ST. PATRICK'S DAY

Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I desire to extend to you and to all hon. members of this house best wishes for a happy and sober St. Patrick's day.



AGRICULTURAL PRICES


Right Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested by a number of members of the house that as soon as possible a statement should be made with regard to the production of coarse grains in 1947. With your consent, I should like to read that statement to the house now.
83106-90J
The production of dairy products, meat, poultry and eggs in 1947-48 will depend upon the feed supplies available in the form of pasture, fodder, and grain crops.
The pasture, and to a large extent the fodder, acreage for 1947-48 are already determined. Farmers may increase the yields of both of these by the use of fertilizers to the extent that they can be made available, but the weather will be the determining factor in the quantity of feed produced from these sources.
The summer production of beef and dairy products largely depends on pasture, but the quantity of the product can be increased and the quality improved by the use of grain.
The winter production of beef and dairy products will depend upon the supplies of fodder and grain available. The production of pork, poultry and eggs, however, is dependent upon feed grain supplies throughout the year.
Practically all the feed grain supplies produced in 1946-47 have been consumed in the production of meats, dairy products, poultry and eggs. It is therefore not possible to increase the production of meats, dairy products, poultry and eggs in 1947-48 above the quantities produced in 1946-47 unless larger feed grain supplies can be made available.
In order to stimulate production of feed grains and to assure domestic supplies, the government has therefore decided to make a number of changes in policy affecting oats and barley. These changes are as follows:
1.	Effective tomorrow, March 18, the system of advance equalization payments will be discontinued and the Canadian wheat board will stand ready to buy all oats and barley offered to it at new support prices. In the case of barley these prices will be based on 90 cents for No. 1 feed barley, in place of the former support price of 56 cents, in store Fort William/Port Arthur, and other grades at appropriate differentials to be fixed from time to time by the wheat board. In the case of oats, the new support prices will be based on 611 cents for No. 1 feed oats, in place of the former support price of 40 cents, in store Fort William/Port Arthur, and other grades at appropriate differentials to be fixed from time to time by the wheat board. These support prices will remain in effect until July 31, 1948.
2.	At the same time, price ceilings for all grades will be raised, in the case of barley to 93 cents and in the case of oats to 65 cents,
basis in store Fort William/Port Arthur, or
140S
Agricultural Prices

Vancouver. The ceiling prices correspond with the support prices for the highest grades of barley and oats.
3.	In order to avoid discrimination against producers who have already delivered barley during the present crop year, an adjustment payment will be made of 10 cents per bushel in respect of deliveries between August 1, 1946, and March 17, 1947, inclusive, thus raising overall returns to about 90 cents per bushel. As there is a loss in the barley equalization account for the 1946-47 crop year, no further payments are to be expected in respect of barley delivered during the present crop year. The oats equalization account for the crop year 1946-47 will, however, remain open, and net profits in that account, if any, will be distributed later to producers who delivered oats during the period August 1, 1946, to July 31, 1947.
4.	In order to avoid the fortuitous profits to commercial holders of oats and barley that would otherwise result from the action that has been described, handlers and dealers will be required to sell to the wheat board on the basis of existing ceilings of 64} cents for barley and 514 cents for oats, all stocks in their possession at midnight tonight, March 17. Under certain conditions these stocks will be returned to the holder for resale. Allowances will be made for the purpose of taking care >f such items as carrying charges in terminal jositions, special selection premiums, etc., which are considered, in the judgment of the board, fair and reasonable.
5.	For the time being, because of the continuation of price ceilings on animal products, payments of 10 cents per bushel for oats and 25 cents per bushel for barley will be made within the same conditions as the 2S cent payment on wheat purchased for feeding purposes. The payment of these subsidies will have the effect of leaving the cost of these feed grains to feeders approximately at their present levels. I might add that I will shortly ask that a sum be voted to cover the cost of these feed subsidies.
6.	And, finally, the wheat board, either
directly or through agents will become the sole exporter of oats and barley. Any exports by the board will be from grain acquired by the board under the price support plan and the net profits therefrom will be paid into equalization accounts for the benefit of producers.	[DOT]
It is necessary to make a fairly detailed statement of these changes so as to clarify the position of the various interests concerned, but, from the point of view of producers, the important point is that they will now have 
an additional return of approximately 10 to 13 cents per bushel for all the barley they market from this date forward and several cents a bushel on the better grades of oats, over and above the total returns they have been receiving during the present crop year. In addition, producers will continue to receive any net export profits realized by the board as an additional payment at the end of the season.	*
Feeders, on the other nand, will be protected against any important increase in costs of the oats and barley they buy by appropriate subsidies, until the release of the products they sell from ceiling price controls. It will be observed that under this plan buyers and sellers may trade with each other without the intervention of the board, within the limits of the new floors and ceilings.
As I have indicated on previous occasions, it is the policy of the government to continue to pay freight on grain for feeding purposes and mill feeds shipped east from Fort William/ Port Arthur and west from Calgary and Edmonton into British Columbia until July 31, 1948.
As these decisions come into effect, floor prices will be maintained for meats, dairy products and eggs, mainly through the operation of the British contracts. For butter, which is not under contract for shipment to Britain, the dairy products board will be authorized to establish a floor by making purchases during the season of heavy production.
In order to assure supplies to fill the contracts and to make adequate provision for Canadian needs, it is proposed to regulate exports and imports of all products which are subject to contract. This would be done under authority of legislation which is now before the house.
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.
The government also wishes to announce that it intends to authorize the wheat board to increase its buying price for flaxseed, effective on August 1, 1947, from the present level

Supplemental Anstvers to Inquiries
of $3.25 to $5.00 per bushel, basis in store Fort William/Port Arthur or Vancouver and to buy sunflower seed and rapeseed at 6 cents per pound under the regulations at present in effect.
In reply to questions asked by the hon. members for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) and New Westminster (Mr. Reid) I wish to state that the floor price on eggs was increased by one cent a dozen for the months of February to August, and by two cents a dozen for the months from September to January, prior to the increase in the cost of feed wheat. In addition, provision has been made for an increase of one-half cent per dozen to cover increased cost of packages, which increase would otherwise have been charged to producers. Furthermore, with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance I am announcing that the wartime prices and trade board will remove the ceiling on shell eggs forthwith.



ALASKA HIGHWAY


Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Defence):: Last Thursday the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Archibald) asked me a question as to a letter said to have been written by General Eisenhower, regarding the closing of the Haines cut-off from the Alaska highway. At that time I thought the hon. member's question was primarily with regard to General Eisenhower's letter and I said that I had not seen this and did not know what it said but that as the road had never been completed it was not going to be closed in the ordinary sense. On.Friday, the hon. member made another inquiry as to what was meant by this.
The Haines cut-off, as it is called, is a road 145 miles long, running from the Alaska highway through sections of the Yukon, the province of British Columbia and Alaska to Haines on an inlet from the sea. The Haines cut-off was under construction by the United States government during the war and it was never completed in that several portions are not gravelled and certain bridges are of temporary construction only. In dry weather in summer time there has been no difficulty in travelling the road with any ordinary vehicle, and as far as the Canadian government is concerned the road has not been closed. Over part of the road the snowfall is heavy and the location of the road makes it very difficult to clear the snow. Steps are not now being taken to complete or maintain the road.



CANNED AND SALTED-DISCONTINUANCE OF INTERNATIONAL ALLOCATION

Hon. H. F. G. BRIDGES (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) asked me a question arising out of a statement I had made on Thursday as to the discontinuance of international allocation of fish. I had said that allocation of salted cod and other salted groundfish from Canada's 1946 production would come to an end on June 30 next and that there would be no allocation of such fish from 1947 production. My hon. friend mciuired whether I had reference to all types of salted fish or only to groundfish and, in particular, he wished to know whether restriction on the salting of herring would be removed.
My reference, Mr. Speaker, was to salted groundfish onlj-. As a matter of fact, no other salted fish were ever under international allocation, although, for a time, certain of these other salted products were subject to allocation by our own food requirements committee. This latter control ended on December 31 last. As for herring salting, my hon. friend presumably had in mind dry-salting of herring on the Pacific coast. During the war we halted this dry-salting in certain areas so that a maximum quantity of herring might be available for canning. This restriction ends on March 31.



PRESS REPORT OF SUBSIDY PLAN

Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: On Friday last the hon. member
for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) directed my attention to an item in the Halifax Herald of March 13 relating to coal subsidies, and asked me to make a statement on the matter. Before doing so perhaps I should explain what the general policy is with respect to import subsidies on coal for consumption in private dwellings. Bituminous coal imported into Canada for consumption in private dwellings, apartments and rooming houses, but not including hotels or institutions of any kind, and anthracite are eligible for subsidy to the extent necessary to reduce the cost of such coal to the point at which it can be sold under established price ceilings. That has been the policy of the government since the establishment of the over-all price ceiling.
The newspaper report in question dealt only with the manner in which claims for subsidy may be made under the policy to
Questions

which I have referred. Some confusion had arisen with some of the smaller retail coal dealers of Halifax in regard to the method which should be followed in claiming the subsidy which is payable on imported coal. The coal administration simply explained the manner in which claims ought to be presented in order to expedite payment to some of the smaller retailers who have not been accustomed to dealing with imported coal.
No new government policy has been announced because the government subsidy policy under which imported coal has been eligible for subsidy as part of the price stabilization programme has been in effect since 1941. The particular payment to which my hon. friend calls attention represents no change in that policy, which is of course applicable to any section of Canada when coal has been imported for the type of consumption I have described.


Mr. GILLIS:: I understand the minister
now to say there has been no increase in subsidy payments.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: No change.


Clarence Gillis: No increase in subsidy payments to wholesalers and retailers in Halifax.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I imagine that in the
past very little imported coal has been sold in Halifax, but perhaps my hon. friend knows better than I do about that. If imported coal was sold in Halifax since 1941, subsidy would be payable in order to enable its being sold under the ceiling price.


Clarence Gillis: There has been an increase
in subsidy payments.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. COCKERAM:: 1.	How many officers, n.c.o.'s and men have been taken on the strength of the interim or active Royal Canadian Air Force since January 30, 1946?
2.	How many officers, n.c.o.'s and men have been discharged from the interim or active force since January 30, 1946?
3.	What are the reasons for discharge?
4.	Have any Royal Canadian Air Force personnel been allowed to purchase their release?
5.	If so, how many and at what price?


Mr. CLAXTON:: 1.	Interim force entered since January 30, 1946: 2,157 officers, 10,303 other ranks. Regular (active) force entered since January 30, 1946: 1,920 officers, 9,991 other ranks.

2.	Discharged since January 30,	1946:
Interim force, 166 officers, 1,040 other ranks; Regular (active) force, 30 officers, 288 other ranks.
3.	Interim Force
Officers Other Ranks To pension	
Medical reasons 	10	74Demobilized 	150	944Service exigencies 	
Unable to meet service	1	requirements	4	Resigned 	
To take civilian	1	[DOT] [DOT]employment 	12Convicted by civil power Unlikely to become	1efficient	1Under age 	4Compassionate grounds .	3Discharge with ignominy	1Total 	166	1,040
Regular (Active) Force
Officers Other Ranks
To pension 		2	
Medical reasons 	9	16Demobilized 	15	, .No suitable employment in present rank 	1	Unable to meet service requirements	2	Resigned 	1	By purchase 	261Convicted by civil power	3Unlikely to become efficient 	6Compassionate grounds .	2Total 	30	2884.	Yes.5.	90 at $80 each; 55 at $100 each; 116 at $140 each.


INCOME TAX-ALLOWANCE FOR MOTOR CAR USED IN BUSINESS
Mr. WEBB:: What ruling does the Department of National Revenue make regarding the deductibility by a salaried taxpayer in ascertaining his net assessable income of expenses incurred in the operation of a motor car in connection with his business?


Mr. McCANN:: (Answer for taxation division). Because of a recent decision of the Exchequer Court of Canada it is necessary for the department to review the situation, and it is intended to issue a general ruling on thi3 question at an early date.

Questions


EXPORT CONTRACTS
Mr. WINTERS:: 1.	What is the total value of contracts awarded by the Canadian exports board and the Canadian Commercial Corporation on behalf of France, China, the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway and Czechoslovakia?
2.	What is the total value of such contracts awarded in each province of Canada?


Mr. MacKINNON:: 1.	$330,872,575.
2.	British Columbia	 $ 32,356,280
Alberta	 1,273,956
Saskatchewan	 70,990
Manitoba	 931,626
Ontario	 122,637,489
Quebec	 171,102,255
New Brunswick	 348,628
Nova Scotia	 2,151,351


$330,872,575 BUTTER-SALES FOR INDUSTRIAL USES
Mr. SENN:: How many pounds of Canadian butter was sold for industrial uses in each of the last five years for which figures are available?


Mr. MAYHEW:: Figures are available only for butter sold for industrial uses for 1944, 1945 and 9 months of 1946 as follows: 1944, 4.224,733; 1945, 3,898,891; 1946 (9 months), 2,317,214.


EXPERIMENTAL FARMS-ALBERTA GREY SOIL SUBSTATIONS
Mr. SHAW:: 1.	Has the government, or any department thereof, given consideration to the establishment of an experimental substation in the grey-wooded soil zone of Alberta?
2.	If so, has any decision been reached?
3.	Has a definite site for such an experimental substation been determined?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Yes, consideration has been given to the establishment of two such units in Alberta. One on grey-wooded soil typical of that which occurs in the Peace River territory served from the experimental station at Beaverlodge. The second in central Alberta to make it possible to study problems associated with crop production in the area served by the experimental station, Lacombe, Alberta.
2.	The site for the substation in the Peace River district has been decided upon and plans are under way to start work this spring. The location of the site for the substation in central Alberta has not been finally decided.
3.	The grey soil substation for the Peace River district has been located at McLennan, Alberta.


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT-M. F. BIGGS
Mr. EMMERSON:: 1.	Is Mr. M. F. Biggs employed at Moncton, New Brunswick, by the Department of Transport?
2.	If so, on what date was he first employed?
3.	What are his (a) age; (b) position; (c) duties?
4.	Was he formerly a member of the permanent forces of the militia?
5.	If so, was he retired on pension, and of what amount?


Mr. McCANN:: 1.	No.
2,	3, 4 and 5 answered by No. 1.


EXCISE TAX AND PRICES-REFRIGERATORS
Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	Was the price of certain commodities, and particularly refrigerators, reduced to the consumer by 25 per cent when the excise tax of that amount was discontinued?
2.	If not, was the recent increase of 10 per cent allowed to be charged on the manufacturer's price, including the discontinued excise tax?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1.	No. The responsibility of the board has been to hold prices as nearly as possible to basic period levels rather than to force reductions below those levels. The relief so provided to domestic manufacturers offset cost increases which occurred both before and after the elimination of the excise tax and made it possible for the basic period ceilings to be maintained for a considerably longer period.
2.	The recent increase of 10 per cent on refrigerators applied to the then maximum prices. The adjustment was made in accordance with the board's usual policy of adjusting ceiling prices where production costs have risen to the point that a representative portion of the industry can demonstrate need for price relief in terms of their operating results.


INCOME TAX-INTEREST AND PENALTIES
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: What is the amount of income tax and interest and penalties thereon owing in each district office for income tax for each of the years 1939 to 1945 inclusive, in respect of (1) individuals; (2) corporations?


James Joseph McCann: (For taxation division). The records of this division are not maintained in such a manner as to give the information requested.

On the orders of the day:


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I submit that is not the kind of answer that members of this house
Questions

are entitled to when such a simple question is asked: What is the amount of income tax owing in several years, and the amount of interest and penalties thereon. Through you, sir, I suggest to the minister that my question be put back on the order paper, and that it be answered in accordance with whatever information the department has. If the department has no information as to income tax by districts, we are in a much more serious position than any of us believed.


Mr. GRAYDON:: I think the hon. member is entitled to an answer, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Gordon Graydon: The matter cannot be brushed off by the government quite so easily as that. The minister should make some explanation in reply to the hon. members' question.


Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, may I express my utter astonishment at the answer that has been given, and ask Your Honour not to let this pass? Surely this is a barefaced attempt to refuse the information which the member has rightfully asked.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Gordon Graydon: Surely we do not require an atomic bomb to get information out of the government.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, the representations which the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) has made with regard to the answer given to his question will be given the utmost consideration, and if it is at all possible we shall try to meet his wishes with respect to an answer.


Gordon Graydon: Does that mean the question goes back on the order paper?


James Joseph McCann: Whether it does or does not, we shall try to give the answer.


BOOKLET &quot;DESIGNED FOR USE&quot;
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	How many copies of the booklet "Designed for Use" have been printed?
2.	How many have been distributed? What has been the total cost thereof?
3.	Who was the author and how much did he receive therefor?


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: 1. 6.000.
2.	(a) 4,188, to date, (b) $1,243.91.
3.	(a) Donald W. Buchanan, National Film Board, (b) Nil.


WAR ASSETS CORPORATION-WAREHOUSING EXPENSES
Mr. FRASER:: 1.	What was paid by war assets corporation during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1946, for warehousing expenses?
2.	What items are included in these expenses?


Mr. McILRAITH:: The answer to this question is to be found in item (1) (a) under "Trust Account Items" on page 21 of the second annual report of War Assets Corporation from April 1, 1945 to March 31, 1946 which was tabled on August 16, 1946 as sessional paper No. 95.


WAR ASSETS CORPORATION-BUILDING OPERATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS
Mr. FRASER:: 1.	What was paid by war assets corporation for building operations and improvements during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1946?
2.	What items are covered by these said payments?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	Details regarding building operating expenses are to be found in the answer to a question by Mr. Fraser at page 1320 of Hansard for March 13, 1947. However, War Assets Corporation spent $220,417.91 for building alterations and improvements during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1946.
2.	This amount represents the cost of materials and supplies as well as the work performed by outside contractors in altering and improving buildings occupied as offices by War Assets Corporation and is distributed between the head office and the various regional and branch offices as follows:
Head office, 4095 St. Catherine St.
W., Montreal	 $210,631.08
Quebec office	 525.00
Ottawa office	 331.67
Newfoundland office	 169.23
Halifax office	 5,388.70
Moncton office	 51.29
Toronto office	 591.93
London office	 395.63
Calgary office	 499.00
Vancouver office	 1,825.98
Regina office	 8.40


$220,417.91 TRIBAL CLASS DESTROYERS
Mr. MOORE:: 1.	Were tribal class destroyers built in Canada during the war?
2.	If so, how many were built?
3.	At which shipyards were they built?

Questions
4.	How long did it take to build and equip
them for war service?
5.	What was the cost of each destroyer to the government ?


Mr. CLAXTON:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Four (two completed, two still under construction).
3.	Halifax Shipyards, Halifax, N.S. (hull); John Inglis Company, Toronto, Ont. (machinery).
4.	First destroyer-3 years, 4 months; second destroyer-4 years, 3 months; third and fourth destroyer-still under construction.
5.	The first two destroyers were built under a single contract and the cost of an individual destroyer is therefore not available. The cost of building the first two destroyers, including hull, machinery, electrical work and installation of armament was $15,903,759.05, or an average of $7,951,879.52 each, not including sales tax. The cost of armament and fire control equipment which was supplied from the Naval Service was $671,183.75 per ship.
While final costs of the last two destroyers are not available, it is anticipated that the construction costs of these two ships will probably be somewhat less as development costs were absorbed in the cost of the first two ships.


WAR ASSETS CORPORATION-EXPENSES ON MULTIPLE-TENANCY PROPERTY
Mr. FRASER:: 1.	What was paid by war assets corporation during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1946, for expenses on multiple-tenancy property?
2.	What properties are covered in these expenses?
3.	From whom are each of the said properties
rented or leased?	.
4.	To what firms, or individuals, were the aforesaid moneys paid?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	$227,287.10.
2.	Properties located at 425 River Street, Verdun, P.Q. (formerly Defence Industries plant) and 37 Hanna Ave., Toronto (formerly part of John Inglis plant).
3.	Both properties are crown owned.
4.	Verdun project-
Prime contractor: Collet Freres Ltee.
Sub-contractors: L. Cournoyer Reg'd.; K. V. Gardner Ltd.; Bedard & Girard; Duromastic Asphalt Co.
Toronto project-
Prime contractor: Canada Electric Co.
Sub-contractors: John H. Moffat; W. G. Crawford.


AGRICULTURAL PRICES SUPPORT BOARD-PERSONNEL
Mr. WRIGHT:: 1.	Did the government give any assurance to the Alberta Farmers' Union and the United Farmers of Canada, Saskatchewan section, that they would appoint a member of the agricultural prices support board recommended by these organizations?
2.	Have the A.F.U. and U.F.C. Saskatchewan section, submitted names for such an appointee?
3.	Has the government appointed such member? If so, what is his name?
4.	If not, why has such appointment not been made?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	No assurance was given with respect to the appointment of members of the agricultural prices support board. Membership on the advisory committee to the board was discussed and assurance was given that any names submitted would be referred to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, of which both the Alberta Farmers'union and the United Farmers of Canada, Saskatchewan section, are members and that any names submitted by them would be considered for appointment. It was the intention to appoint the members of the advisory committee to the agricultural food board, together with two additional representatives from the Canadian federation of agriculture, as the advisory committee to the agricultural prices support board.
2.	Yes.
3.	The members of the agricultural prices support board have been appointed, but the advisory committee has not yet been appointed. It is expected that the advisory committee will be appointed in the immediate future.
4.	See answer to No. 3.


INCOME TAX-ARRANGEMENTS WITH PROVINCES
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has the government taken any action by way of federal allowance to the province of Ontario in lieu of income taxes formerly allowed by the province?
2.	Has the government taken any action to call another dominion-provincial conference?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	The proposal of the dominion government for tax agreements with the provinces was set out in the budget address delivered on June 27, 1946. It was subsequently modified in a press statement by the Minister of Finance issued on January 25, 1947. The text of this statement is contained in the pamphlet entitled: "Dominion-Provincial Conference- Correspondence since the Budget of 1946 on Matters of Substance Regarding Tax Agree-
BFV.3ED roniOJI
Orders for Returns

ments with the Provinces", which was printed by order of the house passed on January 30, 1947.
2.	The position of the government respecting the calling of another conference is set out fully in the correspondence tabled in the house on January 30, 1947, and printed in the pamphlet referred to in the answer to question No. 1.


INCOME TAX-MARRIED WOMEN
Mr. TIMMINS:: How many married women paid income tax- in 1946-in respect to salaries alone (as contrasted from those who paid income tax on investments) and what was the aggregate of the income tax so paid?


James Joseph McCann: (For taxation division). As the 1946 income tax returns are not due to be filed until April 30, 1947, the information requested is not available.
Arrangements have been made to assemble statistics for 1946 so as to be able to reply to a question of this nature but for no previous year would we be able to furnish the requested information.


FAIRBANKS, U.S. AIR BASE-FLIGHTS OVER CANADIAN TERRITORY
Mr. BENTLEY:: 1.	Have United States superfortresses, operating from Fort Ladd air base at Fairbanks, Alaska, flown over Canadian territory?
2.	If so, has it been with the knowledge and the authority of the Canadian government?
3.	What is the purpose of these flights?


Mr. CLAXTON:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Joint Canadian-American surveys of meteorological and communication problems for future international air routes over arctic areas.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):: 1.	With reference to subsection 2 of section 9 of P.C. 8528 and amendments thereto of the wartime prices and trade regulations, in cases where more than one charge is to be laid against an individual, who makes the decision (a) to lay one charge covering all offences, or (b) to lay a separate charge for each alleged offence?
2.	If a separate charge is laid for each offence what difference if any does this make in payment of legal fees to the solicitor retained by wartime prices and trade board in the prosecution of the various charges?


FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO HOSPITAL ADDITIONS
Mr. FRASER:: 1.	Have any departments of the dominion government made any contributions to hospital boards or municipalities towards the cost of building additions on hospitals?
2.	If so, what were the amounts of contribution in each case and where is each hospital located?


GOLD MINING
Mr. FOURNIER (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: 1.	How many gold mines are in production in Canada, by provinces, at the present time?
2.	What quantity of gold was mined in each province in the years 1935, 1940, 1945 and 1946?
3.	What is the average cost of produotion of one ounce of gold in Canada?
4.	What was the value, per ounce, of gold in Canada for the years 1930, 1935, 1940 and 1945?
5.	How many persons are employed in each province, as miners or otherwise, in the production of gold?
6.	What was the quantity of gold exported by Canada in the years 1930, 1935, 1940 and 1945, and to what countries?


FEDERAL AID FOR HIGHWAYS
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	Has the government received in 1946 and/or 1947 any representations calling for federal aid for highways?
2.	If so, what terms were proposed in any such representations ?
3.	Has consideration been given to this matter and what is being done at the present time?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: For a copy of all letters, cables, briefs, or other communications exchanged since January 1, 1944, between His Majesty's government in Canada and His Majesty's governments in other parts of the commonwealth on the subject of the British preferential tariff.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Production of the documents requested would require the consent of the governments concerned. Moreover, most of the papers are secret or confidential.
Since the question of preference is most closely related to the subject matter of the united nations trade discussions which began in London last October, the present position on preferences in their relation to the trade discussions can be found in the report of the first session of the preparatory committee of the united nations conference on trade and employment, which I tabled some weeks ago.
I believe it would be quite useless to ask for the consent of the other government, with respect to the tabling of correspondence that has been exchanged as secret and confi-

Motions for Papers
dential. A similar question was raised in the House of Commons at Westminster on January 28, 1947. Mr. Belcher, replying for the president of the Board of Trade, said:
In accordance with the procedure agreed at the meeting of the preparatory committee in London last autumn, the various countries concerned are addressing requests for tariff adjustments to each other as a preliminary to the tariff negotiations which are to be held concurrently with, and as part of the work of, the second session of the preparatory committee later this year. It would be improper to make public the contents of such requests.
As regards the general question of imperial preference, however, I would invite the hon. member's attention to the statement about the Anglo-American financial agreement made by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons on December 6, 1945.
Because of the widespread interest in this matter, perhaps I might be permitted to place on Hansard the statement made by Mr. Attlee in that connection, and which represents what the position still is in that regard. He said:
There is one particular matter arising out of the terms of article VII of the mutual aid agreement which is of especial interest and importance to thq British commonwealth and empire- that is the question of tariff preferences. I would therefore refer shortly to that aspect of the American document which deals with both tariffs and tariff preferences.
The statement sets forth the procedure to be followed by common consent in considering, in the context of a general lowering of tariffs and other trade barriers, what contribution can be made from our side by way of reduction or elimination of preferences.
The statement makes it clear that, in pursuit of the objectives of article VII of the Mutual Aid agreement, we for our part are ready to agree that the existing system of preferences within the British commonwealth and the empire will be contracted, provided there is adequate compensation^ in the form of improvement in trading conditions between commonwealth and empire countries and the rest of the world.
The statement further provides that in entering negotiations for the reduction of tariffs the parties concerned will not refuse to discuss the modification of particular preferences on the ground that these are the subject of prior commitments; on the contrary, all margins of preference will be regarded as open to negotiation, and it will of course be for the party negotiating the modification of any margin of preference which it is bound by an existing commitment to giye a third party, to obtain the consent of the third party concerned.
Further points to be noted are:
(i)	The statement makes it clear there is no commitment on any country in advance of negotiations to reduce or eliminate any particular margin of preference. The position is that each country remains free to judge in the light of the offers made by all the others, the extent of the contribution it can make towards the realization of the agreed objectives.
(ii)	It is recognized that reduction or elimination of preference can only be considered in relation to and in return for reductions of
83166-91*
tariffs and other barriers to world trade in general which would make for mutually advantageous _ arrangements for the expansion of trade. There is thus no question of any unilateral surrender of preferences. There must be adequate compensation for all parties affected.
The statement does not in advance of the detailed negotiations lay down how far the process of reduction and elimination of preferences will be carried at this immediate stage. It must be realized that some preferences are of particular importance to the economy of certain parts of the world just as some tariffs are important in others. The elimination of all prefer* ences would be such a step as would require a most substantial and widespread reduction of tariffs and other trade barriers by a large number of countries. Thus it is recognized that the degree to which the final objectives can be reached at the initial stage can only appear at the negotiations themselves and as the result of a mutually advantageous settlement.
All the subsequent correspondence that has been asked for since has been along the lines of that statement,


Mr. COLDWELL:: Does that statement of Mr. Attlee substantially represent the views of the government of Canada also?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That statement is substantially in accord with the instructions given to our delegation when it left for the second part of the world trade conference.
In order to complete the information hon. members may be interested in having tabled at this time the plan of work for the second session of the preparatory' commission of the international conference as forwarded to us by' the secretary general of the united nations under covering letter of March 4, 1947.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Could that be put in Hansard?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It is quite long. Perhaps it could be printed as an appendix to Votes and Proceedings for the information of hon. members.


Mr. CHURCH:: I suggest that the motion stand until the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) returns tomorrow.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I have no objection to allowing the motion to stand if that is the desire, but I imagine after seeing the statement I have just made the hon. member will be quite prepared to have it dropped.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Dropped.



VETERANS LAND ACT-KAMLOOPS-VALLEYVIEW PROJECT

Mr. FULTON:: For a copy of any report or reports made to the Minister of Veterans Affairs following the recent special investigation into the cost, construction and condition of the houses in the
Motions for Papers

"Valleyview" project built under the Veterans' Land Act at Kamloops, B.C., and particularly of any recommendation as to refinancing submitted therewith.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: The final report of the committee of inspection has not been completed, but I fully expect it will be during the course of this week. I informed my hon. friend accordingly this morning and he is willing to allow this motion to stand.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is it the intention to table any part of or the total report when it is received?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That will be subject to further consideration. At the present time it would appear to be the intention so to do.
Motion stands.



PRICE CONTROL-COST AND SAVINQ TO CONSUMERS

Mr. KNOWLES:: For a return showing (a) the total cost of the government's price control programme during the entire period thereof since the outbreak of world war II, together with a breakdown of said total in such manner as may be readily available, and (b) the amount saved by Canadian consumers as a result of this programme, together with a breakdown of this figure and an indication as to the basis used in computing the same.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I should like to direct attention to the fact that while section (a) of the motion can be answered, section (b) cannot. The hon. member will have to accept the return as being applicable to section (a) only.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Could not an attempt be made.


James Horace King: Carried as amended.



INDIA-SUEZ CANAL-PALESTINE

Thomas Langton Church: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the governments of Great Britain and Canada or any member or officials thereof, and also between the governments of Australia and New Zealand and the government of Canada, or any officers of officials thereof, during 1946, relating to the abandonment of (a) India; (b) Suez Canal; (c) Palestine.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am sure the hon. member will realize that correspondence of a secret or confidential nature between governments is not normally made public without the consent of all the governments concerned. It is the practice for governments of the British commonwealth of nations to communicate freely with one another on all questions of common concern, but such communications are not in general intended to be made public.

It is the view of the Canadian government that with the present international situation as it is, it would not be reasonable to request the consent of the United Kingdom government to the tabling of any correspondence on the position in India or Palestine or in connection with the Suez Canal. It is felt it would be embarrassing to them in their international relations at the present time even to seek their consent for the publication here of these documents. I hope the hon. member will accept this and not insist that we ask them for a consent which we realize it -would be embarrassing for them to give at this time.


Thomas Langton Church: Everything in the empire is being given away. There will soon be nothing left to liquidate.


James Horace King: Dropped.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: With regard to the motion for papers in the name of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), Canada is vitally interested in this question and I think the house is entitled to a better answer than the minister has given.


James Horace King: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Horace King: Order. The hon. member knows that when the Speaker calls an hon. member to order he must resume his seat.


Gordon Graydon: There are about sixty speakers over there in that comer, Mr. Speaker.



PEACE TREATY WITH JAPAN

Thomas Langton Church: For a copy of all telegrams, agreements, letters, cables and other documents, exchanged between the government of Great Britain, the governments of Australia and New Zealand, or any officers of these governments and the government of Canada, or any officer thereof; in relation to all these governments acting as an empire unit in the proposed peace terms regarding Japan.
2. And to include all papers regarding any conference held in London recently with the aforesaid three governments and Canada's representatives there, on the same matter.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I have had a careful search made of the files and there is no correspondence of the kind described in this motion, If the motion were passed we would have to replj' that there does not exist any such correspondence in our files.


Thomas Langton Church: All right then; the United States and Russia will have all the Pacific now.
Motion dropped.

Inquiries oj the Ministry



CONFERENCE WITH PROVINCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement made on February 3 last that six provinces have indicated their willingness to make dominion-provincial tax agreements, and in view of the fact that all provinces appear now to have made their budget plans for the coming fiscal year, is the Prime Minister prepared to reassemble the dominion-provincial conference to deal with matters not included in the agreements made, namely, health insurance, old age pensions, unemployment and public works?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in answering one question this afternoon I replied in part to the question just asked by my hon. friend. To be more specific, however, may I direct the attention of my hon. friend to the correspondence that was tabled in this house on January 30 with reference to the dominion-provincial conference. This correspondence contains several communications which relate to the circumstances under which the conference would be reconvened.


John Bracken: What was the date?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The correspondence was tabled on January 30 of this year, and was subsequently printed in pamphlet form. I have a copy in my hand at the moment. My hon. friend will find in this correspondence different references as to the reconvening of the conference. One that relates specifically to the question which he has just asked will be found at page 55 of the pamphlet, in a letter sent to the Hon. T. C. Douglas, premier of Saskatchewan, dated November 22, 1946. I might read the latter paragraph of that letter:
My colleagues and I feel that the dominion government should adhere to the position set out in my telegram to you on July 45 last, in the following words:
"The dominion government shares your regret that it has not been possible to include in the dominion offer made in the budget the earlier proposals relating to public investment and social security. However, as emphasized in the budget address, the public investment and social security proposals submitted last August remain an essential part of the dominion government's programme. As soon as there is a sufficient acceptance of the proposed tax agreements we shall be ready to explore in a general conference or otherwise the possibility of working out mutually satisfactory arrangements in regard to the whole or any part of our earlier public investment and social security proposals.
The conditions set forth there have in the mind of the government not as yet been fulfilled. I am therefore not in a position to say at the moment when the conference will be reassembled.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. First I will quote from a telegram that I received just as I came into the house. It is from Seattle, Washington, and reads:
Skagway

May I explain that Skagway is a port on the coast of Alaska from which a railway runs through the Panhandle of Alaska, through British Columbia and into Yukon. The telegram goes on:
Skagway advises Associated Press despatch telephoned by governor Alaska to Skagway mayor that Canada was willing trade strip along Haines highway for Alaska port, presumably Skagway.
I should like to know if negotiations to that effect are going on. If they are, British Columbia has to be consulted, because the road runs through part of that province.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary7 of State for External Affairs):	Mr. Speaker, I have never heard of any such negotiations, but I shall make inquiry as to whether before I became Secretary of State for External Affairs there had been any, and if there have been, I shall inform the hon. member.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. LEWIS MENARY (Wellington North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Last session I asked him what price the Ontario farmers would receive for their flax, and he replied 83.25 a bushel. A lot of flax was grown in my district and when the farmers marketed it through the elevators in Toronto, and a good deal of it in Hanover, no one received $3.25 a bushel. The most they received was S3.06i.


James Horace King: Order. The hon. member should not make a statement in putting his question. He should be brief and to the point.
Postal Service


Lewis Menary: My question is, why did the farmers receive only from $2.90 to $3.06i last fall for their flax?


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I shall read the question asked by the hon. member and give him what information I can.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, March 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bertrand (Laurier) for the third reading of Bill No. 17, respecting supplemental payments on mail contracts.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on the motion for second reading of this bill a question was asked about the payment of bonuses in connection with various contracts, rural routes, staging services and the like, and the Postmaster General agreed to secure the information. The purpose which the opposition had in mind is set forth in my own words at page 689 of Hansard, where I said:
Our purpose in bringing this matter to the attention of the committee-
Mr. Speaker, may I ask for order in the chamber?


James Horace King: Order. Hon. members must realize that it is impossible for anyone to hear the member who is speaking. Moreover, it must be very disagreeable to the hon. member himself. I would ask hon. members to moderate their voices.


John George Diefenbaker: 
James Horace King: If the hon. member has
leave of the house he may table the document.


John George Diefenbaker: I will hand the list to Hansard.
Wartime Bonus
	Rural {Routes		
Postal District	No.	W.T.B	Charlottetown 	
115	$22,578	18Halifax	
47	8,208	56Saint John	
66	12,706	89Quebec 	
259	63,069	32Montreal 	
315	69,077	31O.ttawa 	
239	50,562	24North Bay	
18	3,150	51Toronto 	27,555	49London 	
283	58,962	66Winnipeg	
37	7,087	03Moose Jaw 	
9	852	56Saskatoon 	
27	3,067	52Calgary 	2,078	97Edmonton 	
26	3,701	51Vancouver 	
35	10,770	97Total 	
1639 :	$343,430	03
Stage Services
Postal District	' No.	W.T.B	Charlottetown 	
2	$211	00Halifax 	
53	13,409	45Saint John 	
44	13,740	02Quebec 	
153	36,677	83Montreal 	
78	19,894	40Ottawa	
48	12,620	13North Bay 	
21	3,087	00Toronto 	
21	5,034	64London 	
21	7,255	35Winnipeg 	
37	6,419	26Moose Jaw 	
37	6,092	61Saskatoon 	
33	4,447	51Calgary 	
14	6,131	27Edmonton 	
37	6,539	05Vancouver 	
34	6,963	79Total 	
633 $148,523	31
Side Services
Postal District	No.	W.T.B	Charlottetown 	
17	$1,913	29Halifax 	
27	2,668	43Saint John 	
29	4,143	20Quebec 	
102	17,039	06Montreal 	
96	15,238	52Ottawa	
45	5,283	25North Bay 	
3	310	00Toronto 	
42	4,348	34London 	
51	7,712	08Winnipeg 	
39	5,082	31Moose J aw 	
36	3,094	29Saskatoon	
27	3,328	58Calgary 	
24	3,487	44Edmonton 	
26	3.046	43Vancouver 	3,727	03Total 	$80,422	25
Grand Total-No. 2871-W.T.B. $572,375 59

Postal Service
Five Per Cent Cost of Operations Bonus (Rural Routes, Stage Services, Side Services)
Per Annum No. of Cost Ser- (Approxi-
Postal District	vices	mately)Charlottetown	27	| 642 00Halifax 	160	4,757 00Saint John . ..	185	3,125 00Quebec 	222	4,525 00Montreal 	197	7,385 00Ottawa	241	5,794 00North Bay ...	208	3,423 00Toronto 	281	7,884 00London 	311	10,966 00Winnipeg ....	405	4,438 00Moose Jaw	303	3,600 00Saskatoon . . . .	384	3,582 00Calgary 	216	3,226 00Edmonton ....	257	3,007 00Vancouver ...	225	7,347 003622	$73,70*1 00The record indicates that only a	percentageof the carriers	have received the	bonus, andeven among those who	did	receive	it, carrierswith similar	routes	and	operating under	similar circumstances	received	dissimilar
amounts of bonus.
I wish to thank the minister and those associated with him in his department for having furnished this list in the detail in which the information is given. It is very-different from the type of answer that was given today, to a very reasonable question, by the Minister of National Revenue, an answer the like of which I have never heard given in this house before. I am sure the minister will see to it that by tomorrow the information that was asked for will be furnished.


James Joseph McCann: As a matter of privilege,
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lake Centre need not shake either his head or his finger at me with reference to the answer given to the question.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the question of privilege?


James Joseph McCann: I will tell the hon. gentleman what it is in a moment. I think I gave him the assurance of one gentleman to another that every effort would be made to answer his question, and if he will possess his soul in peace for a day or two he will receive what I think will prove to be a satisfactory answer.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this
question had been on the records of the house for a considerable length of time, and if the minister had been able to get away with a shilly-shally answer like that, no doubt he would have thought it sufficient.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are out of order.


John George Diefenbaker: It is the sort of
thing I object to.


James Horace King: Order. I would point
out to the hon. member that the question before the house is the third reading of Bill No. 17, respecting supplemental payments on mail contracts.


John George Diefenbaker: I was just showing the difference between the two departments. One has furnished full information while the other has asked us to take two bites of the cherry before we can get what we are after. It is to that sort of thing that I am objecting.
On looking over the list of bonuses I find that there is no consistency in the amounts or in the proportions of the increase. In a considerable number of cases the original contract price was more than doubled by the bonus. That is a serious situation, that a person should take a contract under tender and then apply for an increase because of circumstances which existed at the time he got the contract, and that he should receive jn amount in excess of the original contract price. I am not going to refer to all the examples.
As I have been able to work it out, there were fifty cases in which the mail carrier was able to get more than twice the amount he actually bargained for. The list reveals a situation that points to unfairness if not discrimination. While I have the assurance of the mnister that there has been no discrimination, on the other hand there can be no doubt that there has been the greatest unfairness in the award of the bonuses, because of this fact if for no other, that the only ones who got the bonus were those who asked for it, and the only ones who asked for the bonus were those who were aware of its existence.
In Saskatchewan a number of the carriers had no information whatsoever on the fact that a bonus was to be paid. I would ask the minister, in making payment of the bonus, to assure fairness to all the carriers everywhere in Canada. Even today, where there has been unfairness by reason of too large amounts being granted, reconsideration should be given those cases. The information that was put on Hansard the other day was that the post office had made a surplus of some $11 million last year, and the amount was somewhat larger the year before. In view of the surplus, fairness demands that the bonus be made payable to all who had contracts in 1944 and 1945 and continued them. In the second place I think the time has come for a reduction of postal rates in Canada, in
Postal Service

view of the profit that is being made. In the United States air mail postage has been reduced to five cents per ounce. It is time a similar reduction was made in Canada; and there should be a return to the three-cent ordinary mail rate.
I shall not on this occasion go into all the details, but in order to support my argument that there has been no consistency I would point out that in one case the contract is for $425 and the amount of the bonus is $574.


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: Which contract is that?


John George Diefenbaker: Leclercville, No. 1. The next contract is for $308 and the bonus is $592. In many cases the amount of the bonus is the same as the contract rate. I do not refer to those on this occasion. Here is a contract rate of $560 and a war-time bonus of $790.


Ernest Bertrand: To be fair the hon. member should give the rate per mile, because where there was such a big bonus it never brought the rates per mile higher than the contracts given in the surrounding districts.


John George Diefenbaker: I have the records before me, and if there is any question about them, my hon. friend may place that record before the house. I have just taken the cases without comment, and there are no reasons given. Originally reasons were to have been given, but the department contended that to do so would have meant too much clerical work. The rate per mile ranges from $28 to $77.77, and many of the increases by way of bonus were given in the higher brackets, in the $45, $48 and $50 a mile class. I referred to certain other cases. At the moment I am taking these in the order in which they come, and am dealing with the Montreal district. In another case the contract rate was $373.50 and the war-time bonus $530. In the Ottawa district there is a case in which the contract rate was $539 and the war-time bonus $561. Let us take some of the large ones. In New Brunswick there is a contract for $3,000 and the bonus given is $1,850. In the Vancouver district is one for $1,200 with a bonus of $1,080.
I now come to some others dealing with stage service. Up to now I have" been dealing only with regular mail couriers. There is a contract for $456 and a war-time bonus of $961. There the bonus is twice as large as the contract price, which seems difficult to understand. Here is a case in which the contract rate was $199 and the war-time bonus $348.75; here is another one where the contract was $320 and the war-time bonus $680. In the
[Mr. Diefenbaker.J
Ottawa district there is another where the amount of the contract was $1,440 and the bonus $1,560. Here is another outstanding one, where the contract was $95 and the bonus $480, five times the amount of the, contract.


Ernest Bertrand: It is unfair to give the figures in that way.


John George Diefenbaker: I am making my
speech.


Ernest Bertrand: Yes, but it is not complete. If you are giving the figures, you should give all the figures.


John George Diefenbaker: At the moment I have the floor. If the minister wants to answer these-and I imagine that they will be difficult to answer-it will probably take him more time than just an interruption would permit.


Mr. POULIOT:: It is not difficult at all. Everything will come in due course.


John George Diefenbaker: At the moment I am just giving the figures as I go along.


An hon. MEMBER:: Give the mileages, dates and names.


John George Diefenbaker: The names were part of the information I asked for, but they were not furnished in the return. The department said it would take too much time to give all that information.


Ernest Bertrand: The hon. member has in his hand a document showing the detail of what he is saying, and I ask permission to give it.


John George Diefenbaker: All right.


Ernest Bertrand: The hon. member is referring to Black Lake and the railway station.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister may answer these figures later.


An hon. MEMBER:: He will.


John George Diefenbaker: gasoline was much lower. When the war came prices went up, and these carriers needed an adjustment. That adjustment was made by the department in virtue of the War Measures Act, and it was on a sound basis.
The figures recited a moment ago by my hon. friend seem rather strange, and not in accordance with the rules of fair play and justice; but it was because the contracts were entirely different at the start that the bonuses had to be different in making an adjustment to a common accepted average. Let me explain it very clearly to my hon, friend. Take two rural routes, each ten miles long. The lowest tenderer for one route may have put in a bid $300 lower than the lowest bidder for the other route. As a result there is a difference of $300 in the two contracts. In the first place the contract was awarded to the lowest tenderer at $300 less; in the second place the tender of the lowest bidder was accepted at $300 more. Therefore if the policy of the department at a certain moment is to establish a common average per mile it is only natural that the first tenderer should get a bonus $300 more than the bonus granted the other contractor. .
That is just as clear as spring water. I admire the faculty of the hon. member for Lake Centre for making simple things look complicated; it is a gift. Then he works hard to make himself indignant, and is surprised when there is no general response to his selfmade indignation. It is an unusual gift, and he is a master at it. The reason hon. members take his vehement statements with a grain of salt is precisely because he adds too much pepper to his salt. I should have liked to see my hon. friend at the time his party was in power, when the Posmaster General was putting postmasters away for any reason-


An hon. MEMBER:: No patronage.


Jean-François Pouliot: No patronage. All Liberals were fired, but it was in the name of justice, patriotism and purity of intention; and every time the Postmaster General fired a postmaster he looked at the ceiling, to give the house the impression that he was praying to heaven. He was clasping his hands, and everything was for the good of the country. A postmaster was a Liberal; therefore he was bad. The incoming man was a Tory; therefore he was excellent. That was the policy of "no politics; no partisanship".
One day I had the fun of my life when I made a charge against a Tory postmaster who had been carrying liquor in his rig during the provincial election. I made my investigation
LMr. Pouliot.]
and presented my evidence. It was complete. Naturally, however, I did not receive judgment in accordance with the evidence; the postmaster kept his job. Afterwards he said to me, "How did you know that I brought liquor to this fellow in the middle of the night, when you were in Ottawa?" I said, "Don't bother; I know everything you do. My little finger told it to me." Afterwards he was afraid of me; he could not realize it. The evidence was complete, but nothing was done.
There were all sorts of things which promoted the exercise of the worst kind of patronage. I found it so silly that I decided afterwards not to pay any attention to patronage in the Post Office Department. That is why I speak in this way in answer to the hon. member for Lake Centre. Certainly I am not going to crawl before any official of the department, asking for favours, when I can claim rights for my constituents. I want them respected in the Post Office Department.
I pay special tribute to the present minister, because he has redressed many wrongs from which the postmasters and mail carriers were suffering. But not only that; the hon member for Lake Centre does not know the history of his party. In the years gone by the Conservative party did not do only wrong things, as it now does. At that time it was doing some good things, and Conservative members joined hands with Liberals to ask for the redress of wrongs from which mail carriers in particular were suffering.
Redress is now being carried out by the minister. The same would be done for the hon. member for Rake Centre, if he were not so proud and if he deigned to call upon the minister to ask for redress of the wrongs from which his constituents are suffering. I am sure the hon. member would receive a fair answer from the minister. But instead of that the hon. member says, "This is bad legislation." I say it is legislation which will be just as satisfactory for the mail carriers in his constituency as for those in mine.
The minister is responsible to parliament. How many times have I complained about civil servants who seem to be masters of good and bad weather in the department, and whom we cannot criticize or denounce in the house. But today we have a restoration of ministerial responsibility, and for that the minister deserves every credit.
I give credit to the government for this step in the right direction. How many times have we heard the hon. member for Lake Centre complain about fascism, autocracy and des-

Postal Service
potism. While I may complain of that at times, yet I give everyone his dues. This time the government deserves full credit not only for acting in accordance with the old principles of the Liberal party and the Conservative party, but for following the true principles of real responsible government, the true British principles in virtue of which the minister is really the head of his department. He is the one who decides whether something is just or unjust, fair or unfair. Afterwards he submits himself to the control of the House of Commons.
This is good legislation. It is not at all pork-barrel legislation. It is legislation introduced so that every citizen will receive his private mail, newspapers, parcels and the like within the shortest possible time, because the best men will be doing the job. The question before the Post Office Department is not one of examining a few cents so as to get the cheapest service. The important thing is to select the very best men to do the work in the department, so that there will be no delay in the handling of mail.
I congratulate the department, because the service is excellent. When I say that, I leave from my thoughts some of the difficulties I have had with some people who at times are most unreasonable in their treatment of contracts, and who do not act even in accordance with the law.
I shall say no more about the matter today. It is St. Patrick's day, and I do not want to say anything unpleasant to anyone on the feast day of such a great saint. On the other hand the minister is deserving of congratulations on his sponsoring of a bill of this kind. I am sure when the hon. member for Lake Centre thinks about what has just been said he will realize that it is in the interests of his constituency, as well as in that of every hon. member, to remove all discrimination and thus make things smoother for a better postal service.


Mr. C. E. STEPHENSON (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak briefly on this bill before it is given third reading. I have examined the report tabled by the Postmaster General (Mr. Bertrand) setting out bonuses paid to rural mail drivers, as authorized by order in council. It reveals that many rural mail carriers received bonuses much larger than their original contracts, while others received no bonuses at all. Here are some examples of bonuses being paid in amounts greater than the original tenders. In the first of these the original contract was for $308 and the bonus paid was $592. In the second instance the contract price was $360 and
the bonus $480. Another shows a contract price of $302 with a bonus of $339, and still another gives a contract price of $308 with a bonus of $365.
We may compare these figures with others, one of which gives a contract price of $500 and a bonus of only $85. I cannot see where there is any comparison at all. This report reveals that on a mileage basis some drivers receive as much as $77 while others receive only $20.
I am sure all hon. members will agree that mail drivers should receive remuneration sufficient to enable them to carry out their duties efficiently, and also that there should be a system of equitable remuneration for services rendered. In my own riding I find that out of some fifty contracts, twenty-four received no bonuses whatever, and apparently these men had no idea that bonuses were being paid. Under the present hocus-pocus-or-bonus-bonus-who-will-get-the-bonus system, the whole thing is nothing less than a farce and should be changed as soon as possible. I do not think these men can be equitably paid under the present system. A mileage basis of payment would not be equitable when one driver's route is over rough country or township roads, up and down hill, and another driver's route is over paved roads. Nor do I think mail drivers should be paid on the basis of the number of boxes on their routes.
May I be allowed to make a suggestion which I think would improve the system of rural mail delivery. I would suggest that all mail drivers be paid on an hourly basis. A survey could be made to determine the actual time it takes for a driver to cover his route, having regard only to the delivery of His Majesty's royal mail and other duties pertaining thereto. Allowance should be made also for the use of horses in extremely bad w'eather. Having arrived at the number of hours it takes to cover a certain mail route, I suggest that the driver be paid at the rate of $1.10 or SI .20 per hour. That rate would cover the driver's time and the use of his car or horses or other type of vehicle. I think this would give the driver a reasonable amount for gasoline and oil and depreciation on his equipment.
A mail route requiring five hours to cover would work out to $5.50 per day, with the yearly remuneration on the basis of 312 days amounting to $1,710. I think that would be a fair basis on which to pay rural mail drivers. This system would permit the driver to purchase good equipment of a uniform nature, as I mentioned the last time I spoke on this matter. I suggested that the equipment possibly could be a standard coach,
Postal Service

with all cars painted a similar colour. Then there could be attached a sign bearing the coat of arms and reading, "His Majesty's Royal Mail." This sign would not be allowed on the car when it was not being used for the delivery of His Majesty's mail. A driver might need his car for only three or four hours a day and would want to make use of it at other times for other purposes, so the sign would be permitted on the car only when it was being used for the delivery of the mail. Last time I suggested that these cars might be painted red, but after considering that they would be driven over dusty roads, and having been in the car business for a number of years, I would now suggest grey or gunmetal, with a red sign to be put on or taken off.
I offer these suggestions realizing that while they may not be perfect they might offer a means of improving one of our services which is of paramount importance to our country, and of bringing about a better distribution of His Majesty's mail.


Mr. MAURICE LALONDE (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, it is a well known fact that wages of mail carriers should be readjusted. I was much impressed with the remarks of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). He offered criticism of both the department and the minister, and his criticism reveals that he is not a great statesman. I am sorry to have to say that it is pitiful that a man of his standing should make these unfair statements. Let us say in a particular case the original contract was for $100 and the war-time bonus has increased this to maybe $500. My hon. friend should not be scandalized because he knows that every case must be studied and adjusted individually.
I heard with great interest the proposition of the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Stephenson) and I congratulate him upon having made a concrete proposition. It is the first time since I have been here that I have heard anything concrete from the benches over there on this matter of the mail carriers. However I am afraid that I cannot accept his proposition because I do not see how the department could follow a mail carrier around on his route if he is to be engaged by the hour. It would take a flock of inspectors to follow these men and adjust their wages or salaries according to the work done.


Mr. BOUCHER:: How does the hon.
member expect the Postmaster General to be able to adjust the bonuses he has been giving?


Maurice Lalonde: It is quite easy to find
out the difficulties in carrying out a contract over a set route. It does not need a flock of inspectors to tell the department that in certain cases the work is worth a certain amount of money. If I understand the proposition made by the hon. member, it is that nearly all rural mail contracts would be paid on an hourly basis, but I wonder how the department would be able to carry on.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: Inspectors are sent out all the time from the district offices to inspect the mail routes. If we were to change the system it would be an easy matter to send out inspectors to determine the reasonable time in which a route should be covered.


Maurice Lalonde: I am respectful of my hon. friend's opinion but I do not share it. I wish to say to the hon. member for Lake Centre that it is not fair to the department and to the minister simply to give a list of contracts without giving further particulars or * explanations. It is true that in my district nearly all the contracts have been readjusted. In every case where a contractor came before the minister and offered sound evidence in support of his proposition the contract was readjusted fairly, even though he was not a political friend of mine.
Those in my district who are complaining that they did not receive additional compensation or a readjustment are precisely those who did not make application for it. Those are the facts. I do not say that every contract has been readjusted, but those which have not been can be readjusted if the contractors wili take the trouble to bring their case before the minister and the department. Therefore I think it is unfair to tell the house and the country that the Postmaster General (Mr. Bertrand) was unjustified in his actions because some contracts were not readjusted while others were given large increases in compensation.
In resume it is my contention that the minister and the department deserve praise, for in every case where the contractor took the trouble to build up and bring before the department a good case, based on sound evidence, justice was done and the suggestion of the hon. member for Lake Centre cannot be accepted.


Mr. J. S. SINNOTT (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, being an Irishman, and this being the 17th day of March, I wish to congratulate all the Irishmen in the house. I also wish to extend my congratulations to the Postmaster General (Mr. Bertrand), who is a good Irishman.

Postal Service
I wish to congratulate the Postmaster General upon the efforts he has made to readjust many of these mail contracts. He has a big task on his hands, there being thousands and thousands of rural mail carriers, and of course it is impossible for him personally even to attempt to readjust all these contracts. But in every case that has been brought to his attention a fair adjustment has been made.
I do not think the proposal made by the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Stephenson) is sound. We have had both Liberals and Conservatives in power for long periods and I suppose there have been fair-minded men in both parties, but obviously the programme he outlines did not commend itself to either party or it would have been put into effect some time ago. It would be impossible to get the mail carriers to work on the lines he suggests, because sometimes it takes two hours and sometimes ten hours to cover a route. Therefore I do not think his proposal would be of any value at the present time. I am sure that if the Postmaster General is given a fair opportunity to deal with the problems that arise from time to time a fair adjustment will be made in every case.


Mr. N. J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Stephenson) refer to a bonus as high as $75 a mile having been granted. Did I hear him correctly?


Charles Elwood Stephenson: It was $77 a mile.


Ernest Bertrand: I will explain why.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Just a moment, please. If it was only $67 or $57, in addition to the amount set out in the contract, I am indeed surprised to hear it because one of the officers of the department made the statement to me recently in connection with a contract where a tender in the neighbourhood of $100 a mile had been submitted, ''If you think for a moment that we can ever pay $100 a mile for rural mail delivery, the idea is absurd.'' There are about 300 boxes on this route and conditions are sometimes very difficult. After what this official said to me, I am more than surprised to hear the hon. member for Durham say that in bonus alone $77 a mile has been paid. There must be something wrong somewhere.


Ernest Bertrand: The hon. member is making a mistake.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I will give the minister the details afterwards. This statement was made to me within the last forty-eight hours.


Ernest Bertrand: The $77 includes the bonus and the contract price.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: If anything like $100 a mile is being paid there are plenty of these contracts that need looking into. I know what the conditions are in some on the rural routes in my constituency and, now that my eyes are being opened as to what is being paid in other places, I can assure the minister that I am going to make a thorough check on this matter. I would ask him to explain why the statement was made by one of his officials that it would be absurd to pay anything like $100 a mile, in view of the state- ' ment of the hon. member for Durham that a bonus of $77 a mile is being paid.


Mr. A. J. BROOKS (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, in my constituency I have as many rural mail carriers as in any other constituency, 133 altogether. So far as the bonus is concerned, from the information I have received I am satisfied that very few of the rural mail carriers in my constituency were aware of the fact that a bonus was being paid. I have the list of 133 carriers here and I find that forty-eight received the bonus and thirty received what is known as an operational bonus, which runs from a minimum of $4.20 to a maximum of $59.55. I was very much surprised to hear the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Lalonde) say that practically all the rural mail carriers in his constituency had received the bonus. It looks to me as if there had been great discrimination all across this country. I am not blaming the present Postmaster General (Mr. Bertrand) because he has been in office for only a short time, and I think most of these difficulties arose before he took office. But when we are told that one constituency receives almost one hundred per cent attention so far as the bonus is concerned and another receives less than twenty-five per cent, surely that is an indication that there is something wrong.
So far as the act itself is concerned, I believe that the Postmaster General will administer it fairly. I trust that he will. We have listened to the ravings of the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) about what happened years ago, and I know that, so far as the appointment of postmasters in my constituency is concerned, what he asserts was true. I do not doubt the hon. member, but I know something of what happened at that time, and I know of very few Liberal postmasters who were dismissed in my own province, from 1930 to 1935. I do know, however, that prior to that time, when we had a postmaster general from New Brunswick, a Conservative postmaster had no chance at all and was dismissed with little ceremony.


Mr. WINTERS:: Shameful.
Postal Service


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Yes, it was shameful, and I have no doubt it happened in the hon. gentleman's constituency of Queens-Lunenburg as well, because I have found that there is no more hard-bitten person in the country than a Nova Scotia Grit.
However, that is not what I rose to say. I hope that in the administration of the measure, when it goes through, the minister will show no discrimination. These men have worked for a mere pittance for a great many ' years. Perhaps it has been their own fault, but some arrangement such as the hon. member for Durham has recommended might be found to work out, though perhaps not 100 per cent along the lines he suggested. Some such arrangement, however, should be made because these men are rendering a valuable service; they have worked hard for many years, and I suggest that they should be recompensed adequately for the work they are doing.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I rise to bring one point to the attention of the minister in case there may be anyone else in the house who is in the same position as myself. I have listened carefully to the debate, I have listened in particular to the figures given, which, on the face of them seem to require considerable explanation, and on the assumption that the minister will make a statement before the conclusion of the debate, I earnestly suggest to him that these figures which have been given should not be left unexplained.
I have heard hon. gentlemen opposite say that they were satisfied with everything, that these awards were fair and just. I have no reason to think they are not fair and just, but how on earth any hon. gentleman opposite- and presumably they know no more about the figures than I do-is prepared to certify that he knows about the matter, I do not know. Theiefore I repeat that it is in the interests of the administration, in the interests of this house, that we be not left with the figures now outstanding, which are quite without explanation, and which on the face of them would indicate that there have been great inequalities in dealing with different men. There may have been reasons for this, and if there are we should have them. If the minister would take some of these cases, that seem so unusual and excite wonder, and explain them we might all be satisfied.


Mr. A. J. BRADSHAW (Perth):: 
Mr. GAUTHIER (Portneuf):: That is not what he said.


Mr. McLURE:: He led us to believe that they had all received it.


Pierre Gauthier: He certainly did not.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Well, let us take the minister's own words. Because a man did not apply for it is no reason why he should not have been given it. The department knew that it was due him. Why should he not have received it? Why should they have discriminated against anyone?


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: The man was satisfied.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Did the minister expect any man to come all the way from Prince Edward Island to get a small bonus? Not at all. When they knew that amount was due them, they should have paid it. It is not as if we were asking the department to pay more money than they should pay out of their surplus. I maintain that, where the mail courier was entitled to it and is now going to get it, it should be made retroactive in order to square him with others who have been receiving it all along. I think I can make the statement that, had the hon. members for the dual constituency of Queens county been notified about this, my colleague and I would have seen to it, I am sure, that all our men had the proper amount paid to them.
I now wish to say a few words with reference to the suggestions which have been made regarding mail couriers and how they should be paid. I believe there is something in the suggestion made by the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Stephenson), that they be paid on a time basis or a trip basis. I notice that the best contract in my constituency is one that is paid on a trip basis, at $5 a day. That man with a route of twenty miles gets $5 _ a trip. He is not getting too much but is paid on a fair and honest basis.
A few days ago a mail contract came to hand for which tenders are being called in my constituency. The man has been receiving $600, and is required to leave home in the morning about a quarter to six because he must be ready to go on his mail route at seven o'clock. It takes him fifteen or twenty minutes to get to the post office. Then it takes him over an hour to sort his mail. Last year I put up a plea for the mail couriers operating out of the central post office at Charlottetown, of whom there are some eight or ten, asking that they should be provided with a mail clerk to sort the mail properly for each of the rural routes. That is quite a job. The unfortunate part of it is that, in the winter time particularly, they have to go in early, and the horses which they must use at that time have to stand out in the cold weather for an hour or an hour and a half because stabling facilities are not near at hand. All these matters should be considered with reference to these men who are operating out of the central office at Charlottetown.
I am in favour of getting down to some mileage basis by means of which we could deal evenly and fairly with all mail couriers. I believe that if the Postmaster General were to have a committee of this house set up, they would be able to go quite a distance in arriving at a proper basis for all these contracts.
Again I wish to say that in Queens county, Prince Edward Island, our contracts with all the couriers who are doing such excellent work are not on an equitable basis. The man with the longest route seems to be the one who really gets the lowest rate per mile. The distance is some forty-seven or forty-eight miles; he has 148 boxes and he gets some $42 a mile. In contrast with that, some others, with not more than one-third of that number of boxes, are getting $48 to $52 a mile. As I said, I should like the Postmaster General to explain fully what is meant by the authorized
Postal Service

bonus. Will it be paid to all mail couriers, and will it be made retroactive to those who did not apply for it?


Mr. J. A. CHARLTON (Brant):: I wish to say just a few words before this bill is given third reading. As I said before, it is with the principle on which this bonus is paid that we are having the greatest difficulty and about which we are complaining. The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) says that there is a big difference in routes. We all concede that. He also went on to say that the Postmaster General (Mr. Bertrand) was trying to set a common average. I very much disagree with that statement for this reason; even the Postmaster General found great fault with the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) in giving the different bonuses without giving the mileage rate afterwards. I agree that in some cases the mileage rate does not appear to be so bad. But why is there a difference of 820 to $77 a mile? I cannot conceive of any route being worth a difference of $57 a mile. Probably the Postmaster General can give us reasons for that.
The hon. member for Temiscouata also made the statement that the Conservative government while in power had fired some of the Liberal postmasters. All I can say to that is that probably he has had his turn for a considerable number of years.
The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Lalonde) made the statement that practically all the couriers in his constituency had received bonuses. These statements would lead us to believe that with regard to this order in council some hon. members have been "in the know" and some have not. I contend that all the couriers should have been notified that this bonus was available. That would have been only fair. I have twenty-five couriers in my own riding. Twelve of these have received bonuses and thirteen have not. If a bonus was good for one, why was it not good for another? In some cases the bonus has been much higher than the amount the contract called for. Then again it would lead us to believe that some of these couriers could have tendered low in order to get the contract, and could have been assured that they would get a bonus which would bring them up to probably twice the amount submitted by the second lowest tenderer. I contend that is very unfair.
I repeat that it is the principle on which these bonuses are paid that I am finding fault with. If a bonus is good for one it should be good for all, and the bonuses should be paid
[Mr. McLurc.|
in such a manner as to make them apply evenly to all. As I said before, the difference between $20 and $77 a mile is very' unfair, and I do not think conditions on any route in this country would justify a difference of $57 a mile.
I believe the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Stephenson) had a very good idea, and I do not think it would be as difficult to carry it into effect as the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Lalonde) would have us believe. The inspectors in these districts are or should be capable of going over a route. Surely they could come to some figure which was nearly average, at least, having in mind the number of hours it would take for a man to deliver the mail on any route. They could take into consideration road conditions, the number of stops and all the rest of it, and I think that suggestion was about as fair as any I have heard. I still contend that these bonuses could be paid on a fair basis, and I would suggest that the Postmaster General give every consideration to putting them on a mileage basis, in some reasonable way.


Ernest Bertrand: Mr, Speaker, I thank those who have taken part in this debate. Some ideas have been expressed which in the beginning appeared to be good, but which, when examined, did not measure up so well. We must begin at the beginning; we must remember we are dealing with people who have tendered, who have asked for a contract at a certain price. It may be absolutely true to say this is unfair to some who did not ask for enough, but if we indict the tender system today in regard to rural mail delivery or any other mail contracts, we indict the tender system generally; and heretofore it has been recognized by all parties that the tender system for contracts is the fairest system we have been able to find.
Of course we could follow another system and pay a contractor so much an hour, after naving found out for ourselves how many hours it would take to fulfil a contract, on good and bad days. When this question was first argued, however, quite a number of hon. members on the other side said that we had in our hands what they called a pork barrel, that asking permission to make supplementary payments to certain people constituted a pork barrel of the first magnitude. Well, if we were to give contracts to gentlemen at so much an hour, and, in addition, pay for the gasoline used and so on, we would no longer have any people to tender, and we would have

Postal Service
a real pork barrel in our hands which would oermit us to give these contracts to whomever we wished.
This is the point we had in mind at the headquarters of the Post Office Department for many years when we were considering what we should do in order to help these rural mail contractors. Perhaps I might tell hon. members a very short story. Once I was appearing for the respondent in a case before the court of appeal in Montreal. M3' adversary was rising and arguing, not exactly following the etiquette which does not permit a lawyer to get up more than once, and I was getting up each time myself to reply; but I was told by Chief Justice Greenshields, who was presiding, that is was not necessary for me to see that my adversary understood the case in order to win it.
I explained most of these matters when this legislation was brought in two weeks ago, but perhaps I should repeat, certain things I said then. Starting with the point that these contracts result from tenders, and that unfortunately there are people who have put in these tenders at prices which are too low; I admit that; otherwise we would not have given any bonuses. Starting with that point, however, I believe it- might well be that someone put in a tender at a price so low that, if something had not been done, he would have had to abandon his contract. In fact many of these people told us they would have to abandon .their contracts unless we gave them a bonus. That was wh>r we passed the second order in council in 1943, which allowed us to make up the discrepancy.
When we adjusted these contracts with those who asked that this be done, we took into consideration certain factors, among many others, because there were factors that had to be taken into consideration, which pertained onlv- to certain types of contracts. We looked at the rate paid for similar services in the same locality. We scrutinized those prices. Special attention was paid to the rates being obtained by tender for other similar services, as indicating a trend. We took note of the date at which the contract was entered into, in order to determine the degree of change in operating costs. If a contract had been granted perhaps only three or four months before the tenderer applied for a bonus, he would not get it, because he must have known at that time that the cost of living was increasing, the cost of labour was going up. The tenderer must have known that material was becoming harder to get, and so on. This will explain why, under the law today, we
cannot grant a bonus to anyone who has had a contract for less than twelve months. If the date at which the contract was entered into was not available, tender results in other areas were accepted as indicating a general trend. Consideration was given .to the general increase in the wages of labour. In certain places that increase was much greater than in others. In Vancouver, for example, we found that the cost of labour had increased much more than in certain cities in the east.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I see $111 per mile is paid in one place.


Ernest Bertrand: Yes, but that is for a special reason.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ernest Bertrand: The hon.
member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) is laughing, but I know he will not laugh all the time. Any peculiarity entailing unusual difficulty in performing the service, or inconvenient hours of service, were also taken into consideration; for instance, that would enter into the service between a railway station and the post office. If a train comes in at halfpast. one, or two o'clock, or three o'clock in the morning, we have to pay more than in the day time. Then there was the matter of inconvenient hours of service, such as early morning, and the irregularity of train service, nature of the roads, and so on.
The decision was based on the foregoing, mainly the result- of the individual judgment of an officer who has been for twenty-five years in the department. Since so many factors enter into the picture, there are undoubtedly discrepancies, none, however, which are not warranted.
The extent of the bonuses granted in 1943 was lower, on the average, than the bonuses granted in succeeding years. This is accounted for b3- the fact that rates submitted following tenders are showing a steady rise. When some of these contractors asked for bonuses they told us that they were going to abandon their contracts which, according to the written con-tratcs, they had the right to do.
In certain instances we have asked for new tenders. I have given the figures before. Wherever we asked for tenders, the Post Office Department has had to pay more than when we passed on a contract with the same contractor, and granted him a bonus, often the bonus he was asking for. I believe this was better, because a man might have an automobile, or he might have been using horses. It would be better to continue the contract with him and to give him the bonus
Postal Service

than to take a new tenderer at a much higher price than was asked by the one who would continue with the contract price plus bonus.
All applications for bonuses were not granted. There are many cases where the rate asked for is excessive for the work performed, even under existing circumstances. This is a fact which is borne in mind when any proposal to cure the situation by granting a flat increase to all mail contractors is put forward.
Someone referred to the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Lalonde) and to the fact that in his constituency a large number of mail contractors have had bonuses. Well, in this respect some of the bonuses asked for were abusive, and we then asked for tenders. Some of the tenders came with such high prices that we refused to accept them. The result is that there are two or three rural routes today in the hon. member's constituency where there is no service. We are waiting till such time as we can supply a service at a reasonable price.
In dealing with any application for bonus, steps are taken to ascertain when public tenders were last invited for the service under consideration. If tenders were received within twelve months of the application, the tenders are scrutinized to determine the degree of competition and particularly the rate of the second lowest tender. This is taken into account when deciding the amount of any bonus granted.
We were asked for details, and as a result we prepared these documents which were tabled last week. They were prepared following the request of the hon. member for Lake Centre, and were shown to him before they were deposited in the house. We asked him if he was satisfied with them and he said he was. We have not given the reason why certain figures have been given in each instance, but that information can be obtained by considering the context, and by taking note of the frequency, the number of miles, and the boxes to be served, et cetera.


John George Diefenbaker: Rising to a point of order I was told it would be impossible for several weeks to get those details. That is the reason they are not given.


Ernest Bertrand: That is right. If it was impossible to get those details for several weeks, it would not have been convenient to have left this measure standing perhaps to the end of March. Had this happened, we would have been obliged to drop the bonuses, unless in the meantime another bill were passed extending them. But

to give the figures as my hon. friend has done, without giving them completely, does not give a true picture.
I hold in my hand a document-I believe the hon. member had it-in which a comparison is made. This sets out the highest amount of bonus paid in each postal district for stage service, side service and rural mail service. When we consider these matters we must take into account whether it is a stage service, et ceteria. It will be understood that a stage service is a service of mail delivery between post offices, sometimes over long routes, and serving intermediate post offices. It also gives service between railway stations and post offices, if the distances exceed three miles. The side service is between railway stations and post offices for routes less than three miles. Of course all hon. members are familiar with the rural mail service.
I should like to place on record one example in the Saint John district, between St. Gregoire and Saint John, with six frequencies. It is a return trip of 118-5 miles. The contract price was $2,990, and we gave a war bonus of $2,202.67. Even at this price, after giving a bonus of $2,202.67 on a contract price of $2,990, the rate, including the bonus, was just fourteen cents a mile. I think no one will say that is too high.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: Is that the correct figure?


Ernest Bertrand: Yes.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: Or should it be $14?


Ernest Bertrand: No, fourteen cents a mile.


John George Diefenbaker: That was stage coach, was it not?


Ernest Bertrand: That contract had been tendered at a price of almost seven cents. It was increased to almost double that figure, to give fourteen cents. These long routes are covered by automobiles or buses or trucks, depending on the mail they have to carry and the number of stations served.


John George Diefenbaker: Who was the contractor, please? Was it not a stage?


Ernest Bertrand: Yes, it is a stage service, carrying mail, and it may also carry something else.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not the rate per trip, though.


Ernest Bertrand: Surely fourteen cents a mile is not too much.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: That is per trip?


Ernest Bertrand: Per trip mile.

Postal Service


John Alpheus Charlton: That figure is out $43.68 per year mile.


Ernest Bertrand: Surely that figure is not too high.
Then, let us take one in the Montreal district, from Farnham to the Canadian Pacific railway station. This is a city service between the station and the post office. The distance is 1,300 rods and there are eighty-five trips a week. The contract price was $822.28 and the war-time bonus amounted to $977.72. Even with the bonus, this works out at only forty-one cents a trip, to carry mail 1,300 rods. We do not think that payment is unfair to the treasury.
I shall not attempt to give the particulars of all these contracts, but here is one mail route in Vancouver where there are six trips for a distance of thirty-two miles. The contract rate was $1,200 with a war-time bonus of $1,080. This works out to $71.25 a mile, one of the highest we have. However the hon. member did not mention that there are 383 boxes to be served. The other routes referred to by the hon. member did not have nearly as great a number of boxes. Before this man starts his route, he must sort his mail and that takes a long time. The cost of labour is very high in this district and that was also taken into consideration. I have given three contracts which, at first sight, might be considered to be fair, but when everything is taken into consideration it will be seen that these are on a par with other contracts that have been adjusted.
I have another one here, a stage service from Halifax to Sheet Harbour. There are three trips for a distance of 82-9 miles. The contract price was $3,995.18 with a war-time bonus of $1,177. This works out to only twenty cents a mile, which surely is not too much.
A number of questions were asked, but most of those questions did not take into account the fact that we are dealing with contracts which were obtained on tender. The basic price was fixed by the contractor who would know the route and who, it would be supposed, would take great care to tender sufficiently to be able to make money. I admit that in some eases people are tendering too low, but surely it is not for the government to pass a law obliging tenderers to bid higher. If we were fixing prices it would have to be an average price on which the tenderer could make a fair living. I am quite sure that if that were done a large number of tenderers would bid the minimum price, and then we would have to choose. We would then have what some members are afraid of, a pork barrel to play with.
I admit that we are dealing with a difficult problem, but this law will be in force for just one year or for sixty days after the opening of the next session. At that time any contracts that have been closed out because of the death of a contractor or because a contractor may not want to continue will be put up for tender under the old system and the contract will be given to the lowest tenderer, provided that he has the necessary equipment to do the work.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: The minister says that the tenders will be accepted, no matter what the prices are. Sometimes a man will knowingly tender at a price which will not permit efficient service of the route. Does the minister agree that the government should exploit those men?


Ernest Bertrand: No.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: That is what you are doing. You are accepting the lowest tender, knowing that the man cannot reasonably carry out his contract.


Ernest Bertrand: I like the sympathy the hon. member is expressing for the gentlemen who pass on tenders. However, if we do not abide by this rule we shall have to put aside the tender system, not only in the case of small contracts, but in the case of contracts to build buildings such as the beautiful ones we have here. We must have some yardstick-


Charles Elwood Stephenson: May I ask one more question?


Ernest Bertrand: I have not finished. We must have some yardstick unless we succeed in finding another way to pay these contractors.


James Horace King: I am sorry to interrupt, but I would direct the attention of the hon. gentleman and the minister to the fact that we are considering the motion for third reading and hon. members are allowed to speak only once.


Ernest Bertrand: Mr. Speaker-


James Horace King: Unless the minister has the unanimous consent of the house he will be obliged to abide by the rules.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: May I say a word
in connection with the Fraser valley-


James Horace King: I understand that the minister is answering a question.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I thought he had not closed the debate.
Agricultural Products Act


Ernest Bertrand: We must
carry on like this unless we find a way of paying these people so much per hour. That is something we shall have to consider.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, March 14, 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, and on the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Nicholson.
Mr. T. J. BENTLEY (Swift Current):: Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned on Friday night one of the principal speakers on the amendment offered by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) was the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), who gave an interesting talk, informative at times, a bit fantastic in one or two spots, a mixture of fact and fancy of the kind in which the minister frequently indulges.
I do not think there is any doubt in the minds of the members of this particular group about the bill that has been presented doing the job which the minister says the government wants done. We have no doubt about that whatsoever. But we want a lot more. We agree that the contracts which the government have made with other countries must be carried out, and if thiis vehicle is the only one they can conceive of for doing that job, we are not going to stop them from having this vehicle. But we want to make it clear that to us it is simply a horse and buggy compared with what the farmers of this country want. They want the orderly marketing of farm products and cooperative and democratic control of the machinery of that marketing, and we support their demands and will continue to do so on every occasion in this house. We also believe that, while it may be difficult at this late date, a marketing act such as is forecast in the amendment offered by the hon. member for Mackenzie would give the minister and the government an opportunity to do all that can be done under this bill, and, as well, something more. Had it been started early enough and conceived with some of the vision that the Liberal party claims to have, we have not the slightest doubt in our minds that something of that kind could have been done. I think I am safe in saying that

the minister himself believes that, because at the last minute he brought in an amendment to a section of the bill dealing with apples, which indicates that he considers it necessary to have some marketing control over interprovincial trade. That is a clear indication that the minister felt that way from the start.
Another thing we do not like about this bill is that we recognize that these contracts will not last forever. Very few of them expire this year, and this bill terminates at the end of this year. As a matter of fact it is only a nine-months bill, and it will terminate at a time when parliament is not sitting. If there is no election this year-I do not know whether there will be or not; I do not know whether the minister knows-


Mr. BURTON:: If he does, he won't tell.


Thomas John Bentley: "If he does, he won't
tell", my hon. friend interjects. I presume this session of parliament will be over before the end of this year. The bill does imply the possibility of a session of parliament in November and December, which may or may not happen. The bill itself will expire on December 31 next. Some of the contracts, the minister says, will not expire until 1948 and some in 1949. At least contracts for two very large items will not expire until 1949. This means that parliament will have to go through this process year after year until the government finally get rid of these contracts and do something else which they may envisage at that time, if they are still in their seats over there.
The hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Burton) asked the minister what a transitional period was. The minister was pointing out the transitional nature of this bill. He replied that he did not know what the transitional period would be, and he does not believe that anybody else knows. I agree with the minister that he does not know and that nobody else in this house knows what the transitional period will be. Not even the minister himself can give us a definition of the transition from war to peace or from this period to that, and tell us what wall take place. It is a frank admission that private monopoly enterprise is always in a transitional stage, and we shall always be having bills of this kind unless we frankly face the transitional nature of our present-day society and make plans with some degree of permanence and vision.
There are times when the Liberals believe that they do know when the transitional period will end. They say they believe they know and they have paid out monev at

Agricultural Products Act
*certain periods to support their belief. I have here a page from the Toronto Star Weekly, of May 26, 1945, which was shortly before the last election, and at that time it was indicated quite clearly that the Liberals *did know, and they spent money to have this advertisement printed, stating they believed they could foretell the end of the transitional period. They said they had the necessary plans for going ahead, with some permanence to their plans. I will quote one paragraph of this advertisement and underline four words when I get to them. The advertisement says:
The all-important question today is the civilian staff-work and leadership which we call "gov

ernment."
The "we" is the government. It goes on:
The Liberals have a working plan.
I do not know how many times we in this party have been criticized for urging a planned society. We have been criticized by all kinds -of members of that party in the house and by their workers outside for talking of a planned -economy.


Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: You have not a plan. It is a nightmare.


Thomas John Bentley: The hon. member says that our plan is a nightmare. I shall have to go back on the offer I made to him the other [DOT] day when he told the Prime Minister that he would not be looking to him for a job, and when I told him, "If you are down and out, we will give you one when we get in." Evidently my offer was a nightmare, and I now withdraw it.
Let me continue with the advertisement:
The Liberals have a working plan.
Then mark these four words:
It's big and bold!


Mr. MacINNIS:: Bold or bald?


Thomas John Bentley: "Bold" is the word here, but perhaps "bald" would be better. This nine months' bill is neither bold nor big, because the minister admitted in reply to the hon. member for Humboldt that he has no idea how long the transitional period will last. But the Liberals have a working plan, and it is big and bold! So says the advertisement. It goes on:
Parts of it are outlined for your judgment in the left-hand column.
There will be a lot of judges of this working plan, and some of them have judged it already. It goes on:
It has been designed with the aid of the keenest minds in every phase of industry, agriculture, labour and learning.
Some of the keenest minds in agriculture have circulated among the members of this house this document. It is called:
Here is exact demand of Canadian farmers; their draft act for dominion natural products marketing legislation as submitted to cabinet.
That is from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I turn back to the advertisement. It says:
The Liberals have a working plan ... It has been designed with the aid of the keenest minds in every phase of industry, agriculture, labour and learning.
I have heard other members deal with the plans of these keen minds regarding labour, education and so forth, and I submit that if this bill has been drawn up with the aid of the keenest minds in agriculture it is a distinct slap in the face for the officials of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, who believe they have keen minds too. The advertisement goes on to say:
The plan will work. In fact it is already bringing results.
It will continue to do so! The Liberals can tell you this with confidence because they have had successful experience in operating nationwide plans.
I would say that they have had experience in operating on a transitional basis. Some of their operations on a transitional basis would make one smile a little if it were not so annoying.
Just by way of a little interlude, Mr. Speaker, I would exhibit to the house a little sample of private enterprise and planning to indicate some of the things they do during the transitional period. These are Kleenex tissues I hold in my hand. Here is one. This is what private enterprise is making at the present time and, in spite of the demand for the other kind that I have here, almost three times as large, they are supplying this smaller tissue. I ou go into a drugstore to buy the big kind and they offer you the small. I ask, "Why can't I get the larger kind that I want?" The answer is, "They are all sold." That proves that the demand is there. You have only to look at the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie), and myself and other members too, to realize that a mansized nose cannot get along with this smaller kind.


Mr. MacNICOL:: He can use two, can't he?


Thomas John Bentley: That is a sample of the transitional nature of private enterprise as explained by our good friends the Liberals in their talking and also in their advertising of big, bold plans.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: They have quite a blow.
Agricultural Products Act


Thomas John Bentley: They have. The minister took occasion the other day to indulge in quite a bit of fantasy, as he does every once in a while, and one of the most fantastic portions of his speech was his recitation of the experience he had when visiting a certain gentleman who had previously visited Regina. This person had told him about his visit there, and how this visitor had come to the conclusion, from his interviews with government officials there, that the province of Saskatchewan had built up its socialist regime and all its cooperative institutions in the period of a couple of years. Of course the visitor had not known that. The minister implied that he put him right. I think the minister must have been intending to imply some criticism of the C.C.F. which was not fair, and he frequently takes occasion to point out that the Liberal party, particularly in Saskatchewan, is to be credited with the great development of cooperative enterprise in that province. I pay the minister the personal tribute of believing that he is just as proud as I am of the things that have been done in that province in that field. I will admit that the rise of these associations and organizations took place for the most part when the Liberals were in power, but some of them took place when Tory governments were in power. I shall have to refute emphatically, his claim to credit for his party or the claim of any political party.
Let me give a reason for that assertion. The first wheat board was established under a Union government which was neither Liberal nor Tory. The establishment of that board and its operations gave the farmers of the west the idea that there was something good in the principle of orderly marketing. They made a demand for its continuance in 1921 and 1922. At that time we had a Liberal prime minister in Ottawa, a Liberal premier in Saskatchewan and Manitoba and a U.F.A. premier in Alberta. The cooperative wheat producers, that is, the wheat pools, of these provinces arose by the action of the farmers themselves after the failure of the parties I have cited, who had failed to meet the demand which the farmers had made. These organizations were born in spite of the Liberal party and not because of it, and I wish to make that abundantly clear.
In his talk, the minister mentioned another organization out there, the cooperative creameries. He made the following statement which will be found at page 1391 of Hansard:
When I was first premier of Saskatchewan, between 1926 and 1929, I had all the creameries in Saskatchewan amalgamated under that organization prior to 1929.
[Mr. Johnston.l
It would take more than forty minutes for me to tell the house the whole story, but if I had time to tell the whole story of cooperative creameries-and I know it from the start until now-hon. members would be highly amused at the minister's statement, and I do not think the minister himself would be made very happy by the recital.


James Garfield Gardiner: You need tell only one thing.


Thomas John Bentley: I can tell it all.


James Garfield Gardiner: The Liberal government of Saskatchewan put up $65 out of every $100 that went into the building of the Saskatchewan cooperative creameries and $85 out of every $100 that went into the building of the cooperative elevators.


Thomas John Bentley: And they got it back. I would say this in connection with cooperative creameries, that it has been only in the last two years that the cooperative creameries of Saskatchewan began to operate according to the cooperative principles and standards of the Rochdale plan. The dairy pool arose, like the wheat pools, in spite of the Liberal government, through the organization of the farmers themselves. I wonder why the minister makes such statements. The member for Humboldt sat in the Saskatchewan legislature, in His Majesty's opposition, when the Liberals were in power. At that time a cooperative organization owned the Modern Press, a large printing institution in Saskatoon. The Liberal party claims to have given great assistance to cooperatives, but the Liberal government gave that cooperative newspaper no job printing whatsoever. Pardon me; they gave them $50 worth of printing in all those years. The minister's statements do not stand up under examination. I should like to make these points quite clear.
The minister mentioned the cooperative refinery in Regina. That was organized in 1931 and 1932, when we had the only Tory government we ever had in Saskatchewan sitting in Regina.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Too bad you have not one now.


Thomas John Bentley: We do not think so. My hon. friend is entitled to his opinion in that regard, but he does not live there. If the minister wishes to give credit to Liberals for certain institutions out there he must give credit to the Tories for the cooperative refineries. I will not join with him in giving that credit, but, in distributing his garlands

Agricultural Products Act
he must be fair to the party that sits at the other end of this side of the chamber, the Tories.


James Garfield Gardiner: You never had a Tory government in Saskatchewan. It was called a Cooperative government.


Thomas John Bentley: Just before six o'clock I should like to finish this particular part of my talk. In connection with these matters I have been discussing, we do not claim as a C.C.F. government to have built the cooperatives, but we claim that we are of the people in the province who did build them under Liberal and Tory regimes.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Thomas John Bentley: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock I was dealing with the attempts of the Minister of Agriculture to take credit for the development of the cooperative movement in Saskatchewan. I mentioned that the Liberals cannot take that credit; neither can the Tories; and I want to make it very clear that the C.C.F., as a political party, does not take that credit either. But as individuals, all of us here took a pertinent part in the building of this movement, just as individual citizens, in spite of any other political party. Because of that we have now a government in Saskatchewan which is sympathetic to cooperatives; we have in this house a group which is sympathetic to cooperatives; and after the next election we shall have a sympathetic government here. However, before I leave this point, I wish to mention that the minister insisted on taking that credit. If he is going to take the credit for one thing, he will have to take the credit for others. The C.C.F. party was born during the regime of the Liberals in Regina and Ottawa; it was baptized during the regime of the Tories in Regina and Ottawa, and it reached adult age during the Liberal regime at Regina and Ottawa. If the minister wishes to take credit for that, he may, although I do not know whether we shall give it to him. But he should be as willing to take credit for that as he is to take credit for some of the other developments out there. The next time he makes a public statement here or outside, I hope he will make it clear that he assisted in building the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation.


James Garfield Gardiner: I assisted in trimming the cooperative government.


John Lambert Gibson: He should be very proud of his handiwork.


Thomas John Bentley: I think he is.
The amendment moved by the hon. member for Mackenzie is, I think, worthy of some consideration here. It is in three parts, after the preamble. It asks that this bill be not now read a second time but that it go to the committee on agriculture and colonization with instructions that they have power to recommend provision for, first, the regulation of interprovincial trading. I have pointed out that that is apparently acceptable to the minister in that he has already introduced an amendment to the bill itself for the handling of apples. Without any other comments on that, may I point out that the second provision of the amendment is for more democratic control by the producers of the proposed board or boards. I have dealt with that in the earlier part of my speech this afternoon; that is part and parcel of our philosophy and belief, and is what we in this group shall continue to promote. The third paragraph asks for provision for a long-range marketing programme instead of a transitional programme. This afternoon and evening I have tried to point out why we believe these things are so necessary. We believe that, had the government not been so transitional in its ideas, it could have prepared a marketing bill early enough which could have had in it all the necessary machinery to handle what Bill No. 25 is designed to handle, and also all those things which we believe sbould be handled by the marketing board.
In closing, I wish to say this definitely. I am about finished with my remarks, and I want to give the minister this opportunity to give us some assurance. If this group had had a real assurance that a comprehensive agricultural products marketing act would be introduced at this session or not later than the start of next session, we would have taken very little part in this debate; and even now we would consider favourably the withdrawal of our amendment upon receiving that assurance. We have no desire to obstruct the passage of this bill. We simply wish to have some assurance that the position we have taken will be given some encouragement in the very near future. As I say, we are not opposing the bill or the principle of the bill. We simply believe that this bill should have been enlarged in the first place. We think it could be enlarged now if the time were spent on it, but we are prepared to forgo that time, provided that we can have the assurance that
Agricultural Products Act
A*"jS1M0NS
we shall get the type of bill we believe is necessary if we facilitate the passage of this particular bill.
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I shall delay the house but a very few minutes in placing before hon. members the position which this group takes with respect to Bill No. 25. The government has made certain international agreements for Canada to supply wheat, bacon, cheese and some other products to other countries. We realize that the government must be able to get the commodities with which to fulfil its commitments under those agreements. The purpose of Bill No. 25 is to provide the machinery by which the government may be able to get those products to fulfil international agreements. We feel that the bill confers on the minister very wide powers which ordinarily we should not like to confer on any minister of the crown. The provisions of the bill are to have effect for only one year; and because it is an emergency transitional bill to meet a certain set of circumstances that have arisen out of war time, this group will not put up a battle on the principle of the bill itself.
We are, however, strongly opposed to giving the minister the right to set up commodity boards as provided for in this bill and clothing them with extraordinary powers which are enunciated in the various clauses thereof. In this respect I would say we are thoroughly in accord with what was said by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling). We urge the minister to make use of existing producer boards or those which might come into existence later under the various provincial marketing acts. These producer boards, I feel sure, are prepared to cooperate with the federal government in any way that they can. It seems to me that the whole principle of orderly marketing ought to be based upon the fundamental principle of keeping control of the producers' product as close to the producer as possible. Whenever the minister does require certain natural products for the purposes of fulfilling his agreements with Britain or anj- other country, he should direct that such commodities be purchased from the producer boards wherever possible. The obligation for him to do this should be clearly stated in the bill. The measure we are considering does make it possible for the minister to direct the purchase of commodities for the purposes of the act from provincial marketing boards; but, as I read it, there is absolutely no obligation upon him to do so.
I should now like to say just a word in regard to a natural products marketing act.

This group think the government should bring in at a very early day; in fact, we think before this they should have prepared and brought into this house, a bill providing for the orderly marketing of natural products in Canada. I am inclined to agree with the minister that we should not attempt to tack on to this bill, which is for an emergency transitional period, a long-range, comprehensive marketing measure. I do not think it wise to attempt to do that. We consider that the new legislation which should be brought in, and which we are urging the minister in the strongest possible terms to bring in, should be substantially as asked for by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. Amongst other things it should provide for these: first, for orderly interprovincial and international trading in natural products; second, for the recognition of provincial marketing boards and producer boards as sources of supply. Every encouragement should be given the provinces to put through enabling legislation, under which every effort should be made to organize producer boards, to keep some control over the produce of the farmers right where it belongs, in the hands of the producers themselves. I do not believe it is wise to let these boards rest, in their control of the products raised, on a mere majority. I should say that when a substantial majority, let us say something between seventy and eighty per cent, of the producers of any natural product voluntarily agree to set up a board for control purposes, then I believe the control of the entire supply of that product should be vested in the board. Anything less than seventy to eighty per cent I do not believe could possibly be successful.
The third thing I believe should be in any marketing bill is protection of the right of the producer to be consulted through the medium of his board, particularly by the minister, as to prices and other matters, before he makes agreements with any country which might affect or set the price of the farmer's products. We have seen so many examples in this country of agreements having been made without consulting the producers of the products. Then this parliament has been asked to ratify those agreements, or to take action which would support the minister in fulfilling their terms. Finally, the new marketing legislation should give full recognition to provincial authority over property and civil rights, as is provided in the constitution. The place of the dominion in any long-range marketing scheme should be mainly that of an agent or clearing house for the producer boards and/or the provincial marketing boards.

Agricultural Products Act
We have before us the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson). I am not particularly favourable to that amendment at this stage. I do not think it has very much relationship, if any, to the bill before us. I should rather prefer to see an amendment similar to or exactly the same as the one suggested the other evening by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling). But under the circumstances, since this is the only amendment we have before us, and in order to show the people that this group do support the idea of a well thought out, well set up, long-range orderly marketing scheme for Canada, we propose to support the amendment, and ask that at the earliest possible day the minister bring down in this house legislation of the type asked for by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.


James Garfield Gardiner: Might I ask a question
before the hon. member sits down?


Mr. LOW:: Certainly.


James Garfield Gardiner: I should like to ask if the hon. member has given thought to the idea that to pass the amendment kills the bill.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Solon Earl Low: I suggested, Mr. Speaker, that
it was not a question of supporting the amendment because I wanted to see such an amendment in this bill, but on behalf of our group I wanted to indicate that we undoubtedly support the idea of a new, comprehensive natural products marketing bill.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is exactly the
point; the house is being asked to vote against the principle of this bill and in favour of the principle of another bill. That kills this bill.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: That is not what you said the other day.


James Garfield Gardiner: There would not be
any possible way of carrying out the agreements already signed with Britain under a marketing bill such as has been discussed by hon. members opposite. There might be a possibility of doing that twelve months from now, if the proper boards were set up, but there would not be any possibility of starting on April 1 and doing that job through those boards. To pass the amendment-I am not saying it would pass, even if the Social Credit group should vote for it-would be to kill this bill, because there would not be any such bill in existence any longer.


Solon Earl Low: I do not believe the adoption
of the amendment would kill the bill. In any event I am quite sure various amendments will be proposed in committee. I am simply 83166-92
trying to indicate that, in the absence of legislation of the kind we have advocated, in the event that the amendment is lost- and I am sure it will be lost-we shall support second reading of this bill, but with the understanding that when we come to section 4 we are certainly going to propose an amendment, if one is not already moved.


Mr. A. L. SMITH (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I crave a bit of your time and the time of the house to speak on this bill because I farmed for so long in western Canada. Let me deal first with the gentlemanly interruption of the leader of the Social Credit group (Mr. Low) a moment ago by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). As I understood his interruption, it was to say that if this amendment were to carry it would destroy the bill. I think I am correct so far. Yet the minister, with all those behind him, supported a ruling by Mr. Speaker ruling out amendments which, in my judgment, meant the same as this one, because they did not contain a principle different from that contained in the bill. So that now the minister has boxed the compass completely, and we are back where we were some time ago.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am doing this only
because I shall not have an opportunity of speaking before the amendment is put.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Do you want to ask me a question?


James Garfield Gardiner: No. That argument
was not used with regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling).


James Arthur Ross: Yes, it was.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not the argument that it introduced something new. The argument there was that it did not introduce anything new. We put forth no argument on the others at all, except that they would kill the bill.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Then may
I say we have completed another arc of the circle and the minister is on his way around again. He voted to support a ruling by Mr. Speaker throwing out two amendments, if my memory serves me aright, because they were not amendments to the principle. Now the minister says the present amendment is so entirely different in principle that it would destroy the bill itself. With that I leave the minister. He is not a quarter horse [DOT] he usually runs the full mile, and I think finally he will get around the track again and we shall be back where we started some time ago.

Agricultural Products Act


An hon. MEMBER:: A wisecrack.


George Alexander Cruickshank: And win the race.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I did not hear that remark. However I think I did get something about a wisecrack; I heard that much of it. I am very happy to have that comment, knowing where it came from. I am glad the hon. member even appreciates a wisecrack, because there is little else he does appreciate. We will just let it go at that.
I come to discuss my position-and I use the word "my" advisedly. We have had two bills in this parliament recently. Suggestions have been made from this side of the house and, in fact, from all quarters of this side of the house, for certain amendments, and that those amendments should be made in the interests of the farmers of Canada. We have met with a flat refusal. The answer on both occasions has been this: "If we do what you suggest, we destroy the bill; and you men over there are in fact sabotaging the interests of the farmers of Canada." That, stripping the thing down to its-well, whatever elementary things there are in a bill-is the difference between this whole side of the house, and that side, over there.


George Alexander Cruickshank: r*, no.


Arthur Leroy Smith: "Oh, no", do you say? Well, I am glad to know where that came from, because he voted once with us; and it was the same principle, right through the picture.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Twice.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Twice.
Apparently he has changed his mind in the course of the last forty-eight hours or so.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Nonsense; you
don't know what I am doing.


Mr. ROWE:: He changes every forty-eight hours.


George Alexander Cruickshank: And I shall still be changing, so far as you are concerned.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I pay the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruick-shank) this great Compliment: Only fools are unable to change their minds. Wise men do. He is one of the wisest men I know, and particularly when he is picking those little berries, and magnifying them into thousands of tons, as he does so readily in this House of Commons.
However, if he and you, sir, will permit me to come back


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh, oh.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I hear a bit of raucous laughter from somewhere. Yes, I believe I have located it. The hon. member who is leading the house at the present time is a little bit worried because he cannot go out and pick berries for the hon. member for Fraser Valley. He is the greatest berry-picker I have ever known in my life. And he always gets them ripe; I have noticed that. He waits until that time comes.
I once more come back to what I was trying to say, and it is this, that in so far as we- and I speak for this whole side of the house-
I believe-


Angus MacInnis: Be careful.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I will be very careful, particularly when I know where that interruption came from, because he is one who is happy only when the whole House of Commons disagrees with him. In that way he gets his name into the newspapers, because he is unique, you see.
I now come back for the fourth try, if I may be permitted. They say it is three times and out, but I will try it again. I come back to this, and in all seriousness, sir, that we have been met in these last two bills with the cry of "sabotage" and "wolf." In the present bill the minister's whole statement is this- and it is technical-that if you adopt these amendments, of which all of us over here were in favour, you destroy the whole bill. His answer was, "If you want to do that, have a new bill." May I say with the greatest respect that I disagreed with Your Honour's-ruling of the other day, because I think the minister has this much of right in his favour, namely that it is a different principle. What he said was this, "If you want to do that, let us have a new bill." Well, if the minister meant what he said, why does he not now tell us, "You will have a new bill." We cannot introduce it, because it involves the expenditure of public money.


James Garfield Gardiner: Shall I answer that now?


Arthur Leroy Smith: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: I said in my speech the other night that when that position was put up to us by the representatives of the farmers I stated to them quite definitely that it was-not likely that we would bring down a bill this session, and that anything we did do this session would be done in this bill. I said that we were not likely to be bringing down a bill this session to deal with long-time marketing.
Mr. ROWE; That is not much of an, answer.

_________ Agricultural Products Act


Arthur Leroy Smith: I heard the minister accurately on both occasions. What I am saying to 'the minister through you, sir, is this, that it is either government policy to support these producer boards, or it is not. If the minister will now say that he will bring in a bill to support the producer boards, then you can stop these arguments very quickly.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is the policy of the government not to bring down such a bill at this session.


William Earl Rowe: Twelve months hoist.


James Garfield Gardiner: The only way in which the agreements that have been made with Great Britain can be fulfilled is to have this bill on the statute books. The other bill cannot be put on the statute books at this time to deal with that situation. There is so much in common between the two that there is nothing to be gained by bringing down two bills at this session.


William Earl Rowe: Are you going to bring it down next session?


Arthur Leroy Smith: I wonder if I can take care of this myself. Between these two bills there is a very great difference in principle, and I have heard the minister accurately on three occasions. Through you, sir-and I hope that Your Honour is checking on the time which has been occupied by the minister-may I ask the minister: Are you representing this government as being in favour of these producer boards handling their marketing, or are you not? I will allow you to interrupt me to answer that.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have stated the government's position clearly. We do not believe that this is the time to bring down legislation to deal with that question.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I will accept that, and interpret it in the only way I can, that it is another stall such as we have met with on many occasions.
I mentioned the word "principle". While this bill is only for a year-and I intend to have a word or two to say about that-it means-and I hate superlatives-that the government through the council, through the minister-and I am quite sure they will be guided by him, because I compliment him upon knowing more about his department than any other minister in the government, that is since the shift took place, of course. I compliment him on that-but this bill means this, that every producer of agricultural products in the whole Dominion of Canada is entirely in the right fist of the minister. Every activity, everything they have to do, is under 83166-92J
his complete control. Granted that he is the greatest man in the world-and certainly I rank him rather highly-but, granted that he is all that, no individual in any history I have ever read has been entitled to that much power.
Someone may logically say to me, "Just what do you mean by that? The other day you voted"-and I did-"for the wheat bill". May I assure you, sir, that in this debate on second reading I shall not depart any further from the rules than those who have proceeded me; and I refer particularly to the Minister of Agriculture.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will not object.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You know, the Minister of Agriculture and I spent a long time in the same town. It has produced four great, men-including myself.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Who are the other two?


Arthur Leroy Smith: One of them leads the C.C.F. party now. Another one is the Hon. Charles Dunning, whom the Minister of Agriculture supported then. I saw the light first, as the minister reminded the house the other night, away back in 1917. The Hon. Charles Dunning saw it much later in life.
I think the other two are beyond the pale. But I give you my word that, in my judgment, the leader of the C.C.F. (Mr. Coldwell) is seeing a great deal more light than the Minister of Agriculture. He is just set in that way.
Here is his attitude and that of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) with respect to the wheat bill. I remember the town from which we all came. It consisted of 2,753 people. The births just equalled the deaths and we stayed there for years. Perhaps we had the same census taker who did not bother going around year after year. That was the simple fact about Regina. In those days we did not have much money and there was a game called football, about which the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) knows something. It as the cheapest game in the world because, if you can put up $2.50 for a football the whole town can play. There is no expensive equipment needed or anything . like that. The richest boy in town owned the football and, when he did not like the way the game was going, he took the ball home.
I hat is exactly the attitude of the minister today take my bill, take it 100 per cent, or we won't play." That is the attitude of the Minister of Trade and Commerce as well.


James Garfield Gardiner: Both the hon, member and I played at that time and we did not play that way.
Agricultural Products Act


Arthur Leroy Smith: No, we did not, but I continued being a sportsman and I am afraid the minister has fallen a little bit oehind.
Having finished off the Minister of Agriculture, I want to turn and say this is serious. We have embarked a tremendously long way on the marketing of farm products. I know something about the rule which says you cannot discuss a bill during the present session, so I am going to put a supposititious case-that is twice I have used that word and I 'love it-to this House of Commons, and particularly to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He has sold 600,000,000 bushels of wheat short, more than any other exchange in the world ever sold short. What he has done is to take $36,000,000 of the farmers' money in the 1945-46 crop year as a margin. That is exactly what has been done under the wheat bill. People here sometimes get annoyed about persons gambling with the farmers' wheat, but here is the greatest gamble ever undertaken by anybody. The minister has $36,000,000 of a margin in the kitty which he refuses to give back to the farmers at the present time.
I come now to this bill and I want some one to correct me if I am wrong in my interpretation of it. I make the statement that it gives the minister, the cabinet, the government, authority over everything that is raised on a farm from beef to eggs, to barley, to oats, to alfalfa, everything in the world. They have that authority. You might say to me, and quite properly, "You voted for the wheat agreement." I did. I voted for it and I made it plain that I did so on the basis that the government had committed us to that agreement. I certainly would vote in favour of the government-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Leroy Smith: -honouring the signature of Canada. I do not know whether there are some animals in the house but I heard a peculiar sound just a moment ago. I do now and I always will support that position. What have we in this particular bill? [DOT] We have beef, bacon, cheese, eggs and there may be something else. I stand in exactly the same position, but I refuse to let this government or any minister or anyone else tell me that this is for-somebody said it was for nine months, which is the ordinary period of gestation for an idea and perhaps for other things-I refuse to assent to anybody having that power to sign again on the dotted line within that time and then say to us, "There

is our signature; you have to honour it." The thing stops somewhere, and in so far as I am concerned, it stops right here.
Someone may logically say, "Where are you going to get the cheese and beef and so on?" My answer is, "Go into the market and buy it, and let the people of Canada carry this load rather than the agricultural producer." There is no justice in anything but that. Certainly we want to help Britain, but let us not do it as we are doing it today by having the farmers of Canada carry the entire expense.


James Garfield Gardiner: The bill provides for
exactly what you have asked for.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Thank you very much for that interpretation. What you have in your bill is that the selling price must have an appropriate relation to the buying price. I take it that that is what you are referring to.


James Garfield Gardiner: No; the bill says that the government has the authority to buy the product at a price and, if that price is higher than anybody else's price, we buy it at that price.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am certainly delighted to hear that, but I think the minister's remarks along that line are most interesting. I have the wheat bill in my hand and it provides for the purchase of wheat only.


James Garfield Gardiner: This is not the wheat bill.


Arthur Leroy Smith: It provides for the purchase of wheat only, except as directed by the governor general in council. Then today the minister came into the house and made this statement:
Effective tomorrow, March 18, the system of advance equalization payments will be discontinued and the Canadian wheat board will stand ready to buy all oats and barley offered to it at new support prices. In the case of barley these prices will be based on ninety cents for No. 1 feed barley, in place of the former support price of fifty-six cents . . .
That is the wheat board which under the bill could buy nothing but wheat except as directed by order in council. When the minister tells me that all he is seeking under this bill is to make the Dominion of Canada responsible I cannot avoid thinking that he more than anyone else supported the wheat bill which was to deal only with wheat, and then before the ink is dry he brings in an order in council directing the wheat board to buy barley and to buy oats. That is my point.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is in the bill; there is a provision in the bill for buying oats and barley.

Agricultural Products Act


Arthur Leroy Smith: I know I am getting a little old, but perhaps the minister is doing that too. Subsection 2 of section 7 reads-


James Horace King: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I would direct his attention to the fact that on the second reading of a bill hon. members can discuss only the principle of the bill.


Arthur Leroy Smith: May I say, with great deference to your position and with personal respect to you, that I accept your ruling and I will not talk any more about the wheat bill. I shall turn now to something else which I think you will consider as being quite relevant. I am sorry the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) is not in the house at the moment, but I notice the former Minister of Finance is here.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is here.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am very happy to know that, but I would be ruled out of order if I saw him where he is.


An hon. MEMBER:: He came in.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I have been watching him carefully and I thought I would smoke him out. I notice he came in just a moment ago. Here is something I am anxious to have someone tell me. We are selling wheat under the market price, as well as beef, cheese, dairy products, and I could go down through the list. We are buying things in the world market. We have $600 or $700 million against us on balance with the United States during the last year. What I am anxious to know is this: How can we continue to sell everything we have, even gold, under the world price, and buy everything we buy at the world price without going bankrupt? I know there may be an answer. I am quite sure it will be technical, but I hope it is in language that even I, and I speak very humbly, can understand. So I say, with respect to this legislation, it fails because the government has failed to permit those of us who, for the moment, are over here to be helpful in our suggestions. The government has taken a take-it-or-leave-it attitude and, as long as that attitude is continued, I will support the amendment. In the event that the amendment is defeated I will vote against the bill. We have been trying to be helpful. Someone said that the other day with respect to all parties, and I agree with him heartily; I think it can fairly be said of every member of this House of Commons. We are here trying to do what we can to help; we differ only in method. We have made suggestions which we thought were [DOT]
worthwhile,, but this government has been here so long-perhaps that is our fault-that it has developed a power complex which it has been unable to shake off.
In closing, may I compliment the Minister of Trade and Commerce

I knew he would play a twopenny ante game; he is a good bridge player and can play as high as he likes-on making, with other people's money, the greatest gamble the world ever saw.
Mr. ROBERT McCUBBIN. (Middlesex West): Mr. Speaker, I have sat here and listened to addresses from different parts of the house on this Bill No. 25. I have also sat here and listened for some weeks to hon. members discussing a commodity called wheat. We in eastern Canada are getting pretty well sick of the discussions on wheat.


Mr. BRYCE:: You have been wanting it for feed in eastern Canada.


Mr. McCUBBIN:: As I said, I have listened to discussions on wheat and we in eastern Canada are getting sick and tired of the discussions on wheat; for, when it all boils down, after weeks of discussion, we found that only seven members of this house were opposed to the wheat legislation.
I as a farmer and, representing farmers, am here tonight from western Ontario in this great old province of ours, to support this Bill No. 25. I feel that the minister is too modest in bringing down this legislation and making it operative for only one year. I think it should extend for two or three years instead of one.
I may be asked why I am supporting this bill. I am supporting it because the farmers of Canada have been asking for this type of legislation for years. They have not forgotten what happened after the last war; they have not forgotten the dark thirties, and they are willing to put into the hands of this government the sale and export of their farm products in a sane and sensible manner, which I feel is the way in which it will be carried out. Before the war started, the government encouraged us in eastern Canada to use the cheap coarse grains in the production of cheese and bacon to be marketed in the best market there is in the world for such products, Great Britain. We established a good market for those products in that country, and when the war started those markets were enlarged and encouraged. Everything has been done to make the cheap grains available, by freight assistance, not. only to Ontario but to British Columbia, May I in passing, congratulate the government on bringing down the order they brought down today raising the price of
Agricultural Products Act

ooarse grains to the western farmer and assuring that these grains will be available to us in eastern Canada for feed. Since this announcement was made this afternoon, I have received telephone calls from different parts of Ontario asking me if the announcement they heard over the radio tonight was correct. I say sincerely that the farmers of Ontario will be pleased with this announcement.
I wish to commend the government for the agreement they have made with respect to wheat with the United Kingdom for five years. It will give stability to the western farmer. I have already mentioned the cheese and bacon agreements. There is another agreement I want to mention to the house and the country, and that is the beef agreement. The government negotiated an agreement with the United Kingdom with respect to beef three or four years ago in order that Britain might receive our beef products and at the same time take great quantities of surplus beef off our markets. Two or three weeks ago the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) and the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) in discussing this bill suggested shipping our beef on .the hoof across the line. The United States is our natural market for beef. I have always believed that and will continue to believe it. I also know that, prior to the embargo being placed on beef cattle going from Canada to the United States, under the cent and a half tariff agreement negotiated with the United States in 1936 and renegotiated in 1939, the United States took only 193,000 head of our cattle, on a quarterly basis. Great Britain is willing to take unlimited quantities of beef from us. During 1945 Great Britain took over 500,000 head of cattle off the Canadian market in the shape of frozen beef and beef products. Are we willing to do away with that contract in preference for another? Or are we willing to negotiate a further contract with Great Britain for our beef products?


Arthur Leroy Smith: Is the hon. member suggesting that I or the hon. member for Calgary East advocated any more than token shipments to the United States at the present time? That is all we suggested.


Robert McCubbin: I will come to that in a moment. I listened to both hon. gentlemen and heard what they suggested with respect to token shipments of our cattle to the United States. I am opposed to that. I feel that it would not be sensible for us to send token shipments to the United States at this time. Great Britain is asking for our beef and we should send her our beef. She is willing to
fWr. McCubbin.]
negotiate further contracts with us for our beef. I believe that beef cattlemen both in the district from which the two hon. members for Calgary come, and in our own district, are wondering what the future of the beef cattle industry will be. I haw been asked many times, how long is Great Britain to continue to take our beef? Are we finally to be left out in the cold? I was able to answer them that our contract will run only up to 1948, but I understand that the government will negotiate a contract for 1949 also. When I heard the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) state on Friday evening last that Great Britain was willing to take our beef products for a period of five years I certainly was surprised.


Arthur Leroy Smith: With great respect, he did not say that. What he said was that our best market for the next five years was Great Britain.


James Garfield Gardiner: I said definitely that when the minister was here it was stated there would be a demand for all the beef we could send to Great Britain for the next five years.
Mr. MeCUBBIN: I am glad the hon. member interrupted me. I had been under the impression that the Minister of Agriculture had stated it, and I am glad he supports me in that view.


Arthur Leroy Smith: He would be bound to do so. I still do not think he said that.
Mr. MeCUBBIN: I heard him say it.


James Garfield Gardiner: If I did not say it I am making it more definite now.


William Earl Rowe: It is still only a guess.
Mr. MeCUBBIN: I do not think it is a guess. I will say this on behalf of the beef cattlemen of my district. If they ask this government, through the powers conferred by this bill, to negotiate a contract with Great Britain for this beef, and if the house is willing to allow the government to negotiate such contracts, should the matter be left in the hands of the packers, or should it be left in the hands of the government? I would put that question to the cattlemen and I know what the answer would be.


An hon. MEMBER:: The packers have had a hand in it
Mr. MeCUBBIN: They have not.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That was under the Conservative government.
Mr. MeCUBBIN: I know what the beef >
cattlemen are thinking, because I move

Agricultural Products Act
among them, and I know they are willing to trust the government to make contracts for them for all the surplus beef they have for the next five years.


William Earl Rowe: Not all the beef cattlemen. You have been talking only to a few Liberals.


Robert McCubbin: I have been talking to as many people as my hon. friend. I have not forgotten that eleven years ago today my hon. friend made a speech in this house condemning a contract for beef to a country not so far away.


William Earl Rowe: That was because it was on a quota. Tell the rest of the story.


Robert McCubbin: I wish to refer now to another commodity which I think should be left to the hands of the government to sell and export. I refer to the bean industry. In the part of Ontario from which I come the best cash crop we have is beans, the white pea bean. This government has been negotiating contracts with Great Britain for a few years now for the sale of these beans. Last year it negotiated a contract for 560,000 bushels; and an agreement was made with the farmers through the medium of a bean board, a producer board set up among the farmers in the counties of western Ontario, whereby a certain price would be paid for the beans. The dealers agreed to it. For cleaning, processing and making shipment they got a certain price. The farmers were satisfied and we thought the dealers also were satisfied. The farmers sold beans last fall, but the dealers thought the arrangement was not good enough, that they could make more money out of this farm commodity than they were making.
What has happened? We were asked to ship to Great Britain 560,000 bushels. We had 1,200,000 bushels in that part of Ontario, not a big crop but a good crop. We have sent only 150,000 bushels to Great Britain. Now Britain is asking again for another contract in connection with this commodity, but the dealers are not willing to sell at a price Great Britain can pay. The farmers-and I do not blame them-can see a good price from the 1947 crop looming up. As I say, we do not blame them, but at the same time they are reasonable men and they know that there is no use in getting a big price this fall and a low price next fall. I feel that the bean men of our district should endeavour to help themselves, and I refer to the producers. They should establish a central marketing agency to which these beans could be brought for shipment to Great Britain at a price that Great Britain is willing to negotiate upon. 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, the farmers to bind themselves under a central marketing agency to fill the contract. A down payment could be made and if beans sold, after the contract was filled, at a higher price in the domestic market, a participation certificate would be paid in respect of the balance.
I think I speak for the bean industry of western Ontario when I say that we have a product on which we think we should receive a good return for the labour that we have devoted to it over a period of years. 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.
I do not wish to discuss this bill any further. As I said, I am wholeheartedly behind it because I feel it is a step in the right direction. The government has been asked by the house to establish floor-price legislation, but how on earth are you going to have floor-price legislation unless you have government support for it? The farmers, from one end of the country to the other, are asking, "When will floor prices come into effect?" I say to the house, as I have said to my own people, that the best floor-price legislation you can have is good markets for your products. WThy 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.
We heard on Friday and we have heard again today about the national federal marketing legislation which the Canadian Federation of Agriculture are proposing. I am not going to say that I will oppose it when it is brought in, but I do say that we shall look into it thoroughly, because the farmers will expect us to do so. They will expect us to inquire whether it is a good thing for them or not.
In conclusion, I challenge the opposition to vote against this bill, which, I submit, is in the interests of the farmers. I am wholeheartedly behind it.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Speaker, it is well known that I am not a farmer by vocation, like my hon. friend the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith), but I was born and brought up on a farm and today I represent perhaps the most progressive farm district in Ontario.
There are in this bill two things that appeal to me. The first is that it will help the government to fulfil its obligation to Britain, and
Agricultural Products Act

that is part of our duty. The second is that it will secure to the farmers a market at a decent price.
There are in Canada those who say that this bili and the wheat bill are tinged with socialism. All I have to say is that if socialism will secure to the farmer a market that he is sure of, as well as a decent price, and that he can spend his money as he likes, then I am a socialist of that type.
I was one of those who went out of Fort William and drove about thirty-five miles south; I could buy several crates of eggs at store prices, fifteen cents a dozen, and carry them to Fort William, and I had no trouble getting rid of them. I do not want to go back to those days. The farmer has just as much right as the stonemason or the bricklayer or the carpenter or the machinis* '	'"*et
a decent price for his produce, aha his wile should get a decent wage as well. To me, therefore, this bill is certainly in the interests of stabilizing the farmers, those who are able to produce. I have had word from Fort William that this is good legislation and, if the farmers of Fort William think it is good legislation, I know they have splendid judgment.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, I
was very much interested in the remarks of my good friend, the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. McCubbin); but knowing his part in the production of wheat I was happy to think that the western farmers did not need to depend entirely upon him for their future livelihood and policies in the marketing of wheat. He was giving some praise to his party, to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and others, for what he termed a splendid bill.


An hon. MEMBER:: You voted for it.


James Arthur Ross: I am just coming to
that point. He mentioned those seven members who, after two or three days' debate, had been so disgusting as to vote against the bill. I was not one of those seven members. I fought several parts of that bill with all the ability that I possess; but when it came to the final motion, I voted for it, because I did not want to lose the wheat board. There are, however, still several angles of that legislation to which I am utterly opposed. But by and large I have always been in favour of the Canadian wheat board.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Are we to have
another week of wheat?


James Arthur Ross: That is why I voted
for the bill in the final motion.

What I want to discuss now is the amendment which is before the house. That has always been a point with me in the seven years I have been here with respect to any legislation. I have on many occasions refrained from discussing the principle of a bill because I knew it was going to go to a competent committee where all the information available could be obtained. As I say, I have done that on several measures. Over the week-end I was reading some of the past debates, one of which was on the wheat bill that was introduced by Mr. Bennett on June 10, 1935.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Arthur Ross: I think it is quite in
order for me to refer to that, and hon. members may say, "Oh, oh" if they like. On June 10, 1935, when Mr. Bennett introduced legislation with regard to the Canadian wheat board, the then leader of the official opposition, the present Prime Minister, Mr. Mackenzie King, said that one of the greatest problems facing Canada was that of marketing her wheat. He argued with Mr. Bennett that the bill should go to the committee on agriculture and colonization; finally Mr. Bennett agreed with him and that is where it went.


Mr. ILSLEY:: No, it did not.


James Arthur Ross: WThat a contrast
between what happened then and what happened regarding our request with respect to these amendments to the Wheat Board Act which was recently passed, when the government of the day and the C.C.F. refused to let the bill go to the committee.


James Angus MacKinnon: No. You did not
ask for it.


James Horace King: Order. I would point
out to the hon. member that he should not refer to a former debate.


James Arthur Ross: That is quite correct, Mr. Speaker. I was just through with that point.
We are now discussing an amendment to Bill No. 25, the Agricultural Products Act, in which provision is made for the purchase, sale and export of commodities through provincial marketing boards. I am one of those people who, despite the remarks of the opposition on the government side, favour producer boards having some say in the marketing of their products.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What do you
mean by "the opposition"?

Agricultural Products Act


James Arthur Ross: Exactly what I said,
and I think the hon. member fully understands.


George Alexander Cruickshank: We are the government.


James Arthur Ross: Yes, you are.


James Garfield Gardiner: We agree with that. The Liberal governments passed legislation in the provinces.
Mr. ROSS (Souris)An amendment was moved by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) the other day, and the Deputy Speaker ruled against that amendment because it did not change the principle of the bill. The Minister of Agriculture rose and supported the ruling of the Deputy Speaker at that time. Later in the same afternoon another amendment was moved and was ruled out of order by the Speaker on the very same ground, that it did not alter the principle of the bill. Again the Minister of Agriculture rose and supported the Speaker's ruling.


James Garfield Gardiner: I always support the Speaker.


James Arthur Ross: Right or wrong, I have come to find that out.


James Garfield Gardiner: He is usually right.


James Arthur Ross: Therefore we now have before the house this amendment which has not been ruled out of order. I suppose the Speaker decided that, after all. there was a limit to this, and that a line must be drawn somewhere.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Arthur Ross: Probably I should say that I am speaking with all deference to Your Honour; I do not mean to be uncomplimentary.


James Garfield Gardiner: This amendment is
entirely different.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is a different principle altogether.


James Arthur Ross: I will admit that the wording of the present amendment is in accordance with the very theory I have held ever since I have been here, to refer this measure back to a committee for further consideration. However, the Minister of Agriculture now argues that if that amendment stands, and it is apparently standing now, it will completely nullify the bill.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not what it does. May I be permitted to interrupt?


James Arthur Ross: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: The motion does not refer it to a committee for further consideration. It refers it to a committee to have a special thing done with it. It .is to make another bill out of it.


James Arthur Ross: The amendment reads:
That all the words after the word "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"this bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the committee on agriculture and colonization with instructions that they have power to recommend provision for
(1)	the regulation of interprovincial trading;
(2)	more democratic control by the producers of the proposed board or boards;
(3)	a long-range marketing programme instead of a transitional programme.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is a new bill.


James Arthur Ross: That is the amendment which is proposed.


Major James William Coldwell: Power to recommend.


James Arthur Ross: Power to recommend
is ail that there is there.


James Garfield Gardiner: If the committee recommends a new bill, what is the house to do about it?


James Arthur Ross: Like the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) I am one of those who are going to accept the challenge of the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. MeCubbin) if we are not allowed to amend this bill in any way whatsoever. I am going to vote against this bill as it stands, to continue the controls we now have, because I am opposed to having all the produce of the agricultural producers handled in that fashion by order in council. I am entirely opposed to that in principle. We have done our utmost to have the bill amended in some way in order to give more say to the producer boards in this country. I know the producers themselves desire that type of legislation.
I was interested the other day in the statement made by Mr. Graham Towers, governor of the Bank of Canada, in his report to the House of Commons on February 12, when he pointed out that even Canada under these controls could not long carry on with the great disparity which now exists between prices in the United States and those in Canada. There is much food for thought in that statement. That is another reason why I am opposed to giving all this authority to the minister to handle, as he sees fit, all the agricultural products of this land for this period. I am quite convinced that, if he is given

Agricultural Products Act

that authority'-despite the fact that he is asking for it now to carry out the present agreements-before we meet for another session twelve months hence he will come back with a new agreement signed with these countries, upon which this parliament has not had any discussion. For those reasons I am opposed to this bill in principle if we are not allowed to amend it at all. I am going to support the amendment. If that is not allowed to carry, I will certainly accept the challenge and vote against the principle of this bill as it is drawn, and against the type of legislation being brought down this long after the termination of the war.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I ask this question? How can we enter into new agreements with other countries when we have only nine months, as was stated by the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bentley), allotted to us for these powers under this bill? How can we then enter into any new agreements?


James Arthur Ross: Why not eliminate it in the bill? Why take that authority in the bill?


James Garfield Gardiner: The authority in the bill is exactly the same authority as was in the orders in council. What we are asking for is an extension of the orders in council until December 31; and if the house has not been in session prior to that, up to March 31. It is for just one year, which is the outside limit.


James Arthur Ross: I shall probably here transgress a little on the proper procedure, but we discussed this very point in regard to what was announced today. Certain people wanted provision made in the act which we passed the other day, for the handling of coarse grain, and the minister argued against it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I argued against compulsion.


James Arthur Ross: Today the minister made the announcement that oats and barley, from tomorrow on would have to be handled during this year by the Canadian wheat board.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


James Arthur Ross: That is as I understood it.


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


James Arthur Ross: What did the announcement mean, then? I think he will not deny that it can be done only by a further order in council.


James Garfield Gardiner: Anyone can handle it on the margin between the floor price and the ceiling price.


James Arthur Ross: Would the minister say he is not negotiating any more agreements at this time, or does not intend to negotiate any new agreements from this day on without consulting parliament?


James Garfield Gardiner: If I may be permitted to reply, I have stated to the house every time this bill has been under consideration, as a result of suggestions made to me the first time it was brought in, that we were prepared to put into section 5 an amendment under which it would be possible to make an agreement in connection with one other product, that is, apples. Outside of that there is no intention of entering into new agreements..


James Arthur Ross: What about cheese? No negotiations are going on now about these other products?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is negotiation all the time. There has been constant negotiation.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: Oh, sure.


James Garfield Gardiner: Wait until I answer the question. There have been negotiations going on ever since this authority was given, negotiations with regard to price. Naturally the farmers are not satisfied as to prices, as their costs of production go up, and we are approached1 by farm organizations to enter into new negotiations to increase prices. That negotiation is going on with regard to eggs, cheese, milk, beef products and pork products practically all the time, and it will continue as long as we have these agreements to deliver certain quantities of produce.


William Earl Rowe: Then something might happen in the next nine months.


William Scottie Bryce: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last I had a speech on this bill ready for delivery, but I missed my turn and, since then, everybody else has said what I was going to say. I do not intend to impose that speech upon the house tonight, but I will sum up the remarks I intended to make.
I thought the minister, in rising to speak on this bill, would have been able to give the house some assurance that he would bring in something in the nature of a dominion natural products marketing act. I am disappointed about that. When he did not take that action I hoped he would be able to improve this legislation to cover some of the things that would have been of advantage to organized agriculture now. In summing up the situation, the minister had this to say, as reported at page 1394 of Hansard:
Therefore I object to any attempt being made by the house now to put into this act terms which never were intended to be in legislation of this kind; terms which, if they are to be

Agricultural Products Act
enacted at all, ought to be enacted under separate legislation brought into the house, discussed on its merits, and if this is the proper time to pass it, if it must be passed, then it should be passed. But if it is not the proper time to consider it, in view of the fact that organizations are not yet prepared to do the job that is required to be done, then it could be brought in at some other time by whatever government is then in power.
Then he went on to make some comments about the meeting with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, saying that they had expected that legislation and that he had assured them it could not be introduced this session. I want to tell the minister I am glad further consideration has been given to the apple growers, as he has announced. By this concession the minister admits that the bill is not all that is desired, or all that it should be. He has turned down the request of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture for a dominion natural products marketing act, but I want to remind him that the farm organizations are growing stronger. He should pay heed to the fact that a nation which plans for war knows that, if it did not plan, it would lose the war; but when you suggest planning in peace time in order that maximum production at guaranteed prices may be maintained, this is at once condemned as compulsion. The new idea in marketing, which proved itself in war time, will surely live, though there may be those who will try to strangle it. The farmers have had a good taste of the security and stability that come from guaranteed prices for guaranteed quantities, and the taste has been good. In the last few days a great deal has been said about compulsion. I am going to leave wheat and coarse grains alone for the moment and refer to a pamphlet entitled, "What Ontario fruit and vegetable growers want done in the legislative field." The secretary of the two associations had this to say:
The history of all progress is one of persistent effort especially when dealing with governments. Eternal prodding is the secret of success. Progress is slow.
Signs are not wanting that governments are much concerned these days with the welfare of agriculture. This indicates response to the urgings for it is realized that agriculture cannot, once again, become a mere form of subsistence-That it must be nourished and sustained. Politicians (and, after all. the responsibility is theirs) who fail to take the forward steps will have no reason to be disturbed if others take their place. Systems are on trial. .
The policy makers must show courage and render leadership-political considerations should not prevail nor should powerful groups be permitted to dictate policy because they fear loss of vested privileges.
Most of the opposition to many of agriculture's proposals has come from groups and individuals who, fearful of the unknown, have let prejudice and ignorance sway their judgment.
Farm leaders have developed a sense of responsibility. They are not out to wreck the system nor do they plan harm to others. They are seized with an honest desire to improve the lot of their fellow men but not on a basis of robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Live and let live is the keynote. If legislative action is necessary to establish authority and power to make the principle apply, legislation we must have. Farm organizations dislike running to government for cash aid-they much prefer the authority to do things for themselves.
There must be a certain amount of compulsion if we are to make this system work and have orderly marketing. They do not say, "You cannot grot? fruit or vegetables"; they do not try to deprive any grower of his living. They only want the cooperation of the growers to abide by the decision of the majority so that all may benefit by the united effort. Other organizations go much farther than this, and it is quite all right. The trade unionist working in the union shop expects and insists that his fellow be a trade unionist as well. Even the bar association, or the lawyers' union, makes it compulsory for every lawyer to belong. They will even have a man convicted for trying to do the work of a lawyer without having been admitted to the bar. In support of that statement, I would refer to a clipping from the Winnipeg Free Press of March 6:
Charged with ten breaches of the law society act,-pleaded guilty before Magistrate D. G. Potter in provincial police court Wednesday. He was given a two-year suspended sentence, bound over in the sum of $500 and ordered to pay court costs.
Acting for the law society of Manitoba. A. E. Johnston told the court that this gentleman, notary public and insurance agent, had been drawing up legal documents, closing real estate transactions and acting as solicitor without the proper authority. He said this gentleman had not been called to the bar, and his duties as notary public did not empower him to carry out these acts.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What about doctors?


William Scottie Bryce: They are in the same category. But you do not want me to say anything about them; I might be sick some day. But I do not hope to need a lawyer.
The farm organizations have never gone so far as to stop anyone from being a farmer. Any Tom, Dick or Harry can come along, get a piece of land and produce the necessities of life. The farm organizations have no objection. All they want them to do is to be good fellows and support the organization.
In closing. I wish again to remind the minister that the farmer is demanding legislation that will enable him to run his own business in order that he can get a fair share
Agricultural Products Act

of the consumer's dollar by orderly marketing in both home and export markets; and I would suggest that the minister promise to bring in a bill similar to the one requested by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture at their recent meeting with the cabinet, to bridge the gap between the provinces and the dominion.
Might I say to the minister that I was the seconder of the amendment. If the minister will only tell me that early in the next session he will bring in a bill similar to that wanted by the C.F.A., then I will withdraw the amendment, or at least I will consult the mover to that end. You have it in your hands.


James Garfield Gardiner: I never have done any bribing since I have been in politics.


William Scottie Bryce: And you can call it black-leg or bootleg, or anything you like. I was sent here by the farmers to get these things. All I am asking you is to give us your word that you will take that up early in the next session. We asked for it in 1939 and you said that the time was not right. We agreed with you. You have been minister all that time, and we have not come back until a time of peace. We are asking you now, in all sincerity, to give us these things. Do not fail us now. I will be prepared to withdraw the amendment. I am going to support your bill, because it is a step in the right direction. I am now awaiting your answer.
As a headline in one of the evening papers I saw a boy delivering on Friday night were the words "British M.P. attacks Canadian wheat prices." On reading the paper, I found that a gentleman by the name of Smithers had made that statement. I am going to quote from the Ottawa Journal of March 14, 1947. Might I say also that he is a Conservative? Wait until you hear what he has to say. Sir Waldron Smithers declared that-
-having been to Canada many times, he knew that "dollar wheat" Showed a good profit.
And then under the heading "Charge against Canadians" we find this:
When Straehey went to Canada recently, he said, the Canadian farmers said: "Here comes this little chap from Britain. His people are very hungry. What is the most we can get out of him?"
To hon. members in this house I say this, that no greater insult could be directed at the farmers of Canada. No greater insult could ever have been heaped upon us. Does this member of the British House of Parliament know what he is talking about? He has a "sir" to his name and no doubt he should know better than make such ridiculous statements as these

attributed to him. Does he know they are getting wheat at $1.55 a bushel? Does he know that the Progressive Conservative party in this parliament have maintained here in the House of Commons that Britain should not have got wheat so cheaply, but should be paying the world price? That, I think, is $2.79 today, if we use the Chicago price.


James Arthur Ross: It is $3.01.


William Scottie Bryce: I hope he reads this, then. Quoting further from the press, we find this:
Sir Waldron urged that food buying be left to purchasing firms with long experience and that healthy competition be permitted.

Upon looking up the "Parliamentary Guide" I find that Sir Waldron is a member of the London stock exchange. Here is a man who has no doubt spent the best part of his life chasing hounds and shooting grouse, a man who has lived by the sweat and toil of others, and who is now calling for the "good old days" which orderly marketing and guaranteed prices will destroy. It makes my blood boil to read this, after what Canada has done to provide food for Britain. But let us hope he is only one in a million.
Here is a letter I received from a lady in Glasgow on Friday last; and I have received many such letters. She says in part:
Many thanks to Canada for our Sunday breakfast. The last three Sundays we have been able to have one strip of bacon and one Canadian egg, which was enjoyed greatly by all of us.
When you go to the people who suffered you find that they do appreciate what Canada did for them. They do not think we are holding them up. I feel I know what I am talking about, because I was over there. Hon. members who were also there will agree with me that Canada has done and is doing everything a sister nation of the British commonwealth could be expected to do. She stood by Britain at Dunkirk; she gave her best sons, who now lie in graves across the sea; she gave her food and munitions, and did everything in her power to support Britain in her time of need.
Having lived for thirty years in the old land, I know this type of gentleman only too well. Most of them have a valet to dress them in the morning. But I am pleased to notice that this type of gentleman is now becoming scarce in the British parliament; most of the members there today can at least put on their own pants.


Mr. D. S. HARKNESS (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) has been talking about a man named Smithers, and apparently received a

Agricultural Products Act
considerable amount of applause because of that reference. As he was speaking of this chap Smithers, I thought to myself, from his description, how remarkably like Smithers is the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), except, of course, for his stock-broking and grouse shooting activities.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are other things, too.


Douglas Scott Harkness: So far as his attitude with respect to wheat is concerned, I think Sir Waldron Smithers is very much the same as our Minister of Agriculture. He is just a little behind; he thinks a dollar a bushel for wheat is all that the western farmer should have, while our Minister of Agriculture, a little more advanced, says it should be 11.35. That is all he is going to pay in the next four years. There is a hope there may be a little left in the kitty after that to supplement it.
However, what I rose particularly to say was this: The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) said that there were two things in this bill which stood out as far as he was concerned. There is only one thing which stands out as far as I am concerned, and it is this: The essential principle of this bill is that the marketing of all agricultural products except wheat, which has already been looked after, is brought completely under the control of the Minister of Agriculture. In other words, this bill makes the Minister of Agriculture practically a dictator as far as the marketing of agricultural products is concerned. That is really why I object to it. I believe the bill as it stands is practically pure and simple socialism and, as a result, I am going to vote against it. As a matter of fact the best feature about the bill is that it has a one-year termination clause. That is about the only good thing I have to say about it.
The bill enables the minister to make new contracts, which I think is one of its most objectionable features. I would be prepared to give the minister all the powers necessary to enable him to meet the contracts which he has made with Great Britain for cheese and bacon and other products. I have no doubt a considerable number of the powers he has asked for in this bill are required for that purpose. However I object most strongly to giving him the power to make new contracts, thereby perpetuating the situation we have at the present time, where the minister brings in a wheat bill and says, "I must have these powers so that we can fulfil our commitments to Great Britain"; or where he brings in this bill and says, "I must have these powers so
that we can fulfil the commitments we have made to Great Britain in the matter of dairy products and so forth."
Is this thing ever going to end or will it continue indefinitely? If the minister has the power to make new contracts a year from now we shall be faced with the situation where he can come back and say, "Here are these contracts which must be met because Canada cannot go back on her word. I must have these powers." Therefore we shall never get away from this socialistic type of legislation which puts into the hands of the minister and the government complete control of the marketing of agricultural products.
I think the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) stated an obvious truth when he said that we all realized that times have changed, that we can never go back to the situation which existed ten or fifteen years ago. I think everybody realizes that. I think we realize that, as long as we have to deal with totalitarian countries and countries which engage in state trading, we shall probably have to carry on a certain amount of state trading ourselves. But surely if we are a free enterprise country and are going to continue to be, our efforts should be directed toward getting away from state trading as rapidly as we can and getting things back to the place where we have a free exchange of goods and more or less of a free world market if this can possibly be done. Possibly it is too late and it may never be done, but for goodness sake, let us work toward that goal instead of working in the opposite direction, which I submit this bill does.
I was interested in some of the remarks of the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. McCubbin). He asked a question which I laughed over a little. He asked, "Why do I support this bill?" I think it was obvious to everyone in the house why he supported it. He supported it because the Minister of Agriculture introduced it. That was sufficient reason for him. When the Minister of Agriculture introduced the resolution a week or two ago, and when the hon. member for Middlesex West spoke in connection with beef, both said that there was no doubt in the world that the United States was the best market we could have for our beef, that it was our natural market. But both of them immediately turned around and said, "By no means let us send any beef there; it is our best market, but under no circumstances let us send any beef there; let us get as far away from it as we can." Both said, "No, we will not send even a token shipment of beef; it is not necessary; it is not required."
Agricultural Products Act

I should like to repeat what I said when the matter was first introduced. I said that a considerable number of the largest beef producers in this country think it is necessary. I said that I thought their advice on the matter should have been listened to by the government, and listened to carefully. I have a great deal more confidence in their judgment on the matter than I have in the judgment of the hon. member for Middlesex West.


James Garfield Gardiner: They do not produce
ten per cent of the beef.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Who does not produce?


James Garfield Gardiner: The men you are
talking about.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Those men may not
produce more than ten per cent of the beef, but the Minister of Agriculture knows that we never exported in normal times even ten per cent of our beef. It was generally a good deal less and these are the men who produced the beef to be exported.


James Garfield Gardiner: Some of it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: To a large extent they raised our export beef.
There is only one other thing I should like to say. The minister said that there is a demand in Great Britain for all the beef we can produce in the next five years. I believe that is correct, but one question comes to my mind. What price are we to get for it? What price can the people of Britain afford to pay for this beef during the next five years? Are the beef producers of this country to be asked to sell their beef to Great Britain at a price much below what they could get on the world market, in the same way that our wheat producers are being asked to take a loss of some $1.50 a bushel under the present Chicago price? Is that situation to go on for five years? If so, I for one do not think the beef producers of this country will be content. I do not think they should be called upon to make that sacrifice. If we are to have to sell beef to Great Britain during the next five years under the world price, the whole project should be underwritten as a national undertaking by the people of Canada as a whole. It should be paid for out of taxes and should not be assessed against the beef producers.


Mr. C. E. DESMOND (Kent, Ont.):: Mr. Speaker, if I am permitted to say a word about Bill No. 25 it would be this: I am one of those who has waited patiently for a federal agricultural marketing act. At last we have it, but what an act!


James Garfield Gardiner: You have not it yet.


Clayton Earl Desmond: That is what I am afraid of. I have listened patiently to a great deal of talk about wheat and I do not propose to mention that commodity, or the fact that our Ontario soft winter wheat has been priced away out of line. I have been intensely interested in the problems that face the primary producer in connection with orderly marketing. I have the privilege of representing a county in southwestern Ontario. Unfortunately for me I was paired with the hon. member for Essex South (Mr. Clark) when the amendment of the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) was voted upon. I strongly endorsed that amendment. The reason I paired with the hon. member for Essex South was that he is one of those who is most conversant with the marketing problems of our district. I also listened with tremendous tolerance to my very good friend the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. McCubbin) when he addressed the house tonight. I immediately went across the floor and congratulated him, and also corrected him on a few mistakes which, in my opinion, he had made.
When the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) brought down this bill I do not know exactly what he had in mind, but I do know from whence the idea came. It came from the producer boards of British Columbia and southwestern Ontario. It was not the child of his own mind at all. He may have been part and parcel, one of those who were in on the play when the Natural Products Marketing Act was booted off the field of Canada's trade. Now he has seen fit to bring it back in a camouflaged form whereby all the power is vested in the minister, giving him absolute control in the marketing of the products that have been brought to his attention. As one of the farmers of this country and having been intensely interested in orderly marketing of the specialized commodities raised in our district, I felt I would be remiss in my duty if I did not bring a few matters to the attention of the minister at this time. I have hesitated all during the war to make myself heard or to be critical of what, in my opinion, was an earnest desire on the part of the Department of Agriculture, including the minister, to do the best job they could for Canada, and I am not given to handing out bouquets where I do not feel they are deserved. I have presented many of our producer boards to the minister, and I would say that our producers, having come through a serious depression during the thirties, and having come into controlled position during the war, have submitted gracefully to the situation.

Agricultural Products Act
My good friend the hon. member for Middlesex West mentioned one of our commodities, beans. Some members of the house may smile when I mention beans. I could mention hybrid corn, onions-and this is not Mitchell Hepburn speaking-tobacco and other commodities. All these commodities mean a good deal to the economy not only of southwestern Ontario but of Canada as a whole. Were I to quote the excise revenue from tobacco alone, the house would be convinced of its importance to our economy. It is my opinion from what I have gleaned in the last few days-I have not the actual figures -that the revenue from tobacco alone was over $400 million.
As I said, my good friend from Middlesex mentioned beans. I place an entirely different interpretation on that situation. In 1940, the first year of the war, we found ourselves with a surplus of beans. We had a board but it had not been functioning actively up to that time. It had some difficulties in organization and in bringing together a majority of the producers of that commodity. We came to the department here in Ottawa and pleaded for a price that would relieve us of that surplus. We had no knowledge of how long the war would last or what it would mean in foodstuffs, and no knowledge of the tremendous drain we afterwards experienced on the young producers of our country.
Then we found ourselves running short of beans. Our primary producer group came to Ottawa and waited on the minister, on the special products board and the food board and asked for a price that would ensure a reasonable production of beans. After we had [DOT]entered into a contract with the British food ministry to provide Britain with a reasonable amount of beans in comparison with the lend-lease shipments of beans from the United States, our price was fixed at $2. That was not ample enough to bring about the desired production. In the year following, we entered into an arrangement and sold approximately one-third of our production to those who needed it so badly in the United Kingdom, but at a great sacrifice to the consumers of this country. We did not meet our quota but those beans were sold on the basis of $3 a bushel. Ours had been subsidized to the [DOT]extent of fifty cents. We were on the $2.50 level. We were operating on a participating [DOT]certificate in so far as our domestic market was concerned. That brought us up to $2.69 in *Canada as against $3' for our overseas commitments.
I would say to hon. members that when you .find a producer group vitally interested in the
perpetuation of an industry that is their bread and butter, that means their livelihood, medical attendance and education and everything else for their families, it means much more to them than it means to any minister of agriculture.


James Garfield Gardiner: That was done under the orders in council.


Clayton Earl Desmond: I thank the minister.
Take some of our other commodities; tobacco, for instance. We have fought and laboured to bring about a situation that would be satisfactory to our producer group. What have they accomplished? If we are to interfere with producer groups; if producer boards are to be shorn of the authority and powers they have exercised-I am not saying that governments should not play a part in it because we need their moral support and their assistance when it comes to disposing of an exportable surplus such as we may experience in the years that lie ahead-we do not want dictatorial powers given to any individual, whether it be a minister or someone else authorized to do that job. What we have done in our producer groups is this. We have convinced our processors, our distributors and our consumers that those who are most vitally interested in any business can handle it reasonably well.


James Garfield Gardiner: The government board has just as great powers as you asked for.


Clayton Earl Desmond: My interpretation of the bill may be wrong. I rose in rather an apologetic way because I had thought that when the federal agricultural marketing legislation was brought down I might even have to walk across the floor of the house, but I do not feel that I can do so now. I cannot see that it has provided for these groups what I hoped it might.
I listened attentively the other day to what was being said, and to show you, Mr. Speaker, how short my memory is, I have forgotten from whence it came, but I heard someone commending some hon. member in the house, or perhaps it was the minister, for the fact that the statistical branch in Ottawa was almost perfect. I disagree with that. All my experience with marketing organizations has been one with which I am in entire agreement. I have every respect for members of the government and the Department of Agriculture and the work they are attempting to do, but I feel they often get the cart before the horse.
One respect in which this is true is in connection with the duties assigned to our trade
Agricultural Products Act

commissioners. Trade commissioners may be selected on the basis of being bilingual, or the trade commissioner may be a Beau Brummel, one who is able to cope with social activities abroad, or it may be that he has an intimate knowledge of the commodity he is asked to dispose of and the markets which he is asked by the department to explore. But in all my experience with producer boards I have yet to see a trade commissioner come to us and ask for any guidance or direction. I am not saying that authority should be taken away from the government, but I feel that those who are vitally interested in their own affairs should not be discouraged by being shorn of that right. When jmu are part and parcel of an undertaking, that brings together the manufacturer, the distributor and the consumer; when you increase the price of the commodity substantially; when you maintain the dividends of the company and do not increase the cost to the consumer one iota, that is an accomplishment, and I would hesitate to go back to my producer groups if I felt I had not attempted to convince the minister; and I am doing so in a kindly way. At least, I hope I shall succeed, because I am vitally interested in this business of marketing, and I see no reason why the minister should take unto himself such authority and power. I will grant you that it may be fitting and proper in order to keep our commitments and pledges and promises to other countries. When we sign "Canada" on the dotted line we mean Canada and we are prepared to support the signature; but when our groups go out to do a job and have been successful I resent very much the fact-and I hesitate to support any bill that would make it possible-that they are robbed of that power.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have not the advantage, like my desk-mate, of being a farmer but am only the representative of a farming constituency, so that my knowledge of agriculture is of a somewhat vicarious nature. I might have hesitated to speak on this bill but for the fact that I was greatly encouraged by the words which the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) used the other day when he said-and these words interest me for more reasons than one:
Mr. Speaker, I am a modest sort of fellow and do not like to express opinions unless I know a little about the subject with which I am dealing. But since there are, evidently, so many immodest people in the chamber I thought I might as well take a flyer too.
I think that phrase about taking a flyer is unsuitable in the mouth of one who believes wholly in a controlled economy.

I have not, either, the advantage of having played football with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner).


Mr. STIRLING:: That is yet to come.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I would have been at a great disadvantage in that event, because on the low tackle the minister would have had all the advantage against me. But in any event I hope my desk-mate will have softened him up, so that he will not be as formidable as otherwise he would be.
I would say this, before I forget it, that I am always interested in the exchange between the minister and hon. gentlemen immediately to my left as to who deserves the credit for many of the great things that have happened in Saskatchewan. I hold myself out, and I am sure some of my associates would join me, in a sincere desire to act as arbitrators. We would be ready, I think, to arbitrate as between the Minister of Agriculture and hon. gentlemen to my left as to who deserves the credit for these great things that have happened in that province, and perhaps we might then dispose of the matter. That, however, would be unfortunate, because we should then have disposed of a prolific subject of discussion in the chamber.
I would not be standing here tonight and taking your time, Mr. Speaker-and I hope I shall be brief-except that I feel that this is one of the instances, of which there are many, which show that we are still suffering from a war mentality; that we are still slipping along what the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) called the Gadarene slope, which I understand was where the swine all ran down into the river.


Mr. HACKETT:: The sea.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The sea, the hon. member tells me.


John Thomas Hackett: They were engulfed.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I raise this question for the serious consideration of all hon. members, because it seems to me that, unless we are able to take more seriously than we do now, the question of the concentration of power, we may wake up one day to find that we have gone farther than we ever intended. These, I am sure, are great days for those who believe in controls and the multiplication of controls. I am sure they must take great satisfaction; they should take great satisfaction. They must feel that, we are all moving in their direction. Similarly these are poor days for liberals, with a small

Agricultural Products Act
"1", and even for Liberals with a large "L", because many men opposite feel, I am sure, as I do. I am sure they feel that, as we go on from one concentration of power to another, the wonder is, when the time will come when we shall turn in the other direction. I know it is in the air. We are told that it is being done in the European countries, that it is being done almost all over the world, and that we must follow the fashion. But I would point out that there is one great country, the country to the south of us, that is not following the fashion in this regard, but rather is trying to burst its bonds and get clear. We should try to remind ourselves of that fact instead of feeling that we must join in what I regard as a most unenviable procession to bind ourselves with fresh chains.
I do not wrant to sound extreme. I know that many men opposite and many men in the government share that feeling to a certain extent. I do not forget that attempts are being made to introduce greater freedom, and therefore I wish to be quite- fair in this. It is far too serious a matter for us to talk about it insincerely. When I see a bill like this, which my desk-mate says is for the purpose of giving to the Minister of Agriculture a power which ten years ago we would have thought inconceivable, we are doing it, I suggest, merely because we are still possessed of the war mentality. Let me read what the minister says, because he is quite frank about it, as reported at page 1389 of Hansard:
To indicate what we did under that legislation, let me point out that we went into Ontario and into Quebec and took all the cheese produced between May and October, in two different years of the war; we took all of it, and shipped it to Great Britain . . . And at other times we used the authority we had under the act to go into packing plants and take the bacon, and to say to our own people, "You can have in this country only fifty per cent of what you were buying in 1940. The remainder of it is going to Great Britain."
I approve that. Further on, the minister said:
We are suggesting in this legislation that for one year we be given authority to continue to do what we were doing in war time.
Mr. GARDINER; Read another sentence.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: 
James Garfield Gardiner: There are not any additional powers in it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: There are powers to make further contracts. That has been made perfectly clear. If the minister does not need the power I say, do not put it in. Second, the minister does not need to consult with anybody. He says that he does consult, but the act says he merely may consult. When we try genuinely to introduce some machinery whereby the power is diluted, whereby the people have some chance to deal with their own affairs, the minister is against it. I think it is an understatement to say that the minister wishes to stuff something down our throats without change, instead of trying to see whether there is some way whereby even a tincture or a scintilla of freedom and democratic control can be preserved. The minister asks for the bill, the whole bill and nothing but the bill. He will not even allow the bill to go to a committee, and I will come back to that in a moment. There is to be no attempt to see whether it is not possible to work out something which would give something less than this full power to the minister. We must take the whole thing.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I ask one question? I know the hon. member wants to get the matter straight. May I ask where in that bill I am given any authority at all to exercise any powers other than those exercised during the war? And during the war we exercised all our authority through boards.
Agricultural Products Act


James MacKerras Macdonnell: My whole point is that the war is over. My whole point is that you act as if it were still on.


James Garfield Gardiner: The whole point is that this is special legislation which is brought before the house for the purpose of extending these powers for a limited period of time, namely one year.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does the minister mean that this parliament has no power to change it or to lessen it?


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What is the use of telling me that this is for the purpose of retaining it? I am suggesting to the minister that the war is over and that it is competent for him to change these powers to some extent. There is no compulsion on him to come back here for exactly the same powers as he had during the war. Although I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, I say that if we do not begin now to lessen these powers, a year from now it will not be easier but will be harder to do so. They will have had another year by then.


James Garfield Gardiner: The whole contention since we began this discussion is to give me more power than I am asking for.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am all in favour of the minister asking me questions and I hope that I shall be able to answer them. But I suggest now that this is my speech and that the minister might let me make it. I am not as seasoned a campaigner as he is, and he may put me out of my stride and make me forget the rest of what I was going to say, which is very good if I do not forget it.
1 wish to go back now and say that what I am complaining about-and really the minister is helping me to this extent, that he seems to me by his actions to be just underlining what I am saying-is that we still have this war mentality; and, if it goes on long enough, we may just as well say good-bye to our desire to get back our freedom. Do not let us fool ourselves. I would say that the chances of our getting our freedom back now are quite precarious. We live in a world where there is precious little of it left. Look at what is happening in Britain, the home of freedom. The minister knows better than I do the fears which are entertained there already, and the things they have been forced into which they never would have wanted. Do not think I am criticizing the socialist government there. I respect it. I think they

have great difficulties. I think they have almost overwhelming difficulties. But do not let us forget that things are happening there today which would not have happened ten years ago; and when they are happening in Britain, which has been the home of freedom, it is time for us all to think about it and to watch when we give these powers to people. I do not care how greatly we respect them. I respect the Minister of Agriculture. But I say that it is a great mistake to give this kind of power to anybody. I say also that every month these powers continue it will be just that much harder to get rid of them.
If I may be out of order for just thirty seconds, I should like to point out that we are being told in one of the committees that we live in a world of import and export controls. We are asked to believe that we cannot even buy goods abroad unless we buy through the government. We are asked to believe that other people will not want good Canadian and United States dollars unless the purchases are made by our government. That is the length to which this war mentality, this control mentality, has gone. That is the only reason I am on my feet tonight. I believe with all my heart that, unless we pull ourselves together and begin to shake ourselves free from that, as I say, month by month it will become more and more difficult. The minister, of course, is somewhat of a conundrum to me. I had some dealings with the minister in those far-off days when I was in business, and I found the minister a very satisfactory man to do business with.


James Garfield Gardiner: I hope he still is.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: He was pretty tough, but he was fair. But since I have been dabbling in politics, I have come to know a side of the minister which I did not know before.


John Thomas Hackett: He was an amateur.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: He was not an amateur in business. I would say that he was quite a professional in business. But I gather in politics he is the genuine article; he is super-professional. I gather that power is a thing the minister knows a great deal about, more than I shall ever know, probably, because I shall not have thirty-three years in which to exercise it, as the minister has. When I found these powers so well described by my desk-mate tonight, these unprecedented powers w'hich, during the war, we gave because we recognized the necessity for them, and when I find that a great many people take this special war period and want to project it into peace time, I confess that I am alarmed.

Agricultural Products Act
I wish to say just one more thing on this amendment; and by the way, I hope it is not going to be withdrawn. I have been nervous several times tonight. I thought I would have a chance to vote for a C.C.F. amendment, and every time it was suggested that it be withdrawn, I became nervous.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: You will have the
chance.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister reassures us. I like his stubbornness at times, although I dislike it at other times, and I think he is pretty tough about this.


James Garfield Gardiner: When the C.C.F. propose a Tory motion, I ought to be stubborn.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I shall not attempt to put a name on it. I will just say that I deal with motions and amendments on their merits and try not to attach any labels to them; I try to take them for just what they seem to say. This seems to me to suggest what I would have thought was a very reasonable thing. I take it that it is a matter of some importance. I imagine that the minister will not deny that a matter which involves or may involve hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars is of some importance; and yet for some reason, that no one has ever attempted to give, the minister is refusing to let this go to the agriculture committee where it can be discussed. I understand he is refusing to do that.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not been asked. I have not had a chance to refuse.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: At any rate, the minister has said many things which my limited intelligence understood to mean that he was not having any of this amendment which suggested that it go to a committee.


James Garfield Gardiner: To bring in a new bill.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Just a minute, I am trying to make this speech, however inadequate it may be. If it were not for the fact that I have a fairly loud voice I think I would have been out of action long before now. This amendment, if I understood it correctly, says that the subject matter of the bill be referred to the committee on agriculture and colonization with instructions that they have "power to recommend provision for," and so on. The minister seems to read that in a way I do not read it.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the only way you can put it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Just a moment; let me give my views. You will have your chance later on. I read this as suggesting that it go to a committee, and then indicating to the committee that they can do certain things if they wish. It does not tell them they have to do these things, and it does not tell them they cannot do a lot of other things. Therefore I cannot see for the life of me Why, if this is important, it should not go to the committee, and no reason has as yet been given. If this amendment is to be voted upon, I suggest that a reason should be given.
Finally, before taking my seat, I shv/uid like to refer to the same incident to which the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) referred, because I think it is so aptly in point here. I propose also to read a sentence or two from a newspaper which has not always supported the Minister of Agriculture, though by and large it has supported the government. At any rate, it always supports the government at critical times. From time to time I have hopes that the Winnipeg Free Press has seen the light and that it will continue to see the light when an election is on, but it seems to me it occasionally sees the light between elections but at election time it is always in darkness. In any event, this is what they say now, and if the minister has not read it I am sure he will be very much interested. I should explain that this refers to the wheat agreement, but I suggest that the comments it makes on the wheat agreement can stand on their own feet and that they are perfectly apt in referring to this measure, because they refer to an important principle, namely that of referring important matters to committee. So I crave Your Honour's indulgence for just a moment to quote a few sentences from the Free Press. I like to read the Free Press when it is right, even though it is not often right. They speak about what the government has done, and then they say:
Even so, it should not necessarily follow that a Liberal government, in embarking upon an illiberal policy, should proceed by autocratic methods.
Then they refer to the fact that a committee was refused on the other bill, and go on to say-this merely embroiders what my hon. friend said-something that makes the thing clear and drives it home. They refer to the wheat board bill of 1935, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), then leader of the opposition, said:
"It has, I think, been customary in connection with a measure of this importance to have it referred either to one of the select standing committees of this house ... or to a special committee."
Agricultural Products Act

And again:
"I therefore am asking the Prime Minister... that the bill ... be referred to a select committee."
The then Prime Minister, Mr. Bennett, replied, and this was really quite a love feast:
... if he (Mr. King) believes that the matter would be better dealt with by a committee than by discussion in this house, I would be the last man not to 'accept his system.
Obviously the word "system" should be "suggestion"; even the Free Press can nod at times. Then it goes on:
I believe it is my duty to accept one of these methods . . .


James Garfield Gardiner: That was the change in the bill.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That was to refer the matter to a committee. I am suggesting that, unless some far better reason is given than has been advanced so far for not referring this matter to a committee, it is an extraordinarily high-handed procedure for a government calling itself a Liberal government to adopt.


Mr. F. S. ZAPLITNY (Dauphin):: Mr. [DOT] Speaker, I was quite prepared to let this amendment go to a vote until a few hon.
members spoke tonight expressing opinions which I believe, should be answered. Before I conclude, I should like to make an appeal to the minister, perhaps a final appeal before we have the vote, to give the house the assurance that early next session, since apparently he will not do it this session, he will bring down a marketing act such as the Canadian farmers have been requesting.
Before I go on to that, however, I want to make some reference to the remarks of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, and those of one other hon. gentleman to my right. It is intriguing to listen to hon. members talking about the legislation we have before us and making broad statements about this legislation containing unprecedented and unheard-of powers. The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell) used that phrase several times; that in peace time this bill gives the minister or the governor in council unprecedented and unheard-of powers. Those powers are neither unprecedented nor unheard-of. I have before me the Natural Products Marketing Act, 1934, passed by the administration headed by Mr. Bennett. Some hon. members present will remember very well the debate which took place at that time. In looking through this act, I found on page 2, for example, the powers given the governor in council enumerated one after the other, 
with the words "governor in council" occurring in almost every line. To refer to specific portions of that act, I find that on page 3 it says:

The board shall-


Mr. FLEMING:: It is the board; not the minister.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I shall come to that in a moment.
*-subject to the provisions of this act, have power
(a) to regulate the time and place at which, and to designate the agency through which the regulated product shall be marketed, to determine the manner of distribution, the quantity and quality, grade or class of the regulated product ...
And so on. Then, further on:
(f) to require any or all persons engaged in the production of marketing of the regulated product to register their names, addresses and occupations with the board, or to obtain a licence from the board, and such licence shall be subject to cancellation by the board for violation of any provision of this act or regulation made thereunder.
Then it goes on to give other powers to the board, and goes farther and says on page 7 that, whenever the governor in council, not the board-
. . . is satisfied, on the recommendation of the minister, that a majority of the persons engaged in the production or marketing of a natural product so require, he may approve of a proposal for . . .
Then it goes on to give him a whole list of other powers. These are not the powers of the board; this is done by the governor in council on the recommendation of the minister. Then on the same page it provides:
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.
I now turn to page 9 of the marketing act and find this:
The minister may, at the request of the board or upon his own initiative ....
Do certain things. Again:
The minister may also require persons engaged in the production or marketing, adaptation for sale, processing or conversion of any natural or regulated product to submit at regular intervals or at any stated time, information demanded by the minister in connection with the matters referred to in subsection one hereof.
Then I come to the most interesting part of the bill, on page 10, dealing with penalties, where it provides:
Every person who, to the detriment or against the interest of the public, charges, receives or attempts to receive any spread which is exces-

Agricultural Products Act
sive or results iu undue enhancement of prices or otherwise restrains or injures trade or commerce in the natural or regulated product, shall be guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a penalty not exceeding five thousand dollars or to two years' imprisonment, or, if a corporation, to a penalty not exceeding ten thousand dollars.


Major James William Coldwell: Who put that in?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: It was quite clearly put in by the Bennett administration. I remember that the other evening hon. gentlemen to my right said the government apparently was getting more socialistic all the time because the penalties were increasing. Well, here we find them making provision for a penalty of $5,000 in the ease of individuals and $10,000 if it happens to be a corporation. They must have had in mind a corporation consisting of two individuals. So it goes all through the bill. I have read only enough to point out that a great deal of this talk about the wide powers and the regimentation contained in this legislation is not based upon fact; and that the unprecedented and unheard-of powers about which the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario is so good at giving the house grave warnings, are not unheard-of or unprecedented, because in what I have read we have a very good precedent.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Will the
hon. member permit a question? Do you believe in a police state, or do you not?


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Bennett tried to
establish one under that bill, apparently.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Do you
believe in a police state, or do you not?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I concur in the answer
of my leader.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Which said
nothing; and therefore you concur.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: If the hon. gentleman
wishes to have an answer from me, then I will say, no; that I do not believe in a police state.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You are advocating it.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I have not even started
advocating anything yet. I was merely pointing out what the Bennett administration had done. If it sounded like a police state to my hon. friend and those around him, it is not my fault.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I was in
here before you ever thought of getting in.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I will also say this, that the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario said he was afraid of placing too much power in the hands of the government. He emphasized that, and pointed out the great danger of placing too much power in the hands of the minister, and how the love and lust for power may corrupt the intentions of the minister, whom he liked so well.
I am not one who would like to concentrate power in the hands of any individual. We have to make a choice. We have to make our decisions in this house on practically all legislation which comes up, as to whether we shall place the power of regulating trade and commerce, and things that come within our purview, in the hands of the elected representatives of the people, in whom the people have expressed their confidence in a democratic election, or whether we are to leave those powers in the hands of corporations and those firms which are only too ready to exploit the producer. That is our choice. And for my part I prefer-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I ask this question: are you against your own amendment?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I will come to that in
due time. But I want to start where the hon. member left off, so as to keep the continuity of it. I was going to say, before I was interrupted in- the middle of a sentence, that I prefer to place power where I believe the power in a democratic state ought to be, namely, in the hands of the elected representatives of the people.
Since the individual representatives of this party cannot be here all year round to exercise the power vested in them by the people, they must delegate a certain portion of that power to the administration which is charged with the responsibility of carrying on the work of the country in the interval. In doing so-


Donald Methuen Fleming: We are well on the way
to totalitarianism, then.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: You might be an expert on totalitarianism, and as such would be qualified to speak about it. But I am not.
Before I go on, I also wish to say this, about the amendment the hon. member is so worried about, that I am not going to urge its withdrawal tonight.
The hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness), who spoke earlier in the debate, again referred to this question of socialism. We do not mind debating socialism in the house: but I do not know why it has to be dragged into almost every piece of legislation which comes before the house. The hon. member said that this measure was pure socialism. He even expressed the opinion that it may be too late to go anywhere else except, as he expressed it, down the road to socialism
Agricultural Products Act

I think he will be surprised when the vote is taken tonight-if it is-or within a day's time, as to how many socialists there are in the house. Because I predict that, with the exception of the group to my right, all hon. members in the house, or a very large majority of them, will vote for this bill.
I would remind the hon. member, too, that they applied the same term to the wheat board bill. They called it socialism at that time; but when it came time to vote they rose in their places, like good socialists, and voted lor it.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You preach it; they practise it; that is the difference.


Mrs. STRUM:: And you vote for it.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: If this measure is socialism-and I am not saying that it is, because there is more involved in socialism than the mere passing of an act of parliament-it is the evolving of a philosophy of life, placing civilization on a higher plane. But if this is socialism in the mind of my hon. friend, then hon. members across the floor of the house who ordinarily cannot be classified as socialists, and who do not profess to be-and I refer to two of them in particular, namely the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor), for whom I have a high regard, and the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) who contributes so delightfully to the debates of the house-both rise in their places and said that if this legislation is socialism, then they are socialists. In the face of this reconversion of political faith that is going on around us, I am afraid my hon. friends will be an island of resistance of their own.


James Arthur Ross: Many members across there do not agree with those two.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I do not know why they should take that point of view. If they are not in favour of the government's having any control or regulation over marketing of products of the farm, then the logical thing for them to do would be to rise on every occasion and vote against such legislation, and not try to becloud it and camouflage it by calling it socialism.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Surely that is not beclouding.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I should like to refer to a pamphlet I now hold in my hand, which is called "Blue-Print for Progress," and is also headed "Bracken's charter for a better Canada." This is a delightful little pamphlet. I find there-and with many of its parts I

agree thoroughly-a ready-made economic system to give to the Canadian people. We find that one of the things advocated is:
We will appoint a board of live stock commissioners in which shall be vested pow'er-
That terrible word.
-to regulate and direct all aspects of live stock marketing.


Mr. MICHAUD:: Regimentation of the
worst kind.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is that from?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: It is from Bracken's "Charter for a better Canada". There are a great many more delightful things in the pamphlet which I shall not take the trouble to quote. There is this, for example: compulsory collective bargaining and other things along that line. I am pointing that out only for this reason-and not because I want to have any quarrel with my hon. friends; I enjoy listening to them-that I believe there is too much of a tendency to try to create an ideological difference on a piece of legislation which had nothing to do with ideology, at all.
Marketing legislation is not primarily a political football to be kicked around. I hold in my hand a report the meeting held in this city recently by a number of representatives of agriculture, under the auspices of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which included practically all the chief farm organizations in Canada. I believe hon. members from all sides of the house were invited to attend, and a great many of them did. I was one of them. I felt that the farmers there represented farm organizations in every province. There were also representatives of the provincial governments of many of the provinces, and there was unanimous agreement that they wanted marketing legislation. They presented a draft bill, which the minister has in his possession.
Here are some of the reasons they wanted marketing legislation. I believe these point out definitely that what farmers are asking for is something which other organizations have already had for a period of time, and which the farmers find is working in the interests of those organizations, so that they want to copy it.
I would quote from what Mr. Hannam, president of the C.F.A. had to say on that occasion:
We have three-quarters of a million farmers in Canada. Working individually these farmers cannot have any plan for orderly marketing without rules to carry out the plan. Marketing legislation simply provides legal status for the rules agreed upon by the majority. Our producers have reasoned that if the great major-

Agricultural Products Act
ity agree on a marketing plan, then the will of the majority should prevail to carry out the plan.
So he goes on along that line, asking the government for marketing legislation. Another gentleman who spoke at that time was Mr. A.' K. Lloyd of British Columbia Tree Fruits Limited, who said:
Why is it necessary? In view of the complexity of modern agriculture, it is essential in order that the producer may obtain at the least expense the greatest possible proportion of the consumer dollar, that he accomplish his marketing in an orderly manner. Such legislation will enable him to avoid the uneconomical waste which too often has caused the difference between prosperity and failure.
It is quite clear that the farmers are becoming anxious and want to get the greatest possible portion of the consumer dollar for the products that they have to sell. In other words, they want to find the shortest direct route between the producer and the consumer. In doing that they want to utilize government machinery set up for that purpose. Mr. Lloyd goes on:
Without such legislation, the basic industry of the country and one which is absolutely essential to its welfare, is left to the mercies of anyone clever enough to exploit enough.
That is putting it pretty close to the line. When hon. members to my right get up and accuse us of wanting to institute some sort of socialism I would point out that here is a gentleman who is saying that all they want to do is to take the marketing of their product out of the hands of the people who may exploit them and put it in the hands of the people who are interested in the welfare of the producer. I wish to impress upon the minister that the gentlemen who attended that conference felt a sense of urgency in this matter. I think it is unfortunate that the minister has not given the assurance to the house for which we have asked, that legislation of this kind will be forthcoming early in the next session. It is quite apparent that we cannot get it during this session. I want to quote Mr. Lloyd to show the urgency that was felt in this matter. He said:
Already there is a noticeable drift from the farm to the city, and this is hardly to be wondered at when it is remembered that the average farmer will be working from sixty to seventy hours a week, whereas other unionized labour has already achieved a forty-four or forty-hour week. Action on the matter under discussion cannot be postponed without distastrous results.
That is placing it pretty squarely on the doorstep of the minister. It points out that, unless action is taken quickly, there will be disastrous results in the production end of things.
I should like to go on now to the resolution which was carried unanimously by that conference. May I again emphasize that the chairman of the conference invited members of parliament who attended, to present their views if they had any in opposition to the draft bill. He got up repeatedly and asked members who were opposed to a marketing act of that kind to state their views. In my hearing, at least not one member of any political group got up and expressed any views in opposition to it. The following resolution was passed unanimously:
That this conference convened by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture with representatives of major agricultural organizations in attendance from all sections of the dominion ask that the directors of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture convey to the dominion cabinet the unanimous request of this meeting that legislation in line with the attached draft of a farm products marketing act, be introduced at the present session of parliament.
They wanted it right away. It was in pursuance of that thought that we in this group tried to do the only thing we could do, move an amendment in order that this bill might be given further consideration in an appropriate committee where the views of these organizations could be heard. We would then have an opportunity of hammering out a marketing act which would be in line with what the farmers are asking for. We are not opposed to the principle of this bill. We are going to support the principle of the bill and we have moved an amendment in an attempt to give time, both to the minister and to the government as a whole and to the farm organizations to get together to formulate an appropriate marketing act.
The minister says that it cannot be done at this time on account of the time element, since his powers will expire at too early a date and he must have power to carry on. We are willing to take a reasonable stand. We are asking the minister again to give us the assurance that at the next session of the house he will bring down a marketing act in line with the proposals made by this organization. If we get that assurance we shall have something to go on and the organized farmers will have something to go on until next year,
I do not see how it will be possible for any hon. member to rise in his place and vote against a bill of this kind if he says that he believes in orderly marketing and in living up to the agreements that Canada has made for the supply of food to Britain. I respect the views of my hon. friends to my right when they get up and say that this is a private enterprise country and that therefore we must
Agricultural Products Act

' keep the government entirely out of business, let everyone run his own show. I respect their views, but the facts of the past and present do not bear out those views. It is no longer true to say that this is a private enterprise country. No one here can say it is entirely private enterprise. The events of modern times have brought us to the point where we must do cooperatively what we cannot do individually, and the marketing of farm products is one of those things.
Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead): Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words before the motion for second reading passes. I do not think the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) needs to be told that there is a great difference between the bill that is before us and the legislation which was passed in 1934. In 1934 boards were set up and powers were conferred upon the boards. We have transportation boards; we have all manner of organizations from courts down to temporary commissions and committees that are manned by appointees of the government. That is one of the accepted ways that democracy has of giving effect to the wishes of a democracy. I submit that that is an entirely different matter from the executive itself taking powers. In fact the difference is so pronounced that when war came we adopted this extraordinary method which the government seeks to perpetuate by this bill.
It is not my intention to rehearse the many arguments that have been put forward against the second reading of this bill, but there are one or two points I should like to accentuate. We have been told, not once but many times, that Canada has made agreements and that the agreements should be implemented. It does appear that Canada has made agreements, but because Canada has made agreements in an improper way it does not follow that we should indulge in further impropriety to give it execution. Agreements have been made under the W ar Measures Act after the war was over and when parliament was in session. Agreements have been made and are being made by _ the government when parliament is available to express its approval or otherwise of them, and I think it is pushing the argument a little far to say that because Canada has undertaken through, if you will, a usurpation of power to do certain things it behooves us to go farther and confer dictatorial powers on the government in order that they may be implemented.
This is not entirely a new device of government. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the provinces, for instance, did confer upon the federal cabinet the right to tax, but for a 
special purpose and for a definite time.
Nevertheless the government, in the exercise of those borrowed powers, used them not to win the war but to win an election. The government used the borrowing powers that it had got from the provinces to raise money to bring in something which, in itself, is good, the family allowance, but it nevertheless used the moneys that it had to win the war for the purpose of winning an election, and now it is using what it brought in by the improper use of these moneys, something that itself was good, as an argument to keep in perpetuity the taxing powers it borrowed for the duration of the war only. That kind of argument is not sound argument. That kind of argument is not one which appeals very much to my imagination or to any generous sentiments which I may have toward people who are in want.
If the government has made these agreements to sell wheat or bacon or other commodities, undoubtedly they must be carried out, but let them be carried out as the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) has suggested, at the expense of the people as a whole and not by a few. These agreements should not be used to push the people into further subjugation. The minister says. "I need this bill in order that I may implement agreements which I have made; I must have these iron controls in order that I may carry out my agreement with Britain." That is not so.
May I go just one step farther and say that we have had evidence in the last few days of the great danger which arises from governments entering into negotiations and transactions which are beyond their proper sphere and scope. When a government enters into trade it then exposes the nation to all the bickering and dissatisfaction that arise out of trade and especially out of trade by people who are not skilled in trading. When a merchant in Canada sells something to a merchant in Britain or to a merchant in Italy and a dispute arises, they may submit their difference to the courts; but when a nation deals with a nation there is no arbitrament but that of war. In these days when we are talking so much about peace; when we are seeking an abiding peace we seem unnecessarily to be creating causes for dissension and disagreement by injecting nations into the buying and selling of commodities and into all the disputes and difficulties which arise out of the marketing of goods, and denying them at the same time the benefits of arbitration, of adjustment and of settlement or appeal to the courts. I submit that we have got ourselves into a frame of mind from which it is

Agricultural Products Act
becoming more and more difficult to escape. One has but to frequent any of the standing committees to hear deputy minister after deputy minister explaining to the committee that it is the policy of government that there be more control; that there be more government management; that there be greater interference by the administration in what up to now we have considered to be the private business of the people of Canada.
I submit to you again, Mr. Speaker, that what we need is not more controls, not more legislation hampering the natural activities and the business of the country, but a government with nerve enough to rid itself of the controls which are weighing upon us even now, although hostilities are over for well nigh two years.


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, in the first place I have had an opportunity of voting before for a marketing act in this house. That marketing act has been referred to tonight. It was brought forward by a Conservative government. It was opposed by the Liberal party almost in the-same words as the hon. gentlemen to your left now use in opposing this bill. As a matter of fact I had the pleasure of challenging the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) on that act in a by-election when he first came to this house, and I found that the Conservatives nished out to join hand's with him in defeating their own act and putting him back on a policy which destroyed that piece of legislation.
I am very glad to be able to give my support again to the measure now before the house. I regret the confusion which seems to be unavoidable in regard to this legislation now before us. For instance, the Progressive Conservative party are opposing this legislation because they do not desire this kind of legislation.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Nonsense.


William Irvine: We are supporting this legislation, and we have moved an amendment from this section of the house because we think we can make the bill a little better than it is. That is the situation. I Shall vote for the amendment, but I shall certainly support the bill. I should like, if the minister would do so before the vote is taken, for him to give the assurance that has been asked by those who sponsor the amendment.


Mr. HAMEL:: I was paired with the hon. member for Wright (Mr. Raymond). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, did you call the motion for second reading? If so, I move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Pouliot the debate was adjourned.	*
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie the house adjourned at 11.18 p.m.
Tuesday, March 18, 1947