. G. J. TUSTIN (Prince Edward-Len-nox):: I associate myself with the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) in the remarks he made. I had the privilege over the week-end of talking to many farmers about this particular piece of legislation, and I want to call the attention of the minister to the
fact that, many farmers in Ontario at least are very much concerned about this bill. Last night the minister said it was necessary that he should have the bill passed in order that we may fulfil the contracts which we now have with the United Kingdom. With that, I believe, everyone is in accord; that is, that these contracts should be filled. But the point I wish to emphasize, which is giving the farmers in my community concern, is that new contracts may be entered into.
I listened carefully last night and I heard the minister say that no new agreements would be made, but if I read the bill aright it says clearly that the minister may sell or export agricultural products to any country.


James Garfield Gardiner: Only under the orders in council we had during the war.


George James Tustin: It does not say that in the bill.


James Garfield Gardiner: Read it and you will see
that it does.


George James Tustin: I have tried to read it as carefully as I can; while I am not legally trained, I believe I have average intelligence, and I think the bill is perfectly clear in what it says. However, that is one of the concerns that the farmers have.
Let me return to the present agreements. At the present time, the minister indicates, he is negotiating a new contract on cheese. As I understand it, we have a contract entered into for the year 1947, but to date the farmer does not know7 what he will receive for his cheese for this year. I have been asked on many occasions in the last few weeks whether the thirty cents per 100 pounds subsidy would be maintained on milk that goes into the cheese factory. As far as I know, no announcement has been made by the government, and we are now close to the production season, when a great amount of cheese should be made for that contract. If it is not the intention of the government to pay that subsidy I wish to point out to the minister that it will mean that the farmers of Ontario and Quebec-if the same order is put into effect that takes all cheese for the United Kingdom from the first of April or the first of May until November-will sell their milk to the cheese factories and receive about 3{ or cents less for their cheese this year than last year. If that happens, I assure the minister that there will be a great reduction in the amount of cheese produced and, more than that, there will be a rebellion among the fanners of Ontario and Quebec.
I listened last night to the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. McCubbin) who, in my
Agricultural Products Act

opinion, tried to emphasize this bill as a marketing bill. He said the farmers wanted stability. I can go along with him to that extent. That is absolutely what they want. But is there any stability in this bill? No. Instead of this bill being a marketing bill, I would call it a confiscation bill, because the minister has power under it to take any agricultural product he sees fit-


James Garfield Gardiner: You had better read it again.


George James Tustin: I have read it many times. He has power to take any agricultural product he sees fit-


James Garfield Gardiner: Taking it only at the packing plants, and so on.


George James Tustin: It does not say that in the bill.


James Garfield Gardiner: It says it in the orders in council the bill brings into effect.


George James Tustin: When this bill is passed it becomes a statute.


James Garfield Gardiner: And the orders in council become part of it.


George James Tustin: That may be so; nevertheless, we who have no legal training have to read the bill as it is printed, and the point is that the minister, under this bill, may take any crop that is now under production this year and may take it at any price at which he cares to sell it, whether that is acceptable to the farmer or not. I am trying to point out the feeling of the men who are to produce the agricultural products. That is the feeling they have in regard to the bill.


James Garfield Gardiner: You must have instructed them wrongly.


George James Tustin: I did not instruct them at all.


James Garfield Gardiner: They have never seen the bill.


George James Tustin: Do not think the farmers of the country do not think for themselves.


James Garfield Gardiner: The farmers never saw the bill or the orders in council. You had the opportunity to and you should explain it.


George James Tustin: A number of these bills have been sent out. Make no mistake about that, because I sent a number of them myself.
It is not my intention to take the time of the house now, but I call the attention of the minister again to the fact that it is stability the farmers want and there is no stability for them in this bill. This bill, in their opinion, gives altogether too much power to the minis-

ter and his department. If that is not the intention of the bill, then the bill should be rewritten and the intent should be plainly inserted, as to what the effect of the bill will be, so that the ordinary individual can understand it.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Major James William Coldwell: [DOT] Mr. Speaker, I shall be only a few minutes, because I think practically everything that can possibly be said in connection with this bill has been said already. But I should like to direct the attention of the house again to the fact that this is not the kind of bill we would like to have seen introduced, but a bill necessary because of certain agreements the government has entered into with Great Britain. It is an act to provide for the sale and export of agricultural products.
I have risen to say one or two things in particular. First, I want to refer to the speech made this afternoon by the hon. member for Maeleod (Mr. Hansell). I am not going to deal with what he said, but there has been a practice on the part of the hon. gentleman and his friends of continually casting verbal bricks in the direction of the C.C.F., and we have not retaliated. I do not believe this is the time one should do that; but one of these days, perhaps, when the proper occasion arises, one could put a pretty well documented case on the record to indicate clearly just how democratic my hon. friends to the left really are. However I do not propose to do that tonight.
I should like to refer also to the remarks made this afternoon by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) in a somewhat similar vein. During this debate we have heard a great deal about the attempt on the part of those of us who are supporting this bill to impose some compulsion upon the farmers of this country in connection with the marketing of their products. I want to say to the hon. gentleman that, while this bill does not go nearly as far in connection with the marketing of our natural products as the farmers themselves would like to see it go, nevertheless I believe it has the support of a large majority of the producers of this country. When I hear, as I have heard so often during this debate, horror expressed by my hon. friends to my immediate right in the Progressive Conservative party in regard to compulsion, regimentation and taking away the

Agricultural Products Act
rights of the farmers, I remember that throughout the debate I have had in my desk a copy of the act passed in 1934 by the government of which my hon. friend became a member shortly after; without portfolio, it is true; nevertheless a member of the government which introduced that measure and saw that it went through the various stages and became temporarily the law of this land. If you look over that bill, bearing in mind the sort of speeches that have been made by hon. members to my right, you realize how little ground they have for criticism when you look back upon their own record. In the legislation passed by the Bennett government I find:
In this act and in any regulations made thereunder, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(e) "natural products" includes animals, meats, eggs, wool, dairy products, grains, seeds, fruit and fruit products, vegetables and vegetable products, maple products, honey, tobacco, lumber, and such other natural products of agriculture and of the forest, sea, lake or river, and any article of food or drink wholly or partly manufactured or derived from any such product that may be designated-
By whom?
-by the governor in council, in accordance with the provisions of this act.


Mr. PROBE:: Was that a Tory bill?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, the Conservative bill of 1934. Then, if you turn to section 12, which contains much of the meat of the bill, you find this:
The governor in council may by order or regulation, notice whereof shall be published forthwith in the Canada Gazette,-
(a)	regulate or restrict the importation into Canada of any- natural product which enters Canada in competition with a regulated product;
(b)	regulate or restrict the exportation from Canada of any natural product;
(e) provide for the licensing of persons by vhom any such natural product may be imported or exported;
(d) prescribe the forms of such licences and die terms and conditions upon which the same may be issued, renewed, suspended or revoked by the governor in council.
T here has never been any greater power placed in the hands of any government than was given by the bill introduced into this house and put upon the statute books by my hon. friends in 1934, w'hen they were the government of Canada. Consequently, when we hear all this criticism of those of us in other parts of the house today who are supporting what I would call this very minor measure, it does not sound as though there is very much in it. To me it has a very hollow sound. When the government of Canada- and I hope it will be soon-introduces a bill for the marketing of our natural products, I hope that bill will place the powers that are
necessary in the hands of a board representative of the producers of this country, in order that the farmer may in reality control his own product. This legislation of 1934, while it did establish a board, nonetheless placed the vital powers I have enumerated as contained in this section of the bill in the hands of the governor general in council. So that when we hear about compulsion and regimentation I would advise my hon. friends to go back just a few years and see what kind of legislation they introduced and had passed when they were in power. Now I see the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell) wants to ask a question.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Without offering any comments as to the comparison between the powers contained in the 1934 marketing act and the present legislation, may I ask, would the hon. member agree that the powers conferred at that time were for the purpose of assisting the farmers to manage their own affairs in the way they thought desirable, and that it therefore differed tremendously from the present bill? It seems to me that is a basic distinction.


Major James William Coldwell: The clause I just read did not place the power in the hands of the farmers themselves. It took all the power away from them and placed it in the hands of the governor in council.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: But may I ask the hon. member to answer the question? He has not done so yet, and I hope he will.


Major James William Coldwell: I certainly will. A board was established representative of the producers, and to that extent that was a good bill; but only to that extent. I would say to the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario that the bill now before us-and we complain about this-is in an entirely different category from the bill of 1934. That bill was for the control of the marketing of our natural products. The bill we now have before us is mainly to carry out certain orders in council that have already been passed in order that we may live up to agreements we have already signed. I hope that when a bill similar to this one comes before the house it will not contain the kind of clauses I have just read. I hope it will be a more progressive bill, so that even the Conservatives, who have now tacked on to their old name the name "Progressive," may be able to see the light and support a decent bill for the farm population of this country.
May I say just one more thing. We were told many times this afternoon by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) that
Agricultural Prodiccts Act

this is a socialist bill. Well, I think it contains very little of socialism except that it does enable the country to trade as a nation and to fulfil certain agreements that should be fulfilled. But the whole object of the bill at the moment'is to enable us to fulfil our obligations, and to bring order into what otherwise might be a chaos of marketing at this time. Consequently it deserves the support of every hon. member in the house. And when the name "socialist" is bandied across the chamber, I am not worried; because those of us who are democratic socialists are in pretty good company. The people of Norway, of Sweden, of Australia, of New Zealand, and the government of Great Britain are in that same position; and I challenge anyone anywhere in the world to show me countries which over the years have been more loyal to democratic institutions than the countries or governments I have named.
Therefore, when these epithets are bandied about the chamber, as they are, they are meaningless. So far as I am concerned, I am proud to be associated with the same kind of people who have maintained democracy, who have not endeavoured either to stifle or to control the press at any time in their existence as have some of those who profess in this chamber such love for democrac}', but who have kept the torch of human freedom alight on the basis of human brotherhood and good will between all peoples and all races of all creeds and of all colours.
Consequently I do not resent it one little bit when someone refers to me as a socialist, or to the group which surrounds as a socialist group. We are a socialist group, because we believe that the principles of democracy and those principles of human brotherhood that are at the very base of the religion which most of us profess are indeed the same as those which lie at the root of a political philosophy the basis of which is that of human brotherhood and good will to all mankind.


Mr. T. B. BARRETT (Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take up the time of the house very long, but as a farmer and a representative from an agricultural constituency I feel I must add my voice in protest against this bill.
The farmers in my part of the country are already restless under the controls which now exist, and they are fearful of seeing any more controls come into effect. They have seen controls lifted, and have seen other classes released from controls; and they fear that with this bill the chains which already bind them are going to be strengthened. They feel, and I agree with them, that we cannot live half
[Mr. CoIdweJI.J
bond and half free. That is why I am so much afraid that measures of this kind will in time lead to complete socialism and dictatorship. You cannot control one thing without its affecting a great many others. The farmers I know are demanding that the government stop their ears and steer away from this siren song of socialism.
As the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) pointed out this afternoon, too many ships of state have already been lured to their doom by those seductive strains. I fear that this bill will defeat the very purpose for which it is intended, namely to produce more foodstuffs for Great Britain. One needs only to look around Ontario today, to see the acres and acres of fat farm land that is growing nothing but weeds, to look at the acres and acres of good farm land being only half worked, to look at the thousands of young men who are leaving the farms and going to jobs where they can earn twice as much money for half the work, to realize the truth of what I am saying.
Look at the reduced production in many lines; and if more restrictions are put on the farmers it will result only in more restricted production. I feel-and I speak only for myself, although I am sure there are others on both sides of the house, in addition to the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), who feel the same-that this thing we are letting ourselves in for, this incipient socialism, is nothing but the beginning of a cancer. If at the beginning it is not destroyed, root and branch, it will continue to grow until it destroys us. To remove it will require a major operation, an operation which will be painful and which many people dread. But unless we do operate and root it out, it will destroy the way of life we now have.


James Horace King: If the Minister speaks he will close the debate.
Right lion. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, when last Monday evening the second reading of this bill was called I had thought I might save time by not speaking on second reading. I am afraid, however, that I really proved that the rules and customs which have been laid down through long years of practice are better to be followed. Probably it would have taken less time, had I spoken at the beginning of the debate on second reading, rather than now. I thought that because of the discussion we had on the resolution, most of what needed to be said at the beginning of the debate had already been said, and that therefore there was not much necessity for saying more. I find,

Agricultural Products Act
however, I was mistaken in that; and probably mistaken in something else, that I had placed in the hands of the opposition the evening second reading was called an amendment which was suggested from the other side of the house, rather than from this side. That has caused a considerable amount of debate to take place on the second reading that probably might better have come in committee.
In view of the discussions which have taken place, I think it is necessary that I should say something before the vote is taken. I am not going to follow the criticism which was made this afternoon from this side of the house by the hon. member for T emiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) other than to say that no one has suggested that anything which was done during the war period under the powers given by the orders in council that are dealt with in this legislation -was part of Liberal policy or principle.
I have stated on previous occasions that the Liberal party -was established in Britain for the same purpose that some other organizations are being established in these days; it was established during the last century for the purpose of trying to make wars unnecessary and impossible. It was not established for the purpose of conducting or prosecuting wars; it was established for the purpose of avoiding them. In other words, it had in mind that a situation would be created of extending among the peoples of the world the opportunity of trading freely with one another which would make war not only unnecessary but impossible. It may be that time has disappointed some of those who were strong advocates of that idea; nevertheless I think something has happened as a result which has been really beneficial.
When war did come in 1939 no one thought that war could be conducted under a condition where there would be freedom of exchange of goods as among the countries of the world. The first thing that had to be stopped was freedom of the exchange of goods among the countries of the world. It was stopped,, not only by the armies but by every kind of regulation that could be put on to stop it. So we had to stop trading with countries with which we had previously been trading, and with which we have not yet got back to trading. I repeat that Liberalism was never established for the purpose of prosecuting wars and it cannot be utilized for the purpose of successfully carrying on a war when once we are forced into it.


An hon. MEMBER:: We are aware of that.


James Garfield Gardiner: If that remark was
intended to reflect on the government, I am quite sure we made a better job of it than did the Conservative party in the previous war. During the war certain agreements were made, and may I say that those agreements were not made with a socialist government. The agreements which are before this house under this legislation were made at a time when the present leader of the Conservative party in Great Britain was in charge of the government and when the minister of food in that country, Lord Woolton, was one of the outstanding leaders of the Conservative party. Negotiations for the agreements which are before the house under this legislation were mostly between Lord Woolton and myself and our officials in London. They were then carried on later by his representatives and ours both in Ottawa and in London. I say to hon. members opposite and to hon. members on this side, who criticize Mr. Strachey and other members of the British government that they are not criticizing the persons with whom these agreements were entered into. These agreements were entered into with the government that prosecuted the war under the leadership of Mr. Churchill.
Having said that, may I call attention to some of the criticism which we have had, not only during this debate but at other times, with regard to the activities of this government. We have been told that during the war period we appointed too many boards. We have been told that this country should operate under a responsible representative system of government and that the ministers should take responsibility. I have sat in my place in this house during all the years of war and listened to the official opposition hammering Donald Gordon, for example, and suggesting that the powers which were in his hands should be in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture. I have heard hon. members on both sides of the house contend that the powers which were put in the hands of the different boards ought to be in the hands of the ministers themselves. Now, when some effort is made on this occasion to retain some of the responsibility in the hands of the ministers we hear nothing but criticism of that particular action from ' the official opposition.
Then both prior to and during the debate we have heard many statements to the effect that we should do away with compulsion, more particularly compulsion that is exercised by bodies outside the government itself. Again I say that in this debate we have heard a constant advocacy of the idea of setting up an independent board of some
Agricultural Products Act

kind and giving to that board all the authorities which this bill places in the hands of the government itself.
Then it was said by the leader of the
opposition, as reported at page 260 of Hansard:
I am sure also that the house will be pleased to know from the minister's statement that no extension of powers is proposed but rather an extension of time during which certain controls will continue, approximately a year, I understand. We will examine the measure very carefully with respect to the statement that there is not an extension of powers. I hope we will find that that is correct.
Almost every time that hon. members of the official opposition have been on their feet they have been advocating the extension of powers that were given to the Minister of Agriculture or to the different boards or to the government itself under the orders in council that were passed during the period of the war. So I say that this debate has somewhat surprised and astonished me in the course that it has followed.
Probably I should now ask some questions with regard to the measure that has been discussed continuously ever since this debate opened as the measure that ought to be adopted by the house. I wish to thank the hon. leader of the C.C.F. party for having read mto the record certain clauses from the bill that was introduced into this house in 1934 by the official opposition. I should like to read into the record some of the proposals which have been made in this debate and which, it has been suggested, ought to be adopted. I am afraid that every member of the opposition voted for them last night.
We have had the suggestion made that certain things ought to be done in this house at the present time because farm organizations have asked for them. I have in my hand the model bill which the farm organizations have asked for. On the second page is a list of the names of the heads of most of the farm organizations in Canada, and then the short title of the bill is given as follows:
This act may be cited as the Farm Products Marketing Act.
Then under interpretation:
(c)	"Marketing" means with respect to interprovincial trade within Canada or export trade, preparing for sale, buying and selling and offering for sale, or otherwise disposing of any farm product in any manner whatsoever, and includes its transportation in any manner by any person.
You could hardly have an interpretation of marketing which could be wider than that. Then it goes on to give the purpose and intent of the act as follows:
The purpose and intent of this act is to provide in respect to interprovincial trade in Canada and in export trade, for the improvement

of the methods and practices of marketing of farm products, and for the promotion control, regulation, or prohibition, of the marketing of farm products, in any or all respects and in whole or in part.
The next section is headed, "Establishment of schemes and marketing boards", and reads:
The governor in council shall establish a board to be known as the dominion marketing board.
It does not say that the farmers are to establish a board but the governor in council is to establish a board. Then it goes on to say:
(a) The board shall consist of such number of persons as the governor in council may from time to time determine, and each member shall hold office during pleasure and shall receive such remuneration-
Not such remuneration as the farmers decide to give him, but :
-as the governor in council shall determine.
Then paragraph (i) says:
(1)	The governor in council may from time to time authorize payment to the board out of moneys to be appropriated by parliament of such sums of money as may be necessary to assist in the organization of local boards, to defray the operating expenses of the board incurred by it directly and any expenditure incurred or authorized by the board.
Then section 2 goes on to say:
(2)	On recommendation of the board, the governor in council may, from time to time establish, amend and revoke schemes for the marketing or the promoting, regulation or prohibition of the marketing of any farm product, in the interprovincial trade within Canada and in export trade, and may constitute local boards to administer such schemes.
All of this is based on orders in council, as is customary with all such legislation brought before the house.
Then we come to the powers of the board in section 5:
5. (1) Without limiting the generality of any of the other provisions in this act, the governor in council may, subject to the provisions of this act and in respect to interprovincial trade within Canada and of export trade, vest in the dominion marketing board, any or all of the following powers:-
(a) To market or to regulate the time and place at which, and to designate the agency by or through which, any regulated product may be marketed; to regulate, control, or determine the manner of distribution, the quantity, quality, variety, grade, class, or size of the regulated product which shall be marketed by any person at any time; and to prohibit the marketing of any quantity, quality, variety, grade, class or size of any regulated product.
You can tell them that they cannot market their small potatoes and small apples; that they cannot market this and cannot market that. I am not saying that this is legislation which ought to be passed or ought not to be

Agricultural Products Act
passed, but when members of the opposition talk about the powers given by order in council to boards or by order in council to ministers or by order in council to anyone, there is in this bill no power over the individual which compares with the powers proposed in the bill that was suggested to this house last night and was voted for by every member of the opposition who was then in the house. Then paragraph (h) gives the board power:
(h) To require full information relating to the marketing of the regulated product from all persons engaged therein, and to require periodic returns to lie made by such persons; and to inspect the books and premises and vehicles of such persons.
Then paragraph (k):
(k) To require the person in charge of any vehicle to stop the vehicle and to permit any person appointed by the board for such purpose, to inspect the vehicle and its contents.
All these powers and many more-the paragraphs exhaust the greater part of (he letters of the alphabet up to (o)-can be brought into being and would be brought into being, not by any farm organization, but by order in council and would be put into effect by the government of the day. All I wish to say in that regard, in reply to the suggestion that under the present legislation wide powers are given to the government and the minister, and through the minister to boards, is that there are contained in this bill no powers which begin to compare with those contained in the bill that was proposed to set up a permanent marketing board.
In addition, criticism was made of the penalties. In this bill the penalties do not exceed $5,000, whereas in the model bill the penalties run from $25 to not more than *10,000.
Having said that with regard to the legislation that has been proposed, may I now say something with regard to the powers contained in the present bill which have been severely criticized by those discussing the bill. I agree with the leader of the C.C.F. party when he says that, in spite of the fact that these agreements are to be carried out with a British government which for the time being is socialist, this legislation is not socialist in most of its clauses. There may be some respects in which it may be termed socialist to a degree, but I quite agree that it is not the kind or type of legislation which the C.C.F. party, if they were in, power in this country, would introduce into this house. It has in it some principles with which they agree and it deals with a situation now existing in a manner with which they agree, but it is not a bill which is
based on the principles of socialism any more than the bill which the official opposition advocated in 1934 and advocated again last night is based entirely or even largely on the principles of socialism.


Mr. HACKETT:: If the minister will permit a question, does he mean to suggest that by voting to refer the bill back to the committee the opposition upheld the principle of the bill?


James Garfield Gardiner: It was made plain to the official opposition what the C.C.F. party had in mind when they introduced the resolution. That was clearly defined, and it was supported and voted for by the official opposition.


John Thomas Hackett: That is not an answer to the question.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is a good enough answer for your purposes and mine.


An hon. MEMBER:: Both political.


James Garfield Gardiner: Both political. What is the first thing this bill is supposed to do? The first thing it is supposed to do is to complete the agreements made under order in council. I hope that anyone who has read the order in council setting up any of these boards will not try to argue that there are fewer powers in the orders in council than are contained in the bill. I shall read only one or two of them. In the first place, we are given power under the order in council with regard to the meat board, to set up a board, and I take the meat board because it covers more countries than just Britain. Section 3 of the order in council provides:
There shall be a board to be called the meat board consisting of four members-
The only difference there is that we state the number of members.
-of whom one shall be chairman and all of whom shall be appointed by the governor in council to hold office during pleasure.
Almost exactly the same words as are used in the model bill that was presented to us the other day. It goes on:
The chairman and other members of the board shall be paid respectively such salaries or other remuneration as may be fixed by the governor in council.
There we have the board set up. Then section 4 of the order in council deals with the powers of the board:
The board shall have power, subject to the approval of the minister and subject to the provisions of P.C. 9692 of October 22, 1942, as amended, and to section 2(3) of P.C. 8528 of November 1, 1941, as amended,
148S
Agricultural Products Act

(a) to regulate the export of meat pursuant to any contract or agreement for export entered into by the government of Canada or any agency thereof with any external government or any agency thereof, and to that end to arrange with or require any packer or other person to ship and deliver meat of the kind, quantity and quality specified.
The board has also power:
to regulate the storage of meat ... to determine the prices which shall be paid to packers or other persons for meat delivered for export in accordance with paragraph (a) of the section and for meat delivered in storage in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section; provided that with respect to meats secured for export in accordance with the requirements of the board, the price to be paid shall not exceed the price established for the various kinds and grades at the time such meat was taken into store . . .
And so on. In other words, we set up a board or the governor in council sets up a board. We regulate storage. We regulate the price. We determine the price to be paid packers or others as hereinbefore provided and to establish the differentials in price. We have the power to fix the minimum price to be paid by packers or other persons for live stock and so on; to inspect meat delivered; to require any packer to consult from time to time with any advisory committee and so on down to (1):
to recommend to the wartime prices and trade board conditions to be attached to licences issued to packers by such board and the fees payable therefor.
And (n):
to make such rules as may seem expedient for the conduct of its business and proceedings not inconsistent with provisions of these regulations.
And' so on down through another five or six regulations.
What I want to state with regard to it is this. Under those regulations we did not have the authority to go into the back yards, or if we did have the authority we did not exercise it. The kind of authority which we exercised in relation to agreements of that kind, whether it was with regard to bacon, cheese or whatever it was, was to go to the packing plants, the plants at which the cheese was made, the plants at which the other products were produced, at that particular stage, the secondary stage of their production, and by agreement at a price take possession of them and ship them to the markets where they were required under these agreements.
There are provisions in the bill to make it possible for us to enter into a new agreement with regard to apples and/or cattle or anything that we have been dealing with up to the present time. That was put there in the

first instance to meet the very situations which have been discussed by hon. members of the opposition during this debate. We were asked by producers, mostly from Alberta, to arrange for quota shipments of beef cattle into the United States. We do not at the moment agree with the suggestion and I do not know that we shall agree with it at any time during the year.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have given my reasons why prior to this and I am not going to repeat them now.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: We spend too much there.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not going to say any more tonight than I would have said last night about what we are going to do a year from now. As was stated by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell), many things may happen during the next six or twelve months, and no one who is responsible for the administration of the affairs of government will commit himself, either in this house or outside of it, twelve months ahead as to what ought to be done at that particular time with regard to matters of this kind.


An hon. MEMBER:: The farmers will not have much to say about it.


James Garfield Gardiner: The second thing which
is proposed in this act is to give the government the power to go out and make a new agreement with regard to apples and to have the authority to make new arrangements with regard to such matters as beef, if it is found necessary to do so, in order to take care of the situation in this country. But as far as I know at the present time we shall probably not change our mind with regard to sending quotas of beef into the United States, for the same reason I spoke of the other night. But there could be developments in our relationship with the Americans, from thoughts expressed to us by them, which might change our minds with regard to a matter of that kind.
Discussions have gone far enough to indicate why we have special provision made in the bill to take care of apples. I have not any hesitation in saying that if it is the will of this house-and I am speaking more particularly to the opposition-and if they want the provisions for dealing with apples and the provisions for dealing, if necessary, with cattle, or any other condition of that kind removed from this bill. I have not any objection to its being removed. It will take only one word to remove it, and that word can be put in when

Agricultural Products Act
we come to the section where it can be put in, and it will remove entirely from the act any necessity for dealing with anything new in connection with this bill.
I say I am prepared to do that, and I have not any hesitation in saying why I am prepared to do that. The government have given every consideration to the representations which have been made to them through the Minister of Agriculture by producers of cattle and by producers of apples; and we have placed in the bill, as I said the other night, a degree of increased authority and power in order to make it possible for us to go that much farther. But if. when we get into committee, this house wants that power taken away, I am not going to battle in order to retain that position, in the light of what has been said in the discussions throughout this debate. We can have everything which is necessary to be done under the agreements which we have made, because every other one of these orders in council preparing for the setting up of boards, except that having to do with meat, confines our activities entirely to the United Kingdom and does not make it possible for us to do any trading under these agreements with any country but Great Britain. The meat order do.es make it possible for us to deal with other countries.
One thing which is necessary before we can deal with apples as we did deal with them during the war, is to have some authority with regard to interprovincial trade. We do not require any authority with regard to interprovincial trade in order to deal with the other agreements which were already made under the orders in council which we had during war time.
I want to state clearly, Mr. Speaker, to the members of the house that the one thing which involves principle in connection with this bill is the provision for carrying out the contracts which we have made, giving us the authority to change price levels and quantities in those contracts until we reach the end of the period covered by the contracts. In addition to that, we have said that we are prepared to come back here once a year and report on what has happened. We are not saying that we are not going to ask the house for an extension of these powers next year. We have said clearly that we likely shall be doing that because our contracts on meat, bacon, beef and cheese, as well as on other products, will run beyond March 31. 1948; and unless something happens which makes it absolutely impossible for this country and Britain to continue their contractual relationship, we shall be back a year from now asking
for an extension of these authorities under the bill. But this house will have the power then to deal with them just as they have the power to deal with them now. However the principle underlying this bill, and the only principle which the government has been insistent upon putting into it and keeping in it, is the authority which is necessary to carry out the agreements we have made to deliver our surpluses of food to the United Kingdom. If we have this in the bill when it is completed, we shall consider that we have reached the objective we have in mind; and I would suggest that the bill be given its second reading.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Mr. Speaker, will you please call for the yeas and nays? [DOT]


James Horace King: Those in favour of the motion will say "yea."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yea.


James Horace King: Those opposed to the motion will say "nay."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nay.


James Horace King: In my opinion the "yeas" have it. Call in the members. Before putting the question, may I ask hon. members to be good enough to keep silence during the vote in order that the work of the officers in charge may be facilitated. May I also ask every hon. member to remain standing until his name has been called by the clerk assistant so as to ensure that there shall be no mistakes during the taking of the vote.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I was paired with the hon. member for Colchester-Hants (Mr. Stanfield). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. GARIEPY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Hatfield). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. LACOMBE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Bertrand). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.
(Translation):


Mr. BONNIER:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
Oil section 1.
Mr. BURTON:: I hesitate to bother the minister so soon after his making a comprehensive statement. Yet there is a matter concerning which I should like him to give us some clarification. Yesterday he made the statement that "there might be a possibility of doing that twelve months from now, if the proper boards were set up". Would he explain to the committee what action he intends to take so that necessary boards will be set up, or encouragement given to the setting up of the boards to which he has referred.
Prior to that, the minister had stated that in all provinces there was provincial marketing legislation. I suggest that the committee should know to wdiat extent the minister intends to make use of the legislation in the provinces, and to what extent the minister and his department will give encouragement to the setting up of the boards to which he made reference yesterday. I ask this so that, when we come back here a year from now, we shall not be met with the same story that the time is too short and that the necessary boards have not been set up in certain parts of Canada to make use of a wider natural products marketing act, such as that which he intimated yesterday it would be impossible to have now, even if he wanted to have it. I may say he did not sound encouraging in that respect.

Agricultural Products Act


James Garfield Gardiner: What I had in mind yesterday, and still have, is that there are only two boards I know of-although there may be some others affecting products for interprovincial trade-which can be utilized for the purpose of providing products which might be sent to the British market under the agreements. One of those products is apples, and I mentioned that in the discussion. There are apple boards which could perform the task of providing apples to fill the contract. In addition to that, tobacco has been organized in a similar fashion. However we have no agreement in respect of tobacco, and I do not believe there is any necessity for or likelihood of it. They deal with their own product, and will probably continue to do so.
What I said yesterday was that it would be impossible for us to turn over the task of supplying products such as bacon, cheese and, at the present time, even beans, or any of the other products for which we have agreements, to any producers board which now exists. I do n-ot know whether it is possible for the farm organizations between now and a year from now to set up boards which could supply us with, let us say, bacon. I would have grave doubts as to whether it could be done. If there are no such boards to which we can apply for the products a year hence, we would require to come back and ask the permission of the house again to go on as we are, so far as bacon is concerned.
Hon. members are reasonably familiar with the situation with regard to apples and with regard to bacon. The situation respecting cheese is probably halfway between the two. In what I said yesterday I meant simply that, so far as the carrying out of these agreements is concerned, if there were suitable organizations to which the task could be turned over, we would have no objection to doing that. We have already utilized the apple boards in carrying out arrangements we have had with regard to apples. While we have not had an agreement with regard- to tobacco, we assisted the tobacco boards in carrying out their negotiations during the war.


Joseph William Burton: The minister has not quite answered the question. I asked as to what extent he and his department were willing to cooperate with people in the various provinces who would be desirous of setting up boards in those provinces.
May I enlarge upon that. I am concerned with the fact that some sections of the country are in need of assistance to get their products properly on the market, and I have in mind particularly the potato growers. When I
attended the conference recently of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, to which reference has been made, potatoes were mentioned To what extent would the minister's department assist in setting up a potato board in a province with which at a later time the national board could do business. There are other commodities in a similar position. In different parts of the country producers are concerned, but in many instances they require assistance and encouragement.
When the minister spoke yesterday he referred to the possibility of setting up these boards. My concern is that a year from now we ought not to be faced again with the statement that the time is too short, that the necessary boards have not been set up in the different parts of the country, and that, as a consequence, we can do nothing more than pass another bill similar to this one.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yesterday the hon.
member for Middlesex West spoke with regard to beans and suggested that the bean growers might be encouraged to set up a marketing board. In 1939 we placed upon the statute books an act under which farmers could organize to market their products cooperatively. That act provides that when any group of farmers anywhere in Canada desire to pool their product and market it cooperatively the government will guarantee an arranged upon advance to the farmers in the area, but that advance could not be more than sixty per cent of the average price for the preceding three years. I was looking in my file for the return that was brought down a few days ago indicating the number of organizations which have been set up under that legislation since 1939. It is not here. I know there is one in Saskatchewan which will be well known to the hon. member for Humboldt. This has to do with the marketing of alfalfa seed, fodder crop seed. This organization has operated ever since the act was set up in 1939.
This year the fur producers of Prince Edward Island set up an organization to market the furs raised on their ranches. I have a request from the minister of natural resources of Saskatchewan for copies of the act. He is making this request because of correspondence some of their people have had with Prince Edward Island with regard to the setting up of a cooperative to deal with that product. We have sent them the act and all the regulations and information as to how to go about organizing under it.
I must say that there were more of these organizations during the first year of the act than there have been since, but now that the war is over, inquiries are coming in and
Agricultural Products Act

these organizations are being set up again. The bean producers or the producers. of any other commodity can organize. If they did organize there is no doubt that we would take the beans from the organization to fill agreements.


Mr. MICHAUD:: What are the main
differences between this bill and the Agricultural Prices Support Act as far as powers are concerned? Is it contemplated that this bill should apply to products which are not under contract with countries like Great Britain?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know whether the hon. member was in the house when I spoke on the second reading, but at that time I stated there was a possibility that it might deal with products other than those covered by the agreements made under the orders in council. I shall not be in position until we get by the next section to say whether that is true or not. If there is to be an amendment to make it apply only to the agreements which we already have, then that must be done under the next section. If it is to apply to apples or to any arrangement that we might desire to make to send some beef, say to the United States or France or anywhere else, then we would leave the bill as it is and in that case there would be more authority than we had under the orders to the extent that apples would be included.
In so far as any other powers are concerned, the powers that are in here are copied from the orders in council which we had during war time. It is true that they are copied in general terms, but they must be if we are to be in a position to make a new apple agreement or other agreements. If not, then we can confine the operation of the act to the agreements now in existence.


Benoît Michaud: Perhaps I did not make my point clear. I asked how this bill compared with the Agricultural Prices Support Act, not the orders in council.


James Garfield Gardiner: The orders in council have powers similar to those provided by the Agricultural Prices Support Act. I should repeat what I said when speaking on the amendment, that it is our hope that we can avoid bringing in the Agricultural Prices Support Act to apply in connection with any particular product so long as we can maintain the agreement which sets a floor price. But if for any reason we are not able to maintain the agreement to secure floor prices it will be necessary to bring in the Agricultural Prices Support Act.


Mr. BENTLEY:: In answer to the hon. member for Humboldt and at other times during the debate, the minister pointed out that it would be impossible at this stage to prepare a marketing act which would carry out the terms of these contracts as well as this bill would. Answering the hon. member for Humboldt, the minister said he was not prepared to introduce a marketing act, nor was he prepared to say that it would be done next year. As was pointed out by my seat-mate, this may go on and on for ever and ever. I noticed that someone on the Tory benches stated that the minister could make contracts and then come to the house next year and say, "I have committed the country; you must pass this bill to make it valid." The result would be that we might never have a natural products marketing act.
On the other hand, if the minister were to take steps now to prepare one we would have it for this session or early next session and it would provide encouragement for a lot of people in the various provinces to go ahead and form the types of organization he has described. It could be used for that purpose and for other purposes as well. Will the minister tell us why he is so reluctant to give that necessary encouragement? That is all we ask. We do not want the minister to wait and make this an election promise at the next election; we would like him to indicate what he intends to do.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am sure my hon. friend will agree that the Minister of Agriculture is not the government, despite what the official opposition say. It is absolutely impossible for me to tell the house what will be done with regard to any piece of legislation until that legislation has been considered by the government. It would be impossible for me to say here that we intend to bring down a bill next year or the year after or any other year. The bill has to be drafted and submitted to the government; it would have to be considered by the government before I would have any authority to say in this house or anywhere else that we intended to bring in a bill at any time. All I can say at the moment is that we have decided not to bring in one at this session.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: A few weeks ago the minister made a statement in the house regarding the potato situation in the maritimes. Would he state under what authority he acted? Would he also tell us what quantities of potatoes are involved? What arrangements have been made to assure that no potatoes will be destroyed in the maritimes? Will he

Agricultural Products Act
state whether surplus potatoes will reach the British isles under the order in council or whatever legislation the minister is acting under?


James Garfield Gardiner: The arrangements were made under the Agricultural Prices Support Act by the agricultural prices support board. As I said yesterday in the discussion, that is the only product vre have dealt with by agreement under the Agricultural Prices Support Act up to the present. During the war we had no agreement and gave no assistance with regard to potatoes because we thought the price was sufficiently high to permit of the potatoes being marketed at reasonable returns to the producers. But this year there is an enormous crop and a situation which is more difficult to deal with, so that *we entered into an arrangement whereby on the first of May we would take a certain quantity of potatoes at a certain price. I have not the price before me at the moment and I should not like to quote it from memory, but the principle is that we take a certain quantity of potatoes at a certain price.
Our information was that a month ago there were some 5,000,000 bushels of potatoes or 5,000,000 hundredweight, I am not sure which, of a surplus, and we succeeded in selling what we thought was the greater part of them at the time to the British government, to be supplied entirely from Prince Edward Island. The reason for supplying them from Prince Edward Island was that certain restrictions were placed on the deal by Britain. Since then we have been asked to advance the time at which we would take the potatoes to the first of April. Up to the present we have not advanced the time and I am not in a position to say definitely whether the time will be advanced or not. We did make inquiries as to whether we could obtain potatoes for another purpose which I do not feel free to discuss at the moment. The report I have had is that we shall not obtain the quantity of potatoes required, and so I have concluded that there were not so many surplus potatoes in the maritimes as we thought there were a month ago.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I gather from what the minister has said that there will be no surplus potatoes wasted or destroyed in the maritimes, but that the surplus will be sent to the British market.


James Garfield Gardiner: Or taken under the arrangement that we made to take the potatoes left at the first of May. But what we are going to do with them, if taken, I cannot say at the moment.


Benoît Michaud: In view of the remarks just made by the minister, I feel that I should give him some information which I gathered over the week-end. It is to the effect that there is a tremendous quantity of potatoes along the Saint John river not being marketed. What seemed to be the difficulty was a lack of refrigerator cars, but I understand that that situation has improved. I am morally certain that an enormous quantity of potatoes is available there and I think that possibly what the minister had in mind could be filled.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member (Mr. Michaud) has been pressing the position on behalf of the potato growers in New Brunswick for some time. All I can say at the moment is that, as a result of reports received, we have had inquiries made and have had men trying to locate a sufficient quantity of potatoes to make possible boatload shipments which we had thought we could supply to some countries, not Britain, but elsewhere, and the report I received was that, contrary to previous reports, there was nothing like the quantities wTe had thought were there.


Benoît Michaud: I shall be glad to communicate further with the people down there and try to get definite information for the minister.


Mr. WINTERS:: Would the minister say why this bill excludes apples?


James Garfield Gardiner: When the bill was drafted I had the idea that it did include what those who were interested in apples had in mind. I thought it did give us the authority to make a new agreement. That was one of the things complained about during the second reading. I thought that if we had authority to make new agreements we could make a new agreement with regard to apples. In addition, section 4 (3) provides:
The minister may direet'that any agricultural product designated by him may be purchased for the purpose of this act or the Agricultural Prices Support Act, 1944, only from a provincial marketing board.
With those two authorities, one to make a new agreement and the other to purchase through the marketing board, I thought we would be able to meet the situation but I was told that it would not do so. During the war we had arrangements which necessitated getting agreements as between provinces and I was informed that there would have to be an amendment made to the bill. I have an amendment to propose to section 5 if it is desired to go ahead with the idea that we should make new agreements with regard to apples and possibly meats.
Agricultural Products Act


Mr. SENN:: That raises another question. Has the minister under his hand the agreements now in force with Great Britain, the quantities to be delivered, the price, and the date of termination of the agreements? It would be helpful to have that information on Hansard.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have a big file of orders here. It is quite bulky.


Mark Cecil Senn: You have not a summary?


James Garfield Gardiner: Not at the moment. I would not attempt to give the prices all the way through.


Mark Cecil Senn: Can you give the date of the termination of the agreements?


James Garfield Gardiner: I can say in general
terms that we have an agreement on bacon which is in specific terms down to the end of 1948. For 1949 the price is not yet final, but the quantity, as I remember it, is the same as for 1948. The price will not be less than the price last year. It will not be less than $25 a hundred for bacon. That is the floor price. The new prices for 1949 are to be negotiated at the beginning of next year. This means that there is a contract for bacon and ham down to the end of 1949. Then there is a contract for beef, on the same principle, down to the end of 1949. There is a set price and set quantities down to the end of 1948. The beef agreement states definitely 120,000,000 pounds for 1949.


Mark Cecil Senn: That is the minimum?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; that is what we are aiming at.


Mark Cecil Senn: They will take more?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are satisfied they will take more, but they do not want to deal this far ahead with the actual price or the actual quantity they will require. They want to do that at the first of next year. The present agreement carries us down to the end of 1949. On cheese the agreement is until May 1, 1948. It is at twenty cents a pound, plus the subsidy. Whatever subsidy we are paying in that time the British have undertaken to pay. We must discuss, of course, in advance what the subsidy is to be here, and have some agreement on it. They are paying the subsidy for this year.


William Earl Rowe: Is it subject to change during the year?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, but so far there has been only a change upward.


Mark Cecil Senn: That is not a subsidy for quality?


James Garfield Gardiner: The present subsidy is thirty cents on milk entering cheese, and that is turned into so much per pound on cheese and is paid by the British.


Mark Cecil Senn: They do not pay the premium?


James Garfield Gardiner: The premium is paid out of the Canadian treasury.


George James Tustin: Is the minister in a position to say now that the thirty cents a hundred will be paid during the year 1947?


James Garfield Gardiner: I made an announcement some time ago with regard to dairy products. Yesterday I made an announcement with regard to feed grain. We were not in a position to deal finally with dairy products until the feed grain arrangements had been made. Now they are made and we are working out the arrangement and we hope to make an announcement in connection with dairy products. I think I can say, without any fear of its not being correct, that there will not be any lowering of return; there will be a return equal to price plus subsidy.


George James Tustin: I am glad to hear that statement from the minister. I think it would be a great thing for this country, and for the production of cheese in particular, if he could make that statement so that the farmers of Ontario and Quebec, who are the great producers of cheese, could have it just as soon as possible. At the moment they do not know whether they are to receive that subsidy or not. Second, if the statement were made, they would know accordingly and would no doubt make arrangements to have their milk go into cheese products, which at the moment I do not think they are able to do.


James Garfield Gardiner: If the hon. member will look at the announcement which I made yesterday, he will find that it reads as follows, as reported on page 1408 of Hansard:
In any case in which a price increase or substitution of a price for a subsidy would have the effect of giving unwarranted profits to holders of stocks, such stocks will be purchased by the government at the old price and returned to the holders or sold at the new price. This procedure will make it possible to recover subsidy or prevent chance profits to the holders of stocks. I want to emphasize this point in order to discourage any hoarding in anticipation of increases in ceiling prices or withdrawal of subsidy that may take place in the future.
That was done in anticipation of the fact that we shall probably be making some increases in dairy products. That is what it was put there for; and the machinery for doing it would have to be worked out before we would announce what the position would be.

Agricultural Products Act


John Thomas Hackett: Will the minister say if the uncertainty as to prices has caused the great reduction in the production of cheese in the province of Quebec in the year just past?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am sorry to say that I cannot agree with that, in spite of the fact that it has been repeated a great many times. A great many people are repeating that statement. I am quite sure that if the hon. member had been with me when I met the handlers of feed from Montreal last week, he would not agree that that is the only reason. I am not going to argue with him as to whether it has any effect at all on it, but the present position is that there could not be any more live stock fed. There is not the feed available with which to feed live stock to produce any more than has been produced. When you take the live stock that is produced for beef, bacon, pork, dairy products and others which have to be fed, and the birds which have to be fed for the production of poultry and eggs, there is not enough feed in Canada at the present time which can be distributed to where it is wanted to make it possible to finish the live stock we now have aa they ought to be finished. Therefore it ought to be apparent that, no matter what the price situation had been, we could not have got more. The farmer who produced these products would probably have been better satisfied if he had had better prices, but there could1 not have been any more in total produced.


John Thomas Hackett: I should like to pursue this a little bit farther if I may. According to figures supplied from official sources, there was a very large reduction in the quantity of cheese produced in the province of Quebec. My question is: was that brought about in whole or in part by uncertainty as to the price of cheese?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, I do not think so; but it is an arguable point.


Mark Cecil Senn: As a matter of fact, it seems to me it is brought about by the fact that the price of cheese has been too low under the British agreement. I had some figures, although unfortunately I have not them with me, to show that the twenty cents plus the premiums that are paid for quality, and the thirty cents a hundred premium or subsidy that is paid on milk, brings the price of milk which enters into the price of cheese up to only about $2.10 to the farmer; and that is tire outside limit which the dairy branch here gives. That is not nearly enough to encourage the farmer in the production of milk for
cheese. That seems to be the difficulty which the farmer is labouring under at the present time.


John Thomas Hackett: Is there any provincial aid included in that price?


Mark Cecil Senn: Yes, there is in Ontario.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is in Ontario but not in Quebec.


Thomas John Bentley: A moment ago I asked the minister a question as to why he would not make a commitment, and he quite properly answered that he was not the government and could not commit the government. I accept the correction there. But in his reply he did say that the government had decided not to introduce a marketing act this year, or at least a comprehensive one. That indicates to me that the government at least had considered this at some stage in their proceedings or they would not have arrived at that decision. I am now going to ask the minister if he can tell, us why the government has decided not to do that this year; not why the minister has decided not to do it, but why the government has decided not to do it.


James Garfield Gardiner: The reason why the government decided not to bring it in this year was the one which I gave to the house.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: Do you agree with them?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, I agree with them or I would not have brought this bill in. The reason given was that you could not possibly handle the situation which exists this year under the type of marketing bill which we would want in Canada, over a long period; and that if you had put on the statute books, in addition, any other marketing bill that we might approve at all, whether it conformed with the wishes of the opposition or not, it would only be putting a third piece of legislation on the statute books at the present time to deal with the situation. We have the Agricultural Prices Support Act which now makes it possible for us to keep a floor under any farm product, and it makes it possible for the government to do that by taking money out of the treasury. No farm organization could do that directly. The government must tax the people, take the money out of the treasury and utilize it for the purpose of doing certain things. We said, by act of this parliament in 1944-and that act is on the statute books-that we are prepared to utilize that act for the purpose of seeing to it that the farmer is not punished because he took the prices which he did take during the time we were controlling ceilings. I think that act
Agricultural Products Act

must stay there; at least it must stay there as long as I am in the government. I am not substituting any marketing act for it. One of the reasons for that is this. I am in agreement with hon. members on the other side of the house, and on this side too, who have said that the farmer up to the moment has not received very much from price control. His prices were held down. From the other point of view, it is true that the prices of the things he had to buy were held down too.


William Earl Rowe: Not very much.


James Garfield Gardiner: But he could not buy them. They did not exist. Those of us who wanted to buy farm implements, tractors and all the other equipment which a farm needs, could not buy those items throughout the war; and up until now we have not been able to buy them in the numbers which we want to. That being the case, we did not get the full advantage of the controlling of prices downward. When it comes to textiles, any farmer member knows that does not mean as much to farmers as it does to people engaged in other occupations in this country. Farmers wear overalls, work boots and rough clothing. They dress up once a week in other clothing and their suits last a long time. It is not the same saving for a man on a farm to have textiles held down for a period as it is to some other people; but even when the farmer wanted to buy textiles he could not, and so he has now come to the period when his clothing is worn out and his implements are worn down. My contention is, therefore, that the transitional legislation ought to see him through that situation; and our bill, which we put in to take care of that situation, ought to remain on the statute books and we should not substitute anything else for it, nor should we be transferring the responsibility of the Government to some farm organzation. The government should assume that responsibility until we have got through the transitional period.
That being so, I doubt very much whether I could draft a bill or have one drafted. I know I could not draft it, but I doubt very much whether I could state the principles to someone who would draft it in legal terms clearly enough to avoid doing harm to the legislation we already have on the statute books and which, I think, must stay there for a time.
Let me say, however, that we have not been idle in that regard. I instructed my officials, not this year, but two or three years ago, that we had representations from farm organizations, just prior to the war and again during the first year of the war, to the effect that this

legislation would be wanted, that all the provinces have it, and that we ought to be working on the possibility of having a bill, though not necessarily the bill that has been proposed. I do not know whether I would want to introduce a bill like that. If we could get one couched in some other terms, which would do the job more to my satisfaction and, I believe, to the satisfaction of the majority of the farmers than even the legislation which the farmers' organizations propose, then I would bring that in rather than any bill which they suggest. I do not want it understood that we have not been giving thought to the question. We have had men working on it, and after having them working on it we have come to the conclusion that, no matter what bill we might desire to bring in, we would not wish to bring it in this year, and that necessitates our giving it at least another year's consideration.


Mr. CHARLTON:: The hon. member for Dauphin last night-and it has been quoted tonight-stated on several occasions that the Natural Products Marketing Act passed by the Bennett government in 1934 was as bad as or even worse than this bill now brought forward by the minister. I wish to make clear, by quoting a somewhat different section from that quoted so far, that that is not the case. First, I wish to quote from the Natural Products Marketing Act:
The board shall, subject to the provisions of this act, exercise the powders hereinafter -conferred upon it. and shall advise the minister from time to time on matters pertaining to the administration of this act and regulations made hereunder.
The draft bill as brought forward by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture contains this provision:
The board shall, subject to the provisions of this act, exercise the powers hereinafter conferred upon it, and shall advise the minister from time to time on matters pertaining to the administration of this act and regulations made hereunder.
Are not the two identical?


James Garfield Gardiner: What was the first act from which the hon. gentleman quoted?


John Alpheus Charlton: The Natural Products Marketing Act of 1934, and next from the draft bill presented by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.


James Garfield Gardiner: Pretty much the same.


John Alpheus Charlton: Yet it has been stated in the house on different occasions, and by the minister himself, that it actually gives more power to the minister than the bill he is now introducing, which is entirely untrue.

Agricultural Products Act


James Garfield Gardiner: 
John Alpheus Charlton: That bill gave the
authority to the producer groups, not to the minister and not to the commodity board.


James Garfield Gardiner: The authority that went to the producer groups went from the minister through the board he set up.


John Alpheus Charlton: I have just quoted from the bill:
The board shall, subject to the provisions of this act, exercise the powers hereinafter conferred upon it. and shall advise the minister from time to time on matters pertaining to the administration of this act and regulations made hereunder.
Advise the minister, not have the advice of the minister. Another section provides:
All powers herein conferred upon the board for the marketing or promotion, control, regulation, or the prohibition of marketing of any natural product shall be exercised through local boards appointed as herein provided or through boards or agencies established under provincial law for similar purposes.
Mr.	GARDINER:	That	is the	1934	act?Mr.	CHARLTON:	That	is the	draft	act,Mr.	GARDINER:	Of	1934?Mr.	CHARLTON:	No;	that is	the draft
presented by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, containing practically the same powers as the act of 1934. I will now quote from the bill which the minister has brought forward:
The minister may establish one or more commodity boards and may authorize and require a commodity board to exercise and perform all or any of the powers and duties of the minister under section 3 of this act with reference to such agricultural products as the minister may designate, but such powers and duties shall be exercised and performed by a commodity board subject to the direction and control of the minister.
It has been said, as I pointed out before, that the Natural Products Marketing Act of 1934 gave just as much power to the governor in council as this Bill No. 25. It does not. It puts power in the hands of producer boards, or the local boards as they are called. One section was read last night by the hon. member for Dauphin, but if he had read further he would have found that the governor in council was given authority as set out in these terms:
On recommendation of the board, the governor in council may. from time to time, establish, amend and revoke, schemes for the marketing or the promoting, regulation or prohibition of the marketing of any natural product, in interprovincial trade within Canada and in export trade, and may constitute local boards to administer such schemes, and may vest in those local boards respectively any powers considered necessary or advisable to enable them effectively to market or to promote, control, regulate. or prohibit such marketing of any natural product, in any or ail respects and in whole or in part.
And listen to this:
Such schemes may only be established when evidence lias been submitted to the board that the schemes are favoured by a satisfactory proportion of producers in the area affected.
I cannot understand the position taken by the C.C.F. in connection with this legislation, because it would appear to anyone familiar with the Regina manifesto that, as it stands now. this legislation is identical with what the C.C.F. party would want. But now they come along and want the producer boards to have control. That is not state control; it is farm control. Just what do they want? The hon. member for Dauphin also turned around and suggested placing power in tire elected representatives, which would mean the governor in council. Is that not state control again? Let lion, members get together. One says one thing; another says something else. Last evening the hon. member for Middlesex West said the bean growers should have a central marketing agency. I quote his words from page 1443 of Hansard:
I would ask the government if it would not be possible for them to negotiate a contract with Great Britain for a five-year period for white beans, just as has been done for wheat-
And listen to this:
-the farmers to bind themselves under a central marketing agency to fill the contract.
That is what we have been asking for all along; producer boards. Let me quote a little further from the hon. member:
We have this market in Great Britain if only we will help ourselves, and I think the government would cooperate with us in the sale of the commodity and not leave it to the dealers.
Agricultural Products Act

That is the very thing we have been trying to put across.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I raise a point of order. I do not want to curtail the remarks anyone may desire to make, but this is the question we discussed for two days on second reading. I raise the question now, because I am quite sure if one speech on this matter is completed others will want to make speeches in reply, and I think we should have a ruling as to whether or not that is in order. The hon. member is discussing two bills which are not before the house at all.


Mr. GREEN:: If I may say something on the point of order, Mr. Chairman, it has always been the practice in this house that on the first section of the bill very wide latitude is permitted, and I suggest that that rule should be followed in the discussion of this bill. Otherwise you would be changing the course that has been followed since I have been in this house, a matter of ten or eleven years.


James Garfield Gardiner: But we are never allowed to discuss some other bill.


Howard Charles Green: I came here at the same time as the Minister of Agriculture, and certainly that course has been followed ever since we were first elected.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am afraid my hon. friend's recollection is wrong. That was done first in regard to the war appropriations, and it was very often done by consent on the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, but as far as I know, it has never been the general practice.


William Ross Macdonald: My recollection is that when a bill goes to committee without discussion on second reading, wide latitude is allowed to permit a discussion of the principle of the bill on the first section.


Mr. GOLDING:: By unanimous consent.


William Ross Macdonald: By unanimous consent of the committee, but in my experience it has been the general rule that, where the bill has not been discussed in the house, then in committee on the first clause wide latitude is allowed in discussion of the principle. But where second reading of the bill has been discussed in the house, I do not recall that further discussion of the principle is permitted in committee, except by unanimous consent; and even at that it is seldom done. I would say that the principle of the bill has been accepted by the house on second reading; that question has been settled and the principle approved. We are in committee on the bill and, according to the standing order, all dis-
cussion in committee must be relevant to the clause under consideration. I did not interrupt the hon. member for Brant because a number of other hon. members had transgressed the rule and gone beyond a discussion of the clause under consideration, but might I suggest to the hon. gentleman that he curtail his remarks as much as possible in order that we may get down to a discussion of the bill clause by clause.


Howard Charles Green: It is a funny thing that these objections are always raised when an opposition speaker has the floor. Through you, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to the minister that we are getting along quite nicely with this bill, and I believe the hon. member should be allowed to go ahead with his remarks. He is not in the habit of taking a great deal of the time of the house; he knows what he is talking about, and I believe he should be permitted to continue.


James Garfield Gardiner: The only discussion that has taken place from this side of the house has been my effort to answer questions asked from the other side, and by one member from this side. I only want to say I have no objection, and I do not think the Chairman would have much objection, to a discussion of this bill; but surely we are not going to have another discussion of the bill which was proposed last evening and defeated in this house.


Howard Charles Green: No bill was defeated.


James Garfield Gardiner: The amendment which was defeated last evening proposed the bill which the hon. member has been discussing. He has been discussing a general marketing act, and the bringing of that in this session was defeated last evening.


John Ritchie MacNicol: During the time I have been here, which is five years longer than either the Minister of Agriculture or the hon. member for Vancouver South, or yourself, Mr. Chairman, it has been the custom that on the first section of the bill very wide latitude has been allowed in discussion. I think we shall make more progress in that way, and I suggest that you allow the hon. member fairly wide latitude in saying what he believes is relevant to the first section of the bill.


William Ross Macdonald: I believe I have allowed very wide latitude so far, but I think the time has come when we should be discussing the bill clause by clause. As the minister has said, if one speech is allowed to be delivered on matters outside the provisions of this bill, other similar speeches will be thereby provoked, and we shall never get down to a consideration of the bill itself.

Agricultural Products Act


John Alpheus Charlton: I was only endeavouring to answer accusations against this party which were made during the debate. I had spoken on second reading after the amendment was moved by the C.C.F., so that it was impossible for me to speak again. Therefore my only opportunity to answer those accusations was when the bill came up in committee of the whole. I am sorry if I have done anything against the rules, but apparently my remarks were having some effect.


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, no; it is not a matter of having any effect; it is a matter of trying to get through with our work.


John Alpheus Charlton: I was just going to read one more quotation from the speech of the hon. member for Middlesex West. Still referring to the beans, he said:
Why should the state not handle this? After all, they are only the representatives of the country. We are a democratic country and, if we are not satisfied with the government that is in power, we have our redress at the next election because we can turn them out.
All I have to say in reply to that statement is that I am afraid it is not always the good fortune of farming or urban constituencies to be represented in this house by a man of the calibre of the hon. member for Middlesex West. If it were businessmen who were quite capable of handling the marketing of various products, and who were representatives in the house, I would say that probably it would be all right. But are not the members of producer boards infinitely better qualified to handle this than are most members of parliament? I believe so.
The amendment as suggested by the minister was brought forward under the assumption that it was the only group in Canada qualified to handle the problem. I just wish to point out that the Ontario apple growers are not represented or are not organized under the provincial marketing act of Ontario. I am not saying they would not be happy; in fact, I believe they would be very happy to let the British Columbia and maritime growers speak for them. But on the other hand, if that were true-and I believe it would be- would if not be possible for the Ontario hog producers, who have an organization some 31,000 strong, to speak for some of the other provinces which are not organized?
The minister made the statement that it would be utterly impossible to carry out these food agreements without this legislation. I contend that is utter nonsense, because it could be carried out. That is all I care to say at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Minister may sell or export agricultural products.
John Alpheus Charlton: Would it be possible to let section 3 stand, until we have discussed section 4?


James Garfield Gardiner: If the hon. member wants to cut these two things out, I could cut them out by adding one word in section 3.


John Alpheus Charlton: I am not suggesting that it be cut out. But I think it would be better to let section 3 stand until section 4 is carried.
Section 3 stands.
On section 4-Commodity boards.


Mr. ZAPLITNY:: Provision is made in section 4 (1) for the minister to establish one or more commodity boards. The word "may" is used before the word "establish" which makes it permissive rather than obligatory. Then, further down, so far as I can see there is no provision made for any producer representation on the boards so named. I believe the representations made here were fairly unanimous to the effect that the producers concerned should have some control of or at .least some say in the manner in which their products should be handled. Therefore I would move this amendment to section 4 (1):
That subsection 1 of section 4 of said bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(1) The governor in council shall establish one or more commodity boards with adequate producer representation and may authorize and require a commodity board to exercise and perform all or any of the powers and duties of the minister under section 3 of this act with reference to such agricultural products as the governor in council may designate; but in the exercise of such powers and duties a commodity board shall be subject to the direction and control of the minister."
The changes are two in number. First the word "may" is replaced by the word "shall", which makes it mandatory that the minister shall appoint the boards. The second change, and the one I consider most important, is that the words "with adequate producer representation" are included in the subsection. In this way it appears to me we shall be combining ministerial responsibility with producer representation on the boards. I believe the acceptance of this amendment would meet the wishes of all hon. members.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not want to go back over the old argument about the use of the words "may" and "shall", although I believe the last argument ended to the effect that "shall is not used to make the requirement obligatory on the government, I believe that was agreed to by the hon. member for Lake

Agricultural Products Act
Centre at the time we discussed it before. I do not want to open up the argument again, but I can say that we have all the boards now. We have a meat board; we have a dairy board, and we have a special products board which covers all farm products in Canada. I do not know what other boards the committee would want to make me appoint. They are appointed, and we have been carrying on under them since 1939. I am quite sure we shall not change it.


Joseph William Burton: Then why has the minister this subsection in section 4 which states that the minister may establish one or more commodity boards, and may authorize certain things? If his explanation is the correct one, why did he not have a provision to the effect that the minister may make use of the boards already established?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is the very thing you are asking.


Joseph William Burton: I suggest that the amendment offered by the hon. member for Dauphin is quite to the point. I recall well, as do other hon. members, the arguments which took place as to 'whether "may" should be "shall", or "shall" should be "may". But we have thought it would be more suitable to have "shall" in here.
However we are more concerned about the other part of the amendment, where it is stated that there shall be adequate producer representation. I submit this is a perfectly good amendment, and the minister should consider it.


James Garfield Gardiner: In answer to what has been said, may I point out that the preamble
states:
And whereas certain orders and regulations were made by the governor in council under the authority of the War Measures Act and the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, 1945, for the purpose of enabling Canada to carry out the said agreements; and whereas the said orders and regulations will expire on the 31st day of March, 1947. . .
And so on. They will expire, and the minister must have authority to reappoint on April 1. It will be the same boards, although there may be occasional changes in personnel. Persons may be dropped here or there. But I am sure that the president of the farm organization will agree that they have been consulted, that they have their representation on the advisory boards and that they prefer to have it in that way. I, myself, offered them the chairmanship of one of the boards, or the chairmanship of the advisory board, whichever they wished. They chose the chairmanship of

the advisory board. No later than this morning the president of the farm organization was in my office arranging to have a meeting of the new advisory board in the first week after Easter. It advises us on all these things. Perhaps "advisory committee" would be a more exact term. It was their preference to be on that particular part of the organization.
We simply say here that we will reappoint the different boards we have had. We have authority under section 4 (3) to utilize the apple board or any other provincial board. We intend to take the apple board as the operating or administrative body to do that job.
I may say to hon. members of this committee something which they probably do not know. Statements have been made that the apple board had negotiated a contract with Great Britain, but the fact is that the apple board have been refused a contract with Great Britain on their own negotiations. I do not know whether we can resurrect it or not. After all, we must do business with our customer in the way our customer wants to do business, not just the way we want to do it. The British people do not want apples from Canada this year, and that is the position in so far as the British themselves are concerned.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Why?


James Garfield Gardiner: Because there is more
food value when the same amount of money is spent on salmon or something else. They are short of food and they are short of money.


William Earl Rowe: It is not because of the
board?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; the government
has lent them money and the government will go to them and say, "Look, this is causing some trouble in a certain part of Canada. This may be something that you desire to do." The question raised by them is which is best for the British people. Their argument at this time is that it is better to have food that is absolutely essential. They consider that better than to have apples which could be put in the stores with no points attached to them. The argument may be advanced that it would raise the morale of the people to be able to buy apples, but then there is the other argument that there is more food value in the salmon. Probably' we could do with more salmon ourselves and dispose of some of our apples.
We go back to the British government and say, "After all, there is some money being lent by Canada to Great Britain." We do not need to say that; they know it. We say,

Agricultural Products Act
"It would be to the advantage of our people if you took some apples." I think we could argue that to better advantage than the apple people themselves and I think they realize it. We would have the board there to supply us with the apples, but they know we can make a deal more satisfactorily than they can. They come to us and ask to have something put in here so that we can go ahead and make a deal.


William Earl Rowe: Does the minister mean to
imply that the government of Britain wishes to deal with the government here in preference to any producer board?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not implying that at all; I am simply saying that the British government, through their representatives, have written to the apple board and suggested that they have not sufficient Canadian dollars with which to buy the other commodities they want to buy and also buy apples. They have said that, through the negotiations and to get around a condition of that kind, the negotiations will be done by the government. The apple people realize that and that is why they want us to take it on.


William Earl Rowe: They do not want apples
from the producer board but you can make a deal which will make them take the apples?


James Garfield Gardiner: If it is possible the
British people want to do things which will help Canada. If they can do something that will help us, they prefer to do it. In the first year of the war they did not take any apples. In the second year they did not want to take any, but -we went to them and said that our farm producers just could not get by without selling some apples. In order to keep the industry in existence, the government was prepared to put them in cans and send them to Britain. We did that the first year. Then we dried some of them and sent some to Finland when Finland was supposed to be fighting on our side. We got rid of part of our apples the first year.
The next year we went to the British and said, "Can you take more of these apples?" They said, "We would like to because, if we can put a few apples in our homes, it will improve the morale of our people". Then we started talking about how they were going to finance it and we finally reached the position where we helped the British to finance it. As is known in the committee, we gave them a billion dollars one year and then we lent them a billion dollars.


William Earl Rowe: Not all to buy apples.
been going on for some years. The British representatives come in and talk about it. The position is that some of them feel it would be better to buy apples, while others feel it would be better to buy something else. We will consider our position and then say, "We just have no market for apples elsewhere and we think that probably everybody would be better served if you could take some apples". Discussions finally end up where everybody is satisfied.


Mark Cecil Senn: This amendment raises the point I have complained about more than once, that there is no producer representation on these three principal boards which are handling the products going to England. I notice that there is a representative of the packers on the meat board, while on the dairy products board there is a representative of some of the shippers. The minister stated tonight, and he stated once before, that something in the way of membership on one of these boards had been offered to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I think he was correct in saying that they had refused, but the reason for their refusal is not what the minister conveyed to the committee. They refused because the federation of agriculture did not want their representatives to be in the pay of the federal government. They would then not be free agents to act in their capacity as officials of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the reason I gave to the house before.


Mark Cecil Senn: I did not hear you say that.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is all in Hansard and you can read it.


Mark Cecil Senn: I did not hear it.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was not this year; it was when it happened. You will find in Hansard that the president and I discussed it.


Mark Cecil Senn: The minister says that it was discussed, but I have no recollection of his giving that as the reason.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think that is possibly where you got your information as a matter of fact.


Mark Cecil Senn: No, I got my information from an entirely different source. It is a reasonable request that has been made by the hon. member who introduced this amendment, that there should be producer representation on these boards.


James Garfield Gardiner: They bought apples with Mr. GARDINER: The statement that there some of it nevertheless. These- things have	is no producer representation on the boards

Agricultural Products Act

is just along the lines of the discussion that took place between the president of the farm organizations and myself. Anyone who was a farmer at one time and is taken into the government service on a full-time job ceases to be acknowledged as a farmer representative after he is here for three or four years. If that is the basis upon which the statement is made that there is no farm representation, then it is correct. But if you take some of the members of these boards and go back to when they started you will find) that they started as farmers. -Mr. Taggart is chairman of the agricultural1 prices support board. He started as a farmer. Then he was a farm representative in Ontario. Next he was a teacher in an agricultural school in Alberta. Next he ran an>
experimental farm for us at Swift Current. Then he was minister of agriculture of Saskatchewan. Following that, he was chairman of the meat board. Mr. Taggart has been working with farmers all his life, but many people would say that he is a long way from the plough, that he is not a farmer. Now he has been put on as chairman of the agricultural prices support board.
The other two men who have been taken on that board are both farmers; they are both operating farms. One of them happens to be the secretary of the dairy association in Ontario, but he still operates a farm. The other is a farmer in Quebec who still carries on his farming operations. So that the board is actually made up of farmers. I could take you through the other board and point out pretty much the same thing.


Mark Cecil Senn: Then there should be no objection to the suggestion.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are representatives on now.


Joseph William Burton: I do not wish to get into a discussion of personalities, but at the same time I think certain statements the minister made need answering. He referred to Mr. Taggart as the chairman of the meat board. Anything I have to say of Mr. Taggart is not of a personal nature. While Mr. Taggart in all probability was on a farm at one time, certainly he is not what is designated here as a representative of the producers.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is what you would say about anyone we chose.


Joseph William Burton: In drafting this amendment we tried to keep away from- tying the minister down too tightly, which would give him an opportunity afterwards to complain. What we had in mind was that the representation on that board should be acceptable to the

organized producers of the commodities being controlled by the board. That is what we meant by adequate representation, that if they were not actual producers themselves at the time, they would still be acceptable as representing the organized farmers raising any given commodity. In the light of that, I think the amendment is right to the point.


Mr. McMASTER:: I would ask the minister why the Agricultural Prices Support Act is referred to in subsection 2 and 3, and whether he has considered that, by so doing, the act may be declared unconstitutional in view of what happened to the Natural Products Marketing Act of 1934, which was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada and by the privy council.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is authority in the Agricultural Prices Support Act for setting up commodity boards, and that act has been declared intra vires. This bill simply says that if we have a board set up under the Agricultural Prices Support Act we can use it in administering this act. The same is true of subsection 3 with regard to any boards that may be set up by farmers themselves.
As to the amendment, I have not had time to read it carefully because I have been listening to the discussion, but I am quite sure that in practice it would not change the situation at all. The only objection I have in submitting the amendment to the committee is that these bills are carefully drafted by experienced draftsmen, and I cannot say at the moment whether the wording of the amendment would affect some other section in some way that has not been considered. The only way in which I could consider it would be to let the amendment stand until I have had an opportunity of discussing it with the officials. There is no possibility of my accepting it now, and if a vote on it were taken tonight we would have to vote it in or out.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: It is quite agreeable to me to let the amendment stand over for consideration by the minister.


Mr. STEPHENSON:: The minister gave the house the impression that the British government did not want to deal with the apple growers.


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: You said that.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not going to have words put into my mouth. What I said was this. The apple growers have already been refused an agreement. I did not say that they did not want to deal with them.

Agricultural Products Act


Charles Elwood Stephenson: They have been
refused an agreement to sell apples to Great Britain.


James Garfield Gardiner: The British government have, by letter to the apple growers board, indicated that they do not desire to buy apples from Canada this year.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: You say they do not want to buy apples this year? The impression you gave was that they would not purchase from the board.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say any such thing.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: That was the impression left,


James Garfield Gardiner: It was not the impression intended to be left. You are not thinking straight,


William Earl Rowe: I got the same impression, and the minister cannot wisecrack it off by saying that the hon. member is not thinking straight, He is thinking just as straight as the minister himself. The minister should clear up that point.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have cleared it up. The suggestion is absolutely wrong.


William Earl Rowe: The minister left the impression that the apple producer board had been refused an agreement with Britain this year. Then he went on to say how the government had talked with the British, and evidently the apples tasted a little sweeter because they were going to be dealt with through some new-fangled board for which the minister was responsible.


James Garfield Gardiner: The apple producers asked us to take the matter up with the British government and we have done so.


William Ross Macdonald: I understand that subclause 1 of clause 4 stands? Does subclause 2 carry?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister indicated on the second reading that he was prepared to move an amendment to section 5. The purpose of the amendment, as I understand it, was partly at any rate to provide that dealings in apples would be carried on through some sort of board. I am wondering whether the amendment which the minister said he would propose to section 5 will have any bearing on subsection 2 of section 4. If so, would it be acceptable to him for the whole of section 4 to stand over until we can consider the amendment he intends to move to section 5?
83166-96J


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no need for section 4 to stand on that account. Subsection 3 of section 4 is a general provision which
says:
The minister may direct that any agricultural product designated by him may be purchased for the purpose of this act or the Agricultural Prices Support Act, 1944, only from a provincial marketing board.
That could apply to other things. It was intended to apply to apples, but I thought it should be there whether we deal with apples or not.


Mr. LOW:: It was on that section that I should like to say just a word and perhaps move an amendment which the hon. ministei may wish to study until tomorrow, as he' has indicated it is his desire with respect to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Dauphin. Last night I mentioned that it was our desire to see the minister recognize the producer marketing boards as a source of supply. We realize, too, that there are not many marketing boards or producer boards in Canada. In Ontario I think there are only about ten. My advice is that there is only one in operation in Alberta and, in British Columbia, perhaps only two, and so it goes. But wherever they do exist, it seems to me that the minister should direct that the materials which he wishes to purchase for his commitments abroad should be purchased through these producer boards, or, in the alternative, from the provincial marketing boards. We feel that, wherever recognition can be given to these producer boards as sources of supply, it should be given, because it encourages them and helps to keep some control of the price right at the source of the product itself. Therefore I am going to move, seconded1 by the hon. member for Camrose:
That clause 3 of section i of the bill be deleted, and the following be substituted therefor:
"Wherever producer marketing boards exist the minister shall direct that any agricultural products required by him for the purposes of this act or the Agricultural Prices Support Act, 1944, shall be purchased from such producer marketing boards or from provincial marketing boards."


James Garfield Gardiner: Why put the minister in at all?


An hon, MEMBER:: Why not?


Solon Earl Low: I did not hear the minister's question.


James Garfield Gardiner: If you say "they shall be purchased", and if it is the desire to have the act say that, the minister does not need to have anything to do with it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That might not be a bad idea.
Agricultural Products Act


Solon Earl Low: The minister, either by himself or through some agency which he designates, must purchase the products required to fill these agreements. Is that not so?


James Garfield Gardiner: We shall take that
amendment under consideration until tomorrow.


William Ross Macdonald: Clause 4 will stand.


Charles Edward Johnston: As subsection 3 stands in the bill, it says "the minister may direct." There has been some argument in this house in the past as to whether or not the words "may" and "shall" are interchangeable in the legal sense.


James Garfield Gardiner: We had that argument tonight while you were out, apparently.


Charles Edward Johnston: I did not hear that part of the discussion. Maybe the minister could assure me that they are not interchangeable. Are they interchangeable?


James Garfield Gardiner: I shall bring along with me tomorrow the opinion that was given to me by the Clerk of the House after we had discussed this matter before, which was taken from the best authorities there are, and which was to the effect that I was right before. I shall bring it along again tomorrow, if it is the desire to go over that argument again. Every leader of the opposition over the last twelve years since I have been in the house has finally agreed that the decision was right. The legal adviser of the present opposition agreed, the last time we discussed it, that it was right.


Charles Edward Johnston: That the words are interchangeable?


James Garfield Gardiner: That "may" is the word used when a government is being directed. They mean the same thing.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: Before we go on from section 4, I should like a little explanation of subsection 3 where it uses the terms "only from a provincial marketing board." In British Columbia we have a provincial marketing board which is an over-all, more or less regulatory board, controlling to some extent the actions of the other boards if they are against the common interest. In addition, we have a fruit marketing board and vegetable marketing boards. Which of those boards is indicated in the term "provincial marketing board"? Our provincial marketing board really only performs certain general functions, and has nothing to do with direct marketing.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is with a small "p", a provincial marketing board. There may be a dozen in one province dealing with different products.


George Randolph Pearkes: Might I ask one simple question. Is there a definition of agricultural products? I should like to know whether honey is included.


James Garfield Gardiner: The definition is at the top of page 2, section 2 (a) which reads:
"Agricultural product" means any product of agriculture, except wheat, and includes "feeding stuff" within the meaning of the Feeding Stuff's Act, 1937.


George Randolph Pearkes: Would that include honey?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, I think so.


William Ross Macdonald: Clause 4 stands. Shall clause 5 carry?


Joseph William Burton: The minister was going to move an amendment.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is a new clause 5. Since clause 3 and clause 4 are going to stand, Mr. Chairman, I think we had better allow clause 5 to stand also.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie the house adjourned at 10.50 p.m.
Wednesday, March 19, 1947