[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 52, for the relief of Ethel Cahan Naihouse.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 53, for the relief of John Roy Fumerton.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 54, for the relief of Paul Edouard Tardif.-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 55, for the relief of Pearl Aizanman Morris.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 56, for the relief of Molly Goldfarb Goldberg.-Mr. Tomlinson.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to lay on the table of the house copies in English and French of correspondence with the premiers of the provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick and Alberta on the subject of the proposed amendment to the British North America Act which will give the federal parliament the necessary authority to enact legislation to establish unemployment insurance. Previous correspondence on this subject has been tabled. It may be of some convenience to hon. members to have all the correspondence appear together in the votes and proceedings. If this course is acceptable to hon. members I shall be pleased to ask the clerk to arrange accordingly. These are interesting and historic documents. I feel it would be well to have them in printed form in some of the records of parliament.



AMENDMENT OF BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT TO PROVIDE FOR UNIFORM COMPULSORY SYSTEM

Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved:: Whereas the Employment and Social Insurance Act, 1935, a statute of the parliament of

Unemployment Insurance
Canada which, in substance, provided for a system of compulsory unemployment insurance throughout Canada, has been held by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to be ultra vires of the parliament of Canada;
And whereas, if a uniform and effective system of compulsory unemployment insurance is to be adopted throughout Canada, it will be necessary to amend the British North America Act, 1867, to enable the parliament of Canada to enact the necessary legislation;
A humble Address be presented to His Majesty the King, in the following words:
To the King's Most Excellent Majesty:
Most Gracious Sovereign:
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of Canada, in parliament assembled, humbly approach your majesty praying that you may graciously be pleased to cause a measure to be laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom to amend the British North America Act, 1867, and that such measure be expressed as follows:
An act to amend the British North America Act, 1867, relating to unemployment insurance.
Whereas the Senate and Commons of Canada in parliament assembled have submitted an address to His Majesty praying that his majesty may graciously be pleased to cause a measure to be laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom for the enactment of the provisions hereinafter set forth:
Be it therefore enacted by the King's Most Excellent Majesty by and with the advice and censent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
1.	Section ninety-one of the British North America Act, 1867, is amended by adding thereto as class 2A the following:
''2A. Unemployment insurance." and inserting such class in the enumeration of the classes of Subjects set forth in section ninety-one aforesaid, immediately after class two.
2.	This act may be cited as the British North America Act, 1940, and the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1930, the British North America Act, 1907, and this act may be cited together as the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1940.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I need not refer to the desirability or even necessity of any scheme of unemployment insurance being national in its scope, because this parliament in 1935 recognized that fact by enacting legislation providing for a system of compulsory unemployment insurance. Since then many provinces and public bodies have signified their views in this matter, and more particularly before the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations, where in their briefs the provinces of Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan and British Columbia specially mentioned the subject.
Various other public bodies such as the Edmonton Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Manufacturers Association, the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada and similar associations have signified not only that they favoured such an insurance scheme but that in order to be effective it should be national in scope.
The privy council has ruled that this parliament at present does not possess the necessary jurisdiction to enact a national unemployment insurance scheme. I shall read only the concluding words of the decision of the privy council on their reference to it of the unemployment insurance act which passed this parliament in 1935:
If on the true view of the legislation it is found that in reality in pith and substance the legislation invades civil rights within the province or in respect of other classes of subjects otherwise encroaches upon the provincial field, the legislation will be invalid. To hold otherwise would afford the dominion an easy passage into the provincial domain. In the present case their lordships agree with the majority of the supreme court in holding that in pith and substance this act is an insurance act affecting the civil rights of employers and employed in each province, and as such is invalid.
I have referred to the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations. In its report the commission says, at page 39:
It is not surprising, therefore, that it has been generally recognized that if unemployment insurance is to be successful in Canada it must be on a national basis. The national employment commission emphasized that "there are great, indeed decisive, advantages in a national, in contrast to a provincial, system" of unemployment insurance. The Commission des Assurances Sociales de Quebec, as early as 1933, pointed out that, although it is possible for member states in a federation to have schemes of their own, "nevertheless elementary prudence urges us to give a federal character to insurance against unemployment." In a memorandum submitted to the executive council of the province of Quebec in February, 1939, by the Confederation des Travailleurs Catholiques du Canada, Inc., the following paragraph appears: "La C.T.C.C. tient 4 redire au gou-vernement federal qu'elle est en faveur d'un systeme d'assurance-chomage 4 base contribu-toire. . .notamment, en faveur d'une assurance-ehomage contributoire, etablie sur le plan national, suivant les recommandations de la Commission des Assurances sociales."
After careful examination we are convinced that a system of unemployment insurance can be established which will in no way interfere with the provisions of the Quebec civil code concerning labour contracts and contracts of hiring. In our public hearings representations from most provinces and from many public bodies supported the view that unemployment insurance should be within the jurisdiction of the dominion parliament. We have no hesitation in so recommending.
Unemployment Insurance

Ever since the decision of the privy council it has been the intention that parliament should acquire the necessary power to enact a bill of the kind which will be introduced when the address is voted in this parliament and the necessary amendment made at Westminster to the British North America Act. Always we have tried to get the approval of the several provinces to an amendment of this kind, but it is only recently that unanimity has been signified in the matter. The objection which was raised by certain provinces, and more particularly in my own province by the then premier, was that it would be possible to establish unemployment insurance by concurrent or enabling legislation of the provinces as well as of the dominion. Needless to say we should have been very glad to accept that view had we thought that such a course was feasible, but the views of the officers of the crown have always been that this could not be done. When it is said, for instance, that old age pensions have been established by way of concurrent legislation, I would point out that there is all the difference in the world because we merely contribute to the amount which is spent by the various provinces for old age pensions; we contribute as much as seventy-five per cent, but there is no provision for contributions by employers and employees, and there is not the same necessity for our invading the provincial jurisdiction as there would be in establishing a scheme of unemployment insurance. The two cases are altogether different. Indeed if, as has often been suggested and even recommended by labour unions, the old age pensions scheme should be made a contributory one, the British North America Act would have to be amended to provide for a national contributory scheme.
As to the methods of cooperation in the legislative field which we have considered one after the other, the first that suggests itself is for the provinces to delegate to parliament their powers in relation to unemployment insurance. But there are several objections to that. It is extremely doubtful that such delegation would be legally effective, because by such action parliament cannot acquire jurisdiction. Lord Watson is reported to have observed during the argument of Canadian Pacific Railway Company v. Notre-Dame de Bon Secours, (1899) A.C. 367:
I think we must get rid of the idea that either one or other (parliament or the provincial legislature) can enlarge the jurisdiction of the other or surrender jurisdiction.
In the case of the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Acts, this method of delegation was resorted to and the courts have held the cooperative scheme to be unconstitutional.

The provincial legislature may delegate its legislative powers, as has recently been held by the privy council in the case of Shannon v. Lower Mainland Dairy, and, conceivably, some central body, say the dominion commission, could be vested with legislative power by each of the nine provinces. But I think, first, that most of the provinces would strongly object to delegating such a power to a body not responsible to them.
Secondly, there is the objection that at any time any province may withdraw the power that she has delegated. A third objection is that the sum total of provincial powers is probably insufficient, constitutionally, to establish a national system. For instance, can Quebec raise money by a levy which may be used to pay benefits outside of Quebec? If Quebec cannot do so then its delegate on the federal commission, as I have mentioned, could not, merely by reason of the fact that it is the delegate also of eight other provinces.
Other recognized methods of cooperation are known as legislation by reference, conjoint legislation and conditional legislation.
The first two are almost identical. The first is a method whereby parliament enacts a statute which is then adopted by the provinces by reference. By the second mode of procedure both parliament and the legislature would enact the same act in the same terms. These two methods have been resorted to when doubt exists as to which legislature, the central or the local, has authority. The danger of this reasoning lies in the possibility that both statutes may be invalid because each exceeds the power of the enacting legislature. The example I have given of Quebec having no right to levy taxes within the province to be used to pay expenditure in the rest of Canada applies here. Such a taxing provision would be unconstitutional, just as a dominion act to impose taxation on Quebec citizens to be spent in Quebec would be invalid. Another objection is that in the enforcement of the law a difficulty would arise as to which one of the two statutes should be used and we might select the one which the court would declare unconstitutional. Then again, in the case of legislation by reference the provincial act would be bad if the dominion act was bad, since the latter was a nullity and the provincial act based on it would also be a nullity.
Conditional legislation is another mode of procedure, whereby legislation of a legislature operates upon the fulfilment of a condition. For instance, if all the nine provinces were enacting a similar insurance scheme in identical terms which would become operative as the

Unemployment Insurance
result of some dominion action, namely by parliament or by the governor in council, the " condition " would be the dominion action. The insurance conditions and the levy would be provided for by the provincial legislatures, while the dominion, in addition to bringing the nine provincial statutes into force on a given date, would establish a central commission and would provide funds for administrative expenses. All the objections which I have submitted to the other modes of operation apply also to this one; and I am afraid, and it is also the view of the officers of the crown, that there would be danger in respect of constitutionality which would not justify the parliament of Canada in entering, before being sure of its validity, upon a big undertaking which would cost millions of money.
I have spoken only of the legal side. There are also practical objections which I desire to mention.
1.	You would have to get the concurrence of nine legislatures each of which will, quite properly, have its own ideas, influenced by local requirements, as to the proper provisions of an unemployment insurance act.
2.	You must hold this concurrence through the difficult first years of the application of the act, when, by practice and experience, amendments will be found desirable; and then you would have to have in each case the consent of every one of the nine legislatures before proposing these amendments.
3.	You must persuade nine provinces to submit to administration by a body which is not responsible to them.
4.	The necessary levy to provide insurance benefits must be imposed on the clear understanding that the funds raised thereby and turned over to the commission are to be utilized to pay benefits throughout Canada. The result might be, for example, that Quebec contributions would, in certain circumstances, be utilized to pay benefits outside Quebec.
The final and the most important objection of all is that there is nothing to prevent one or two or three provinces from withdrawing from the scheme and then the whole undertaking would be compromised.
I believe I have sufficiently shown that we cannot proceed to introduce a bill to establish unemployment insurance in Canada without resorting to the application for an amendment, which is a very simple one, to the British North America Act, and to which now fortunately all the provinces agree, so that this parliament shall be invested with full power; then the bill will be introduced.


Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of unemployment insurance is one which has engaged, more or less spasmodically, the attention of this house since I first entered it. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on more than one occasion since 1921 and 1930 promised this legislation. There was always, of course, the constitutional difficulty. In 1930, when the government of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett came into power, it was so obsessed with the necessity of keeping this country on an even keel economically that, while we believed in the principle of unemployment insurance, it was not possible to proceed with the legislation at the beginning of that parliament. I have always thought that it was a great pity, from the standpoint of the wage earners of this country, to whom such an act would have been applicable in those bad years of our history, that such a measure was not put on the statute book by the Prime Minister when he first made his pronouncement in the twenties in regard thereto.
However, whatever may have been the reasons which prevented him from acting upon his undertaking to the country, he did not proceed with any such legislation, and this country and the wage earners of the country were without the benefits of unemployment insurance through the most trying period in our economic history. That is why I said not long ago that we were many years too late with respect to this social legislation.
In 1934-35 the government of the day did introduce legislation looking towards national unemployment insurance, and it was enacted into law, but not without the most vociferous opposition from gentlemen opposite, at that time sitting here, that I have ever experienced, on the plea that we had not the authority to do it. That bill was based on the theory of the treaty-making power under the British North America Act, and it was also based on the further powers that are recited in the preamble to the bill. I recall having had something to do with the preparation of that preamble, and I have always thought that if the legislation had been attacked, not by way of a stated case or reference, as was done by the government of my right hon. friend, but in a concrete case raising specifically the question involved in the reference, the result might have been different. I have no doubt in the world that if you want to get a correct solution of the problem of constitutionality the least likely method of obtaining a proper decision is that followed by hon. gentlemen opposite. However, the government of the day was defeated and went out of office, and in accordance with pledges made to the people
Unemployment Insurance

the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) referred the matter to the courts. I refer to it to-day only in order to keep the record straight.
This party is pledged to the principle of unemployment insurance. We endeavoured to implement that pledge to the best of our ability, having regard to all the circumstances of the time; and the act might have been allowed to go into force and effect, as it could have been at least until it was attacked and set aside, because nearly all the machinery had been set up and one of the most capable men in Canada had been installed as the head of the scheme. May I suggest to the Prime Minister that he probably could not do better to-day, when he comes to establish his scheme, if, as and when he does establish it, than by making use of the services of the gentleman to whom I have referred. That however is merely in passing.
The act was attacked by way of reference to the Supreme Court of Canada and subsequently went to the privy council, and, as the Minister of Justice has correctly stated, the decision of that august body was that the pith and substance of the legislation was an invasion of property and civil rights. With that decision we must be content. Perhaps the Minister of Justice at a later stage will inform us whether any representations were made in opposition to the proposal and to the principle involved. Personally I have heard of none, although I do know that recently proposals have been suggested from other quarters looking to another form of insurance. So far as I am aware they are still in the nebulous stage; nothing concrete has reached me at any rate. The legislation passed by the government of Right Hon. R. B. Bennett was declared ultra vires in 1936. The decision was rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada on January 28, 1937, and the decision of the privy council, delivered by Lord Atkin, was to the effect that in reality, in pith and substance, the legislation was an invasion of civil rights. The effect of that has been that we have lost five years at least in which we might have built up the reserve fund which is so essential to the successful operation of this social scheme. However, the Prime Minister and his government must take the responsibility for that.
The scheme is now being put forward one further step. I agree with the method adopted by the government having regard to the legal decisions. I know that the question of concurrent jurisdiction, and the other methods to which the Minister of Justice has referred, have been explored on various occasions, and there is objection, from the point of view of the legal decisions to which he has alluded and to which it is not necessary that I should refer

further. The method adopted is that of amendment to our constitution, and I know of no surer means of giving powers to this federal parliament than by that method. I am not in favour of the attempt to delegate powers or to hoist ourselves by our bootstraps by assuming powers delegated from another jurisdiction'-I will not say an inferior jurisdiction, because that might give offence in certain quarters. I have been attacked already on more than one occasion for having asserted the principle that we should have a strong central government. This motion, this address, is just another argument sustaining my position, that we ought to have a strong central government, because I cannot conceive of nine different systems of unemployment insurance in Canada. There must be a national system if we are to go that far, and I am further of the opinion that the passing of concurrent legislation would not be satisfactory. The passing of delegated authority would not be satisfactory, nor would the other methods to which the Minister of Justice has referred.
I am just wondering whether the Prime Minister will be able to give us any assurance that this address will be adopted and the legislation enacted at Westminster in time to make possible the enactment of a measure during the present session. I know this is a war session. I have the feeling that it is the intention of the government to get rid of parliament just as quickly as possible. I may be wrong in that; I may be doing hon. gentlemen opposite an injustice by even suggesting it. But it is understandable. Can the Prime Minister give us any assurance that the British parliament will give precedence to this measure? I am expressing no opinion; I have no opinion on that point.
This party is committed to the principle of unemployment insurance. Indeed if it had not been for hon. gentlemen opposite this country would have had it years ago; let there be no mistake about that.
I believe the Minister of Justice has adopted the proper method of attaining the end which the government now have in view. As far as we are concerned I promise the cooperation of this party in passing this address, and when the legislation itself comes down I promise him that we will examine the bill with the greatest care, will endeavour to strengthen it so far as may be necessary or desirable, and will in no way obstruct the principle of what is in my opinion very necessary social legislation for Canada.


Mr. M. J. COLD WELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: This resolution I think does not require very long discussion. Following the suggestion of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), we hope that the government, when the resolu-

tion is carried and other necessary steps have been taken, will'proceed to communicate with the British government with a view to obtaining the authority to enact this legislation immediately. The proper time to_ put a measure of this kind into effect is when industry is on the upturn and employment is increasing. It is not unlikely that when the war ends unemployment insurance will be as great a necessity as something of the kind was following the last great war.
This proposal to obtain power for the enactment of an unemployment insurance plan is one with which we are entirely in accord. Our predecessors in the house, labour and progressive members, ever since 1921 have been urging such an enactment, and although other groups in the country sometimes referred to schemes of this description as pernicious doles and so on, we believe that unemployment insurance should have been put into effect in the years immediately following the enactment of similar legislation in Great Britain. As has already been pointed out, it was promised by the leader of the Liberal party in 1919, twenty-one years ago, so that the proposal reaches its majority just now. I suppose that because of such majority hon. gentlemen have the feeling that they ought to enact it. I hope that some other promised legislation will not be delayed such a long time.
The time has arrived when, in agreement with the provinces, this dominion should have the right to amend its own constitution. I do not like this method of appealing to some other body across the sea. If we have reached the status of a self-governing dominion we ought to be in a position to exercise the power that should lie within this country itself. It ought not to be necessary to pass resolutions of this kind in order to amend our constitution.
One other criticism that I would make is that in our opinion the powers sought are not sufficiently wide. We do not propose to attempt to-day to amend the resolution in any way, but I regret that when the government are seeking power to enact social legislation of this kind they do not seek the wider power to enact social legislation generally, not restricting it merely to unemployment insurance. I know, of course, that the Sirois report has something to say in that connection. I should like to turn to it for a moment. At page 24 this is said:
The experience of the past decade is conclusive evidence that unemployment relief should be a dominion function. By unemployment relief we mean relief or aid for unemployed employables as distinct from unemployables. Provincial responsibility for other welfare services should continue and the provinces should be enabled financially to perform these services adequately. Provincial responsibility for social welfare should be deemed basic and general. Dominion responsibility on the other hand should be 95826-71
Unemployment Insurance
deemed an exception to the general rule and as such should be strictly defined. But the dominion should be given adequate jurisdiction to perform efficiently whatever responsibilities are entrusted to it.
The power we are requesting, of course, will make it possible for the dominion to be given adequate jurisdiction to perform efficiently this particular service. The report goes on to say:
The assumption of responsibility by the dominion for relief or aid of unemployed employables would entail:	(1) complete financial responsibility; (2) full control of administration.
To-day it is essential that we shall assume a greater responsibility in these matters than we have in the past. Our cities, our municipalities and our provinces are entirely unable to cope with the tremendous problem of unemployment and relief which has faced us during recent years. An unemployment insurance bill will not take care of all those responsibilities, because always there will be a large number of unemployed employables who will not come within the scope of the measure. Consequently it seems to us that the dominion ought to assume a greater measure of responsibility in regard to these matters.
The assumption by the dominion of responsibility for other types of social legislation becomes more pressing as the days go by. I have in mind old age pensions as another social responsibility which this parliament now shares with the provinces. The Minister of Justice a few moments ago explained why the old age pension scheme was undertaken in the way it was. But it seems to us that when asking for the power to deal with unemployment insurance we might have gone further and asked for the power to deal with other necessary and similar social legislation. Old age pensions is undoubtedly one of the national social schemes which will have to be developed to a greater extent than we have so far developed it in Canada. In Great Britain under war conditions they have recently increased the benefits under old age pensions, and have a contributory scheme as well. In the Sirois report there is a recommendation to that effect at page 43. Under the heading " Jurisdiction in Social Insurance -Conclusions " I find this:
We have concluded that two types of social insurance-unemployment insurance and contributory old age pensions-are inherently of a national character. . . .
Then, a little later:
The simplest method would appear to be to provide for concurrent jurisdiction in social insurance.
That is, social insurance of other types. Old age pensions and unemployment insurance

Unemployment Insurance

are of national importance and therefore should be national responsibilities. So that while we commend this resolution and are supporting it because we agree with the object in view, we regret that when seeking this power from the imperial parliament the government did not go one step further and ask at least for power to enact social legislation of the types recommended in the Sirois report.
This legislation is long overdue. Canada remains one of the few modem countries-[DOT] that is, modern in the sense of being industrialized-without legislation of this kind on its statute books. I was glad when the Bennett administration enacted its social legislation in 1934. I agree with the leader of the opposition that if that legislation had remained on the statute book and gone into effect, in all probability the decision later rendered by the supreme court might have been different. However, that is past history. We want to see this power obtained; we want to see the legislation enacted, because after all there is another aspect of social insurance of this description that we sometimes overlook, the aspect which caused it to be put in effect in many countries after the great war- the fact that it is insurance against social upheaval. It tends to give the working people a certain measure of social security, and to that extent prevents the rise of discontent and the consequent threat to the entire social and economic structure. Following a war, measures of this description have been found necessary, and now that we are entering upon a period which, if we fulfil our obligations to our allies as I anticipate we shall, will be a period of expanding employment, with fewer unemployed employables in our midst, this is the time to enact an unemployment insurance measure, not a year from now. We are glad, therefore, to support the resolution, though we should have liked to see wider powers asked for than are envisaged in the present resolution.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, there has been no enthusiasm in this group for unemployment insurance of the type now proposed. The chief reason for that is that we have recognized that unemployment insurance of the kind proposed simply is not the solution. It is characteristic of human beings to keep chasing after glittering baubles and then to discover that after all they are only baubles.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


John Horne Blackmore: Of course my remark excites merriment, but the day will come when all members of this house will recognize that what I am saying is correct The solution
[Mr. Coldwell.l
of our problems lies far deeper than unemployment insurance. For just one reason I really wish the pious desire of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) could have been fulfilled, and that we could have tried this thing out four or five years ago. That reason is this. If we had tried it out four years ago we now should have realized that it is of very little value and that we must go to work to find a real solution.
The problem which confronts this generation is the problem of distribution. I think practically everyone realizes that we are in an age of abundance. Five years ago, when this group began to make that declaration in this house, smiles of patronizing good nature and indulgence were to be seen on the faces of hon. members, much like those we saw a few moments ago. The number of hon. members who seemed to doubt that we were in an age of abundance was very considerable. But five years of bumping our heads against the hard stones of reality have pretty well convinced everyone of the truth of that statement. Now our problem is to distribute that abundance.


Mr. THORSON:: Where is the abundance in Saskatchewan, for example?


John Horne Blackmore: To-day the people of Saskatchewan are wondering where they are going to sell their wheat.


Richard Burpee Hanson: So is this government.


John Horne Blackmore: Let the people of Saskatchewan and the people of Canada as a whole have their productive capacity liberated by a sane financial and credit system and there will be such a superabundance of virtually everything you could name that this country can produce that people will be at their wits' end to know where to market their goods, which indicates beyond any shadow of doubt that we are in an age and a land of abundance.
The national credit of this country can be used to distribute this abundance, but unemployment insurance is not one of the methods for carrying out that distribution. It is therefore only a palliative and will be found to be a disappointment. People will begin to realize the seriousness of that disappointment just when there is the greatest need for something of real value.
If we face things realistically we all recognize that to-day our greatest need is more purchasing power in the hands of the people. We need that extra purchasing power right now, first of all to raise the standard of living of our people from one coast to the other. Everyone recognizes that the standard of living is shamefully low. That is abundant evidence that we need more purchasing power

Unemployment Insurance
in the hands of the people. If we could get that purchasing power into their hands so they could buy more, we would immediately encourage the production of butter, cream, milk and every other commodity which we can produce so generously in this country. If w'e could so increase our production, unquestionably we would increase our national income; for production is the thing that makes real wealth. If we could increase our national income, beyond question we could increase our national revenue; for you get national revenue from national income and you get national income from production and you do not encourage production by taxing it or by limiting the purchasing power in the hands of the people.
This measure proposes nothing more or less than a new tax on top of the painful ones imposed yesterday. I say " painful " without committing myself either to approval or disapproval of the budget. In the last analysis we are not going to tax all the people because all the people are not employed. As the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) said, we can never possibly reach all the people. We will be least likely to reach those who are suffering the most. Consequently this proposal is exactly the opposite to what we ought to have.
We need not unemployment insurance but employment insurance. Employment insurance could be obtained by giving the people work. People would be able to obtain work once there was an abundance of production. Therefore, we should be devising ways and means of increasing production in this country. Then employment would take care of itself and so would unemployment insurance. How to increase production is the problem we should be wrestling with in this house. If we could manage to extend credit in such a way that the producers could produce freely and expand purchasing power so that the people could buy that production freely, then there would be immediate employment. I submit that it is along these lines that the real solution lies.
May I turn for a moment or two to the question of centralized control. Parrot cries have been heard from one end of the country to the other, apparently actuated by some inspirer behind the scenes, all clamouring for centralized control. The idea seems to be that if you take five, six or seven families, any one of which cannot make a living by itself, and put them all tightly together so that some one can control their every movement, you are going to have every family succeed. Such is not the case and such will not prove to be the case in Canada. We do 95826-71J
not need a strong centralized government. Do hon. members wonder why we never heard anything about this need for a strong centralized government until the last ten or fifteen years? Why was it that this country got along very well for many decades? There was no disagreement between the central government and the provincial governments until the depression came along.


Mr. MARTIN:: There are different kinds of provincial governments now.


John Horne Blackmore: Does that indicate that the principle of federation as it has been followed during the past decades is wrong, or does it indicate that we are faced with a new set of conditions? We are not going to be able to solve the problem caused by overproduction or abundant production and small employment by clamping on a strong centralized government which can force the people to stand the misery they are suffering and which will give them no chance to solve their own problems locally. If we govern this country in the right way there will be no need of a strong central government. Every province desires to be a member of a strong British union in Canada, but every province feels that it has a right to a decent standard of living. The thing this house should be considering is how to enable the provinces to have a decent standard of living. We would then have no need for strong central governments.
My group is going to support this unemployment insurance scheme. We have but little faith in it, but we want to see the people who believe in it convinced. A tremendous number of people can convince themselves only by bumping their heads against stone walls. Probably the best thing that could happen is to let the people bump their heads. They will soon find that unemployment insurance is only a bauble, is only a glittering make-believe that will lead but to disappointment and perhaps to despair.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) and other hon. members who have spoken for particular groups have each referred to their own attitude and that of their respective followings towards an unemployment insurance act. The hon. leader of the opposition outlined the steps taken by the Conservative party during a previous administration to have an unemployment insurance act placed upon the statutes and put into force. The acting leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Coldwell) has referred to the frequent intimations which his group had given
Unemployment Insurance

of their desire to see an unemployment insurance act placed upon the statutes. The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) described the attitude of his group with respect to this particular measure. His description, if I recollect aright, was of its being a sort of stone-wall attitude. He is quite agreeable to support the measure, and I want to thank him for his support, but in doing so may I say that I hope the result will not prove as disastrous as he seems to think it will.
I might perhaps be permitted to say a word or two concerning the attitude of the Liberal party towards unemployment insurance. In so doing I should like to go as far back as the time when I had the honour of being chosen the leader of my party. I refer to the national Liberal convention which was held in 1919. At that convention a resolution was passed endorsing social legislation as part of the Liberal policy.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That was only a chart.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was part
of a chart, a chart which has been carried out increasingly ever since. At the time it was recognized that there were two matters which would have to be considered carefully in connection with any social legislation. One was the financial position of the dominion and the provinces and the other the all-important question of jurisdiction as between the provinces and the dominion. The resolution passed in 1919 was expressed in the following words:
In so far as it may be practicable, having regard to Canada's financial position, an adequate system of insurance against unemployment, sickness, dependence, old age and other disability should be instituted by the federal government in conjunction with the governments of the several provinces.
When the Liberal administration came into office in 1921 we indicated our hope that while we were in office we might soon be in a position to enact some measure of social insurance. It took time to gain that end. It was a new field for a federal administration to enter. Old age pensions appeared to be the obvious place to begin. It was possible to obtain the cooperation of the provinces for such a measure more readily than for one respecting unemployment, invalidity or health insurance. An old age pensions measure was enacted by the Liberal administration in office in 1927. In 1928 the same administration, continuing in office, invited this house to consider in one of its committees the advisability of following that enactment by one respecting unemployment insurance. The matter was referred to the standing committee on industrial and international relations. That committee made

a report at the end of the session of 1928 to the effect that unemployment insurance was desirable, but the committee recognized the fact that one province could not act alone and recommended further study of the matter. The same committee met in the following year, 1929, and reported, approving the principle but noting the opinion of the Department of Justice that the jurisdiction was provincial, and a report from the Minister of Labour that the provinces had been consulted and most of them were not disposed to act. I have before me the answers given by the different provinces at that time, and they indicate quite clearly that the provinces themselves were not favourable to the enactment of an unemployment insurance measure by the federal government.
In 1933 when in opposition I made a statement to the house of Liberal principles on a number of different matters-that was not the chart; it was the occasion of the fourteen points-and one of the points was that, "As a permanent measure the Liberal party is pledged to introduce policies which will serve to provide employment by revising industry and trade, and to introduce a national system of unemployment insurance.
Then, as my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has said, Mr. Bennett, who was then Prime Minister, introduced in 1935 his bill respecting unemployment insurance." Knowing the position taken by most if not all of the provinces to the effect that an unemployment insurance measure would invade their jurisdiction if enacted as a federal act, we of the opposition of the day felt it necessary to point out to -the government that they were seeking to enact, we assumed knowingly, a measure which was not within the competence of this parliament and the validity of which would be questioned immediately if an effort were made to put it into force.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If the
Prime Minister will allow me, I omitted to say in my remarks-and he will recall that this is correct-that before Mr. Bennett introduced that legislation we had what we considered the best legal opinion in Canada, and not from one source only but from more than one.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I recall that certain legal opinion was cited but it was very strongly combated by legal opinion that we on our side regarded as even better, and as events turned out it so proved. At all events what we did suggest was not that the act should not be passed but rather that before any attempts were made to put its provisions into effect, advantage should be

Unemployment Insurance
taken of the Supreme Court Act to have the measure referred to the supreme court for an opinion which would decide beyond any question of doubt whether the proposed unemployment insurance measure, if given the force of law, would be valid and its provisions thereafter unquestioned as coming within the competence of this parliament. Hon. members no doubt are aware that there is a section in the Supreme Court Act which was enacted for the very purpose of meeting situations of the kind. The section gives the supreme court authority to determine and pronounce finally in advance so as to avoid unnecessary expense and also the inconvenience and annoyance that are occasioned by a measure being subsequently disallowed. Section 55 of the Supreme Court Act gives the court special jurisdiction with respect to references by governor in council. It reads:
Important questions of law or fact touching
(a)	the interpretation of the British North America Acts, or
(b)	the constitutionality or interpretation of any dominion or provincial legislation, or

(d) the powers of the parliament of Canada, or of the legislatures of the provinces, or of the respective governments thereof, whether or not the particular power in question has been or is proposed to be exercised, may be referred by the governor in council to the supreme court for hearing and consideration; and any question touching any of the matters aforesaid, so referred by the governor in council, shall be conclusively deemed to be an important question.

The opinion of the court upon any such reference, although advisory only, shall, for all purposes of appeal to his majesty in council, be treated as a final judgment of the said court between parties.
In other words, we of the opposition of the day felt that to put the act into force would necessarily involve a very large expenditure, also the making of a considerable number of important appointments. We expressed the view that before the people's money was used for the purpose of an enactment about which there was doubt as to the competence of parliament, it was advisable that that doubt should be removed altogether.
The leader of the Conservative party of the day would, however, not pay any heed to the representations which were made. The act was passed and found its place on the statutes and several appointments, if I recall aright, were made under it. The Conservative party was not returned to power at the election which immediately ensued. The present administration came into office and we immediately referred the question of the validity of the act to the supreme court for
decision. The supreme court gave its decision, which was in accordance with the view which we held at the time we opposed the measure. An appeal was then taken to the judicial committee of the privy council in England and the privy council upheld the decision of the supreme court. My hon. friend will I think agree that in seeking a final decision by the judicial committee of the privy council in the old country, we were seeking and securing the opinion of as high an authority as was possible. It was in that way that the unemployment insurance enactment of the late conservative administration fell to the ground.
We then immediately sought to bring in a measure of unemployment insurance which would be beyond question as to its validity. The difficult but most necessary part of the whole business was to get the consent of the several provinces. That has not been an easy matter. My hon. friend has referred to our having lost a good deal of time in getting an unemployment insurance act upon the statutes. I agree with him that it is unfortunate that a lot of time has been lost, but it has been lost, not at the instance of the federal government, but at the instance of the provinces which would not agree to an enactment by the federal government. While, however, we have lost time in that way, we have made an exceedingly important gain in another direction, which, in the end, may mean much saving of time, namely, to-day we are able to introduce an act which carries with it the consent of every single province of this dominion. That is a very great achievement. Up until this year we were unable to secure from all of the provinces an approval which would enable us to say: We have the provinces in complete agreement with us as to amending the British North America Act in a manner which will enable this federal government to pass an unemployment insurance measure without possible question as to its validity being raised either now or later on. I feel that that achievement of itself will in the long run be most valuable. We have avoided anything in the nature of coercion of any of the provinces. Moreover we have avoided the raising of a very critical constitutional question, namely, whether or not in amending the British North America Act it is absolutely necessary to secure the consent of all the provinces, or whether the consent of a certain number of provinces would of itself be sufficient. That question may come up but not in reference to unemployment insurance at some time later on. For the present at any rate we have escaped
Unemployment Insurance

any pitfall in that direction and we are now able to bring in a measure which has the complete support of all the provinces.
I have tabled this afternoon the correspondence which has taken place between the dominion and the provinces. It is I think of a historical character. It is as important I believe as any material that appears in the volumes of the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations. For that reason I suggested a little earlier to-day that it might be printed in the votes and proceedings of to-day so as to be found permanently in the records of this parliament.
I do not think I need say more. As a matter of fact, not having received the consent of all nine provinces until this year, we could not possibly before this particular session have introduced in a manner which would avoid all questions a measure for the amendment of the British North America Act. There were, if I recollect aright, three provinces, namely New Brunswick, Quebec and Alberta, which prior to the beginning of this year had not given their full approval. But each of these provinces, recognizing the national importance of this measure, and, I believe being moved to see it in a clearer light as a consequence of the problems which are inevitable at this time of war and which will arise when the war is over, have agreed to join with the federal government in giving unanimous approval to the enactment of the measure.
That enables me, I hope, to answer in part the question which my hon. friend the leader of the opposition asked, and which was, whether the government can give any undertaking that the measure will be put through at the present session of parliament. I believe that, inasmuch as this resolution will pass the House of Commons with the approval of hon. members on all sides, and that it is pretty certain to meet with like approval in the other house, the government at Westminster will lose no time in passing the amendment which we are requesting by resolution. How long that will take in the present circumstances no one, of course, can say. But I should be rather astonished if it is not possible, notwithstanding present conditions, for the government at Westminster to amend the British North America Act, in accordance with our wishes, within a day or two. I should think that it would not be necessary to wait to send Britain the submissions by mail, but that, the circumstances being what they are, a cable from the ministry informing the British government that both our houses

of parliament had unanimously agreed to the address and requesting that action be taken as speedily as possible, would be met with very prompt action on the part of the British government.
As soon as the British North America Act is amended in the particular required a bill will be introduced, and it is certainly our intention and desire to have the bill go through at the present session. There will have to be something wholly unforeseen at this moment to prevent that course being carried out by the government. It is certainly our present expectation as well as our present desire.
I may have omitted reference to some other matters which have been mentioned, but I believe the only one is that alluded to by my hon. friend the acting leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group, who regretted that it was not possible for us to make the request to the British government somewhat larger, more all-embracing, than the one which is being made and which is confined to unemployment insurance. May I say that, if we had ventured to go beyond unemployment insurance, we would probably have met with further objections on the part of some, if not of all, of the provinces. As the correspondence will show, one of the circumstances which enabled us to get the approval of all of the provinces was the fact that we were asking for only one amendment, specifically related to unemployment insurance. I imagine the provinces have felt that they would like to wait and see just how that amendment works out before they give their consent to amendments of wider scope.


Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: As one who in quite a number of sessions' has advocated unemployment insurance, I am going to support the resolution, and I hope that I shall be able also to support the main provisions of the bill. I appreciate the difficulty which the government has had. Having taken the stand that it was a constitutional question, they have proceeded from that point of view, after having appealed to the privy council for its decision, and are preparing to bring in a bill with the consent of all the provinces.
There are, I believe, only two other federated nations having unemployment insurance laws which have had the same problem to grapple with. In Switzerland, with its twenty-five cantons, they could not come to the same satisfactory conclusion as has now been reached in Canada, where all the provinces are in unison with regard to carrying out the plan. The result in Switzerland was that in nine of the cantons there are compulsory unemployment insurance laws; in fourteen the law is

Unemployment Insurance
non-compulsory, and two cantons have no unemployment insurance whatever. In my judgment that is not satisfactory.
While I should like to have seen in operation during the past five years the bill which was passed by the Conservative government in 1935, I am willing to concede that if the present government felt it necessary for the sake of harmony to take the course they have done, possibly a great deal has not been lost through waiting until to-day. In the United States, of course, there was the same trouble: they have forty-eight states. I have often wondered why even the present government, at the first session, in 1936, could not have followed -the United States plan. I am not saying that theirs is as good a system as the one in operation in Great Britain, but it might have been amended and reconsidered to suit our situation here. In the United States each state had the -same power as each province of Canada claims to have. That is, any unemployment law could have been enacted by each individual state. That difficulty was overcome through the enactment by the federal government of an unemployment insurance act which they believed would be satisfactory to each state, and then, to induce the states to put unemployment insurance into operation, they undertook to return to each state as a federal state tax -the taxes collected with relation to unemployment insurance.
I should like to have asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) after he spoke whether this government has looked into the United States federal system.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister nods his head. Then apparently the government discarded the United States system. There is no reason why if it was workable it could not have been in operation here during the last five years.
I intend to speak for only a moment or two, but I should like to comment on the opinion expressed by the leader of the Social Credit group (Mr. Blackmore), that unemployment insurance cannot be a success. It has been my pleasure to visit over quite a number of years many countries

Germany, Holland, France, Great Britain, and various states of the American union-which have unemployment insurance in operation, and my observation is that the legislation has been an unqualified success. In Great Britain it has been marvellously successful. I do not know what -they could have done without their unemployment insurance act. With the aid of the funds which they are
accumulating under their unemployment insurance law they are looking forward confidently to being able for a long period to take care of the men who will probably be thrown out of work at the conclusion of the war. Through the increase in employment in the manufacture of armaments and munitions, unemployment insurance contributions have increased to an enormous sum of money, which explains in some degree why the benefits under their present law were recently increased. To-day the British unemployment insurance act surpasses anything elsewhere and has met the fondest wishes of their working men.
I became quite a number of years ago an advocate of unemployment insurance because of my association with large numbers of working men. From time to time I saw men thrown out of work, sometimes under circumstances of peculiar hardship. I have in mind one man who was thrown out of work after thirty years, without obtaining any compensation. That was manifestly unfair. The company for -whom he worked did not feel disposed to give him a pension, and as he had had nothing to do with contributing to any unemployment insurance fund he received nothing from any such source. Others who had served twenty-nine, twenty-eight, twenty-seven, twenty-six, twenty-five years, and so on, were thrown out of employment. In one case a man worked forty-five years but because of intermittent employment he was unable to put aside anything and when he was thrown out of work he had nothing to fall back on.
I am firmly convinced that unemployment insurance is one of the finest pieces of social legislation any government can enact, and I shall be glad to support it now, even though it comes five years later than in my opinion we should have had it.


Mr. G. E. WOOD (Brant):: I am to some extent in accord with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) in his appeal to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) to apply for wider powers than he is asking for in connection with unemployment insurance, but after listening to the reasons given by the Prime Minister I have come to the conclusion that it would be better to adopt a programme of going slowly and making steady progress in that way than to ask for too much and risk getting nothing at all. Up to that point I am prepared to give my support to the measure and I will accept the point of view put forward.
Unemployment insurance has received a great deal of thought especially from the standpoint of our industrial centres. Speaking
Unemployment Insurance

for the people I represent, and I believe for the farmers of the dominion at large, I suggest that this is another of the measures that will add to the burden upon agriculture. We do not want to play the dog in the manger, and to say that because we are not sharing in the benefits of certain legislation we wish to deprive other citizens of those benefits. The unfortunate thing is that only a small proportion of the population of Canada will be in a position to enjoy all the privileges of this legislation.
The reason I am in harmony with the point of view of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is that I should like to see the scope of this type of legislation broadened so as to take in the farmers. I have followed with a reasonable degree of interest the social legislation of many countries, particularly where such legislation has made considerable strides, as in the United States, but unfortunately none of it makes any provision for the farmers. It seems that the farmer has to supply the food of the nation at less than cost, and in the last ten years of economic warfare he has been the real veteran. He has supplied the food of the employer in the city at less than cost and he finds himself to-day receiving a smaller portion every year of the national wealth of the country. In 1914 he received about 16 per cent of the national income. To-day he receives less than 9 per cent. It seems to me that we are putting upon society, upon the taxpayer, another burden which will increase the cost of goods to the farmer, the cost of the things he has to buy, without giving him any compensation. True, the leader of the Social Credit party emphasized that we should have a decent standard of living. Well, it has been very difficult for me to interpret the term "decent standard of living," because there are eleven million people in Canada and I have come to the conclusion that there are eleven million standards of living. One man's standard of living may be quite different from that of another.
The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) was concerned last week about the effect of the high cost of living on the labouring population in view of the war situation. I would say to the hon. member that it is not always the high cost of living that affects us; it is the cost of high living. I am inclined to think that is largely true of the city man in relation to the man on the farm. I should like to see in our social legislation some provision for a contributory national pension scheme which would take the farmer into consideration. To-day he is not only supplying the food of the nation at less than cost, but he is making a great 
contribution to the education and to the social and industrial life of the country. He has mortgaged his farm to educate his sons, who have taken the industrial field and gone in for professional and academic life, using in many ways the abilities thus acquired to advance the very type of legislation that will make it more difficult for the old man to live on the farm. I should like to see the scheme of social legislation broadened so that the old man on the farm, after contributing all these years to the welfare of society, might benefit from a contributory national insurance scheme, something in which he could participate. After living all his time on the farm he would be unhappy if he moved into the city, but he could still live on the land and obtain a fair share of his living there, with a small monetary contribution in monthly payments such as many men to-day do not enjoy, although they have made their contribution to society.
When the bill comes down I intend to take the opportunity to discuss this matter further. I felt that it was my duty at this particular time to say something on behalf of a large section of the people of Canada who unfortunately, owing to the economic conditions that prevail, are struggling hard and making a considerable contribution to the national wealth of Canada without receiving anything in return. If Canada is to be a great nation we cannot afford to continue preferences to certain classes. The farmer is demanding that he come abreast in all the privileges and enjoyments of society. We should not ask from the taxpayers money to meet personal obligations. The unfortunate thing is that the man who is trying to raise his own family, live his own life, pay his honest debts, is taxed to pay old age pensions for the man who in many respects has wasted his time.
I believe that through a system of contributory insurance a man would be entitled to some of the wealth which he has created. Many are too proud to ask these privileges. I have come to the point where I am doubtful whether there is any type of non-contributory social legislation. We all contribute in some form; the unfortunate thing is the unequal distribution of the contribution we as taxpayers have been making. We are all contributors to social insurance, but unfortunately we are not all sharing in the enjoyment of it. I belong to a class representing the old pioneers of this country who, especially the farmers, were very reluctant to ask for these privileges, although they bowed their heads in assent to this advanced social legislation the privileges of which go largely to our industrial centres. Every man, I care not who he is, should make

Unemployment Insurance
some contribution in the days when he has power to do so towards his own social security. There is a saying that all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy; but while that is true it is also true that he generally has a bank account. We should all set aside a certain part of our income. The man who does not voluntarily realize the importance of thrift should be forced to assume his responsibility to himself for the days when he cannot earn his own living.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I have consistently and annually supported the principle of unemployment insurance since I was a member of the committee of this house which in 1922 recommended old age pensions and unemployment insurance. I want to 6ee a real system, and in view of the heavy burden which the government placed on industry yesterday it is their duty and function now to tell the employers what this scheme is. Is it compulsory; is it something the administration of which is later going to be shifted off in part on the municipalities or on the provinces? The employer yesterday was given six days to adjust income taxes with his employees. Is this bill going to be a meaningless thing or not? The government say, "as soon as possible." That is what the Liberal platform said in 1919 regarding unemployment insurance but twenty-one years afterwards it is still not in effect. It could have been put into effect by this government under the power in section 91 of the British North America Act under "public debt and property".
Following the practice of the last amendment by the parliament of the United Kingdom to the British North America Act the consent of the provinces must be given in the same form as this proposed address to-day, namely an address from each province. Another question is, how is this going to affect the present relief votes? Will it enable the government to shelter itself behind the statement that we have an act of the United Kingdom for unemployment insurance and cut these relief votes? Technical education was recognized as a federal responsibility by the commission appointed in the days of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, yet was shunted off on the provinces and municipalities, and so was old age pensions.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) must not be too sure about getting this amendment through the British parliament in a day or two. I can tell him there are other applications to amend a constitution, one of them dealing with a very grave situation in India; and the British government had to
tell them that it will have to be postponed until after the war. They want home rule all along the line, something that may affect the war effort. South Africa and the southern part of Ireland have been considering like applications. Anyone who has the interests of the empire at heart realizes that these are very grave times for the mother country; and while I have supported this principle and support this application now, this is a very grave time to ask for this legislation if we are not going to put it into effect right away. "As soon as possible" does not mean anything. Will it be put into effect this year?
Until the enactment of the statute of Westminster there was no doubt that we had to go to the British parliament for these amendments. But this Dominion of Canada has a written constitution, that of 1867, and rules of strict law off it under the British North America Act. The southern part of Ireland was given a somewhat similar constitution, by the Irish treaty of 1921. The moment the statute of Westminster had been passed, although Mr. Lloyd George, the attorney general of England; Right Hon. F. E. Smith; Sir Austen Chamberlain and many eminent lawyers said at the time that the statute of Westminster would not change one word of the written constitution of southern Ireland, they changed every article of that constitution, including the abolition of appeals to the privy council. What will be the effect of the statute of Westminster on this application as far as Canada is concerned? No doubt that point will be raised when the matter comes up in the imperial parliament. I hope this will not lead to giving Canada the right to change its own constitution at will, as was given to one other dominion; the provinces must also consent to that.
These are very grave times for the mother of parliaments, and while I support the application, as I have always supported this principle, I do not want to see this a meaningless thing, just getting an amendment of the British North America Act and then having it stand for months and years. We are thirty-one years behind the mother country. She got this splendid social legislation in 1909; under the Liberal platform we were to get it in 1919, and here twenty-one years later we have not got it yet; there is only a proposal for enabling legislation, with no details or plan. This is going to open the door to applications from India and the two other dominions I have named at a very grave time for the empire. In view of the heavy burden put upon industry and agriculture by the government yesterday the government should tell the house and the country, employers of

Unemployment Insurance
labour and the working classes, who are most anxious to have relief from the terrible social and economic burden they are suffering to-day, what this scheme is, what the details are, what the cost will be and who pays it. If it is going to mean an additional burden added to real estate we should know and the country should know before the legislation is passed.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I shall
be only a few moments in my advocacy of this resolution. Unemployment insurance is a very important part of the programme of national reform upon which this country must embark. I wish, however, to dispute the contention that it is necessary to obtain the consent of the provinces before an application is made to amend the British North America Act. In my opinion there is no such necessity. On the other hand, it is the course of wisdom to advance as advances may be properly made, and I am sure that every hon. member is very glad that all the provinces of Canada have agreed to this measure. But I would not wish this debate to conclude with an acceptance, either direct or implied, of the doctrine that it is necessary to obtain the consent of the provinces before an application is made to amend the British North America Act. Fortunately, this is an academic question at this time.


Ernest Lapointe: May I
tell my hon. friend that neither the Prime Minister nor I have said that it is necessary, but it may be desirable.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has made it perfectly clear that the question does not enter into this discussion, in view of the fact that all the provinces have signified their willingness that this amendment should be requested.
There is one other matter to which I should like to make reference. It seems to me that at this stage, and in view of the development of this country as a nation, our present method of proceeding with constitutional reform is archaic. We ought to have definitely within our own hands the power of making such constitutional amendments as commend themselves to the people of Canada, without having to take the steps that are now necessary. In view of the fact, however, that we have not yet ourselves outlined the procedure for amending our constitution, apparently this is the only road open to us. I hope that this will be an incentive to us to devise ways and means of amending our constitution, so that when other constitutional reforms commend themselves to the people of Canada we may put such reforms into effect of our own motion.

These are the only two points that I wish to make. I am sure that we are all glad that this very necessary measure of national reform is about to be implemented.


Mr. W. F. KUHL (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Speaker, with most of the later remarks of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Thorson) who has just taken his seat I quite heartily agree, although with his first remarks I disagree. The hon. gentleman suggested that this was one of the steps necessary to the social progress of this country. Of course we are unable to pass judgment as to the effect of this step on economic conditions in Canada until we have the actual measure before us, so that we may see in just what manner this unemployment insurance scheme is to be conducted; but if it is going to be managed in the same manner that practically all other measures are handled, we can rest quite assured, I believe, that any funds necessary for this purpose will be obtained through either increased taxation or borrowing, which in the final analysis amounts to the same thing. Consequently, while I greatly dislike to suggest it, I feel that any proposal which is going to lead to increased taxation or borrowing can be described as nothing but a redistribution of power. What we want in this country is a distribution of the wealth, which is actually and potentially great. As my leader pointed out this afternoon, that is the problem with which the government is faced. Personally I do not think it is at all necessary to obtain any amendment to the British North America Act to bring about that condition. There are at the present time plenty of facilities available which the government could use to enable the people of Canada collectively to provide for their own security.
As I have already stated, with the later remarks of the hon. member for Selkirk I heartily agree. As most hon. members know, I have been particularly interested in the constitutional aspect of our situation, and in times past have made a few addresses on this subject. As I have said before, I do not pretend to be an expert; I look at the matter merely from the point of view of a layman wishing to see conditions here of which we can be proud and which will enable us to perform our duties most effectively. As has been indicated by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and the hon. member for Selkirk, there should be no reason why we in Canada could not amend our constitution without referring to the imperial parliament. That situation, as I see it, is just one

Unemployment Insurance
of the many anomalies still existing in relation to our constitutional position, and it is one which I am sure every one agrees should be removed at the earliest possible opportunity.
In connection with the power to amend our own constitution, and the contradiction that exists in that regard, once again I should like to refer to a few sentences appearing in the report of the imperial conference of 1926. I am sure most people who think of these matters must ask themselves this question: If we are a nation; if we are self-governing; if we have the right to determine our own affairs, why must we proceed to the imperial parliament to seek an amendment to our constitution? On the one hand we claim that we are independent, that we are free, that we are self-governing; on the other hand we resort to steps which deny what we claim to believe. The report of the inter-imperial relations committee, presented to the imperial conference of 1926, contains this reference to the units which compose the British empire:
They are autonomous communities within the British empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the crown, and freely associated as members of the British commonwealth of nations.
If that is the condition which obtains in the relationship of the various parts of the empire to the mother country, then I also cannot see why Canada should not have the right to amend her own constitution.
It is rather unfortunate that this matter should be raised in the house at this time. In my opinion this question of amending the British North America Act is not the only issue involved in regard to constitutional matters. I believe this raises the whole constitutional position in Canada at this time; and the situation is such that I believe we ought do something definite to remedy it and put our constitutional house in order. With the hour being so serious as it is, it is most inappropriate to precipitate anything in the way of constitutional trouble at this time. Conditions being what they are in Canada to-day, there is sufficient to cause a first-class constitutional crisis. I would be much happier if the government would see fit to refrain from dealing with constitutional matters until such time as the atmosphere is more conducive to discussing and debating a measure of that kind.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The constitutional question depends upon the British fleet.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: The fear I have in connection with this method of amending the British North America Act, our so-called constitution, is that we shall be setting up a precedent or
more or less giving approval or sanction to constitutional conditions which obtain at the moment. Personally I do not wish to do that. As I said previously, there are in our constitutional position many anomalies which I think ought to be removed. I shall not deal at any length with these, but I should like to suggest a few of them in order to outline the problem which still confronts us constitutionally.
First is the method of amending our constitution. There certainly should be some regular and established method of amending our constitution. Next we have the anomalous position which obtains with regard to the governor general. The inter-imperial relations committee indicated in 1926 the position of the governor general since the enactment of the statute of Westminster, when it stated:
In our opinion it is an essential consequence of the equality of status existing among the members of the British commonwealth of nations that the governor general of a dominion is the representative of the crown, holding in all essential respects the same position in relation to the administration of public affairs in the dominion as is held by His Majesty the King in Great Britain, and that he is not the representative or agent of His Majesty's government in Great Britain or of any department of the government.
It must be quite obvious to everyone from a reading of that paragraph that since 1931 the position of the governor general has been that of personal representative of His Majesty the King. That is quite proper. Yet, on the other hand, there are sections of the British North America Act which grant the governor general authority over certain matters in Canada. Section 11 of the British North America Act gives to the governor general the power to summon, appoint and remove from time to time members of the privy council of Canada. Under section 14 he has the authority to appoint a commisioner of the Yukon territory. Under section 24 he is instructed upon how to appoint the senate. Under sections 55, 56 and 57 he is given the power of disallowance over dominion legislation. Under section 90 he is given the power of disallowance over provincial legislation. If the governor general is merely the representative of His Majesty the King; if he has no more authority over governmental affairs in Canada than has His Majesty the King in Great Britain, then no such authority as is granted by these sections should be extended to the governor general.
The power of disallowance is an anomaly which should not exist in a democratic country. It is a relie of colonialism. It certainly is not compatible with the fundamental principles of democracy.
Unemployment Insurance

Another anomaly exists in connection with our status as citizens. We claim that Canada is a nation, and yet not one of us has the privilege of stating that he is a Canadian. There is in our statutes no provision by which we can state that we are of Canadian nationality. People who have been born in Canada should have the right to claim Canadian nationality.
I omitted to refer to the senate. To have a governmental body appointed with authority over the people's elected representative is something which I think should not be tolerated in a democratic country. There certainly should be a good deal of reform with regard to the position of the senate.
Then we refer to the government as the federal government. If my understanding of the meaning of the terms " federal government " and " federal union " is correct, there must have been a time when we ratified a constitution creating a federal union and federal government in Canada. My knowledge of history does not indicate any time in the past when we ratified such a constitution. In addresses which I have delivered in the past I have indicated-


Mr. SPEAKER:: I do not like to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but he is travelling far beyond the confines of this resolution.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: I am simply enumerating several of the anomalies which exist in our constitutional position. The method of amending the British North America Act is one.


Ernest Lapointe: We are dealing with this particular amendment.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: I am simply stating that all
these anomalies should be dealt with, including the method of amending the British North America Act.
I should like to refer to one more anomaly before concluding this portion of my remarks. We have no federal district in Canada. In every other federal union there is a proper federal district which is controlled by the federal government. That should be the case in Canada. Canada is the only country in the world without a distinctive national flag. We heard a great deal about this from the former member for North Battleford, Mr. McIntosh.


Georges Parent: I must call the hon.
gentleman to order. The resolution before the house does not deal with a national flag. I ask the hon. member again to confine himself to *the terms of the resolution as strictly as he possibly can.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had almost concluded that portion of my remarks. I have enumerated what I believe

are other anomalies in addition to the one which exists in connection with the measure now under consideration. I believe that the best possible advice with regard to removing the anomaly in connection with amending our constitution is to be found in the recommendations contained in the report of the special committee of 1935 on the British North America Act.


Georges Parent: I must again call the
attention of the hon. member to the fact that he is referring to the growth and removal of anomalies. What we are concerned with in this resolution is an application under the existing law to amend our constitution, and I would again ask the hon. member to address himself to that question.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: Is it your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that nothing in connection with ways and means of amending our constitution can be discussed on this measure?


Georges Parent: The sole subject before
the house is a concrete application to amend the constitution. If the hon. member is against this method of approach he has the right so to express himself, but he is not in order in discussing anomalies in our constitution. That is not within the confines of the resolution.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I
bow to your ruling, but I feel nevertheless that it is drawing the line pretty closely. I shall, however, endeavour to conclude as strictly in accordance with your ruling as I can.
I believe the anomaly could be overcome by overhauling our whole constitutional position. If we are to have a constitution in harmony with the constitutional principles of democracy, we can achieve it only by a complete overhauling. I see no other way of doing it than by starting right from the beginning, with an interprovincial conference followed by the drafting of a constitution which will deal adequately not only with this question but with all the other anomalies in our constitutional position. I am sorry, sir, that on this occasion of seeking to amend the British North America Act the circumstances of the war do not enable us to deal more adequately with our general constitutional position, but I trust that before many more years have passed we shall feel more free to express ourselves and to enact measures which will adequately take care of such measures as the one with which we are now dealing.


Mr. A. R. ADAMSON (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I am heartily in support of this resolution to amend the British North America Act so as to allow parliament to bring unemployment insurance into force in Canada. In an

Unemployment Insurance
industrial riding such as mine it is an absolute necessity that workers in industries which may be tremendously affected not only by foreign affairs but even by climatic conditions must feel that they have security of employment. I am only sorry that such a measure was not put into force five years ago, and the constitutional question could have been fought out after the measure was in effect. In that connection I agree very largely with the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson) in his remarks about our right to amend the constitution. While I am not learned in the law, I come from an industrial riding, and being industrially and nationally minded I cannot help feeling that this proposed measure might well go further. I feel that it does not go nearly far enough.
I hope I am not transgressing your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that we must not discuss matters which are not strictly relevant to the resolution, when I say that in my opinion the British North America Act should be made more flexible than it is now. We have had this act since 1867. It was amended in 1931 by the statute of Westminster. Now we are seeking another amendment. All legislation, no matter how perfect it may be at the time it is passed, is bound to become obsolete. Nothing is permanent except change. The act of 1S67 is not applicable to conditions today and many of its clauses are archaic. I should like to make the suggestion that at some time in the future the British North America Act should be treated as we treat the Bank Act and come up for review and revision at the end of every decennial period.
This resolution deals solely with unemployment insurance, but to-day we see many of our provinces and cities setting up what almost amount to tariff barriers. The province of New Brunswick, for example, and the province of Quebec, have imposed taxes on cigarettes and other commodities which taxes, while they may be minor in their effects, do show, in my opinion, a dangerous trend in our economic life. We should have one strong federal authority with complete authority to *legislate with regard to all these matters and to deal with unemployment insurance, hours of labour, fair wages, minimum wages and so forth, in a way that would give us uniform standards right across Canada, rather than the sectional differences which have been created in the past by provincial action. I realize, of course, that it is a difficult thing to do, but it is the goal towards which we must work.
Some other remarks which I had intended to make, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid would transgress your ruling, but possibly at some future time I may have a further opportunity to discuss the constitution. At this moment I shall only say that I am heartily in support
of this unemployment insurance measure and I shall do everything I can to help its passage.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I have only a very few words to say on this resolution dealing with unemployment insurance because the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) has already stated the case so far as we are concerned. We accept this instalment of social insurance, not because it is the best thing possible, but because it appears to be the only thing available at this time. I am as well aware as the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) that unemployment insurance when we get it, will not be a solution of the social problems which confront us in this countiy. Unemployment insurance has not solved the social problems in any country where it has been put into effect. But I know of no country in which unemployment insurance has been tried that would to-day rescind or repeal that legislation. It is a step towards further social security.
The reason why I rose in my place was to reply to some remarks of the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Wood) arising out of some observations I made a couple of weeks ago upon the standard of living among the working class. The hon. member said that he thought the trouble was not so much the high cost of living as the cost of high living. That may be true in Brant, but it is certainly not true in Vancouver East. If we are suffering, it is not from the cost of high living; we are suffering-extremely-from the cost of low living, or poor living.
The hon. member made a further statement, with which I do not believe anybody who has made a study of economic trends can agree, namely, that the farmers pay for all social legislation. It may not have occurred to the hon. gentleman that the farmers and the industrial workers are not two distinct groups, working against each other, but are complementary groups within the social economy, working together and producing all wealth. But for the function and production of the industrial worker producing the tools and machinery the farmer uses, the farmer, instead of keeping the rest of the community, would have a hard time to maintain himself. He would be digging the ground as his ancestors did, with a crooked stick, sowing his little seeds here and there, and facing starvation whenever there was a bad season. Today, because of advancement in mechanical and other sciences, the farmer in the country and the worker in the city are able to produce between them an enormous amount of goods, so large a volume that we do not know what to do with them. The phenomenon with which
Unemployment lnsurance

we are confronted is that although it is becoming more and more difficult for the individual to provide for his own social security, it is becoming progressively easier for us as national units to provide for the security of everyone. But this security can be achieved only by the various federal, provincial, municipal and maybe some forms of cooperative organizations working together and appropriating to themselves the results of their common labour.
I said a moment ago that the farmer and the industrial worker produced the whole of the country's wealth. Yet, although these workers produce the country's wealth, other people take it. That other people take it is patent, because the farmer and the industrial worker are becoming progressively more steeped in poverty.
I wish, as do other hon. members, that the government had gone further in this regard and asked for an amendment to the British North America Act which would enable us to inaugurate a comprehensive scheme of social security legislation. Other countries not so wealthy as Canada have made more progress in this direction. The Australian scheme of social security went into effect on January 1, 1939; the New Zealand scheme went into operation on April 1 last year; other countries have taken similar action. But if we cannot get a whole loaf we will take a half loaf, and if we cannot get a half loaf we will take a quarter loaf. But we shall follow the example of Oliver Twist; we shall keep on asking for more; and there is no finality as far as we of this group are concerned.


Mr. A. W. ROEBUCK (Trinity):: May I have the privilege of saying a word in connection with this resolution? I should like to put on record my approval of it, for two reasons. The first is that I come from an industrial riding where in my judgment a great deal of benefit will be distributed among a very large number of people as a result of the projected measure. I should like to tender to the government the satisfaction which, I know, so many working men and women will feel on hearing of the success of this measure and their congratulations to the government for at last bringing it to a successful conclusion. My second reason is that for many years I have expressed myself on innumerable occasions as in favour of this legislation. I was present at the great convention of 1919 when it was referred to with approval by the Liberal party; and furthermore, in much more recent times I represented the province of Ontario before the privy council in England in the discussion of the measure when it was under review in the constitutional reference. On that occasion I made an effort on behalf of 
the province to save the measure constitutionally. We went over the various arguments which were advanced to show its constitutionality, and most of them were discarded. I pinned my faith to the one thought that it might fall within the clause: " peace, order and good government." The argument was not very strong, however, and at the time I doubted its soundness. The privy council agreed with me in the doubt. Still, it was an effort to save the measure and the advantages and benefits which I knew, and my province knew, would flow from it.
The measure has been attacked in the house this afternoon, first, by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) on the ground that it is not a cure for unemployment; second, by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) on the ground that it is not a cure for social ills. Well, it does not purport to be either of those things, and it seems to me important that this measure be not damned in its initial stages by being advertised as something which it is not. It is hardly fair to attack legislation because it is not something which it does not purport to be. It is much fairer to consider it on the basis of what it is.
It is a limited measure. It does not purport to go to the root of unemployment or to prevent unemployment. What it does do is, in a limited number of cases, for certain classes, provide relief to those who have been in employment at one time and then lose their employment.
It should not be considered anything else than that, and should be judged on the merits of the proposed bill as it will be or as it is. But I am satisfied, after long consideration of this measure, that as years go by it will bring comfort and benefit to many, many thousands of our fellow citizens; and that, Mr. Speaker, is enough. On that ground, the ground of what the legislation is, not what it is not, I congratulate the government on at last bringing it to real success.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: I wish to call the attention of the government and particularly of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud) to a matter so urgent, so important, that it might well justify the moving of the adjournment of the house. Possibly, however, this method will suffice. Within a few days the sockeye salmon fishing

Cape Breton Coal Mines
in British Columbia will open, and on it depends ninety per cent, I should think, of the livelihood of the gill netters of British Columbia. The canners have, within the last few days, set the price which they claim is all they are able to pay, and it is so far below last year's prices that the fishermen contend, justly I think, that with the tremendous increase in the price of gear-web and so on-and the higher cost of living it will be utterly impossible for them to live, to say nothing of making a livelihood at these prices. The canners claim in justification that their action is caused by price restrictions made by the British government, and therefore the question seems to be one of national importance. It would be better public policy, it would pay the government and it would pay us all, rather than have these thousands of fishermen and workers in allied industries idle and dissatisfied all summer, to have the matter treated as a situation somewhat parallel to that with which apples were dealt with, so that there would be guaranteed to the canners such a price as would enable the fishermen to get a price at least approximating what was paid last year. I will send the telegram over to the minister.


Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (Minister of Fisheries):: The hon. member was good enough to intimate to me before the house met that he would ask this question.


Alan Webster Neill: Will the minister allow me? I forgot to state that I was speaking on behalf of several members from British Columbia who are interested.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I had occasion to look into the matter. The government has in fact been made aware of the decision of the British Columbia canners to pay the fishermen this year twenty per cent less than they paid last year for sockeye salmon. This variety of salmon is of the highest grade and quality, and heretofore almost eighty per cent of the annual Canadian pack was marketed in Great Britain. Owing to disturbed conditions and the relatively low price set by the British food controller for this high grade commodity, the canners are uncertain as to the possibility of being able to market the pack this year and they feel that they cannot pay more than they are now offering. Although this is no longer a matter of fishing but a marketing problem, the whole situation has created a real social problem in British Columbia, and it has not escaped the attention of the government. At the present time consideration is being given to its possible solution as well as to the methods whereby it can be solved. That is all I can say at present.


Alan Webster Neill: The matter is urgent.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. P. MULOCK (York North):: May I ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) if any decision has been made as to whether the house will sit on the first of July?


Ernest Lapointe: Many members of the house, I know, have informed the Prime Minister that they have made engagements on dominion day in their own constituencies or elsewhere and have requested that the house should not sit. I believe it is the intention of the Prime Minister to give notice on the order paper that he will move accordingly.



CAPE BRETON COAL MINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: I wish to ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty) a question. This morning I received a letter from theimayor of Dominion, Nova Scotia, to the effect! that a great number of Italian, German and Austrian citizens, residents of that town, have been forcibly prevented from working in the coal mines and that consequently the town of Dominion is faced with the need of providing relief for these people, which it is not in a position to do. Will the minister inform the house whether he has received information in connection with this situation? If so, what steps is he taking with regard to it?


Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Minister of Labour):: The situation is similar to one dealt with by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) some time ago. I have asked that inquiries be made into the matter through the provincial government, and I can assure the hon. member that every possible consideration will be given to the circumstances he has outlined.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clarence Gillis: Will the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty) be good enough to answer another question? I have received a lengthy telegram this afternoon from the steel and car works at Trenton, Nova Scotia. A conciliation board
Wheat-Interim Payments

was applied for there on May 6, but to date nothing has been done. Has the minister any information in that regard?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I have some information on that matter. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) was kind enough to notify me that on the third reading of the Unemployment and Agricultural Assistance Act he would ask some questions in that connection, and I have had a report prepared. In view of the prior request of the leader of the opposition, I think it would be only fair to answer at that time.



INQUIRY AS TO INTERIM PAYMENTS ON 1939 CROP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: On other occasions I have asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) when we may expect information in connection with an interim payment on the 1939 wheat crop. Can the minister tell us something about that to-day? Those of us who represent wheat growers are flooded with letters telling us of the need of this payment.


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I know of no intention on the part of the wheat board to make an interim payment until and if there is money available for that purpose. The question of making provision for an interim payment, when the money is available, is under consideration at present.



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: I wish to ask the government a question. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) sent notice of the question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe). Since the minister is not in his place, I will put the question and leave it as a notice. Has the government reconsidered the case of Trans-Radio press service? If not, has it made careful inquiry into its credentials, or in the alternative, is the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reconsidering the matter? If so, will the decision of the board be announced immediately in order that no injustice or misunderstanding may arise concerning this matter?


Ernest Lapointe: I shall see that the Minister of Transport gives an answer to my hon. friend.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Minister of Labour) moved the third reading of Bill No. 42, to assist in the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress.
Richard Burpee Hanson: As has already been intimated by the Minister of Labour, there is a matter which I desire to discuss on this third reading, and which I hope may be considered pertinent, because if I do not get an opportunity to do it now I do not know when the occasion may arise again.
I am familiar in a degree with the situation existing in Pictou, Nova Scotia, a county that was settled by some of the finest stock that ever entered Canada. I bow to the assistant clerk, because he is directly descended from that gallant band who came over to Canada in the Hector. During the course of my educational career in Nova Scotia nearly half a century ago, I learned that if you came over in the Hector you were of the very elite. If I had not learned it then I should have learned it in this house some years later when this house, in 1923, gave a grant for the celebration of the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the arrival of the Hector. In other words, what the Mayflower is to New England the Hector was to the province of Nova Scotia and the county of Pictou.
Primarily an agricultural section, in course of time through the initiative of two or three or four very gallant Scotsmen it became more or less an industrial centre, due, I think, largely to the discovery there of coal of good quality. As a result of the initiative of these men, who grew into importance in Nova Scotia, that portion of the province became an iron and steel centre. To-day there is situated in that country, at Trenton and elsewhere, plants comparable, I believe, with anything that may be found even in central Canada for the manufacture of certain types of munitions and other commodities that might be very useful at this time in connection with Canada's war effort. During the last war the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company, then managed by my old friend who was for ten years a valuable member of this house and who is now resting on his laurels in the other chamber, manufactured no less than 25,000,000 shells for the Imperial Munitions Board. Since we came here he has been urging me, and I have been urging the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) to do something to

Unemployment Relief
utilize those plants at Trenton and elsewhere in the county of Pictou for this very important purpose. I have been content not to raise any question about the matter in this house until to-day. I received to-day a telegram transmitting a resolution unanimously passed at a joint meeting of the town councils of the towns of New Glasgow and Trenton and members of the boards of trade of those towns in which they say that they-
-view with alarm the grave crisis now developing in the European war, in which the safety and welfare of our British empire is involved, and the imminent and essential need of all Canadians immediately doing all humanly possible to assist in a great war effort.
And further reciting that:
It appears that the major industry in our locality, with its workmen, have thus far failed to fully use their facilities for the manufacture and production of wrar munitions, largely due to a continued dispute between the company and workmen over rates of pay, hours of labour and working conditions.
It is with respect to that that I desire to discuss briefly with my hon. friend the Minister of Labour the situation in that section of the country. It is further alleged in this telegram that the large plants of the Trenton steel works and the Eastern Car company are now practically idle and doing nothing towards the war effort by the manufacture of war materials, of which they have a proven capacity, as evidenced in the last war, and as shortly narrated by myself. Then it recites that the differences between the management and workmen of the steel plant to be dealt with by a conciliation board now set up may not be heard and dealt with finally for some considerable time. Then the telegram proceeds:
Therefore be it resolved that we urgently petition the government of Canada, through its departments, to immediately cause action to be taken for the prompt settlement of the differences between the men and the company.
Be it further resolved that we also petition the government of Canada to make available to these companies and the workmen sufficient orders for war materials and munitions so that these industries may be immediately utilized to their greatest capacity.
The minister has been good enough to supply me with a brief statement of the situation existing in that section. I understand that there are no less than three disputes which are presently to be heard.


Norman Alexander McLarty: That is just in this one case. There are many other boards set up.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I understand from the memorandum I have received that applications were received as late as May 9 last in the Department of Labour from employees of the Trenton steel works, the Eastern Car company and the New Glasgow
plant of Standard Clay Products Limited, employees of all three plants being members of local No. 1231 of the Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of steel workers' organizing committee. Now I am not sure, I will ask the minister to tell me when he replies, whether that is the Congress of Industrial Organization's union.


Norman Alexander McLarty: It is.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, I am not concerned about that at all; but it is further represented that the dispute in each company arose in connection with the employees' request for increased wages, and that employees' representatives were quite willing *to have one board deal with all three disputes, but that the company in its reply pointed out that about March 1 last the officials and union executives met for the purpose of discussing wages and working conditions at Trenton and as a result of these negotiations an increase of 74 .per cent was granted and certain other adjustments made. Without going into details of the subsequent steps it would appear that this arrangement was not ratified by the union officials, that the matter came to a strike vote and that then a conciliation board was applied for. The company appointed a gentleman in Halifax, whom I know very well, Mr. Russell Mclnnes, K.C., and the men appointed Mr. Wren. I am further informed that either the parties, through their representatives, or the department-I am not sure which-agreed upon Professor MacKenzie of the university of Toronto as chairman of the board, but that as yet the board has not functioned, that for more than a month there has been delay and nothing has been done. As a result, while some work is going on in that locality under agreements which had previously expired, this festering sore is still there and, so far as I know, there has been no move made to get this conciliation board to function.
I am not concerned with the merits of this dispute. I do not know enough about it to express any opinion, and I do not think it would be my function to do so even if I had information. I am rising to ask the minister to see that this board gets on with its job and reaches a final conclusion so that industry and labour in that district may get back into unison. Then we will see if something cannot be done by way of getting some munition or war supply orders in that part of the country, which has demonstrated on many occasions that it can do a good job.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is true of other places.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not suggesting that it is not.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Just generally.
Unemployment Relief


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not referring to any other place at the moment. My hon. friend can do that in his turn, if he wishes. I want the minister, if he will, to insist that action be taken, no matter who is to blame for the delay. My information from the department indicates that in this instance the company has not been willing to proceed. That may or may not be true. The reason alleged, I understand, is that they have many of these disputes with their employees all over Nova Scotia-I hope I am correctly interpreting my information-that they have only one office staff to attend to the adjudication or trial, shall I say, of all these disputes, that they can do only one thing at a time, and so forth. That is not good enough. Here we are at war and an important industry in Nova Scotia, the biggest industry in that province, for which I hold no brief at all, is tying up the works, in a degree, with all these labour disputes. This government has asked for great power over men and resources in this country. Surely the government can go down there and get these things straightened out in jig time.
There is one thing I should like to add, because no doubt the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) will have something to say about the matter later. Before you can get anywhere in a matter of this kind you must have some good will on both sides. The company must have the will to adjust these matters, and the men in their turn must have the will also. What I should like to see, in behalf of the people of New Glasgow and Trenton, in behalf of the community as a whole, and in behalf of Canada's war effort-because here is a real opportunity to make a contribution to the war effort of this country-is some effort made to get these matters adjusted and out of the way so that industry, as represented in that locality by this company, can function. I cannot understand why a whole month should be permitted to elapse without this board meeting. I may be wrong in that statement; my information may be too meagre to warrant it, but if that is true it ought not to be at this time, or even in time of peace. All I can do from my place in this house is to call the attention of the minister to the situation and ask him to act.
I believe he will act, and I should like to say to him, do not draw back or withhold action because Michael Dwyer says so. I am not going to say anything more about that; the minister can take his own implications from my words.


Mr. ISNOR:: Then why say it?
IMr. Martin.]


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think I know something of what I am talking about, and it was not really necessary to make that interjection. I am suggesting to the minister that he should not withhold any action because of any representations which may be made to him by an official of the steel company. Let us get action, for the good of the people of Pictou.


Mr. H. B. McCULLOCH (Pictou):: I have taken up this matter with the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty), and he has promised immediate action. As far as Michael Dwyer is concerned, the words the minister used were that he thought he would have to step on Mr. Michael Dwyer's toes.
With regard to the work at Trenton, six hundred men are working there to-day. It is true that the car works will be idle following delivery of the last two hundred cars for the Sydney and Louisburg railway. A vote was taken by the men at the steel plant, and 62 per cent voted to work on Saturdays, at a pay increase of per cent. Mr. Barrett came up from Sydney and refused to let them work. I understand the boards of trade of Trenton and New Glasgow have tried to interview Mr. Clawes and Mr. Barrett, and the last word I had was that Mr. Clawes would give them a few minutes. It seems remarkable to me that Mr. Clawes and Mr. Barrett can refuse to let the men work in Trenton. I do not believe that an increase of 7i per cent is enough for the men working there, since they are receiving smaller wages than are paid in other steel plants throughout the country, but as far as the conciliation board is concerned, the minister has given me his word that everything will be rushed as much as possible.


Thomas Langton Church: Will the minister give further consideration to the five matters I mentioned last week? We are taking away further the revenues of the municipalities by way of the income tax, and so on. In these new agreements with the provinces will the government give consideration to relieving real estate of some of the burden of taxation by federal aid to help more to provide for relief and hospitalization? Then there is the question of those men, forty-five years of age and older, who cannot find employment in industry, and there is also the question of those employees who have been laid off by industries which have closed up altogether on account of lost markets in war areas, as I mentioned last week.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

Unemployment Relief
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Thomas Langton Church: I should like to have a reply from the minister to the questions I asked at six o'clock.


Norman Alexander McLarty: As I understood the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), he was asking what this government was doing to relieve the tax burden on real estate. I take it that he means that we should absorb a larger amount of the relief costs. If that is so, I think he will agree with me when I say that in view of the large expenditures being made by this government upon our war effort, in view of the fact that we still have to consider the report of the dominion-provincial commission, any promise which I might make, other than merely that of consideration, would be neither warranted nor fair. The hon. member asked also what was being done to provide employment for men over the age of forty-five years. Perhaps that question could be more correctly stated in these words: What are we doing to provide employment for these men. in the aftermath of the war? In answer to that question all I can say is that we are at present making every possible effort to retrain men who are over that age and who have some degree of skill.
The hon. member also directed attention to a plant in Toronto which had been closed because its export business to Europe had been seriously impaired by the war and suggested that this plant could be used in manufacturing munitions or other war material. As far as the Department of Labour is concerned, we are anxious to see employment increase to the maximum. However, the matter of whether or not this particular plant or any other plant receives a munitions order or an order for other war material is something which would scarcely fall within the Department of Labour. While I am on my feet-


Georges Parent: Is the minister closing the debate?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I did not intend to close the debate. If my rising now closes the debate, I would ask that my answers be waived for the present and be placed on the record later on. I did want to reply to a matter raised by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson).


Georges Parent: Is the house ready for the question?


Norman Alexander McLarty: If the house is ready for the question, perhaps I could reply to the leader of the opposition.


Georges Parent: If the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


Mr. GRAHAM:: The minister stated that the report of the dominion-provincial commission has yet to be considered. Is he in a position to indicate when or in what manner that report will be considered?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I am afraid that that decision rests in hands other than my own.
I am not in a position to give an answer to that question.
The leader of the opposition referred to the setting up of industrial disputes boards in connection with certain firms in eastern Canada. During the recess I have endeavoured to go into the facts mentioned by the leader of the opposition.
I must say quite frankly that this Trenton steel works' matter has been one of the most difficult problems with which I have had to deal under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. Three companies are involved and I believe it is fair to say that they are interlocking. As the leader of the opposition pointed out this afternoon, there is just the one union interested. Three boards were applied for, but the representatives of the employees were content to accept one board. The difficulty arose in connection with Standard Clay Products company. In this case the logical thing seemed to be to set up, not three but probably two boards.
The request was received on May 9 and immediately a wire was sent to the company asking for an immediate answer. The leader of the opposition has suggested that I should beware of the blandishments of certain individuals. I have always regarded my functions in connection with the setting up of boards under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act as being at least of a quasi-judicial nature. In order to be strictly impartial I have endeavoured in each case to appoint either a supreme court or a county court judge. In this I do not criticize the present board or any members of it. I had thought the policy advisable because of their capacity to weigh evidence and because of the fact that they would be regarded as being strictly impartial.
When the application for these boards was received, the company's reply indicated that on March 1 an agreement had been entered into between the employees and the company, whereby the company agreed to an increase in wages of 7i per cent. I shall not endeavour to prejudge the matter and say whether or not that was fair, but it was voted upon and apparently 62 per cent of the employees agreed. The agreement was not signed because
Unemployment Relief

it was alleged by the employees and their representative that it had been secured by what they termed unconstitutional action.
Before a board could be set up it was necessary that an investigation should be made. This investigation was made and a strike vote was held. The result was in favour of a strike, and under those circumstances a board was set up after hearing the representatives of the employers and employed on May 28. They agreed on the appropriate chairman of the board. This decision was not made by the Minister of Labour. My recollection is that this decision was made reasonably early in June.
The employees were asking for one board, but the company was asking for three. The leader of the opposition referred to a shortage of office staff, but I think he made it quite clear that the shortage was in the offices of the three companies and not in the Department of Labour. They contended that they could not possibly prepare for all three boards in a reasonable time.
An effort was therefore made to secure a reduction in the number of boards. Since the order in council was passed on November 7 of last year, a great number of boards have been appointed. It is cheaper to appoint boards than to have strikes.
The employees and their representatives approached the Department of Labour with the thought that by proper consideration and consultation with the employers the time which might be involved in the sittings of the three boards could be considerably reduced. No later than last week a representative of this particular union which functions in all three branches of the industries took up the question of dealing with the three applications as one with the representative of the employees, with the deputy minister of labour. This was arranged, and last Friday there was supposed to be-unfortunately I have not heard whether it took place or not-a meeting between the representatives of labour and the employers.
I understand that the chairman of the board, who as I say was not appointed by myself as Minister of Labour but was agreed upon between the employers and the employees, was in Halifax. My advice is that the board is now functioning. I say that with this qualification, that my advice came from the best possible source but I cannot guarantee it to be reliable. I shall, however, bear in mind the observations of the hon. leader of the opposition and see that everything possible is done to expedite the matter.
When we have passed an order in council requiring consideration by a board before any strike or lockout takes place, I think the least

this department can do is to see that the board functions with expedition and as rapidly as possible. I regret the delay that has occurred. I do not place any responsibility for it upon anybody whatsoever, because this has been the most complicated situation concerning the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act with which I have had to deal. I hope that the board will start to funotion at the very earliest possible moment, and I shall be glad to see that this is done.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 24, to amend the Agricultural Products Cooperative Marketing Act, 1939.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the amendments made by the senate are similar to those which were made to the Cooperative Wheat Marketing Act. The first section of the bill has been dropped; that does not change the meaning at all. Then "one only cooperative plan" has been substituted for "a cooperative plan" in line 7, page 2 of the bill, and wherever else it occurs throughout the bill. Those are the only changes made by the senate, and we are prepared to accept their amendments.
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Vien in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Experimental farms service.
e«n^mf'X*>er'men*'a^ farms administration, tpou,o05.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Did we dispose of item 11 last night?


The CHAIRMAN:: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have not looked at Hansard, and I am not sure whether the minister replied to my question last night about completing the laboratory at Fredericton.
I did want to get an answer to my question.


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: If I might revert to that item for a moment, Mr. Chairman, the department is

Supply-Agriculture-Farms
making inquiries into the possibility of completing the work which was intended to be completed at the Fredericton station. While w'e are not in a position to state definitely that the work will be completed, every effort will be made to have it completed at least to the point where we can make use of the building.


Richard Burpee Hanson: So far so good. Has the minister any estimate of the remainder of the cost? I think it would be a pity to stop the work now.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not that information under my hand at the moment.


Mr. WRIGHT:: Has the minister received any requests that experimental farms be turned into producing units for the duration of the war?


James Garfield Gardiner: When we reach item 14 it will be found that a number of stations are being closed. Perhaps we can discuss the question on that item rather than on this, which has to do with the general administration of experimental farms.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Experimental farms service.
13. Central experimental farm, $589,435.
Mr. SENN:: There is quite a large reduction in the vote for this particular branch. I notice there is a large reduction in wages. What is the reason for that? Is it the intention of the department or of the farm manager to lessen the activities of this branch?


James Garfield Gardiner: As I have said in connection with a number of other items, we have had to cut down all our expenditures because of the necessity of having a greater amount of money available for war services. We have made provision for cutting out certain services at the central experimental farm. It is not intended this year to carry on the chrysanthemum show which has been held year after year, and flowers for the show will not be provided. The intention is to maintain the different varieties that we have at the farm but not with the idea of putting on a show in the fall. A number of features of that kind are being dropped this year, together with associated labour.


Mark Cecil Senn: Is there any revenue from the central experimental farm? If so, where does it appear in the accounts?


James Garfield Gardiner: The revenue does not appear in the estimates, but I have before me figures showing that the revenue from the Ottawa farm was $27,958.36, and the total revenue from the farms, $213,083.07.


Mark Cecil Senn: I can readily understand that experimental farms are for experimental purposes and that they cannot be expected to pay their way; they have not done so, by a veiy large amount. From time to time there has been a certain amount of discussion about the inability of farmers to pay their way or to make a reasonable profit on their operations, whether upon large farms or upon small farms. I have often thought it might be a good thing if the department would undertake to operate a farm of reasonable size with the purpose of showing farmers how to operate their farms for a certain length of time at a profit. I believe, if that were tried, it might open the eyes of some people as to the meagre profits which are made on farms and the difficulties under which farmers live. Is any such scheme on foot, or are the farms merely for illustrative, experimental and demonstration purposes?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is true that the farms are operated for experimental and demonstration purposes. They are not operated with the purpose of making them pay. I do not believe it would be possible so to operate a farm which is carried on for expeftmental purposes. It might be possible to run some of the smaller farms on a paying basis in a greater degree than they have been, possibly during the war period, as was suggested on this side of the chamber a moment ago; and we intend to reduce costs in connection with some of the farms, at least, during the next year or two while we are in the difficulties of a war period.


Mark Cecil Senn: If it is not possible to operate a whole farm to demonstrate whether it can be run at a profit, the department might take a field of grain, carefully calculate all the expenses of planting, cultivating, harvesting, threshing and marketing the crop, and establish in that way how it is possible for farmers to produce at a profit.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is done to a degree on the farms now. For example, farms with field crops are operated under the husbandry branch and records kept of the cost of production.


Mark Cecil Senn: With what results?


James Garfield Gardiner: With the idea of determining what particular crop will pay.


Mark Cecil Senn: Would the minister say what result has been obtained in any particular line?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have a synopsis of it here, but not in detail.
Supply-Agriculture-Farms


Mr. NICHOLSON:: It would be an interesting type of experiment for this branch to carry on, to see whether one of their farms can be carried on upon a profitable basis over a period of years.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are what are called major and minor activities of the field husbandry branch. Under minor activities are included farm machinery investigations, to determine the type of machinery which is most useful on certain kinds of soil. Weed eradication is another activity. Also investigations are carried on of the cost of producing and the methods of harvesting and storing crops. The costs of all phases of these operations are taken under consideration in those investigations. Also there are silage production and meteorological studies. All these are known as minor activities. The experimental and investigational work constitutes the major activities.


Mr. HATFIELD:: What is the acreage of the central experimental farm in Ottawa?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are 827 acres owned and 350 acres leased.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Is $626,000 the amount of the loss, or was there some revenue?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the cost of carrying on the experiments on that land.


Heber Harold Hatfield: What was the revenue?


James Garfield Gardiner: I stated the revenue a few moments ago-$27,958.36.


Mr. McIVOR:: There is an experimental substation in our district. I do not know whether it yields any cash profit, but it would be hard to overestimate the value of the w'ork which has been done in that community, especially through the lessons which have been learned by young farmers. It is a credit to the community and to the department.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I notice an item, "senior assistant architect, $2,880." Last year there was provision for an assistant architect with a salary of $2,640. Has a promotion been made?


James Garfield Gardiner: The position of senior assistant architect is vacant and has been vacant since last year.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Is the senior assistant architect the same person who was the assistant architect?


James Garfield Gardiner: The assistant architect has been moved up to the position of senior assistant, and the assistant's position has not been filled.


Percy Ellis Wright: Would the minister explain the reason for an increase of $40,000 in the item, "temporary assistance", on page 65 of the estimates? It seems a large increase.


James Garfield Gardiner: Permanent salaries, reclassification, $30,000; temporary salaries, reclassification of new positions, $39,480. The explanation is this. The labouring staff has been reclassified this year. Those staffs which before were known as labourers are now temporaries.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Rents have been
increased. What is the reason? Feed last year was $20,000; it has been reduced to $17,000.


James Garfield Gardiner: Of the lands operated by the central experimental farm 827 acres are owned and 350 acres rented.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Is it necessaiy to buy feed?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, feed would have to be purchased. There are feed products of different kinds not grown on the farms but used for experimental purposes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: With regard to the general expenditure, the permanent staff at the central experimental farm has been increased from 91 to 102, notwithstanding that three quite important positions have not been filled, and there seems to be one new position, that of soil specialist, which was not there before. There is a very large increase in the cost and some increase in the number of agricultural scientists. On the whole, whatever saving there is in the department seems to be at the expense of common labourers, and if we were to take into account the cut in wages for ordinary labour, it would be found that the grant this year is very much higher than it was last year. In other words, the difference between $164,000 and $237,000 is much greater than the total reduction in the vote, which is only $37,515. We seem to be spending more money than usual for high-class scientific men and letting out a lot of labour to swell the unemployment relief roll.


James Garfield Gardiner: The increase is explained for the most part by the reclassification of those who were on wages before. Two temporaries are increased. The suggestion that much of the saving will be in labour is correct. As I stated at the beginning of the discussion, some of the work that is being done away with this year, such as preparation for the chrysanthemum show, is summer labour, and since we are not carrying that on, we shall not be engaging as much labour in the summer as previously.

Supply-Agriculture-Farms


Mr. MARSHALL:: A new position of
photographer has been created. What work does this person do that could not properly be carried out by the motion picture bureau?


James Garfield Gardiner: This person is reclassified by the civil service commission as a senior clerk and he does photography.


James Alexander Marshall: He does not hold the
exclusive position of photographer?


James Garfield Gardiner: Not alone; he is a senior clerk who does some photography.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 
James Garfield Gardiner: This is not an increase
in employees but a reclassification of what was previously called labour. These persons are now employed under the civil service commission, whereas before they were engaged as labourers. They are now put into the service and classified as temporary employees and to that extent there is apparently a greater number in the salary list, but that does not mean an increase in expenditure. If the hon. member will take the next item just below, there is a reduction from $237,000 to $164,000, and in the item immediately above there is an increase. Wages are taken out of one and put in as salaries in the other.


Robert Fair: At what rate are the labourers paid and how many hours do they work?


James Garfield Gardiner: The wages are from
twenty-eight to forty-two cents an hour, and they work ten hours a day.


Mr. PERLEY:: Has the minister given
any consideration to transferring some of the experimental work which is done at the central experimental farm at Ottawa to the experimental farms in the west, particularly that class of experiments which pertain chiefly to western production? We have at Indian Head, perhaps the second best experimental farm in Canada, a splendid farm. Could not some of that work be carried on there, where more of the people interested could see it? I think much good would come from such a transfer.


James Garfield Gardiner: The type of work which is essentially for the west is not done at the central experimental farm. Some of it is done at Brandon, other classes at Indian Head, others at Swift Current and other farms further north. The work which is done here is of a type suited to this section of Canada.


Ernest Edward Perley: Is there not a great deal
of experimental work carried on here in respect to grain, and feeding costs, that could be carried on more advantageously at Indian Head?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is some crossbreeding of grain and other plant life done here, but when it has been developed to the point where an attempt is made to accustom it to the climate and conditions of certain sections, it is transferred to those sections for completion.


Mark Cecil Senn: There is no doubt much valuable experimental work done at the central experimental farm. But unfortunately the public, and I believe members of parliament, do not know what is being carried on. For instance there is the division of animal husbandly. It might be interesting for the committee to know what breeds of animals are kept there and what experiments are going on.
A few years ago a new breed of hogs was imported into Canada, the breed used in Denmark where they produce such superior bacon. Those hogs were, I believe, experimented with at the central farm for some time. I remember a certain hon. gentleman who became enthusiastic about the record of those hogs.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Was it a good record?


Mark Cecil Senn: He seemed to think so. He was the hon. member for Wellington North (Mr. Blair). I do not see him in his seat for the moment, but I remember speeches he made expressing his enthusiasm. What is being done in the way of experiment with Landrace hogs, and with what results?
Another important agricultural venture in this country at present is the production of flax, which is greatly needed for war purposes. I believe experiments have been going on for some time at the central experimental farm and other places as to the best procedure in growing flax and the areas where it can be grown best. Would the minister enlighten the committee as to such experiments?


James Garfield Gardiner: So far as live stock is concerned, we have Holstein, Ayrshire and shorthorn cattle, that is two of the dairy breeds and one of the beef type. In hogs we have the Yorkshires. We discontinued the experiments in connection with Landrace hogs after investigations extending over some four years. In horses we have Clydesdales. In poultry, chickens, we have Leghorns and Plymouth Rocks. In sheep we are experimenting with different breeds in order to
Supply-Agriculture-Farms

provide suitable breeds for both eastern and western farming. In field crops we are carrying on the usual experiments.


Mark Cecil Senn: In what way did the Landrace hogs fall down, and what is the prospect of their ever being produced profitably in this country?
I also mentioned flax. Are any experiments going on regarding flax?
I understand that about a year ago or more some breeding horses were brought to this country. What were those breeds, from where did they come and what was the price?


James Garfield Gardiner: As to the hogs, the experiments for the four years did not show any particular weakness in the Landrace hog as a hog to be bred in this country, neither did they show any particular advantage on balance over the Yorkshires, which had already been generally distributed from coast to coast, so it was thought that there was no advantage in encouraging farmers to change from the Yorkshires which were very well established in Canada.


Mark Cecil Senn: Were there any experiments in cross-breeding?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, there was considerable experimenting. I think the hon. member for Haldimand went out with us four or five years ago-


Mark Cecil Senn: No I was not there.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well the results of the experiments were seen by many who visited the farm. At present the hogs are not there. There was some difficulty about obtaining boars from Sweden or elsewhere in order to keep up the proper cross-breeding of this type through Canada, so the experiment was discontinued.
Regarding flax, hon. members will recall that during the last war the acreage seeded to flax was greatly increased, I think from somewhere round twelve thousand acres to about forty thousand acres. After the war considerable difficulty was experienced as a result of the changes made; there was too much land under flax, and factories had been built to treat it which could not be fully employed after the war was over, so considerable financial difficulty arose. When this war began, similar demands were made for flax. Just prior to the war we had been carrying on certain investigations as to machines used in Belgium and elsewhere, largely produced in Belgium, for processing flax. Those machines had been introduced at two points I think, one in Ontario and one in Quebec, for experimental purposes, and those experiments were quite successful. As a result the acreage 
seeded to flax has, I believe, been about doubled up to the present as compared with years just preceding the war, the idea being to produce some of the flax fibre which is required to supply the needs of Great Britain and also to supply seed for Great Britain and for Ireland. The department is attempting to keep control over the sale of the seed. We took possession of the seed last year at a price and distributed some to the different areas where we thought flax could be grown to best advantage, and the remainder was sold to Ireland or England to be used there. We are keeping control over the seed, hoping thus to keep some control over the acreage seeded in Canada, and so take the industry through the war without the difficulties arising that were experienced after the last war.


Percy Ellis Wright: Is a rust-resistant barley being developed at the central experimental farm? If so, how soon will it be ready for distribution?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are three or four strains of rust-resistant barley at the central experimental farm here and at Winnipeg, but none of them is yet ready for distribution.


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: To go back to the subject of flax for a moment, from the minister's remarks I gathered that the ebb and flow of activity within the department as far as flax is concerned depend on market conditions and requirements. I also gathered from his remarks that there has been a substantial expansion in the acreage seeded, to perhaps twice the former acreage. I should like to ask two questions. First, is there any sizable quantity of seed in the hands of the government? The second question is based on the first, and perhaps the minister might enlarge upon it for the benefit of the committee, since probably he knows more about it than we do. It is a fact that the price of flaxseed has dropped materially, and now is almost half what it was. In view of that, and in view of the fact that the policy seems to be to harmonize the effort in accordance with the economy of the situation, would the minister feel disposed to peg the price of flaxseed?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am informed that there has not been any material increase in the price of flaxseed during the last four or five years.


Joseph Henry Harris: There has been a decrease to about one-half.


James Garfield Gardiner: There has been no decrease, either.


Joseph Henry Harris: Oh, yes.

Supply-Agriculture-Farms


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course I must take
my information from the officials of the department, and they tell me there has been no change in the price of fibre seed. I think what my hon. friend may have in mind is the quotations we see in the newspapers from day to day for flax, but that is not fibre seed. I am informed that fibre seed has remained at a practically set price for the last four or five years. Certainly there has been no increase or decrease since last year, because last fall we took possession of all the flaxseed there was in Canada. We did that because in the last war, if I remember the situation correctly, that was not done, and because of the limited amount of fibre seed in existence in the world, a small group of individuals was able to get control of that seed and force up the price very quickly. That was avoided this time by the government taking possession of all the fibre flaxseed there was in Canada and simply telling the people in Ireland, who were putting forth an effort to get this seed very early in the season, that the government had all the seed, which would be distributed first to those we thought should be growing flax this year in Canada, and then the remainder would be distributed to Ireland and England. That is still the position. We have in Canada a few hundred bushels of the flaxseed that was not distributed last fall, but thfere is a very small amount left. So far as I know there has been no variation in price since last year, because we set the price and it was all handled at that price.


Thomas Miller Bell: Has the minister any
information to give the committee with regard to the development of rustless wheat? I believe the central experimental farm is working on an improved strain of regent wheat. There was some criticism of regent wheat last year, I know', in the area round Rosetown. I know one grower who shipped his regent wheat because he did not care for it. It was graded No. 2, while the thatcher and apex were graded No. 1. I wonder if that was on account of the fact that it was not breeding true to type. What experiments are being conducted, and is an improved strain of regent or rustless wheat being developed at the central experimental farm just now?


James Garfield Gardiner: Regent wheat is possibly as good as any of the rust resistant wheats which exist in sufficient volume to be distributed. Certain investigations are being carried on with regard to other varieties. Possibly it could be said that in certain areas some of the varieties being developed would be more suitable than regent wheat. Anyone who has grown wheat in western Canada 95826-72
realizes, I think, that there are certain varieties which grow well in the open prairie country and produce high quality wheat, which, if grown up in the northeastern section of the province, would not produce as much to the acre or such high quality wheat, and vice versa. There are wheats that grow well up in the north and keep their colour well which, if grown down on the prairie, would not produce to the same extent or the same quality. Experiments are being carried on, but I do not think it would be wise to make any statement which would lead people to believe that there may be a better wheat in existence than regent, until such time as we are certain both with regard to the variety itself and with regard to the amount available.


Thomas Miller Bell: Then I should like to ask a supplementary question. Last year I believe the department distributed a great deal of regent wheat in small quantities. How did the results last year compare with thatcher and apex? Could the minister give us any information as to the experience of the department?


James Garfield Gardiner: It would be very difficult to answer the question in a general way, that is, to say one was better than another. In some districts regent was better than thatcher or any of the other varieties. In other districts apex was better than the others. I do not know that I could say thatcher is better than the others, yet in some districts the yield of thatcher was considerably better than that of the other varieties; and taking into consideration the quantity obtained per acre, along with the grading of the wheat, probably thatcher paid the farmers better than the other varieties, in those particular areas. I should not like to say one was better than another. Personally I like the look of any of the wheats better than thatcher, particularly in a difficult year, but last year, with the conditions existing, I had it proved to my own satisfaction that thatcher produced more than any other kind of wheat I have attempted to grow on the farm I operate in the west.


Ernest Edward Perley: I think the experiments
carried on with respect to rust resisting grain is of tremendous value and benefit to western Canada, and I believe the department should be commended for the work that is being carried on. There is however, one thing I should like to impress upon the minister. As he knows, the experience with rust resistant wheat has been that when we get a variety which is nearly one hundred per cent rust resistant, it retains that quality for only a few years. For instance, marquis used to be practically rust resistant, but now it is almost

Supply-Agriculture-Farms

as bad as red fyfe in that respect. Thatcher is now considered almost one hundred per cent rust resistant. Could the minister give us any information as to how quickly wheat deteriorates in this respect? I think it important also that the department should be working on a variety to take the place of thatcher, because I think there is some evidence already of thatcher deteriorating from that point of view. Then, when the time comes, if we must have another variety to take the place of thatcher, a sufficient volume would be on hand to permit of distribution, and within a year or two there would be enough available to seed those areas in the west where they absolutely must have a rust resisting wheat.


James Garfield Gardiner: My information is that as long as the strain of the wheat is kept pure the wheat will remain rust resisting. I think the difficulty is largely that in growing wheat on a farm in western Canada we may sow a pure strain of wheat, but if we have been growing wheat on that farm for a considerable number of years, after we have used seed from the same land over and over again probably the strain depreciates in purity. In other words, we probably get a mixture of marquis, thatcher and regent or any other wheat we may have been growing on the farm. To the extent that the strain deteriorates in purity the wheat becomes less rust resistant. That is the theory which our officials hold in that regard. I would not attempt to refute a statement of that kind because it is made by those who are as close as we can get to experts in connection with the handling of these seed strains.


Ernest Edward Perley: Absolutely pure and free from other varieties.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are some strains in the same variety of wheat which are not quite as rust resistant as others. It may be that there is a mixture of these strains and after three or four years you will have more of one strain .than another. The result may be that your wheat is not 100 per cent rust resistant. For instance, farmers in western Canada found some rust in their fields of thatcher wheat, and they came to the conclusion that that wheat was only 65 or 75 per cent rust resistant. I am informed that this is not true. I am told that if you have a real rust-resistant strain of thatcher wheat it will be rust resistant.


Ernest Edward Perley: Could the minister give us some information with respect to experiments being carried on with rust-resistant oats?


James Garfield Gardiner: The vanguard oat which is seeded in western Canada was developed at Winnipeg. It is resistant to stem rust. The

urban oat was developed at the Ontario agricultural college and is resistant to leaf rust. Crosses between these two varieties are being produced and are proving quite promising. These may turn out to be the most valuable of the different strains that are being developed.


Mr. QUELCH:: What has been the experience of the department with canus wheat? I believe some 600 bushels were distributed among the farmers in the drought areas of Alberta. This seed is supposed to be very drought resistant.


James Garfield Gardiner: The department has had very little experience with it. It has some drought resistant qualities, but the department is not prepared to recommend it or to give any information with regard to it.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: In view of the somewhat chaotic conditions which prevail in the European wool market, perhaps the minister could state what is being done to develop a wool-type sheep which could adapt itself to the various climatic conditions of Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are two experiments being carried on. One is in connection with the Corriedale, a sheep being produced largely in New Zealand and Australia. It is thought that this sheep will develop into the best variety to suit our conditions, particularly in the west. Another experiment is being carried on in connection with crossing the romney and ryeland sheep. It is hoped to develop a variety which will be suited to our conditions.


George Hugh Castleden: How many of these sheep are now on experimental farms?


James Garfield Gardiner: About a thousand of each.


Joseph Henry Harris: I do not want the record to go unchallenged. The minister has suggested that there has been no change in the price of flaxseed during the last four or five years. He intimated that perhaps my information had been obtained by reading the daily press. I was speaking from memory at the time, but I now have before me the report of the Minister of Agriculture for 1939. I am sure that this report must be correct. It states:
The seed yielded on the average eight bushels of mill-run per acre and No. 1 grade sold for an average price of $3 per bushel on the Irish market. This was a drop of $1.10 a bushel from the average price received the previous year.
I know the minister will suggest that the information in this report is twelve or eighteen months old, but I wanted to get the up-to-date

Supply-Agriculture-Farms
figures. I understand, from the press in this case, that since that time the price has again gone up beyond $2.50 a bushel. But during the last two or three months the market price of this commodity has dropped considerably, along with prices of many other commodities. Some encouragement was given to doubling acreage. We are looking forward to an increased national income to the extent of many hundreds of millions of dollars, but with this general drop in commodity prices we may have considerable difficulty in reaching the objective we have in mind. This may be a small matter, but I am bringing it to the attention of the minister in an effort to get up-to-date information similar to that given in his report for the year ended March 31, 1939. I have no doubt that his assistants will have the information to March 31, 1940. I should like to have this on the record for reference when making a general study of commodity prices. I should like to know how soon we are going to get back to better prices in order that we may be helped out in solving the major problem I mentioned.


James Garfield Gardiner: The information which I gave in the first place was correct. This report is for the year ended March 31, 1939, and the figures given refer to a period earlier than that. In 1938 one Quebec company sold fibre flax seed in Ireland for $3.50. At the same time the Ontario people sold their flax for $5. From that time down to the present the price has ranged from $5 to $5.50. This year we are selling certified fibre flax seed in Ireland at $5.50; uncertified at $4.50 and No. 2 at $4. This price has been set and will be maintained throughout the year.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to have some information in connection with the Fredericton station in which I am personally interested. I should like to know what the vote was last year, what was expended last year and what the vote is this year. I should like to know what work is being carried on. I understand the superintendent has been trying to interest the farmers of central New Brunswick in the breeding of Percheron horses and certain types of cattle and also endeavouring to have them improve their pasture and other things like that. These are three things I know of. Perhaps the minister would give me the expenditure and what line of work is being carried on at the station.
While I am on my feet and the minister is conferring with his assistants, I should like to give a certificate of character and efficiency to the Fredericton superintendent. I believe he has the confidence of all the farmers of
95826-72*
central New Brunswick. The only complaint I have to make is that the farmers do not utilize this station more to their own advantage. They seem to be, shall I say, careless in utilizing this important institution right in their midst and are not taking full advantage of the demonstrations, experiments and capacities of that little experimental station, because after all it is a small one.
I should also like to pay tribute to one or two of the superintendent's assistants. I know these men well; they are friends of mine. I do not mean political friends because they have no politics so far as I know, although I did succeed in carrying a majority at the poll that was held at the station, but that is in passing. I want to see the work of this farm extended if the opportunity offers, because I realize that New Brunswick is much more backward in scientific farming than it ought to be. I am afraid that some of our farmers, not so many I hope as used to be the case, are content to do just what they did the year before, and perhaps a little less. I can understand that because the returns to the farmers in recent years have been exceedingly small. I am interested in seeing farming a success in New Brunswick because I can say without boasting-in fact, I am rather grieved over it-that I have probably more money invested in York county farms than any other man in York county, but not on a purchase basis. I am interested, however, in seeing that our farmers 'take advantage of this institution. Perhaps the minister would be good enough, for the benefit of myself and others who read the press, to give a short account of what is being done there.
While I am on my feet I invite the minister to come down to Fredericton. We used to have a visit occasionally from the gentleman who was Minister of Agriculture from 1921 to 1930, and I regret he is not in parliament because I always enjoyed knowing him and talking to him. He was good enough to come and visit us on occasion and he helped that little farm out. I now extend an invitation to the minister to come down to Fredericton and see us. The only time he has ever visited us has been on the occasion of a general election, and he has always been too busy to do anything with respect to our experimental station.


James Garfield Gardiner: While I have been in Fredericton, I have not been there since I have been Minister of Agriculture. Had I been there since I have been minister I certainly, even at election time, would have visited the farm.
In answer to the hon. gentleman's questions as to the activities of that farm, we have at the Fredericton station one of the best Percheron sires that we have in the service. We
Supply-Agriculture-Farms

are attempting to encourage the development of Percheron horses in that area. We also have a herd of Holstein cattle, which has been improved from time to time in the hope that we may be able to assist in the improvement of dairy herds in that section.
We are also carrying on active experiments in potato production, particularly the development of disease-resistant varieties of potatoes.
These are the chief activities, and there will not be any reduction made in any of them this year; in fact, they may be enlarged slightly. On the other hand there will be the necessity of cutting down in connection with horticulture at that point in order to maintain our financial position there relative to some other places.
So far as the building is concerned, I should have dealt with that last night when Doctor Swaine was here, but he will be here when we take up item 33, science service buildings. I can, however, say now with a little more confidence than at the beginning of the discussion this evening that the intention is to try to find sufficient funds in our votes this year to complete the closing-in of that building and getting it in shape where it can be of some use.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Thank
you. I also asked about the expenditure last year for the Fredericton station and the vote this year. I should like to have the information on record.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was $52,325 last year, and this year it is $49,545, a slight reduction.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Thank
you.


Mr. GRAYDON:: Have there been any
notable developments in horticulture at the central experimental farm during the past year?


James Garfield Gardiner: Some interesting experiments have been carried on this year, particularly developments in connection with vegetables and in the manner of using what would otherwise be wasted fruits. In that connection investigations relating to horticulture have been carried on, which are of considerable benefit to the industry in different parts of the country.


Gordon Graydon: Have there been any
special developments in flower growing?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, there has been
nothing particular done in that regard this year.


Percy Ellis Wright: Have any experiments
been carried on to determine the most economical size of farm in the west? Is it a half section, a section or two sections?


James Garfield Gardiner: I cannot say that experiments have been carried on, but a study has been made of that subject by the economics branch under Doctor Booth in order to try to determine what is the most economical unit both east and west. Of course, anyone farming in the west knows that a unit as applied to one area could not necessarily be applied to another area.


Percy Ellis Wright: What have been Doctor
Booth's findings?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are no definite
findings that could be applied generally, but generally speaking the family sized farm in eastern Canada, particularly Ontario and Quebec, has been found to be about 100 acres. Some have more and some have less. In many parts of the west the family sized farm is half a section, and in some other parts three quarters of a section.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Professor Hopkins
carried on experiments to determine the economical unit. I have the data in my office, but speaking from recollection I think he found the two-section farm in the prairie provinces, with motorized equipment, to be the most economical unit.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think his investigations were carried on to determine the relationship between certain sized farms and certain specialized machinery for the operation of farms. If you are going to operate a farm with a certain type and quantity of machinery, you require a certain size of farm in order to operate economically. If you put on a halfsection farm the full line of equipment which you could use on a two-section farm, your overhead would probably be too high. It was that kind of investigation which was being made.


Robert Fair: In view of the fact that grain prices have been extremely low for the last ten years, is the central experimental farm at Ottawa or are any western experimental stations conducting an investigation into the average cost of raising wheat and other coarse grains at the present time?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. Experiments are
being carried on in the matter of cultivation. I remember that when I visited the Swift Current farm last summer, in going by the experimental plots I was told by Mr. Thompson, who is in charge of that farm, the results of the experiments which were being carried on in connection with different types of operations. The experiments there bore out, I believe, the experiences of most farmers in that section of the country. They indicated that certain types of machinery produce

Supply-Agriculture-Farms
better results than certain other types, and in some instances the less costly types produce the best results. That experiment has been going on for quite a number of years. It is sometimes difficult for those who are carrying on the experiments to prove their results in competition with high-powered salesmen who are selling other types of machinery.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I wonder whether in any of these experimental farms there are fields sufficiently large to enable a computation to be made of the cost of producing wheat on, say, a quarter-section?


James Garfield Gardiner: The size of the farm at Indian Head is approximately 1,500 acres, and of the farm at Swift Current, about 2,000 acres, and of course it is possible to carry on experiments there as to the expense of operating, say, a quarter section of land. But that work is being handled in an experimental way. I doubt very much if one could take the information which is available and conclude that the same standards are applicable to an ordinary farm. I drive constantly past a rented farm which forms part of the Indian Head experimental farm. It was operated for many years by a man named Patterson; I do not know whether it was his original homestead, but he lived there as long as I can remember and many years before. I was acquainted with the area. For a number of years he has rented that property to the experimental farm and it has been run as a farm unit, but a great deal of experimental work has been carried on alongside the growing of grain crops and field silage.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Has the minister any information as to the cost of operating with a diesel caterpillar compared with a gasoline tractor?


James Garfield Gardiner: The Swift Current farm has been specializing in costs of operating diesel and other tractors, as well as farm machinery generally. Pamphlets giving that information are published by the department and can be obtained by any hon. member.


Robert Fair: Did I understand the minister to say that Yorkshires are the only type of hogs being kept on the central experimental farm at the present time?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Robert Fair: May I ask, then, what was the result of the experiments some time ago with Landrace hogs?


James Garfield Gardiner: I believe that information will be found on Hansard in the morning. My hon. friend may not have been here, but I have already given it twice this evening.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: What progress has been made by the department in encouraging the raising of beef cattle in the maritime provinces? I understand that certain districts have been proposed for the raising of beef animals and that the department is offering some encouragement to those districts.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is not a beef herd at the Amherst farm in Nova Scotia. The herd there is a dairy herd. The herd at Kentville is a general purpose herd, and cannot be called a beef herd; it consists of general purpose shorthorns, a milking strain. I cannot say that we are encouraging, with either of these herds, a straight beef type of cattle. But there have been some experiments carried on in feeding beef cattle at these farms. I have not before me information as to the results of these experiments, but it is in print and can be had by any hon. member who is interested.


Percy Chapman Black: I understand that the department has made proposals to certain areas that they specialize in the raising of beef animals. Quite large districts in the maritime provinces are involved. I should like to know, if that is the case, what preparations have been or are to be made, how the work is being undertaken, whether by the department or through individual or community stock raisers, and what progress has been made.


James Garfield Gardiner: A survey is being carried on in the maritime provinces to determine areas that may be suited to the production of beef cattle. That survey will be continued.


Percy Chapman Black: No appropriation has been made?


James Garfield Gardiner: No special appropriation, but the survey is being carried on along with the general activities of the department.


Robert Fair: I have been here since eight o'clock, and I should like to get back for just a moment to the hogs. Possibly we are in good company in that line. While the minister has already given two explanations, I have not been able to hear what those explanations were. I am waiting to see what Hansard says in the morning. Although the minister may have given a very short explanation, I believe some hon. members are quite interested in the experiments which are being carried on in connection with Landrace hogs.


James Garfield Gardiner: I cannot of course guarantee that my hon. friend is going to hear me this time. I have already given a rather lengthy statement on the matter. The Landrace hogs were brought some years ago
Supply*-Agriculture-Farms

from Sweden. Experiments were carried on with the breed for, I believe, about four years. Finally it was found that they displayed no sufficient advantages over the Yorkshire type, which had been fairly widely distributed over Canada, to warrant the department going further with the experiments and making an additional distribution of those hogs throughout the country. In other words, it was found that the Yorkshire is suiting the purpose in Canada so well that it would not be wise to confuse people by encouraging them to produce and maintain another variety.


Robert Fair: Thank you.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I understood that some years ago all experiments were made at the Ottawa farm. That system was changed a few years ago, and at the present time experiments are made at various branch farms throughout Canada for the whole Dominion- on potatoes at Fredericton; on wheat, in the west; in respect of horticulture, on the Ontario branch farms. In view of that system, what is the reason for the increase in acreage of the central experimental farm?


James Garfield Gardiner: As I stated a moment ago, special work is being carried on at Fredericton with regard to potatoes, but some intensive experimentation is being carried on at the central experimental farm in connection with all the different varieties of farm products. That is possibly on account of the fact that different kinds of farm products are produced in this section of the dominion.
Mr. DIEFENBAIvER: A development in northern Saskatchewan which during recent years has been changing agricultural economy has been the phenomenal increase in the growth of alfalfa. Can the minister give us an idea of the experiments that are taking place in that direction and say whether a new hardy alfalfa seed is being developed and, further, whether any of the institutional farms are being used for experimental purposes in that regard?


James Garfield Gardiner: The laboratory at
Saskatoon has developed a new type of alfalfa which is suited to that section of the country, and up in the area near White Fox, and to the north of Nipawin, which is in the northeastern section of Saskatchewan, there has developed in the last few years an industry associated with the growing of alfalfa seed, very much as in certain sections of the east development has taken place where the flax seed is grown even for use in Ireland. In the section to which I refer they are producing alfalfa seed which is being sold down through 
the American states to the south and in certain sections of western Canada and in the east as well.


Robert Fair: From time to time applications are invited for positions that become vacant at the central experimental farm. In the notices sent out certain minimum and maximum salaries are set out, and I have been informed that after applicants have been accepted they are not paid the minimum specified in the applications. I should like to know whether this report is correct, and, if so, why applicants are not paid the stated minimum.


James Garfield Gardiner: I presume the reference is to part-time or temporary graduate employees who do come in at lower rates sometimes than those indicated in the civil service list, but anyone who applies in the usual course under the civil service commission for one of the permanent positions in the department is paid the minimum and maximum salary, starting with the minimum and gradually rising to the other.


Robert Fair: Has there been any dissatisfaction at the farm during the past twelve months or so in that regard?


James Garfield Gardiner: There has been no
dissatisfaction that has been sufficiently serious to have been brought to my attention. I cannot say that there is no one working for the department from one end of Canada to the other who is dissatisfied with his or her salary, but there has been no general dissatisfaction.


Robert Fair: I was referring only to the central experimental farm, and if the information is incorrect I shall be glad to be told so.


James Garfield Gardiner: There may be some who are not satisfied; I am not in a position to say. There may be some who have accepted positions and who may have qualifications that would entitle them to a higher position, but they have applied for work and have been offered work at a certain rate of pay, and work which would properly pay the rate offered to them. They may not be satisfied; I do not know. If they are not, it is possible we could get someone else to take their place.


Robert Fair: The point is that the positions are advertised at certain minimum and maximum rates, and after the applicant has been appointed he receives less than -the minimum specified.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know of any such cases, but there may be some. You could not have a staff of the size of ours without having someone who would be dissatisfied with his salary.

Supply-Agriculture-Farms


Robert Fair: I am not discussing that at all. I am saying, the complaint is that the salary paid does not come up to the amount specified when the application is sent out.


James Garfield Gardiner: We follow the civil service regulations strictly and everything has been done in accordance therewith.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Experimental farms service.
II). Branch farms and stations, and illustration stations, $1,309,276.
Ernest Edward Perley: In this vote there is a considerable decrease amounting to about $185,000. I understood the minister to say earlier in the evening that certain of these substations might be closed. I trust that none in Saskatchewan will be closed. The main experimental farm in that province is at Indian Head. It is perhaps one of the finest farms of the kind in Canada. We have also five stations and one substation. I wish to pay my respects to the superintendent at Indian Head, Mr. Gibson. He is doing wonderful work. Hardly a day passes in the summer, in the months of June, July and August, when there is not a field day at that farm. Different societies go there and hold picnics, and the superintendent is doing invaluable work demonstrating what is going on at the farm. He should be complimented upon his patience. He helps a number of clubs and different organizations, and his work is highly commendable. The committee will be interested to know that we not only grow wheat in Saskatchewan but can grow the finest varieties of fruit. At page 82 of the report of the department there is this paragraph with regard to the experimental farm at Indian Head:
Fruit trees came through with little injury. A heavy crop of bloom developed into an overabundant crop of fruit. . . . Some large apples and tender varieties of plums reached maturity.
I refer to this paragraph because, driving through the farm last fall, I noticed a heavy crop of apples on some trees and I was surprised to see apples on the ground. I inquired at the office and was told that they were not giving them away, and I am sure there were a good many people out there who would have been glad to gather up the apples under the trees. I mention this to show that we can grow apples in our part of the province. The minister might give us some information with regard to the experiments carried on there particularly with fruit.
We have a substation at Regina and I would ask the minister to indicate some of the results of the experiments there in connection with soil drifting. Would he make a statement as to the revenue derived from the five
stations in that province? I understand there is grain sold and there must be considerable revenue from some of the stations.
I notice also in the reports of the experimental farms at Indian Head and Melfort that there has been a transfer of the herds; the Ayrshire herd was taken from Indian Head to Melfort and the shorthorn herd was taken from Melfort to Indian Head. What recommendation was made for this, and what is the advantage of the transfer? While I am all in favour of the shorthorn breed-it may be the best breed for Saskatchewan generally-I think the Ayrshire breed tends to encourage dairying, and possibly both breeds could be carried advantageously at the one station.
The minister made reference to the Patterson farm at Indian Head. I believe that farm was given to the department without rental on the understanding that the buildings would be kept in repair and the land not allowed to go back. I think reference should be made to the fact that Mr. Patterson gave the use of that farm as a contribution to agriculture in western Canada. A year or so ago he died and I believe the farm is now under a different arrangement, but I think Mr. Patterson's action should be commended and brought to the attention of western Canada, in giving for a number of years one of the finest sections of land in western Canada-there is hardly a foot of waste land on it-to the department for experimental purposes without rent.


James Garfield Gardiner: I must correct the suggestion just made. Probably it was at one time the intention of Mr. Patterson to leave that farm to the government, but when he made his will he did not do so. The farm does not belong to the government, and will not unless the government buys it. We have paid rent for the farm and buildings ever since it was first turned over, a fairly good rent. It is not the intention of the government to rent that farm beyond this year. Mr. Patterson's first thought probably was that when he passed on, the farm might be turned over to the government, but that did not materialize.


Ernest Edward Perley: I am sorry to hear that. The general impression in that part of the province was that he gave the use of the farm without rent. Of course I understood that when he passed on, some other arrangement would be made.


James Garfield Gardiner: Regarding fruit growing, experiments are being carried on towards the development of varieties suitable to the west. That work is largely done at Morden, Manitoba, and has been going on for a number of years. Cross grafting of trees in order to produce hardy varieties is being done largely
Supply-Agriculture-Farms

there. Some varieties are transferred later to Indian Head for further development under conditions there.
As to giving away apples, there is difficulty about giving away anything from the experimental farms. There is not enough for the whole population, and if it is given to some people and not to others, there is trouble. These trees are there for experimental purposes. It is possible that some fruit is allowed to rot under the trees, but perhaps people in the locality do get some of it in spite of the fact that there is no general policy of giving it away. I understand that all sound fruit is gathered and sold.


Mr. RICKARD:: What varieties are there?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are not the usual varieties that one finds in eastern Canada. They are mostly hardy varieties brought from Russia and similar places, or hybrids of some kind.


Mr. STIRLING:: Are farmers taking up the notion of growing apples there? Could the minister set at rest the suggestion that the garden of Eden was originally there?


James Garfield Gardiner: Fruit trees are being grown on farms; some have very creditable orchards. That is particularly true I think in the Melfort and Tisdale regions, which are much further north than Indian Head but seem to be better suited to the growing of fruit trees. I think, however, most people who try to grow fruit trees in western Canada find that-


Grote Stirling: That it is difficult.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, it is an interesting pastime, but I do not think you can grow fruit cheaper there than it can be imported from somewhere else.


Ernest Edward Perley: They have discovered that the flavour of apples grown there is much better than that of those grown in the Okanagan valley.


Mr. HANSELL:: I have been looking at pages 65 and 66 of the estimates for some information on this item but do not find what I am after. When driving along the roads out west I have noticed farms with signs on the fences indicating that they are experimental stations of some kind. On making inquiry I have not been able to satisfy myself entirely as to what these places are. I know they are not government-owned stations because in some instances I knew the man who owned the farm. But just how he operates it, and what use it is to the Department of Agriculture or to the country, I have not been able to learn. Would the minister tell us about these stations?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are illustration stations across Canada, 171 of them all told at present. These stations are set up on a similar basis in the different parts of Canada. A certain part of a farm is rented; the farmer does the work; the seed is supplied by the government; it is seeded under direction of the experimental farms, and records are kept as to the results. The farmer has all the product from the plot, but the neighbours in the vicinity have the advantage of seeing the experiments carried on and the results.


Ernest George Hansell: The strange thing I found as I made inquiry about these stations is that the people living in the communities do not seem to know much about them. I have heard such remarks as this-although I feel that the remark is not true-" Well, it may be a good Liberal station ", the inference being that there may be patronage of some sort. I say I do not believe that is true, because I know one or two of these stations in or near my own constituency that are operated by men who I am certain are not Liberals. As a matter of fact, one of them is-


An hon. MEMBER:: Be careful.


Ernest George Hansell: I hope the gentleman to whom I refer will not lose his job now.


An hon. MEMBER:: You may lose his support.


Ernest George Hansell: No, the gentleman to whom I have reference is a very strong supporter of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party. What remuneration is paid the men who work these plots of land?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no wage at all. They are paid SI an acre and, as I said before, they get the results of their labour on that acre just as they do in connection with any other acre of the farm.
With regard to the other point, as to whether the neighbours are made acquainted with what is going on, there is at least one field day held on each of these plots, and on many of them there are two field days. The average attendance at these field days runs from one hundred to five hundred, so quite a number of people do take advantage of the fact that these stations are there. With regard to the political stripe of the people who operate them, I think there are some good farmers who are not Liberals.


Ernest George Hansell: How far are the stations
apart, or how are certain locations chosen?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are about fifty to seventy-five miles apart, as a rule, in certain areas; but with only 171 of them scattered

Supply-Agriculture-Farms
over Canada it would not be possible to have them every seventy-five or even one hundred miles.


Mr. TUCKER:: I should like to make a
few remarks with regard to something that is regarded as almost a tragedy in the constituency I have the honour to represent in this house, something which is regarded as quite a setback to agriculture in [DOT] a large part of northern Saskatchewan. I am informed that it is proposed to close the long established experimental station at Rosthern. This station was opened in 1909 by the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. It is situated in the centre of one of the finest farming districts in Saskatchewan. Doctor Seagar Wheeler lives within about five miles of that station, and it will be remembered that Doctor Wheeler was three times wheat king of the world, something never accomplished by any other person. As a matter of fact, since that station has been in operation, it has had a tremendous influence in the district which it serves, which includes not only the constituency of Rosthern but also North Battleford, The Battle-fords and the territory tributary to Saskatoon, together with a great part of the constituency of Prince Albert, which is represented in this house by the Prime Minister This district is settled to a large extent by people from continental Europe, and the service performed by that station in teaching these people the best methods of Canadian farming can never be measured by officials here in Ottawa.
I am told that certain experiments which have been carried on in the past have been brought to a conclusion, and that therefore there is no further reason for keeping open that station. I think everyone in this committee will agree that where experimental stations fall down is in not getting the benefit of their experiments across to the people, rather than in the experiments that are carried on. It would be better to get half the information obtained across to the people at large than to carry on experiments twice as important and get very little across to the people.
So, Mr. Chairman, when you have a long established experimental station in the middle of a district which needs and uses the advice and assistance of the officials of that station, it seems to me a retrograde and terrible step for any government to close that station just for the sake of saving $10,000 or less. The station has been in existence for thirty-one years, and each year more and more people come to it to get advice, particularly as to the best methods of improving their live stock. I live within a mile of the Rosthern station, and each year I have seen more and more people going there to get advice and 95826-73
assistance with regard to improving their farming methods. In that district there has been a tendency to change from grain farming to mixed farming, and the officials have given most valuable advice to the farmers with regard to that trend. For instance, recently a brooder house was set up to show how, at small expense, pigs could be farrowed in the height of winter without risk, in order that they might be marketed to greater advantage. I venture to say that since that building has been established, at least a thousand farmers have visited and examined it, and who can say in dollars and cents what value that has been to the whole district?
I look at the estimates and find an item of some $598,000 for the central experimental farm at Ottawa. When I compare that sum with the small amount that would keep the Rosthern station open; when I consider that almost as many real farmers visit the Rosthern station as probably visit the Ottawa experimental farm, I cannot keep silent in this committee. We have a deputy minister in another department which I will not mention now, drawing $10,000 a year and doing no work to speak of at all. When I think of that and realize that in order to save this amount of money we are closing a station serving hundreds of farmers in a large section of a great province such as Saskatchewan, a station that gives work to perhaps thirty people who need it badly, looking after the shrubs, gardens and so on, people who make perhaps $200 during the summer by hard work; when I see them about to be thrown out of work and remember a deputy minister in one of our government departments as already indicated, getting the salary I mentioned, I cannot keep silent in this committee. I must rise and say that I do not approve any such policy. That station has been teaching good Canadian farming methods to hundreds of farmers, who have come from Prince Albert, from North Battleford, from Melfort and from over a hundred miles around, in order to get the benefit of the advice of the officials stationed there. Year after year they receive the advantage of the experiments carried on at that station; it is doing better and better work in that way all the time, and I am informed that on a bare carrying basis, taking into account the revenue obtained, that station probably could be operated for less than $10,000 a year.	,
Then there is the question of foundation live stock. There has been built up on that farm probably one of the finest herds of Holstein cattle in Canada. There has been built up also a fine herd of Yorkshire hogs. I have seen people come there from all over



BPV1REO EDITION

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Agriculture-Farms
[Stage Direction]
northern Saskatchewan to buy animals as foundation live stock for their herds. Is anyone going to say that the maintenance of a herd which makes available the best foundation live stock that can be procured in Saskatchewan is not worth $10,000? The men who will be thrown out of work are older men with families. They could not make a better contribution to the winning of this war than by assisting our farmers in producing the very best live stock and learning the best farming methods. I heard the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ralston) make his budget speech. Our effort should be to place our economic machinery, including our people, to the best possible use. Money should not be the determining factor. Are we increasing the efficiency of the people of western Canada by closing a station which has given leadership and provided advice and instruction to a whole section of Saskatchewan? Are we helping to strengthen Canada by closing that station?
Those hon. members who have visited the prairie west know something of the homes which have been established there. The tendency has been to tell the people that because they are going to bring up their families in that part of the country, because their children will first come in contact with the world there, they should try to improve their home conditions and make them more congenial. There has been a real campaign to urge people to plant trees, particularly fruit trees to provide a certain amount of fruit for their families and make real homes for themselves. At times there has been a tendency to scoff at what can be done in connection with the growing of fruit in Saskatchewan.
Just a year ago I visited the farm of Doctor Seager Wheeler where there are fifty acres under fruit. There is a splendid fruit orchard at that experimental station. I have seen literally tons of fine plums, crabapples and cherries which could not be disposed of in those orchards. People go to that experimental station and they are told what fruit trees will be suitable to their locality. There is a horticultural branch of the experimental station at Morden, but I am told that things can be grown there which cannot be grown in any other part of western Canada. I am told also that anything that will grow at Rosthern will grow in almost every part of the west. There is nothing more discouraging to people who may not have much in the way of funds than to spend money on fruit trees and have them die the first winter. They soon give up the idea of trying to go into fruit. Different trees are tested at the Rosthern station and information is available as to what trees are suitable to the different locali-

ties. People obtain this information and then go home and establish orchards. To-day we see farm after farm with nice orchards, all of which tends to make these people feel more at home in the place where they may have to spend the rest of their lives.
Is any official at Ottawa going to tell me that a work which helps to make real homes for hundreds of people in western Canada is not worth $10,000? I hope the committee will pardon me for speaking perhaps too feelingly in the matter, but I cannot help doing so when I think that some official in the Department of Agriculture is advising that this wonderful work for our people should be discontinued in order to save $10,000 or perhaps even $14,000 or $15,000. Any hon. member who had at heart the interest of his constituents would not fail to raise his voice with some feeling.
Year after year field days are held at that experimental station and these are attended by hundreds of people. The minister of agriculture for Saskatchewan, one of the outstanding agriculturists in this dominion, attended and gave a fine and instructive address at the last one. This is the only place in that district where an affair of this kind can so advantageously be held. Hundreds of people have benefited by visiting that farm. They come from as far away as 150 miles and obtain the very best ideas for improving their live stock and receive the latest information as to what fruit trees will be suitable to their farms. Not only do the people in the immediate neighbourhood appreciate the work being done on that farm; it is appreciated by people all through northern Saskatchewan. I have a letter here from the Prince Albert board of trade, a city which is represented in this house by the Prime Minister. I do not want to weary the committee, but I want to do everything in my power to plead with this government not to make the mistake which I think they will be making if they close that farm. This letter is dated June 5, 1940. Hon. members will note it is from the Prince Albert board of trade, not the Rosthern board of trade. It reads in part:
In our opinion it would be a tremendous mistake, as the present staff enjoys the confidence of all the people in this part of the province and they are doing a most valuable work. While the difference between the cost of operation and the revenues received does not involve a very large amount of money, in the alternative, but we very much prefer the first suggestion, it could be carried on in a modified form during the war and then put back on its present status.
We feel it would be preferable to shut down another station not as highly developed and retain Rosthern.

Supply-Agriculture-Farms
We have asked Mr. King to make the strongest representations possible on our behalf.
I do not think I am breaking any confidences by reading that last paragraph. That is the attitude of the Prince Albert board of trade. I should like to read a telegram, dated June 14, which I received from the same organization. It reads:
Understand definite word has been received to close Rosthern experimental station. People here anxious to have same retained if at all possible. Could you give us any lead which would assist to bring this about. Wire reply.
I come now to Saskatoon, which is to the south of Rosthern. This constituency was formerly represented in the house by the late Doctor Young. I shall read just a paragraph from a letter received from the Saskatoon board of trade, under date of June 5, 1940, as follows:
The Saskatoon board is well acquainted with the many strenuous duties the government must undertake in these days of conflict, but we feel that if it is at all possible, the services of this station should be maintained for the province of Saskatchewan. The station has been of real service to agricultural interests of the whole province, particularly the northern section.
We assure you the Saskatoon board of trade will support any move which will keep this experimental station in operation.
I have another letter here from a member of the legislature for Prince Albert city. He says:
I wish to point out that this is one of the oldest experimental stations in the province of Saskatchewan and in years gone by has given most valuable service to the agricultural districts in this part of the province and if it is discontinued at this time the loss from an agricultural point of view will be serious.
The dominion government has a large investment there at the present time which has been built up over a great number of years and to allow that investment to simply disappear at the present time will undoubtedly mean a setback to agricultural educational activities in this part of the province, and in view of the serious times which agriculture has had to contend with during the last decade it seems to me absolutely imperative that this station should be kept in operation even if only on a restricted basis in view of present difficulties in financing Canada's war-time economy.
I have letters here from the Prince Albert Horticultural society commending the splendid work which that farm is doing in horticulture. This is not from the Rosthern district but from the Prince Albert district-sixty miles away. Is it not likely that the people out there would know more about the good effect of the work done than some officials at Ottawa?
I have a letter from the Prince Albert Agricultural society pointing out the good work that has been done at Rosthern in providing foundation live stock to all parts 95826-73J
of northern Saskatchewan. I shall not weary the committee by reading it because I appreciate vey much the sympathy which has already been extended in giving me time to read as much as I have done. I should like, however, to read a sentence or two from a letter from a member of the legislature from Saskatoon city. He says:
However, I believe it would be a very serious move for the government to make unless it is an absolute necessity.
I know you will do your utmost to do whatever is in the best interests of Canada and, in my opinion, the Rosthern experimental farm should be kept open. I am simply writing you to tell you that you have my full support.
I have letters and resolutions from pool organizations and other organizations within a radius of practically one hundred miles of the Rosthern experimental station, urging me and begging me to do something to see to it that this facility which has been given to our hard-pressed farmers of western Canada is not withdrawn-a station that was established there for the service of thousands of our farmers by our late great leader Sir Wilfrid Laurier. If it is so necessary to save money, they suggest that the Rosthern station be put on a subsistence basis, because the income is quite substantial, and that it be carried on upon that basis until after the war.
There is an investment there of over $119,000, and I understand it is proposed, Mr. Chairman, to sell that farm and auction off the stock that is on it. Some of the cattle there are of such a high quality that if they get into the hands of people who are not fully qualified to look after them and make the best use of them for breeding purposes, they will be of very little use to the community as a whole. At the station they are used to provide foundation live stock to supply that whole area to the best advantage. Here we have an investment of $119,000 which it is proposed to wipe out, to do away with all the advantages which that farm gives to the people of northern Saskatchewan, when it is suggested by people in whom I can have confidence that, if it is absolutely necessary, by cutting down on expenditures that are not absolutely essential, the farm could be carried on at a net expenditure of between $5,000 and $10,000. When I see how much money is voted to beautify the city of Ottawa, hundreds of thousands of dollars, and read the other items in the estimates, and then see that in order to save money it is proposed to wipe out the one thing of real value to our farmers, that has been given to the district which I have the honour to represent, on the say-so of some people in Ottawa that that farm is no longer serving a useful purpose, I must rise in my
Supply-Agriculture-Farms
[Stage Direction]
place in this house and urge and beg the Minister of Agriculture to reconsider the closing of that farm.
Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I notice in the minister's report on the work of the experimental farm at Melfort, Saskatchewan, mention is made of considerable experimental work done in connection with the sugar beet industry. Can the minister tell us what success there has been in that particular field, where the seed is procured, and whether we are developing in Saskatchewan sugar beets suitable for making refined sugar?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Before the minister answers that question, surely he will have something to say to the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) who has just spoken. I have no information at all with regard to the merits of closing that farm, but I have a good deal of sympathy for the case -which the hon. member has made. In the course of his remarks he made some serious reflections upon the deputy minister of agriculture and some of the higher officials of the department, and it seems to me-and I offer this with the utmost good-will-that the minister just cannot sit silent.


James Garfield Gardiner: I had no intention of
doing so. There may be five other speeches to make after I have the floor.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister will excuse me. I apologize for being a little premature. I thought he was not going to reply. Certainly we cannot let this item pass without the minister making some defence of his own officials who cannot be here to speak for themselves.


James Garfield Gardiner: Another member over
there rose to ask a question.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister did not rise.


James Garfield Gardiner: I had not the opportunity. The hon. gentleman over there had the floor.	.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am
sorry; I did not see him.


James Garfield Gardiner: To answer first the
question that has just been asked, experiments are being carried on by all our farms having to do with sugar beets, the reason being that we are attempting to get records of the production and sugar content of sugar beets being raised in different sections where we operate farms. Experiments are being made at Melfort in common with our other farms that are operating.
To come down to the question that has been raised by the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker), it will be noticed that this
fMr. Tucker.]
item has been reduced by $185,000. The Ros-them farm is not the only farm that is being closed.


Mr. BROOKS:: I was going to ask the
minister if he would tell us how many farms in each province have been closed.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are none closed
to date.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Or are proposed to be
closed.


James Garfield Gardiner: Take the farm at St. Joachim. The expenditure there last year was $6,000. This year we are cutting that down to $5,125, with the intention of closing the farm. At the Cap Rouge farm we spent last year $27,851, and we are spending this year $10,564, with the intention of closing it.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Where is that?


James Garfield Gardiner: In Quebec. At the
Famham farm last year we spent $20,502, and this year we propose to spend $8,122, with the intention of closing the farm at the end of the season. The Rosthern farm has not been run for $10,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He said
net.


James Garfield Gardiner: It cost $27,812 last year.


Walter Adam Tucker: What were the revenues
there?


James Garfield Gardiner: The revenue was S4.323, leaving a net cost of $23,000.


Walter Adam Tucker: Does that include the cost of the construction of the conservatory, and the new piggery? They cost about $12,000, I believe.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I understand it does not include the cost of buildings. At Windermere farm we spent $14,518 last year; we are spending $6,926 this year, with the intention of closing it. We expect to save $9,000 by closing the farm at Tranquille.
Those are the six farms, and there are nineteen demonstration stations which are being closed in the different provinces across Canada. By this means we reduce the expenditure this year by $185,430.
This is not the first time the department has indicated a desire to close the Rosthern farm, and at least some others which I have mentioned. It has been for some time the opinion of the department that the usefulness of the work which was started many years ago at some of those places has ceased. Certain work was done in those areas to demonstrate what could be accomplished under the soil conditions existing there, and the

Supply-Agriculture-Farms
department believe they have carried on those experiments for a sufficient length of time to demonstrate what they had in mind to demonstrate.
There were other reasons why it was decided that the Rosthern farm should be closed with a view of reducing the expenditure on experimental farms. But I wish to emphasize that, had the department and their officials had their way, those farms would have been closed sooner or later irrespective of the war; and since there is a war on, and it was necessary to keep down expenditures this year in connection with experimental work, it was thought that any reductions should be made at places where, in the opinion of the department, work should be discontinued in any event.
A special reason why it was thought wise to choose the Rosthern farm as an object of reduced expenditure is that it operates a comparatively short distance from Saskatoon. At Saskatoon we have a forestry farm which is developing trees suitable for the northern section of Saskatchewan. Also at Saskatoon is an agricultural college of the provincial government, associated with the university of Saskatchewan. If I remember rightly, that farm contains 1,600 acres of land, or ten quarter-sections. Much of the experimental work, particularly with forage crops, which was being carried on at Rosthern is now being done on the Saskatoon farm. Therefore it was not considered necessary to continue that work at Rosthern and it has been discontinued there for some considerable time. The work which has been conducted there for the last number of years has had to do with the development of live stock for that area, and the breeding of hardy fruits has been experimented with during the last two or three years.
In view of this experimental work which is being carried on at Saskatoon by the province, and at the forestry farm at Saskatoon; in view of the further fact that we have one experimental farm at Melfort, to the east of Rosthern, and another one at Scott, to the west of Rosthern-


Mr. ROWE:: How many in the province?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are five in the province-we decided that the Rosthern farm should be closed at the end of the present year. Some representations have been received as to other uses which might be made of the farm either by the province or by groups of people in that section, but I do not think I am in a position to discuss these representations with the committee at the present time. It may be sufficient to say that
the suggestions have to do with ways and means of utilizing the farm with the aid of expenditures to be made from elsewhere. But those discussions have not gone sufficiently far to warrant me in saying that the proposals will materialize.
With regard to the officials I would only say this, that I do not believe there is any man working in connection with agriculture anywhere in Canada who spends longer hours and gives more conscientiously of his time to the work than the present deputy minister of the department. I have had reason during the last five years to know the time that he gives to it and his ability to be the chief administrative official of the department. The entire speech of the hon. member for Rosthern has been the finest eulogy of the officials of the Department of Agriculture to which I have listened in this chamber. If those officials were giving a service which was so well thought of and which could be appropriately described in the terms used this evening by the hon. member for Rosthern, then those officials must have ability second to none among the people who are interested in the promotion of agriculture in this country. That is one of the reasons why, when a question was asked on the administrative item as to whether it would not be well to close those farms and operate them merely as crop-producing units for the purpose of indicating whether a farm could be run as a paying proposition, I preferred to leave the discussion until this point, because I was quite certain that, when I would intimate to this committee that we were going to close some of those farms, there would be many who would be prepared to rise in their places and say that those experimental farms had done real service in every section of Canada, and that if we attempted to close down any one of them and utilize it merely to demonstrate whether money could be made at farming, we would soon find from all corners of the chamber the most decided opposition to that procedure.
I want to say again that the speech delivered this evening by the hon. member for Rosthern demonstrates that the departmental officials are doing a good job and that the people in the areas where those farms are operating realize that they give valuable service. I am sorry that the time has come when we believe it necessary as well as advisable to close them in the interests of future experimental work in this country. I am pleased that it is possible to do so at a time when certain sums of money, totalling $185,000, can thereby be released for expenditure on the war services of the country.


William Earl Rowe: Did the minister state how many farms and stations were being closed?
Supply-Agriculture-Farms


James Garfield Gardiner: Six farms and nineteen illustration stations.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is there no protest from Quebec?


James Garfield Gardiner: Not up to the moment.


Walter Adam Tucker: I do not want to 'take up too much time, but I should like to ask the minister if he does not think that, by transferring elsewhere the higher-paid officials, or some of them, and carrying on that farm on a subsistence basis, it would be possible to operate it with a net expenditure of about $9,000 at the outside over and above receipts?


James Garfield Gardiner: We are carrying it on this year at an expenditure of $8,000, but we are not doing real experimental work on the farm. If we carried it out merely on a maintenance basis, we would not be doing anything that any other farmer in the community is not doing. The farm of Seager Wheeler, which is across the road and to which the hon. member has referred, has been operated for many years by Seager Wheeler, and some of the most important experimental work carried on in the west has been done by him on his own farm. It is true that for a few years the department employed him. We gave him an honorarium of $1,500 a year over a period of years until he reached the age of seventy, and by means of that honorarium he carried on much experimental work in connection with fruit. In addition he was responsible for the production and propagation of some of the best strains of wheat we have had in the west.


John George Diefenbaker: When was the
allowance discontinued?


James Garfield Gardiner: About two years ago.


James Arthur Ross: I do not know anything about the merits or demerits of the Rosthern farm. The hon. member representing that district put up a battle in defence of the farm, but he said something with reference to the officials of the department of the sort that I have listened to from several members on various occasions. It is something that does not appeal to me as a new member. It strikes me that a public servant who cannot rise and defend himself should not be so criticized unless there is great justification. I have been intensely interested in agriculture for many years, and I know, from personal contact with the deputy minister of agriculture and the director of experimental farms for Canada, that in these gentlemen we have two of the most efficient public servants in the country, men who give long hours of work and are quite efficient in the discharge of

their duties. It is not becoming for members to cast reflections upon either of these public servants, as has been done this evening-and I have heard the same thing on other occasions from other hon. members with regard to different departments. Such criticism should not be made without proper justification. I wish to pay a tribute to the fine work rendered the country under two different governments by the deputy minister of agriculture and the director of experimental farms. I have known of new offices created in the last few months in connection with which salary and living allowance were much higher than either of these public servants receives, and I doubt very much whether the men appointed to those offices will render one-quarter of the service that these men are giving the country. I want to compliment them upon the splendid work they have done.


Walter Adam Tucker: The hon. member has raised a point that has been rather disturbing to me. It seems to me that we are getting away from parliamentary government and moving towards bureaucracy. If members of the civil service make recommendations or say something about somebody or suggest that something should be done and a member of the house ventures to disagree with him, that member is supposed to be casting reflections upon him. I do not cast reflections upon anyone, but when I am elected by the people I have as much right to have an opinion as to what is best for the country as civil servants have. I think it is time we began to see where we are drifting in this matter. If the members of this house feel that an expenditure on a subsistence basis of nine or ten thousand dollars can carry the Rosthern farm, in order to have it expanded again when financial conditions are better, and the department says "No, in our opinion, it should be closed," what happens? I leave it to the hon. members here. But we are the ones that are answerable to the people; we are the ones elected to run the country. But who is tending more and more to run it?


Richard Burpee Hanson: The government.


Walter Adam Tucker: The leader of the opposition says, "the government." I know that a busy minister is in such a position that he cannot look into all the details of his department. The civil servant responsible makes a recommendation to him. He may make that recommendation with the most honest intention, but he may be mistaken, he may be misinformed, just as members may be mistaken at times. It is our duty in such a case to rise in our places and bring the matter to

Supply-Agriculture-Farms
the attention of parliament itself. If it is coming to the stage where a member cannot do that without being accused of criticizing, casting reflections, and so on, what is to become of parliamentary government? Almost every day, I talk with various members and they say they do not know what is going on. The departments are so busy that the ministers do not know what is going on. Civil servants may think they are right. Doubtless they think members of parliament are just a nuisance; nevertheless we are supposed to have democratic parliamentary government in this country. In what I said, and in quoting the opinion of people right on the ground, I have been trying to show that in this case officials may have made a mistake, so far as agriculture in northern Saskatchewan is concerned. I admit I may be wrong, but it was my duty to bring this matter to the attention of the committee. At any rate, I wish to thank hon. members for the sympathetic hearing they have given me, right or wrong.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not want to block my own estimates, but there is one point I should clear up. I knew all about this item when the decision was made to cut it out, and I examined into all the farms before any of them were cut out. I take full responsibility for all the reductions which I have recommended to the house and full responsibility for all the increases, and I think the officials of the department will agree with me when I say that I personally put up all the arguments to the officials against closing Rosthem and some of the other farms that have been mentioned on the floor to-night. But I was convinced by information placed before me that this farm eventually ought to be closed. I was convinced that Windermere farm eventually ought to be closed, and that the others I have spoken of ought to be closed some time in the very near future; and having been thus convinced, I came to the conclusion that the proper time to make the recommendation was now when we need the money for other purposes.
I do not want any hon. member to have the idea that this is merely a recommendation of officials of the department. The initial suggestion of reduction was my recommendation, coming not from officials at all, but from the government of Canada through the treasury board of which I am a member. It was suggested that the regular estimates of my department were to be cut down by at least $2,000,000, and in order to make up that $2,000,000 we had to do certain things. One of the things we decided to do was to reduce now what we intended to do sooner or later
in any case, namely, by closing down some of the experimental farms. I was responsible for pressing reductions on the officials. They are responsible for recommending to me the selections and giving reasons as to why the particular farms which have been closed should be closed. But I finally made the decision and I take all responsibility for it.


Percy Chapman Black: Have any
farms or illustration stations been opened in the last five years?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not the exact number, but very few have been opened within the last five years; two substations, one in British Columbia and one in Quebec,
I understand.


George Hugh Castleden: What is the number of dominion experimental farms throughout Canada, and their distribution by provinces?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are twenty-six main farms.


George Hugh Castleden: How many in Quebec?


James Garfield Gardiner: There will be four left in Quebec; three are being closed there. In Ontario there are two.


George Hugh Castleden: WThich ones are being left in Quebec?


James Garfield Gardiner: Sainte Anne de la Pocatiere, Lennoxville, L'Assomption, Nor-mandin and a small substation.


George Hugh Castleden: Is there one in Hull?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, not in Hull. We have a laboratory over there.


George Hugh Castleden: That is part of the central experimental farm, is it? Just a laboratory?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is right.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The minister answered part of my question in regard to experimental work with sugar beets, but I did not hear him reply to the question whether sugar beets produced in Saskatchewan are satisfactory for the refining of sugar, and whether seed is being arodueed.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, the sugar beet produced in Saskatchewan has a good percentage of sugar. In dry years the yield per acre s light; that is the chief drawback.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Where is the seed procured?


James Garfield Gardiner: The seed has all been imported in the past, but provision has been made under the agricultural supplies board to get seed from available sources of supply.
Supply-Agriculture-Farms


Thomas Miller Bell: To what extent can this industry be expanded in Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: In eastern Canada it
can probably be expanded. In western Canada the extent to which it can be expanded is limited by the consumption of beet sugar in that section of Canada. That is to say, sugar produced from beets in western Canada cannot economically be shipped out of western Canada. The only reason why they can be produced there notwithstanding the higher cost of production is the cost of freighting sugar in, sugar being a fairly heavy commodity. The last figures I recall, which may not be correct now, were that you could produce a ton of sugar beets in certain sections of Ontario for at least a dollar a ton less than in some sections of western Canada. Their production under irrigation in western Canada is possible because of the fact that it would cost too much to ship sugar out from the east.


Thomas Miller Bell: The point of my question was rather different. I was thinking of the possible necessity in the future of shifting the emphasis from one kind of crop to another, and I wondered how much room there is for the expansion of the sugar beet industry in Canada, that is, what proportion of our sugar consumption is produced from beets in Canada at the present time?


James Garfield Gardiner: The whole question of tariffs and all that is involved. I should not like to state the extent to which you could increase the production of sugar in Canada.


Thomas Miller Bell: What percentage of our sugar consumption do we produce?


James Garfield Gardiner: About fifteen per cent
of our requirements.
If there are more questions I shall have to ask that this item stand.
Item stands.



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
281. Departmental administration, $190,415.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I see the staff is practically the same as it was before. Having regard to the fact that public works have been stopped, is there no opportunity to save some money here? I understand that the Department of Munitions and Supply has brought in quite a number of people from outside in connection with buildings being erected for war purposes in various parts of the country. Is any use being made of the departmental architects, engineers and other officials, or are we hiring people outside and charging their salaries under war appropriation,

while our own officials, who are, I think, quite competent, are not being used?


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Public Works):: This item covers the expenditures
of what may be called the main office. It provides more particularly for the minister's branch, the branch of the deputy minister and the assistant deputy minister, the secretary of the department, the purchasing agent and the private secretary's office. The number of employees under that vote is about the same as last year. There is no very great reduction in the estimate as far as employees are concerned. At present the employees of the department are well occupied because closing the contracts and completing the work started during last year and early this year require the work of a number of employees to ascertain to what extent the work had been done and to gather the information necessary to close out the contracts. Our people will be occupied in that work for a few months. Afterwards it may be that we could release their services to other departments. Although the Department of Public Works is not doing very much on its own account, we are doing certain works out of moneys transferred to us by the Department of National Defence, for example, and the Department of Trade and Commerce.
The research building was erected by the Public Works department out of moneys transferred from the Department of Trade and Commerce.
A committee has been set up, as the leader of the opposition knows, with the object of transferring to the new departments such officers and employees as have not sufficient work in their own departments, but so far as the Department of Public Works is concerned, few transfers have been made because up to the present we have required the services of our employees to complete and close out the contracts already undertaken. Practically all our officers and employees will be busy until the contracts are definitely closed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does that apply also to the engineers in the outside service? Nothing is being done now at the Halifax agency, for example, with the exception of repairs and that sort of thing. I do not think there are any big contracts under way there. Why could not some of those engineers be used? The point I wish to make is that here is a real chance for the government to exercise some economy. Two months of the fiscal year have gone by. Some time ago word came from the Minister of Finance to cut down these expenditures. I am serious about this; I am not asking these questions

Supply-Public Works-Administration
just for fun. I suggest to this house and this committee that if this war is going on for a long period of time, as it may; if this country is going to be asked to vote huge sums of money for our war effort and to undergo such strenuous taxation as was indicated by the Minister of Finance, then this government and the Department of Public Works-which I mention because it is the one immediately under review-must cut down these services to the bare bone.
Not only that, Mr. Chairman; the government itself must go to work and cut down other services I could mention. What will the people of this country think when forty or fifty people will be taxed under this budget and bring in only enough to pay the salary of Mr. Brockington, SO,000 a year plus $12 a day allowance for living expenses, to write the Prime Minister's broadcasts and speeches? That is his main job. I wonder what the people of Canada are thinking about when they tolerate that sort of thing; yet we are being taxed to the limit for our war effort.
These things must stop, and I serve notice upon the ministry now that I intend to scrutinize every one of these items. I have nothing against Mr. Brockington. He is a very able man. I have heard his speeches over the radio, and his English is magnificent. But we can save that $9,000 salary and $12 per day living allowance. Why, his expenses alone constitute a good sized salary for any man. I am not objecting to Mr. Brockington; I am objecting to the government making that sort of expenditure to-day.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the
leader of the opposition?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, I
think if you worked as hard as I do you would think you earned your salary.


An hon. MEMBER:: You get $12,000 a
year.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have
not got it yet. I hope I will earn it. In any case, the salary of the leader of the opposition was fixed by statute after the most careful consideration, and it has been agreed to by both parties. But nobody was ever consulted when it was decided to set up a public relations officer, or whatever it may be, and pay him $9,000 a year. I should like to know out of what vote that salary is being paid.


Mr. CRERAR:: Not out of this one, anyway.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am sure it is not, but I am taking this opportunity to serve notice-and I think I am justified in
doing so-that expenditures of this sort will be questioned in this house, and justifiably so. I am sure in his heart the minister will agree with me.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I feel that the Department of Public Works cannot accept the criticism of the leader of the opposition and cannot agree to the idea that we are not doing everything we can to reduce expenditures. If hon. members will look at the estimates for this year they will see that my department has submitted itself to a very substantial reduction. If they compare the figures for this year with those for last year, they will see that the decrease amounts to about $17,000,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I quite agree.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is a good reduction, and I think I deserve the commendation of the leader of the opposition for having submitted myself to such a reduction.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am going to give you that when the time comes.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: All possible reductions are being made, but we must retain the services of our employees and officers to protect the properties in our charge. Numerous repairs must be made to wharves and buildings all over the country, and we need our officers to look after these. We are not doing any new work, but as I explained a moment ago we need the services of these officials to gather all the information necessary to close out the contracts, pay the. compensation which may be due the contractors and pay for the material already on the sites, although it may not have been used. All this takes time, and we mu9t gather all this information before we make settlements and definitely close the contracts. As far as the Halifax office is concerned, that may be discussed under another item. As I have stated, the item under consideration covers only what we may call the central office at Ottawa.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I understand that.


Thomas Vien: Shall the item carry?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I should like this item to stand and to call an item under the Department of Fisheries.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is eleven o'clock. I think you have done very well to-night.
1154	COMMONS
House of Commons-Appointments



DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
77. Departmental administration, $129,300.
Thomas Vien: Shall the item carry?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, not by any means.


Thomas Vien: Shall I report progress?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Before
that is done, I should like to say to the minister that when his estimates are taken up I will expect him to give the committee a full explanation of the recent changes in his department and the occasion therefor. I shall not mention the other things I have in store for him.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, June 26, 1940


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 52, for the relief of Ethel Cahan Naihouse.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 53, for the relief of John Roy Fumerton.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 54, for the relief of Paul Edouard Tardif.-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 55, for the relief of Pearl Aizanman Morris.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 56, for the relief of Molly Goldfarb Goldberg.-Mr. Tomlinson.