Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to
make an announcement with respect to the establishment of a Canadian consulate general in New York city.
The government has decided to establish a Canadian consulate general in the city of New York. It is expected that the new office will be opened about May first under the direction of Mr. Hugh D. Scully as consul general.
This will be the first Canadian consulate general, and it is fitting that it should be opened in the largest city of the United States of America. The immediate need for the establishment of the new office is the great increase in Canadian activities in the New York area. Under pressure of war conditions these activities have taken on a new variety, and a new urgency; and the government believes that these facts make it desirable that we should have in New York a central agency under the direction of a capable and experienced administrator to keep in close and effective touch w'ith all aspects of Canadian interests in that area. The new consulate general will be able to relieve the British consulate general of the considerable volume of work it has for so long and so ably carried on for Canadians residing or doing business in this district.
The Canadian government trade commissioner's office in New York city, which has been under the direction of Mr. Douglas S. Cole for the last nine years, will be incorporated in the consulate general. Mr. Cole will continue to perform his present duties with the title of Senior Trade Commissioner in the United States; he will also be a member of the staff of the consulate general with the rank of consul.
The New York office of the wartime information board under Mr. Harry Sedgwick will be attached to the consulate general.
In addition to acting as a central agency for the organization of Canadian activities in New York, the new consulate general will conduct the usual business of a consular office. This includes work in the fields of shipping, nationality, passports and other documentation, estates, customs, taxation, and in general the protection and furtherance of Canadian interests.
In addition to Mr. Scully and Mr. Cole
the staff of the consulate general will include, as consul, Miss K. Agnes McCloskey, whose long and efficient service in the Department of External Affairs is well known throughout the public service. Miss McCloskey will be the first woman to receive a senior appointment in the Canadian external service. Mr. L. B. Ausman, assistant Canadian government trade commissioner in New York city, and Flying Officer P. E. Morin, D.F.M., will be appointed vice consuls. The consulate general will be established at Rockefeller Center on the corner of 5th avenue and 50th street in New York city.
The jurisdiction of the consulate general will cover the states of New York, Connecticut and New Jersey except for the counties of Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Gloucester, Ocean and Salem.
While it is not proposed to establish any other consular offices at the moment, it is a reasonable assumption that expanding Canadian interests and responsiblities will require that the situation be reviewed from time to time.


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: May I ask the Prime Minister if this is the first consular office to be opened in the United States of America?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes-Canadian consulate.


Gordon Graydon: The Prime Minister made reference to the attachment of Mr. Harry Sedgwick, of the wartime information board, to the consular office which is to be set up in New York. I assume that does not mean that Mr. Sedgwick will be under the direct supervision of the consul general, but rather that he will be just attached to the office.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes; not incorporated in the office but attached to it.


Hon. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Will Mr. Scully be under the Department of External Affairs? Will he be leaving the Department of National Revenue?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Scully will be retiring from his present position in the Department of National Revenue and will become the head of the consulate general in New York. That office will be under the Department of External Affairs.


Mr. POULIOT:: Would the Prime Minister be kind enough to table the orders in council concerning these appointments?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.
The War



THE WAR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: Before the orders of the day are called I wish to make a suggestion to the Prime Minister in connection with the house procedure. I shall be only a moment; I thought this was the most appropriate time to present it.
In some of the remarks made by hon. members from time to time during the last couple of weeks, it has been brought to the attention of the Prime Minister and of the government that there should be some announcement, some governmental statement, preferably by the Prime Minister, from time to time with respect to the progress of the war generally.
On one occasion it was suggested that a statement on the war might be made periodically to the house by the Prime Minister. If my memory serves me well, during the session of 1940, and again in 1941 the Prime Minister did make to the house statements which, while perhaps not comprehensive, did at least inform the house and the country of the progress of the war with more emphasis than would be given in the ordinary press statement. I am sure the Prime Minister and the members of the house will agree with me that at the present moment we are passing through one of the most serious stages of our whole war effort. We have a victory loan campaign coming on, with appeals being made to the people from time to time, and a foundation for their success is that the people should be made fully aware of the seriousness of the war. I therefore respectfully suggest to the Prime Minister that he should on auspicious and appropriate occasions follow the practice he followed in previous sessions of giving to the house and the country a statement on the war, giving us the bad news and also the good news where it may be appropriate to do so. None of us would ask that the Prime Minister should make public information which would in any way be of comfort or aid to the enemy, but I do believe that it would strengthen the morale of our country if on particular occasions when a statement could normally be expected from the Prime Minister he would make such a statement to the house and the country.
Before I conclude, there is one other matter I wish to mention. I think we should have more of a war mood in this house than

we have had during this session. I do not intend in saying that to reflect upon anyone in this chamber, because what I have said may be but a reflection of general conditions throughout the country. Nevertheless, I feel it is our duty to develop more of a war-time psychology in this house, and the Prime Minister can give leadership in this matter. The Department of National Defence and the press from time to time give out reports with respect to medals and decorations that have been won by individual members of our armed forces for gallantry on the sea, on the land or in the air. We have speeches made in this house from all sides which, in my opinion, are of much less importance to the people of Canada than the announcements of these decorations for gallantry, and I suggest that such announcements might well be made to the house and the country by the Prime Minister himself or the Minister of National Defence. I know that the Prime Minister will accept my suggestion in the spirit in which it is offered. I believe that such a practice would improve the tenor of our proceedings here, and I make the suggestion with the sincere desire that the country shall know that we really have our minds on the war.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I accept in the spirit in which my hon. friend has offered it the suggestion which he has made.. May I say to him that no one in this house has emphasized more strongly than I have from time to time the importance of the house giving its attention to matters pertaining to the war rather than to some of the domestic questions which it has been discussing. If my hon. friend will look over the proceedings as recorded in Hansard he will find that the time of the house which has been taken up by the matters other than those relating to the war has not been so taken up by hon. members from this side to anything like the extent that it has been by hon. gentlemen opposite. There has been. I think it is reasonable to say, far too much timfe taken up with discussion of domestic questions to the exclusion of more important matters pertaining to the war.
As my hon. friend will recall, in order to-facilitate and expedite the business of the house, he and I and other leaders of the house met together and decided upon a programme which we thought would serve that end. and certain measures were made a sort of "order of the month", and the order which was then set down has been strictly followed ever since.

The War
I must say that I was surprised that in the appointment of some of the standing committees the time of the house should have been taken up longer than was necessary simply to appoint the committees. Matters were discussed which might well have been left until after the committees had had opportunity to go ahead with their work.


Gordon Graydon: Of course there was a reason for that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We spent a week or more on the appointment of the committees with respect to social security,-reconstruction and rehabilitation. There may have been a reason for the long discussion that took place at that time but I submit that it would have been much better to have the discussion at a later period in the session after the committees had had a chance to get on with their work and make some report. Similarly a lot of time was taken up in discussion on the appointment of other committees. There have been motions on going into supply and ways and means, and matters discussed which might well have been deferred until a later time. I do not want to take exception in particular to that, but I must say that there has been a great waste of time in the discussion of many matters here. I cannot think of anything which could be described as a greater waste of time than the discussion we had in the house the day before yesterday in regard to an address which was delivered the other evening by Mr. B. K. Sandwell of Toronto. The thought that Mr. Sandwell or anybody else in this country holding a prominent position and having to do with the moulding of public opinion is disloyal because he ventures to suggest that there is such a thing as loyalty to humanity at large as well as to other institutions seems to me quite ridiculous. That the greater part of the afternoon should have been taken up in a discussion of that character shows how far remote hon. members are in some parts of the house from realizing that a war that affects the whole future of mankind is being waged at this moment.	_
I am only too anxious to make in this house what contribution I can in the way of informing hon. members of the situation as it exists in the world to-day. May I say that I hope I have reason to believe that every hon. member of this house reads from day to day something of what appears in the press, and not only that but listens attentively to broadcasts made by Mr. Churchill, commentators and others with respect to existing conditions. Such contributions as I might make would of necessity be in large
part simply a rehearsal of much with which hon. members ought already to be familiar.
The making of a special statement in parliament with respect to the present position of the war is not something which a prime minister can take on lightly. Mr. Churchill himself when making an important speech, as he did some days ago directed the attention of the British parliament to the fact that the last time he had made a speech dealing with the war situation as a whole was in November last. Of necessity Mr. Churchill speaks in the British House of Commons on the different situations as they arise and as they are known to him before they are known to anyone else in the world, unless it be also to the President of the United States on matters affecting particularly the United States. I cannot reveal matters which should not be disclosed, and for me simply to reecho what is known already to all hon. members might be a somewhat questionable procedure. I might be accused of unnecessarily taking up the time of the house. I have had in mind making a statement with respect to the situation in the world generally when we come to deal with external affairs. I have hoped that a statement of the kind might be made approximately at the time the war appropriation bill was being considered. That I think would be the proper time. I hope to be able to make a statement touching on different aspects of foreign and other external relations, which I think hon. members may wish to hear, soon after the Easter vacation. But I can only do so much in the course of a day and a week. I assure hon. members that if I am not speaking or listening to what others are saying in this house, I am working as hard as I possibly can somewhere else. If there were others to whom I could delegate some of the responsibility that I have to carry I would do it this afternoon. All of us in the administration are working as hard as we possibly can, but there are some things which from the point of view of responsibility are greater than others, and for a prime minister of any one of the countries that are at war to-day to speak with respect to the war situation as it is affecting the world is a very large responsibility and one which has to be exercised with a great deal of discretion and, in so far as one can command it, wisdom.
I have in the last day or two been endeavouring to get my thoughts sufficiently upon the existing situation in a comprehensive way to be able to deliver in Toronto a week from next Monday an address in particular on Canada's position in relation to what I regard as the most serious of all
The War

aspects of the war as it affects us. I hope that what may be said in the way of a nation-wide broadcast will be regarded as equally important as if the same pronouncement were made in this chamber.


Gordon Graydon: Will the speech of the Prime Minister on that occasion be broadcast?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand it will, but I may be mistaken. I hope that if it is not broadcast but should be printed, or both, hon. members will not by any chance feel that the government has been over extravagant in having spent the money necessary for that purpose.
I have tried from time to time as important announcements have to be made affecting Canada in particular to make them in this house. I shall continue so to do, and so far as my limited abilities and time and strength will permit I shall be only too happy to give such reviews from time to time as I think hon. members may wish to have.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think what my hon. leader had in view was brief statements from time to time on the opening of the parliamentary period. We have been in session now for eleven weeks and we have not had anything from the ministry on the state of the war.


Mr. HOWE:: We have not been able to get to it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, yes, there has been ample time. The ministry has so shaped things to suit its own purposes- I am not saying that in any critical way-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that we are far from having shaped things as we wished ourselves. We consulted with the different leaders and had general agreement in regard to what should be done.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, I am not saying that in any critical way at all; the right hon. gentleman has misapprehended what was in my mind. We have been here since January 27 and have not had a word from the government as to the progress of the war. The Prime Minister has correctly stated that when he did speak with regard to the attitude of the nation toward the war he did emphasize on every occasion-and I give him full credit for it-the critical position of the war and made it clear that he did not want that position to be clouded by discussion of less urgent matters. I tell him that I also have had that in mind. Whenever I have made what might be termed a major address in this house I have emphasized that position,

and I think the message has got across to the people of Canada. Nevertheless I do feel that in recent months the people of Canada and their elected representatives have not been taken fully into the confidence of the government as to the progress of this great world event. That is all we mean and we think we ought to have it often.
Mr. J. II. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge): Inasmuch as the Prime Minister has referred by implication directly to my group I think it is fitting that I should say a word or two. With respect to the discussion of a speech given by Mr. Sandwell the other day, I would point out to the Prime Minister that that question was raised on Wednesday afternoon, and if he will look over Hansard he will find that the proceedings of this house on that afternoon occupied twenty-nine pages, and that the discussion of this speech occupied six pages. The question was raised by two members of my group and we occupied altogether one page of Hansard. In the light of that I think the Prime Minister is rather overstating the case.
A word with respect to this matter of cooperating. I was one of those who conferred with the Prime Minister to lay down a plan, and up to this moment this group has cooperated with the Prime Minister as no other group has done. For the Prime Minister to make any criticism as regards the raising of this question, which to us is one of vital concern, I think is not quite fair.
There is a good deal of loose talk in this house as to what chiefly bears upon the prosecution of the war. Perhaps it would be a good thing for a committee of this house to meet and decide what matters do pertain primarily to the conduct of the war. I find that everyone who speaks thinks that what the other man is talking about has nothing to do with the war but what he thinks important has all to do with the war. In the interests of clear thought both in the house and in the country I think it would be well for us to draft a list of subjects that we consider of vital import in respect to the conduct of the war.
With regard to the matter that was raised, if I am at all able to judge of the significance of things I would say that the speech which was delivered the other day by Mr. Sandwell advocated the accomplishment of an object which is diametrically opposed to the object for which the united nations are fighting. If he gains his objective, all is lost; this war will have been fought in vain. If there is anything that will deaden the enthusiasm of the people

Wheat
in regard to the conduct of this war, it is the discussion of such matters as this, of supranational governments, which need not be discussed while this war is being carried on; if they are not discussed by irresponsible men like Mr. Sandwell, they will not be discussed in this house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should not like to let pass the statement of the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) that, nothing has been said by myself in this house with regard to the progress of the war since this session opened. If my hon. friend will look at my address in the debate on the speech from the throne, he will find that I took a good deal of time to make the position clear as it existed at that time, particularly in regard to such matters as the Casablanca conference and so on. He will find also that I have spoken on other occasions. It is true that I have not put my remarks in the form of special statements, but from time to time, as the opportunity has been afforded and as I thought the occasion required, I have endeavoured fully to acquaint hon. members with the various aspects of the war which I thought should be brought to their attention. I have made some allowance, however, for what I assumed hon. members would know from their own reading, and have not attempted to traverse a great deal of ground which would not have served any useful purpose.


Gordon Graydon: May I just say to the Prime Minister that in regard to any suggestions on my part, I was only asking that the practice which the Prime Minister himself adopted in previous sessions be restored in this session.


Mr. J. W. NOSEWORTHY (York South):: Apropos of the point raised by the leader of the opposition I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services if he will consider the advisability of giving to this house, at as early a date as possible, some statement regarding the extent of the submarine menace and the steps being taken to offset it. In this connection I should like to direct his attention, if by any chance he has not seen it already, to a devastating editorial on this subject appearing in to-day's Ottawa Citizen.
Hon. ANGUS L. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence for Naval Services): I have not seen the editorial in to-day's Citizen, but I shall be glad to look at it shortly. As to the remainder of the question, I am governed,
I think, by the arrangement that was made by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) on behalf of the three defence
ministers with the leader of my hon. friend's group, the leader of the official opposition and the leader of the Social Credit group. As I recall that arrangement, it was that there would be no speeches on war matters by the defence ministers until the war appropriation bill came up for discussion, and until the appropriate parts of the bill were reached dealing with the respective departments. The Minister of National Defence, the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) and I are all ready, I think, to make statements at any time or to proceed with the discussion of the appropriation measure, whenever the house wishes that done.



MILITARY HOSPITALS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. S. H. KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Pensions and National Health concerning a matter which must be given immediate attention or it will be too late. Has the minister received a copy of the resolution adopted by the Winnipeg board of trade on April 5, a copy of which I have sent to him, asking for reconsideration of the government's decision in the matter of increasing military hospital facilities in greater Winnipeg, as between Deer Lodge and the Winnipeg General hospital? Further, I would ask the minister what steps he has taken to obtain such reconsideration.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health): I had not seen the resolution referred to by the hon. member until I received the copy he sent me just a few minutes before entering this chamber. In reply to the second part of the question I may inform my hon. friend that this matter has been given most careful consideration not only by the officers of the department over which I preside but also by the war hospitalization committee, and it is their conjoint judgment that the best methods and policies have been pursued in this case from the point of view of economy as well as of the interests of members and ex-members of the forces.



ANNOUNCEMENT OF SALE OF 7,000,000 BUSHELS TO BELGIUM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make the following announcement with reference to a wheat sale to the Belgian government.
Oil Bearing Seeds

An agreement has been reached between the Canadian wheat board and the Belgian ministry of economic affairs covering the purchase of
200.000	tons of wheat, or 7,000,000 bushels. This contract was subject to certain financial arrangements which are now completed and a first token payment has been effected. This tonnage will be made available upon demand by the Belgian government, which request will be put forward as soon as part or the whole of Belgium is liberated. The first shipment of
50.000	tons will be made within ten days of
this demand, the remaining 150,000 tons to be shipped during a period of from two to three months later.	_
This tonnage represents, in normal times, one-seventh of all Belgian yearly requirements and one-fifth of the annual imports. At the present time it would cover the consumption in bread for two and a half months for the whole of Belgium.
I think I should supplement this announcement by mentioning that this agreement for the sale of 7,000,000 bushels of Winnipeg December wheat futures was entered into last December, but there were certain financial details which could not then be finally arranged and which rendered it impractical to make any earlier announcement. The announcement to be made from London and Ottawa simultaneously, as agreed upon, made no reference to the purchase price. I immediately cabled the Belgian authorities for permission to state the price and have just received their consent. Although negotiations for this sale were commenced last July, an agreement in substance was not reached until December, and the price agreed upon is ninety cents per bushel basis Fort William, with the buyers paying carrying charges at the rate of four-fifths of a cent per bushel per month from that December date.



OIL BEARING SEEDS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Angus MacKinnon: 
Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: With
regard to the minister's statement as to the desirability of having farmers produce sunflower and rape seed, I regret that it has been made so late, although some may still be interested. -Are any steps being taken by the government to make this type of seed available to farmers? Are any facilities being set up through which they can get it?


James Angus MacKinnon: If the bon. member will read the last paragraph of my statement in connection with sunflower and rape seed he will find therein the arrangements provided.

Synthetic Rubber


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is there a
quantity of this seed on hand?


James Angus MacKinnon: It
is understood that sufficient seed is available.



SEATING ACCOMMODATION IN GALLERY RESERVED FOR DIPLOMATIC SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):	I would ask you, sir, kindly to
look straight in front of you, above the clock, where Your Honour will see a long row of empty seats. For many years it has been the privilege of members of parliament to use for their guests the accommodation offered in the members' gallery, and also the first row of what is known as the ladies' gallery. For a week or more no one has sat in that row in the ladies' gallery-; it has been vacant. You will see, sir, that no one sits there now.
I have been informed that the row has been reserved for members of the diplomatic corps. I have no objection to that, provided that they are interested enough to attend our sittings. But if they are not interested in those sittings, and do not attend-, then why-do we reserve places for them, when that accommodation -would seat the guests of many members of parliament? If the diplomatic corps snubs the House of Commons, what is the use of caring so much for them?
Mr. SPEAKER:: I must reply to what has been said by the hon. member for Temiscouata. The house will realize that conditions now with regard to the diplomatic service are entirely different from what they have been, in the past. We have now eighteen legations in Ottawa. It has always been the practice to have members of legations sit in the Speaker's gallery. However there are only thirty-two seats in that gallery and on some occasions it would be difficult to accommodate all members of legations. For that reason it has been thought advisable to reserve two rows in what was known as the ladies' gallery. Those two row-s are now to be known as the diplomatic gallery, and are to be reserved for members of the legations.
It may be that in the course of their duties they are not able to attend sittings of the house. But I am quite sure the hon. member for Temiscouata is wrong when he referred to their snubbing the House of Commons. 1 am certain there is no intention on the part of a member of any legation to do that. In fact it has been my experience that they are extremely anxious to have most cordial rela-72537-127
tions between themselves and the government of this country. For that reason it has been thought advisable to extend to them the courtesy of placing these seats at their disposal, in order that they may come here, if they so desire, and be assured of seats.


Jean-François Pouliot: Perhaps I should not have used the word "snub"; may I say that they ignore us.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was going to suggest that on special occasions when members of the diplomatic corps might specially desire to be present in the House of Commons the reservations to which they are entitled should be kept for them. But when there is no special occasion I should imagine they would be the last to wish to have the seats unoccupied. No doubt an arrangement could be made which would permit of their use by the general public at other times.



SYNTHETIC RUBBER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: In view of rumours in Canada concerning the dangerous situation in respect of our rubber supply, and in view of statements abroad that rubber can be made successfully from wheat, would the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) at an early day give the house a detailed statement of the steps Canada is taking toward establishing a plant through which she can produce an adequate supply of synthetic rubber?


Clarence Decatur Howe: A plan for producing an adequate supply of synthetic rubber in Canada is very well advanced. We hope to have a plant in operation by late summer.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: From grain alcohol?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A petroleum product?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.



WHEAT ACREAGE REDUCTION ACT


[Stage Direction]
1942 AND 1943
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
[Stage Direction]
Wheat Acreage Reduction Act
[Stage Direction]
That it is expedient to amend the Wheat Acreage Reduction Act, 1942, by clarifying in certain respects the basis of payment in respect to wheat acreage reduction in the year 1942 and to provide that payments may be made in respect of wheat acreage reduction in the year 1943.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
Gordon Graydon: Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt the Minister of Agriculture has a comprehensive statement to make on this resolution. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to have that statement now, if the minister is prepared to make it.


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Chairman, hon. members will recall that in 1941 a policy was introduced to the house through which the government was empowered to pass orders in council for the purpose of encouraging reduction in wheat acreage in the three western provinces, and part of British Columbia. The objective at that time was to reduce wheat acreage and to substitute for it summer-fallowed land, or lands which would be seeded to feed grains or grass. In that year the policy resulted in a very considerable acreage being taken out of wheat and put into other grains. I am not in a position to state exactly what that acreage was.
The department paid through the prairie farm assistance organization in western Canada an amount calculated upon a reduction of more than 10,000,000 acres. That acreage was arrived at by an adjustment or averaging of the crops of 1939 and 1940; therefore it did not constitute a. reduction from the actual acreage of 1940 to whatever acreage was seeded in 1941. A total of S34,557.200 was paid out on account of the year 1941. Payments have been made partly in 1942, and probably some early in 1943. I can give the exact figures of payments up to date if hon. members desire them, but I think it would be better to give them later, when questions are asked.
In 1942 we passed a bill to replace the regulations of 1941. The reason for following up the policy in 1942 was to emphasize the seeding of feed grains and grass to a greater extent than was done in the regulations and the statements made in 1941. Rather than placing the emphasis upon the further reduction of wheat acreage, we placed the emphasis upon the necessity of producing feed grains and oil producing plants, because animal fats and vegetable oils would be required in greater volume owing to the advances of the Japanese during the preceding winter. The result was that we had a further reduction in wheat
acreage of something over a million acres, and we did grow a considerable crop of coarse grains and some crop of oil producing seeds during that year, as the announcement just made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce emphasized.
When passing the bill last year we retained the wording of the regulations of 1941 in relation to certain matters, more particularly in relation to rye; at the same time we took the word "rye" out of the definition of coarse grains in the act of 1942, whereas it had been contained in the definitions of 1941. The net result was that when we began to make payments on rye we found we had no authority under the bill to make payments on that part of the rye which was seeded in 1941. Hon. members who are familiar with the growing of rye in western Canada, and those who are familiar with the growing of fall wheat in eastern Canada, will realize what I mean when I say that any acreage taken out of wheat in 1942 as a result of sowing rye was taken out because the rye had been sown in the fall of 1941 to produce a crop in 1942. The act as it was passed last year made it doubtful whether payment should be made on rye other than that which had been sown in 1942. Therefore those payments have been withheld until the act could be amended. This bill is to amend the act in order to make possible payments on rye which was seeded in 1941 and payments on grass which was seeded prior to 1942. These provisions are contained in section 3.
That is the only change made in relation to the payments in 1942, other than defining clearly the means by which the second payment in 1943 is determined and to make clear the methods of computation as to whether the land is still in grass or rye. It will be recalled by hon. members that under the regulations and under the act of 1942 we arranged for a payment of S4 per acre provided the land taken out of wheat was put into rye or into grass. On coarse grains the payment was S2 per acre. Last year the payment on summer-fallow was $2 per acre, whereas the year before it had been S4. What I want to emphasize at the moment is that both the regulations and the act of 1942 provided that the $4 per acre was to be paid for grass and for rye provided that those crops replaced acreage which had previously been seeded to wheat.
The government and the house, in an attempt to safeguard the payments which were made, divided the payment in two, $2 to be paid after July 1, 1942, and S2 to be paid after July 1, 1943. The reason for this is obvious. Rye sown in the fall of 1942 will not

Wheat Acreage Reduction Act
produce until 1943, and rye which was sown in 1941 did not produce until 1942. The same is true of all grasses. The biennial plants are in the same classification as rye and the perennial plants would all have been seeded previous to the year in which they produced. This bill provides that one of the things that must be shown in order to draw the second payment is that the wheat acreage reduction has been followed from one year into another. That is, at least whatever wheat acreage reduction prevailed in 1942 must prevail in 1943 in order to obtain the entire second payment in 1943. I might say that that had to be done before, but it was not definitely stated in the act and in some cases mistakes have been made in making payments.
The other stipulation in the bill is to provide for payment in 1943 for wheat acreage reduction. In making this provision it is necessary to amend the act of 1942 by changing dates here and there, and it is also necessary to state the basis upon which payment in 1943 is to be made. We have had some difficulty in connection, with the administration of the act because of our efforts in the past to be fair to everyone. In trying to be fair to the small percentage, sometimes we have been compelled by the provisions of the act to be more or less unfair to the greater number. This year we are trying to simplify the payments as much as we can. We are . simply stating that we are going to pay $2 per acre on all acreage that has been reduced as between 1940 and 1943. To illustrate, if a man had 100 acres in wheat in 1940 and he has 50 acres in 1943, he would be entitled to a payment of $2 per acre on the reduced acreage.
We are not asking him to sow either coarse grains or rye or grass or to summer-fallow or do anything in particular with it, but if he abandons the land he will not be paid. In- other words he can sow it to any crop he chooses other than wheat, or he can summer-fallow it. In that case he will be paid S2 per acre for the number of acres by which he reduces his acreage in 1943 as compared, with 1940.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He must do something with it.


James Garfield Gardiner: He must do something with it. There is no provision for a second payment on rye or grass in 1944. This means that from now on the payment will be $2 per acre on rye or grass. In explanation of this I may say that when we first brought down this measure in the form of regulations it was stated clearly to the house that it was not anticipated that the policy would be
followed for more than one year. Believing that it would not be continued over a term of years was our chief reason for bringing it down in the form of regulations rather than as a bill. However, so many complications have entered into the calculation of the payments in relation to grass and rye that it would be most difficult to continue on from year to year if this measure is to be necessary for the duration of the war, say for another two or three years. Therefore we are providing for a payment of $2 per acre for every acre that is taken out of wheat but which is still continued in cultivation.
Those are the main features of the bill. There is one other matter some hon. members will be interested in. We are stating that in future a landlord will have to make application for payment under the act before June 30 and that in order to have the right to apply for .payment he must have a signed statement from the operator of the land to the effect that the operator recognizes a certain individual or company as the landlord.


Mr. SENN:: The minister was speaking
about grasses. I am not certain whether in the western provinces you grow perennial grasses. If so, do I understand that each year the land is under grass they will be paid $2 an acre, or just for the year that it is seeded and the following year when it comes into production? That is one question I would like answered, for my own information.
In the estimates there is a reduction of some 323,000,000 in the vote, No. 31, for this very purpose. Will further estimates have to be brought down to cover operations for this year?
Perhaps the minister will bear with me while I ask a third question. Could he tell us how much of that 835,000,000 in respect of that ten million acres was expended in 1941, and what amount in 1942; and how it was divided-so much, I understand, into summer-fallow, so much into rye, so much into coarse grains, so much in grasses. Could he give us any indication of the acreage average of these different products?


James Garfield Gardiner: To answer first the
question with regard to the estimates, I will point out that each year it has been the custom in connection with this legislation to bring down a supplementary. The provision in the estimates as we now have them is only for the amount which would still have to be paid out after March 31, 1943, on the liabili-

Wheat Acreage Reduction Act
ties for 1942; and whatever amount is necessary for 1943 will still have to be brought down as a supplementary estimate.


Mark Cecil Senn: How does the department
estimate so far ahead what its requirements for the next year will be when it brings down the supplementary estimates?


James Garfield Gardiner: Our reduction in wheat
acreage up to date is pretty well known. I can give these figures in a moment in answer to the other question. We are asking this year for an increase in that acreage reduction of between three and four million acres. That increase, if we obtain a considerable part of it, will probably bring about a decrease in wheat acreage of ten million acres. Ten million acres at $2 per acre is $20,000,000. That is the way we make the estimate. We ask the people to do a certain thing and we set aside a certain amount of money to pay them for it. It will be recalled that when we brought down the regulations we asked the people to reduce by a certain acreage and stated to the house that we estimated it would cost the government $35,000,000 to bring about the reduction asked for. The actual cost was $34,557,200, so that we got just about all we expected and paid for it.
A question was asked as to what payments were made in 1941. There have been some hang-overs and payments about which there is dispute, but down to February 20, 1943, we have paid on account of 1941:
Manitoba	 $ 4,408,225
Saskatchewan	 19,824.841
Alberta	 10,324,134
A total of	 $34,557,200
In the three provinces we estimated the number -who were grain growing fanners and who could be affected by this, to be 273,193. The number of farmers paid was 178,014. The coarse grains increase in 1941 was 3,621,014 acres. The grass increase was 347,136 acres. The summer-fallow increase was 6,206,913 acres. The wheat acreage reduction on this basis would be 10,175,063 acres. The average payment, including landlord's share, wras $192.74 per farm.
I wish to state again with regard to that figure of 10,175,000 acres that there were not that many acres taken out of wheat. It will be recalled that in 1941, under the regulations, we made provision that where a man had grown a certain percentage of his acreage-more than eighty per cent-in wheat in 1940 we averaged the two years, provided that 1939 was lower, and that required the averaging of coarse grain crops as well as others; and these acreages are based upon the basic acreage of

that time rather than upon the actual acreage. So that when we have the complete figures for 1942 they will be more exact, because we based the decisions in 1942 upon the actual acreage of 1940, not upon a calculated acreage as between 1940 and 1939.
Just before leaving that, I should say that there would be a difference to this extent, that where a man had no acreage at all in wheat in 1940, but where he had been accustomed to growing wheat, probably summer-fallowing half his land one year and putting it into w'heat the next, we took 1939 instead of 1940. So that some of this acreage thus contained is not actual acreage of 1940; we go back to 1939 to get part of that acreage.


Mark Cecil Senn: There is some feeling of dissatisfaction throughout the east regarding this wheat acreage reduction and the bonuses which have been paid. Some of the farmers in eastern Ontario argue in this way. The production per acre of coarse grains is naturally very much larger, if the crop is fair, than it is of wheat, and they are wondering whether, with the fairly high prices which prevail for barley and oats and sometimes for rye, the western producer would not get as much out of his land by sowing it in barley and oats rather than in wheat. It seems to me that if the western farmer can get as much money from sowing to barley and oats or coarse grains as he does by sowing to wheat, there is no great reason for giving him a bonus to reduce his wheat acreage and put it into these coarse crops. Will the minister say whether that has ever been considered?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, it has been considered, but that question is not involved in the reason for starting the policy.


Mark Cecil Senn: Oh, I know.


James Garfield Gardiner: What we started out to do was what had been done in another way in the United States previously. What we were really asked to do under the proposed wheat agreement among the different countries which were producing wheat in surplus was to reduce our wheat acreage in Canada, and we adopted this particular method of getting it reduced. One of the objectives we had in mind was to avoid putting a sum estimated at the time to be about $100,000,000-government money, of course, which would come out of all the people of Canada-into wheat; and we had it in mind to cut down the amount by having land taken out of wheat. In doing that, as hon. members will recall, in 1941 there was some fear that we might injure other parts of Canada, and we started that year on a policy of assisting in paying freight on these coarse grains down to eastern Canada, so that farmers in the east

Wheat Acreage Reduction Act
would have an advantage over what would otherwise be their position in getting their grain here. I must say that the policy proved much more successful than probably we anticipated it would, and also much more necessary. So that in 1942, instead of paying only half the freight to a province which would pay half, we agreed to pay all the freight, and not only that, but we set a ceiling price on the coarse grains. We said, no matter what the farmer could obtain elsewhere for them, when they were sold in Canada they were to be sold under a certain ceiling price. Speaking from memory1-I have not the actual figures in front of me, but I can get them later-I think we paid out last year considerably more than $10,000,000 in bringing coarse grains east.


Mark Cecil Senn: About $9,000,000.


James Garfield Gardiner: Up to a certain date, but it has gradually been building up, and when the accounts are all in I think it will be $10,000,000. It is a considerable amount of money, and that is being paid to put grain on eastern farms at a lower price. Some objection w'as raised at the time that it might affect the corn-growing area, which is largely located in two counties, and some other areas where feed grains are grown to advantage. Probably they have suffered to some extent as the result of this policy, but outside of that I do not think there has been any great complaint against the policy. I think it is considered to have been helpful to the western farmer through the payment for wheat acreage reduction. It has helped him to sell that amount of grain at a lower price, and it has also been helpful to the eastern farmer to have the grain laid down here with that ceiling price on the grain, which is not as high at present as it would be if the grain were going elsewhere.


Mark Cecil Senn: The minister has not answered my question whether the returns to the western farmer from a greater production of coarse grains have been as high as what he would have received if he had been sowing wheat and getting the price set by the wheat board from time to time.
Mr.GARDINER: I answered that by saying that it was really not involved in what we did. I_will answer it as nearly as I can. This year, if we were to take just the yields of 1942 and the price of 1942 and the fact that we can deliver only half our wheat-of course, up to date we have not been able to deliver half our coarse grains either, but if we were able to deliver our coarse grains at present prices and take the yields of last year into consideration we would probably have as high returns from coarse grains as from wheat. But
generally speaking that is not the case, particularly through those areas where drought prevails at times and where the rainfall is particularly low. Coarse grains sown on summer-fallow on some of those lands go down very badly on account of heavy straw and do not yield as well as they otherwise would, when rainfall is good. But in a fairly good year the summer-fallowed land in those areas would produce more from wheat if the wheat could be marketed. In addition, there are areas in the west where the farmers have been pretty well convinced over a long period of years that it is very difficult to grow coarse grains. Even yet they hesitate to do it, in spite of the experience of last year. But last year was an exception. You could grow coarse grains anywhere in the west. There are years when that is difficult. Your seeding time is at a difficult period, and also your maturity time, and if you sow barley or oats around the first of June and you get what we often do get- a dry', warm season -when germination is taking place-the barley or oats simply just does not come, or if it comes at all it comes too late to produce a crop. In those areas there is no doubt that there is more return from wheat than from coarse grains. But our objective in dealing with it has not been concerned with that. It has been to take care of the reduced earning he might have obtained had it not been agreed that these grains would be needed in great volume in eastern Canada.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: I am not sure that I followed the minister correctly in connection with rye, but if I did his statement means, I think, that many farmers who seeded rye last fall under the agreement set out in last year's act will be disappointed now.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, they will be very well pleased. They have not been paid yet.


James Arthur Ross: For the sake of argument, say a farmer has 400 acres of wheat as his basic acreage in 1940. He has seeded 100 acres to rye in 1942 and 100 acres of coarse grains. He was paid in 1942 how much money?


James Garfield Gardiner: It would depend on what they knew at the time. The fact I tried to make clear was this. A man does not have wheat acreage reduction in 1942 as a result of sowing rye in 1942. He has a wheat acreage reduction in 1942 as a result of sowing rye in 1911. That was not covered in the act of last year. There are about 2,000 farmers who have not been paid on their rye. Some of them have not been paid on anything, awaiting the passing of this legislation.
Wheat Acreage Reduction Act


James Arthur Ross: On the rye they seeded in 1941?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. Their land was
out of wheat in 1942 as a result, and they have not been paid.
1 Mr. ROSS (Souris): Many have been paid on that basis.
. Mr. GARDINER: Unless they seeded again in 1942 they have not been paid. Under the act if a farmer did seed rye in 1942 he could be paid, but if he had something else in he tould not be paid.


James Arthur Ross: How would the officials know? Farmers would in some cases seed in 1942 after the payments were made.


James Garfield Gardiner: The payments were not made until after August in many cases.


James Arthur Ross: I happen to know a bit about rye because it is grown in our country. The farmers who seeded rye in 1941 were paid for it in 1942. They have filed no return as for rye seeded in 1942. The officials do not know whether they seeded rye or not. They reduced their wheat acreage by growing coarse grains and they were paid for that. Many of them would not have sown rye in 1942 had it not been stated that they would be paid in 1943 after July 1. They will not be paid for the coarse grains as they were paid in 1942.


James Garfield Gardiner: They will be paid for land out of wheat through seeding rye.


James Arthur Ross: They will receive for both acreages? Is that right?


James Garfield Gardiner: The different years
should be dealt with separately. If a man reduced his wheat acreage in 1941 and he did it by having rye seeded, he drew $2 in
1941.	That man was paid another $2 after July 1, 1942. The hon. member will find that many payments have been made to the farmers of whom he is speaking. If a farmer carried his rye seeding acreage through into 1942 he got his second $2, because he reduced wheat acreage in 1941, not in 1942. He gets 82 for having reduced his acreage in 1942, and if he carries his wheat acreage reduction through seeding rye into 1943, he gets another $2 after July 1, 1943, but from now on we are only paying the $2 once on all of it.


James Arthur Ross: Let me see if I understand it. A man grew rye in 1941 and in
1942. He has 400 acres as his basic wheat acreage. He .eseeded rye in 1942, on which the minister says he will be paid in 1943. He is also going to sow 100 acres of coarse

grains. He is going to reduce his basic wheat acreage by 100 acres. Will he be paid $2 an acre on coarse grains and $2 on rye in 1943?


James Garfield Gardiner: He will be paid $2 on the 100 acres in coarse grains and $4 on the rye -82 in .1942 and $2 in 1943, if any part of it was in rye. I think the difficulty which my hon, friend has is one which many have had who have been considering this question. He is thinking in terms of this same acreage. It is not necessarily the same acreage at all. A man must reduce his wheat acreage; it does not matter whether it is in the same field or in some other field. But he must reduce his wheat acreage before he can get any payment, and then he ought to be paid for every acre by which he reduces his wheat acreage.


James Arthur Ross: He was paid S4 on rye at one time.


James Garfield Gardiner: Right up until now he got $4, made up from two payments of 82 each in two successive years.


James Arthur Ross: So that now he is going to be paid $2?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


James Arthur Ross: That is not carrying out the agreement.


James Garfield Gardiner: We are still carrying out the agreement of 1942.


James Arthur Ross: But he will not get it on coarse grain in the same manner as in 1942 and 1941.


James Garfield Gardiner: He does not get it twice on any land. He has not been paid twice; he gets one payment divided into two, whether it is grass or rye. If it is coarse grain he gets one payment. If in the fall he seeds that same land to grass or rye he will get another two dollars the next year, but not a second two dollars in 1942.


James Arthur Ross: Have all payments been made on the same basis for grass and rye?


James Garfield Gardiner: Except where mistakes have been made.


James Arthur Ross: Then there have been hundreds if not thousands of mistakes made.


James Garfield Gardiner: No; the payments are not yet completed.


James Arthur Ross: 
James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, that is one of the reasons why we are simplifying it this year. There has been a great deal of discussion and some misunderstanding on the part of inspectors and superintendents. I have had them all in the office at Regina on two or three occasions myself and tried to explain the matter and I found out later that it was not fully understood. There was an additional complication in that the act said "sown to rye in 1942," and those of us who put that measure through the house last year thought it did not matter when it was actually seeded as long as it was in lye in 1942 and replaced wheat. But when it got before the Department of Justice that was not the interpretation given, and we have to have this amendment to make the payment. Payments have not been made up to date except those that went through on the interpretation of the old regulations which had rye defined as coarse grain. In this bill it is not defined as coarse grain. Some payments did go through on the basis on which they should be paid before this amendment was made, but payments were stopped because it was realized that the wording of the bill did not authorize payment, and payment will be held up until this bill goes through.


James Arthur Ross: In the future everyone will be paid on the basis of $2 an acre on the reduction now over the 1940 period, irrespective of whether it is grass or rye? I can assure this committee that a great many people who seeded rye are going to be disappointed. It may be no one's fault but this has been very confusing. Some have been paid on the basis that I have set forth, and others have been held up. Certainly many people seeded rye this fall expecting to be paid for that rye plus another $2 an acre for reduction for coarse grains next year. In other words, where they counted on receiving S4 an acre for wheat acreage reduction they will be paid only S2.


James Garfield Gardiner: They could not get the next payment unless they seeded again this fall.


Mr. WRIGHT:: Will a man who has bought or rented land this year on which there was no wheat in 1940. be able to get any bonus in
respect of that land?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are two provisions that may make it possible for him to obtain payment. If the land was out of wheat in 1940 and there was wheat on it in 1939, then he goes back to 1939. If it was new land that was broken in 1940, there is the provision that eighty per cent of the breaking is estimated as wheat in 1940, and any reduction from that is allowed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister gave the amount of 834,000,000 a short time ago as the amount paid on the 1941 crop year. Has he any figures for the last crop year? Could he give the total in each province and the total number of individual bonuses paid?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have the figures here, but they are not complete because some payments are still to be made. This is as of March 23, 1943. The payments were:
Saskatchewan	 ? 9,324,804
Alberta	 5,090,882
Manitoba	 2,953,814

There is an estimate that when the final payments are made they will total 818,704,218. The greater part of that reduction as compared with the previous year is because of the cutting down of the amount of summer-fallow at S4 an acre. In 1942 it is $2 an acre. The other part of the reduction is owing to the fact that we paid on probably more than a million acres of reduction as between 1940 and 1941 which did not actually take place as the basic acreage was an average between two years, in many cases.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would the minister give the number of individual bonuses paid for the 1942 crop year?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am afraid I have not the total of the number of payments made this year.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It was some 178,000 the year before?


James Garfield Gardiner: It was 178,000 in the previous year. I imagine it will be about the same this year, perhaps a few more.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Has the minister any figures on the actual reduction of wheat acreage? Last year was down from 1941, was it not?


James Garfield Gardiner: The estimate is that it was something over one million acres more
Wheat Acreage Reduction Act


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Then the wheat acreage has been reduced by something over 8,000,000 acres?


James Garfield Gardiner: The wheat acreage reduction is S,684,000 acres, based on the actual 1940 acreage. It was about seven million last year, based on the actual 1940 acreage, so that it is up about a million and a half acres.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am not sure this is the place to raise the question, but in view of the statement made by the Minister of Trade' and Commerce to-day, and the fact that there has been a growing interest in the west in getting farmers out of wheat and into the production of crops that will produce edible oils, could we have some statement from the minister in regard to this matter. A great many farmers are anxious to know where they can get sunflower and rape seed, and are interested in getting some information about putting it in and what facilities there will be for disposing of it. In my own constituency there was a great deal of interest in the experiment carried on by the hon. member for Moose Jaw, who I understand was very successful in
IMr. Gardiner.]
growing sunflower seed. If the minister or the hon. member for Moose Jaw has any information it would be a good thing to give it to the committee and to the farmers of the west.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the information is really given in the statement that was made, as the hon. member will see when he reads it in Hansard. Under the regulations the wheat board is given authority by the various departments concerned, and directly by the government, to go out and purchase these different kinds of seeds. Then provision is being made for the agricultural supplies board to take a hand in the distribution of the seed. I imagine that the wheat board will make provision for buying the seed at certain points where it is to be had, across Canada; the seed will be accumulated, and people will be able to purchase it back either from the wheat board or from the agricultural supplies board. In any case the set-up will have to be formulated, and information will be put out indicating exactly where the seed is, how much there is, what will be the price, and all that sort of thing.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Do I understand that there are special combines for taking off the sunflower seed?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the hon. member for Moose Jaw can tell you more about that than I can, because he harvested a crop of sunflower seed last year.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: In reply to the hon. member for Weyburn, it might be well to give some information in regard to the growing of these crops, and I need take only a few moments to do so.
Sunflowers are sown by an ordinary seed drill, the ordinary grain drill that is used by farmers throughout the west and the east, by plugging up a certain number of the feeder holes in the drill. The rows are seeded either thirty-six or forty-two inches apart, as the farmer may desire. The seed in the row should be sown from four to six inches apart; that is, the seed should be dropped so that the plants will be four to six inches apart. The land is prepared just as for any coarse grain or for wheat; just a good seed bed. Packing after seeding is a good practice. The seed should be sown about one and a half to two and a half inches deep in the ground. It can be sowm any time after the frost is out of the ground, but preferably in the first two or three weeks of May. After the crop comes into the four leaf stage it can be harrowed. It should not be touched until the plant has a good root and is fairly strong; then it can be harrowed

Wheat Acreage Reduction Act
to kill the small weeds that are in the field. From then on, cultivation with a com cultivator, a scuffler or an ordinai-y cultivator with certain teeth taken out, is carried on once or twice during the season.
The sunflower is left until heavy frosts come in the fall, before harvesting, in order that the heavy stalk and leaves may be dried up with the frost, and it can then be harvested by using a combine. What is known as the rub-bar cylinder combine can be used if certain adjustments are made. The cylinder speed must be slowed down considerably in order to keep from cracking the seed. The reel has to be closed in order that the heads do not wind through the reel of the combine. Ordinarily harvesting does not take place until late September or early October. As a matter of fact this year we did not start to harvest sunflowers on my farm until it was impossible to harvest anything else. The crop was harvested after there was too much moisture, too much snow, to harvest any wheat or coarse grains; after that we successfully harvested the sunflowers.
In regard to the amount of seed, I understand that this year in Canada there is sufficient to sow between 70,000 and 80,000 acres of sunflowers. Much of that seed is now in the hands of farmers throughout western Canada. A considerable quantity was produced by the experimental farm, which seed I think was sold through Doctor White of the university of Saskatchewan. Sunflowers were grown by many people in Manitoba and parts of central Saskatchewan and the seeds sold locally or to farmers throughout the country. The seed that I produced I sold in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
In regard to rape seed, this crop does not take so long to grow as sunflowers. It takes about seventy-five days to produce a crop of rape seed from what is known as black Argentine rape. It can be sowm in rows about three feet apart, and cultivated; that is the way I think it will be done in eastern Canada. In western Canada it will be sown broadcast, like any field crop. The rape which is seeded in the rows will be more difficult to harvest with a combine but it can be harvested with a binder or by some other method, though there may be a little loss of seed if it is done in that way. In western Canada I think the only successful way will be to sow' it broadcast in the fields. It takes about ten pounds of seed to the acre if sown broadcast, and about three pounds to the acre in rows. I understand the black Argentine rape seed on hand in Canada for distribution this season amounts to about 46,000 pounds. Sunflowers will yield from 500 pounds up to the acre; rape is supposed to yield about 600 pounds to the acre. Both can be harvested by combines; both should be profitable crops to grow', especially in view of the fact that all the seed produced can be sold to the department or to the controller of fats and oils. If there are any other questions I shall be glad to answer them.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There is pretty well an assured market for the seed that is grown?


John Gordon Ross: Yes; the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce this afternoon assures that price to the farmer. Apparently it is five cents for sunflower seeds and six cents for rape seed'at the point of shipment.


Mr. GRAHAM:: What is the relative resistance of sunflower to drought as compared with wheat?


John Gordon Ross: It resists drought much better than w'heat, or any other crop in western Canada.


Percy Ellis Wright: Does the hon. member sow in single or in double row's?
Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw'); Single.


Roy Theodore Graham: Why was it suggested that the act contain a provision that the landlord making a claim must file a statement by the tenant to the effect that the landlord is indeed the landlord?


James Garfield Gardiner: There has been great delay in making payments. " Many of the payments not yet made with regard to 1943 are the result of persons continuing to make claims that they have an interest in the land, but claims that they have not been able to establish. In such circumstances payments have not been made. The provision is made to facilitate the payment of the amount due to the farmer.


Mr. QUELCH:: I understood if a farmer made application in 1941 he did not have to make application in 1942. If he did not make one in 1941 he had to make it prior to May 31, 1942. But I know of several cases where applications by farmers were turned down because they were made too late in 1942, although they had made application in 1941. Was that a mistake?


James Garfield Gardiner: I take it that it would be a mistake. I have had one come to my attention within the last week. I turned it back to the office and pointed out that I thought a mistake had been made.
Wheat Acreage Reduction Act


Roy Theodore Graham: I assume that the provisions dealing with the landlord can be discussed when the bill is brought down.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Roy Theodore Graham: I suggest to the minister that he consider this:	the statement of a
tenant as to who is the landlord might present an added difficulty rather than minimize the difficulties which have already presented themselves.


James Garfield Gardiner: That can be considered when we have the bill before us.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: Assuming that a man's wheat acreage in 1940 was 400 acres and that he reduced it in 1942 to the point where he had 300 acres of wheat and 100 acres of grass, I understand he would have received last fall $2 on his grass. Assuming this year he lets the grass grow and maintains 300 acres of wheat, is he entitled to another S2 this year for that grass, after July 1?


James Garfield Gardiner: He is entitled to S2,
provided that the grass represents wheat acreage reduction. He is entitled to the $2 paid in 1941, and another $2 paid in 1942, if he maintains his 1941 position.


George Hugh Castleden: The same applies for 1942 and 1943, with this measure.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


George Hugh Castleden: I suggest to the minister that in cases where the farmer insists he did make application, but the officials say they have no record of it, some arrangement should be made under which he could be given a duplicate copy of his application so that he would have evidence of having made it. I know of several cases where the farmers have been turned down. He is told that there is no record of it; the secretary of the municipality has no record, and- the claim never came to the office. The man's word was all he had to bear out his contention.


James Garfield Gardiner: Where we have been
able to establish that a man did make application, even though the record- may not have been properly kept in the municipality, payment has been made. But there have been cases where payments have not been made, where applications were not made until a later date. There might be a few exceptions, but I can say there are some who did make application as late as October and November. Those have been refused. In cases where individuals have been able to show that they did write- a letter, or where they have shown

that others have seen a letter, even if they could not produce it, payments have been made.


George Hugh Castleden: If they had1 duplicate
copies that would not occur. I have known several cases where claims have been thrown out.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is why some complained. Where they are able to prove their claims they did keep duplicate copies. It is up to the individual to keep a duplicate. Farmers who did- keep duplicates have been able to prove their positions; but those who have not have had difficulty from time to time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Are they
given two forms?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are two, anyway.


James Arthur Ross: I believe duplicate
forms are made out in the municipal office; one is retained and one sent to the provincial superintendent. There is a good deal of merit in the suggestion of the hon. member for Yorkton. If the applications were made in triplicate rather than duplicate the farmer would have something to show that he had made the application. We know that we farmers are not good bookkeepers. If copies were retained by the applicants they would be of assistance to the farmers as well as to the officials.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In regard
to this $2 an acre wheat acreage reduction bonus, as I understand it the policy put into effect in 1940 provides that payments may be made in 1941 and in 1942 on the same acreage. Now the minister says he is going to make the same payment in 1943. Is that to be a continuous process? Is the bonus to be the same each year for the same area, without additional acreage reduction?


James Garfield Gardiner: The fact that the act
expires each year indicates there is no determination to make it permanent. It applies from year to year.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How long
will it last?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not in a position to say. If someone starts taking the wheat I suppose it will be discontinued.


Richard Burpee Hanson: During
the war.


Mr. GARDENER:: Probably.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Perhaps this
question might be asked more properly when

Wheat Acreage Reduction Act
the estimates are before the committee, but can the minister give us any idea of the administrative costs last year and the previous year?


James Garfield Gardiner: That information is
contained in a return. I can look it up; but if it would be satisfactory I will give it when the estimates are before the committee.


George Hugh Castleden: In spite of the fact that many fanners have complied with the department's request to reduce their wheat acreage, and in spite of the fact that the government said they could take 280,000,000 bushels of wheat this year, so far they have taken only about 170,000,000. I would say there are about 400,000,000 bushels of wheat out on the farms. Could some provision be made through this measure by which- an advance could be given to the farmers who have complied w'ith the regulation? It would give them some compensation as an advance for wheat on their farms; it would not be considered as a gift. The money would be there, and that is just as good as the wheat in the bin. It would give tremendous relief to farmers in that part of the country who have not been allowed to deliver grain.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am afraid that is somewhat outside the scope of this bill. I should not like to get into a discussion of that, because it really does not concern my department. It is the concern of the Department of Trade and Commerce.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Gardiner thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 66, to amend the Wheat Acreage Reduction Act, 1942.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. GARDINER moved the second reading of the bill.
He said: There is a copy of this bill available for each member of the house. As I have stated already, farmers have been waiting since last September for these payments. If it meets with the approval of the house I should like to go right ahead with the bill because these payments cannot be made until it is passed. They should have been made last September.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would not want to take the responsibility of holding up the bill if it is urgent, but it is regrettable that it has been brought up on a Friday afternoon when a number of members who
are interested in it are absent. Perhaps that is their fault. If the minister will give an undertaking that this is an urgent matter, I will not invoke the rule which would prevent him from going on.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is most urgent. If I did not get an opportunity of going on with it next week, it would have to go over until the first of May which would prevent farmers getting their payments before entering into seeding.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
On section 1-definitions.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the minister read section 2 of the act which this section amends.


James Garfield Gardiner: This is the interpretation section which gives the definitions of the different terms used in the act.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is adding one further definition.


James Garfield Gardiner: We say that no payments are to be made in respect of abandoned land, and we define "abandoned". The definitions in the act read:
In this act unless the context otherwise requires,
(a)	"area" means the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta and the Peace river and Creston districts in the province of British Columbia;
(b)	"basic acreage" means, with respect to coarse grains or grass, the acreage as of the first day of July in any year;
(c)	"coarse grains" means barley, oats, corn and peas;
(d)	"farm" means the total land being operated as a unit;
(e)	"farmer" means an owner operator, or tenant operator of a farm;
(f)	"grass" means all grasses, clover, alfalfa and millet;
(g)	"landlord" means an owner of a farm operated by another person and includes a mortgagee or unpaid vendor who by contract or by law has a right to or a lien on or ownership in a part of the crop grown on a farm;
(h)	"land newly broken" means land ploughed for the first time;
(i)	"minister" means the Minister of Agriculture;
(j)	"summer-fallow" means the cultivation or management of fallow land in such a way as to conserve soil moisture or to prevent soil drifting, or both.
Then we have the amendment provided by section 1 of the bill:
(aa)	"abandoned" with reference to the cultivation of any land, means that such land is not in crop or in summer-fallow or, if sown to grass, has lost its productivity.
Wheat Acreage Reduction Act


Richard Burpee Hanson: Who is to
be the judge of the loss of productivity?


Mr. HAN SELL:: In ray constituency there is a tremendous amount of land that is not cultivated or in summer-fallow owing to soil drifting conditions. In some instances the land is left untouched for an entire year. Would this be regarded as abandoned land? I have had some difficulty in getting payments through on account of this fact. It was not thought wise to summer-fallow this land by reason of soil drifting.


James Garfield Gardiner: Paragraph (j) of section 2 of the act reads:
(j) "summer-fallow" means the cultivation or management of fallow land in such a way as to conserve soil moisture or to prevent soil drifting, or both.
The amendment is intended to cover just such cases as the hon. member for Macleod has in mind, but in order to prove whether land is abandoned or whether it is in summer-fallow a person must be able to show that his plan of operation is being carried on by other persons in the community.


Percy Ellis Wright: It seems to me that the definition of productivity is rather wide. Is there any regulation covering this that could be issued to the inspectors so that the method used might be uniform over the whole area?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think we have to depend pretty largely upon the judgment and the common sense of the inspectors. Where there is any dispute about it, we generally send in a second man to reinspect.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Basic wheat acreage or basic acreages.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not know whether my knowledge of sentence structure is bad, but this section seems to be poorly' worded. I can see what it means, but it is a most difficult sentence to follow. It reads:
The basic wheat acreage or the basic acreages in summer-fallow, coarse grains or grass on any farm consisting in any year of lands not operated as a unit in the year 1940 or, where there was no wheat acreage thereon in the year 1940, in the year 1939, shall be computed in the manner set out in subsections one, two and three of this section as if such lands had been operated as a unit in the year 1940, or where there was no wheat acreage thereon in the year 1940, in the year 1939.


James Garfield Gardiner: I must say that when I read that, I went back and read it the second time, but I finally came to the same conclusion as the hon. member for Weyburn, that I knew what it meant after I read it. These

regulations and this legislation have been changed so much that quite often after we got through with them they did not mean what we wanted them to mean. I would hesitate to change the wording because I think it means just what it is intended to mean.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What
does it mean?


James Garfield Gardiner: It means that we are not going back of 1940 as the basic year, unless there is not any wheat in 1940, and then we go to 1939. If it becomes necessary to take 1939, then you have to adjust your other crops as well as wheat to 1939 instead of 1940.


Mr. FAIR:: There are cases where people attempted to cooperate with the government, and the result was that in 1939 they had considerable wheat in crop. Then in 1940 they cut down their acreages. What would their position be?


James Garfield Gardiner: What the bill says is that if there is no wheat in 1940, then we take 1939.


Robert Fair: What I meant was that if on a quarter-section a man had fifteen or twenty acres in 1940, and in 1939, before the wheat acreage reduction measure was brought into effect, he had, say, a hundred acres on the quarter-section, he would be penalized for cooperating with the government.


James Garfield Gardiner: We provided for that in the regulations of 1941. That is what gave us all the difficulty in making payments. We tried to correct the few cases where probably a small percentage of people were involved, and in doing so we made it difficult for the other ninety per cent or whatever it might have been. We had to try to cover all cases where adjustment might be necessary, and making those adjustments involved us in all kinds of complications. When the farmer got his return back he said, "I never did have that number of acres of coarse grains", or "I never did have that number of acres in summer-fallow at any time", and by the time we got through trying to explain to him we were in the middle of the next summer.


Robert Fair: What these farmers will say is, "We have tried to cooperate with the government, and now we are paying the price, by way of reduction of wheat, acreage reduction bonus."


James Garfield Gardiner: That will be true in some cases.
Section 2 agreed to.

Wheat Acreage Redaction Act
On section 3-Payments on acreage reductions.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I notice that this includes rye and coarse grasses. Will the oil-producing crops which we were speaking about a while ago, sunflower seed and rape seed, be included? There is no provision in the act for them.


James Garfield Gardiner: They are not included in 1942, but they will be included in 1943. The amendment which appears in section 3 is to make possible payments under 1942 which we are not yet able to make. Section 4 deals with 1943 and covers everything, whether a man puts in turnips, or sugar beets, or anything.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the minister intend to pay a bonus on the raising of turnips? Surely he is not serious.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are not very many grown.


James Arthur Ross: If the land is taken out of wheat.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It should be planted or sown to some useful crop which will serve the purpose of production of live stock, or oil seeds, or what-not. This gives, I suggest, a very wide power.


James Garfield Gardiner: It will be a very small acreage. It does cover sunflowers, but we do want sunflower oil; and it would cover turnips, which are a very good feed for live stock. As a matter of fact, however, there are very few of them grown in the west.


Mark Cecil Senn: Section 4 covers distinctly anything if the acreage is cultivated and sown to crop.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Payments on acreage reductions.
Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: The minister says that anything which is sown on such land would be considered all right. That would include mustard?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, the kind of mustard about which my hon. friend was writing me some time ago. I would say, yes.


Charles Edward Johnston: I had a letter the other day with regard to the matter. This farmer wanted to know in order that he could make preparation for the spring, and I told him I would let him know.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Sworn statement of claim by farmer.
George Hugh Castleden: Difficulties have arisen from the fact that farmers did not know the date on which they had to make their declarations and their applications, particularly in regard to the farm income bonus. In many cases these farmers do not have radios and they do not read their newspapers because they have not the time. I see that this section leaves it open for the date to be set by regulation. Unless the date is set a sufficiently long enough time prior to the provision going into force, some severe injustices may ensue.


James Garfield Gardiner: As the Wheat Acreage Reduction Act reads now, application must have been made before the 31st of May, 1942. It might have been in 1941 or 1942 under the regulations made in the previous act, but the first application must have been made before then. Then the sworn statement can be taken at any time after July 1. Until the sworn statement is made no payment is made. That provision is already in the act, but there is no provision in the 1942 act, and there was none in the regulations, to say that we could establish a date beyond which we would not receive any more applications. The result is that we are getting applications now, in 1943, in respect of claims for payment in 1941. We have to have a cut-off at some date; we cannot go on forever; and we want to be able to state at some time, "You must make your application before a certain date."


Mr. DOUGLES (Weybum):: The date will be widely publicized?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-Landlord's application.
Roy Theodore Graham: I would urge on the minister the advisability of deleting that particular portion of section 6 which is comprised in the words, " on which shall be endorsed the tenant's acknowledgment that the applicant is his landlord." I think it will cause a great deal of unnecessary criticism of the application of the act to the landlord class. I noticed in the act itself that the definition of "landlord," as I expected, is:
... an owner of a farm operated by another person and includes a mortgagee or unpaid vendor who by contract or by law has a right to or a lien on or ownership in a part of the crop grown on a farm.
The tenant certainly does not want to determine any point of law by deciding

Wheat Acreage Reduction Act
whether a mortgagee is a landlord. I take it that in the tenant's application he is required to answer the ordinary question, "Who is your landlord?" I suggest that that is as far as the tenant should be expected to go and as far as the landlord should be required to go if the matter is not in dispute. If the matter of who is the landlord and who is entitled to the landlord's share becomes a question which must be settled, it has to go to a court of law, and is often a point of great difficulty. I could suggest to the minister the case of a landlord who might be a long way off, who could not get in touch with the tenant in order to obtain that particular acknowledgment by his tenant; and, if this section is not complied with, I take it that the landlord would be precluded from securing his proper share of the payment made under the provisions of this act. I can imagine, as the minister can, the landlord and the tenant having a row, and the tenant saying, "I won't sign anything," and there is nothing in the act which would compel him to do so. So that I submit to the minister that the act will cause less difficulty- I suggest it will cause him less trouble in answering complaints on the part of landlords -if he eliminates that provision completely from the section. I think it will be only a source of trouble and vexation. There would be nothing at law to permit the Prairie Farm Assistance Act branch to rely upon the statement of the tenant. Let the tenant in the application declare who is commonly known to be his landlord, and let the landlord make application for payment.


Mr. DONNELLY:: I wish to support the hon. member for Swift Current in what he has said with regard to this section of the bill. I can imagine a ease such as this, that a landlord has his farm mortgaged and has it rented to some tenant. The mortgagee company makes application to the representative of the vpheat acreage reduction branch, and so does the landlord. Under this section as it reads at present, the tenant is asked to decide which man is the landlord. In nine cases out of ten the landlord has assigned his mortgage to the mortgage company, but the tenant will say that the landlord is the man who has rented him the farm, and this section makes the tenant the one who is to decide who shall get the third or other portion of the wheat acreage reduction. My opinion is that this should be left out entirely. The tenant should not be required to do that sort of thing. There will be difficulty in getting the tenant to sign. We are here, and we have to send a document out to the tenant and get him to sign it.

We shall have all kinds of difficulty in getting that done. I do not think that should be asked to be done.


James Garfield Gardiner: I quite agree with the two hon. members that this is an extraordinary thing to do, but the situation itself is extraordinary. We have constituted ourselves collectors of rent for landlords. The fact that we do not pay this money does not establish the fact that the landlord has no right to it. He owns the land. He has the right to put the renter off the land, or take other legal action if the renter does not pay the rent. But we do not want to hold up payment to the farmer himself over a long period of time, and that is what \ve have to do now. Here is a certain amount of money. We have paid two-thirds to the farmer, and we think one-third might be due to somebody else, but the farmer will not admit that this other party has any claim. Some of these payments have been due as far back as 1941. We hope to make these payments at some time. The legal advice we received is that under the act we have no authority to pay that money to anybody but the landlord, and we cannot prove that he is the landlord. We do not want to hold up payment to the farmer himself. I can understand the concern there might be for landlords in certain cases, but I can assure the committee that these payments will be withheld in cases where there is extraordinary difficulty.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On principle, why should the department intervene as a collecting agency for the landlord or mortgagee, who has now more than common law rights? He has lien rights and the right of distress and distraint. I do not know much about this, but I suggest that for the department to constitute itself a collecting agency for the landlord is going a long way. I would leave these people to their rights under the law.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is one reason. The landlord has entered into an agreement with the renter, under which the renter agrees to summer-fallow so many acres, to sow so many acres to wheat, so many acres to coarse grains, and so many acres to be in grass. Then we come along and say that in spite of what is in that agreement the renter does not need to sow any wheat; we pay him for not growing wheat. The agreement probably says that the only rent the owner gets is a certain proportion of the cash wheat crop. But we say to the tenant: You do not need to grow any reheat at all; in fact we will pay you for not growing wheat. Therefore, to protect the landlord we propose to send one-third-

Wheat Acreage Reduction Act


Richard Burpee Hanson: Of the
bonus?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, as a result of the land having been taken out of wheat. We think that is fair, and although it may seem an extraordinary thing to do, it is justified by the fact that we broke his agreement.


James Arthur Ross: I cannot agree with the hon. member for Swift Current. I wish to support the minister. From practical experience that I have had in my part of the country, I think section 6 is all to the good. I am glad to see the section there. I think it is unjust that these payments should be held up. All that needs to be done is to submit the matter to the secretary, and in the vast majority of cases it will be found that the tenant is only too pleased to sign. He has had to sign a lease with the landlord in the first place. If there should be any difficulty, that is covered by section 7. Section 6 would assist in overcoming some of the present difficulties, and I submit that it should remain there. I know there have been disagreements, but section 7 covers that point.
Mr. MavNICOL: What would the disagreements be over?


Roy Theodore Graham: If the section would accomplish the purpose of the hon. member for Souris I would be in. agreement with him, but a tenant's statement that the landlord is the landlord does not establish in law that the .person claiming is in fact the landlord. It still leaves the minister and the department in exactly the same difficulty as they are in now. If it did solve the difficulty which the minister suggests I would be in hearty agreement, because I think we should see to it that the actual farmer gets paid promptly when the bonus becomes due and payable. But this provision will not settle anything. It will not relieve the department from any responsibility it has now. I know that the relationship between the farmer and the landlord is in many cases friendly and cooperative, but in the very class of cases where disputes might arise, where it is impossible for the landlord to get in touch with his tenant, you are binding the department by a statutory provision, and any regulation, or ministerial act cannot change the effect of that statutory provision. I suggest to the minister for his own peace of mind and1 that of the department that this does not help to solve the difficulty with which he is presented. It is only adding another class wTho will rise up in arms at the unfairness of this particular provision. If that unfairness is caused by an unwilling or unfair
or difficult tenant, I would say this has no value and will only cause considerable criticism. I am quite certain that this will not cure the difficulty.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I wish to support the minister. The real purpose is to help to cure at an early date, a lot of misunderstanding, to help the tenant and the landlord to come to some clear understanding of the allocation of the bonus prior to the time the money is available for payment. There have come to my attention several cases where one or two parties have made application for a share of the bonus. The operator of the farm did not know that somebody had made application, and when he got his cheque he did not get as much as he thought he should have got, because other people had made application for a part of the bonus. There are other cases where the person making application for a share of the bonus, namely, the mortgagee or landlord, would make some slight error in the legal description of the land, and through that clerical error the person who expects to get the bonus finds that he gets only part of it. If the application made out by the landlord were submitted to the tenant, and the tenant signed it, there would be no danger of that clerical error. It would be known exactly who had made the application, and1 if there were any dispute the dispute could be settled prior to June 30, instead of having to wait until next fall when, the operator of the farm is expecting payment.
As far as the protest of the hon. member for Swift Current is concerned, the landlord has plenty of protection now. The man operating the farm is operating it under a lease.


Roy Theodore Graham: If I may interrupt to ask a question, would it not be better to pay the tenant two-thirds and hold the remainder in escrow until the question of ^who is the proper landlord is settled by a court of law or some other proper tribunal. Do not hold up the tenant when you can hold the landlord's share in escrow until the question of who is the landlord is settled.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That could
be done, but under the next section the minister is to decide between two or more landlords. It is not a matter for the courts. The matter will be more quickly settled if the tenant has to sign an application form of the bona fide landlord, and if there is a dispute as to who is the bona fide landlord they can deal with the matter now.
Wheat Acreage Reduction Act

As I was saying, the landlord after all holds the lease; he has adequate protection. He can refuse to renew the lease if there is some dispute; he has recourse at law.


James J. Donnelly: That is after the money has gone to someone else.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He has
adequate protection to recover money which belongs to him, or if the tenant has signed an applcaition form to some other landlord. It seems to me that- the section as proposed by the minister will give all reasonable protection and will help to settle some of these cases during the summer months and will not hold up payment as it has sometimes been held up on account of different claimants for the bonus.


James J. Donnelly: All who have been renting land in western Canada for years know that a tenant can leave his farm at any time he likes, and that the landlord sometimes has great difficulty in getting rid of a tenant. Take the case of a man who has land which he has bought under agreement of sale and has rented. You are asking the tenant then to decide whether the money is to be paid to the man who has bought the land or to the original owner, if there is a dispute, as there often is, between the tenant and the landlord. The tenant is the one who is to decide who will get this one-third bonus. I do not think that is right. I can see all kinds of difficulties. There are cases where there are disputes between landlord and tenant, and the tenant will do anything in the world to make trouble for his landlord.


James Garfield Gardiner: We are just asking if
the other individual is his landlord; then we settle the rest. In the form the farmer fills out he is asked to indicate whether anyone else is interested in the land. The cases intended to be dealt with by this section are cases where I would, say that ninety-nine people out of a hundred would say the individual is not a landlord at all. It is a case where a man has borrowed some money, say from some institution, that writes in and says, I have an interest in that land. Maybe indirectly he has, but he has never ben considered' the landlord, never been considered the man. who had rented the land to anyone. That is the only kind of case about which we have any difficulty. I would think that almost everyone with whom we have had any dealings has said quite frankly whether he has a landlord or not, and we deal accordingly. But these other cases have been dragging for a long time; we are satisfied

there was never any intention that the man should be considered a landlord, and yet we cannot make payment at present until they agree.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Where
there is a tenancy there must be a letting, either verbal or in writing. A tenant in law cannot deny his landlord's title under whom he holds; he is estopped. I do not understand the legal position to which the minister is referring. Who is this mysterious person who puts in a claim, having borrowed money from an institution, I suppose on a mortgage?


James J. Donnelly: Then he assigns his
lease.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Very often the mortgagee takes an assignment of lease so that he will be in a position to collect the rent. There is nothing wrrong about that. The question then is, who becomes the landlord? Of course the assignee of the lease is the landlord, involved.


James J. Donnelly: But the tenant is being asked to decide.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The tenant may not be in a position to know. I think the minister is asking for a lot of trouble here.


John Gordon Ross: Section 6 reads:
A landlord, to be eligible for any payment under this act in respect of the wheat acreage reduction on any farm in any year, shall make application, on which shall be endorsed the tenant's acknowledgment that the applicant is his landlord, not later than June 30 of that year. . . .
In other words, this section will preclude any actual landlord from getting any payment unless he has that application signed by the tenant.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think the department is looking for a lot of trouble.


John Gordon Ross: You might be able to determine who is the landlord at some time after June 30. But if this landlord prior to June 30 has been unable to have his tenant sign an application form and get it into the office, even though the tenant might want to have the landlord get his share, it cannot be done.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It says that in the event of any dispute between a landlord and a farmer, or between two or more landlords, the minister may order a division of the payment.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the hon. member approve that principle?

Wheat Acreage Reduction Act


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am saying that it answers the argument of the hon. member for Moose Jaw.


John Gordon Ross: It says that any landlord to be eligible must have this application signed by the tenant before June 30. If it has not been made and signed before June 30, it cannot be decided by the minister or by anyone.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I take it for granted under the next section that if a man makes application and the tenant has not signed as a result of some dispute between a landlord and a farmer, or between two or more landlords, the minister has discretion to make payment to one or other of the parties or divide it between them.


John Gordon Ross: But the section says that a man is not eligible for payment at all unless this is done.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In order to be a bona fide application, but if it is not signed the minister then steps into the picture.


John Gordon Ross: No; it cannot go in as an application until it is signed by the tenant.


Roy Theodore Graham: I suggest that the minister in order to escape the necessity of exercising the discretion as contained in section 7 adopt the long-standing practice of paying to the tenant the share that is his and taking the amount in dispute and1, if the disputants will not reach a speedy agreement, pay the amount into court and let them interplead and pay the costs of settling who is entitled to the landlord's share.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Or ask the court for a declaration.


John Gordon Ross: Section 7 allows the minister to determine who the landlord is if there is a dispute between two who claim to be landlords.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Or a dispute between landlord and tenant.


James Garfield Gardiner: The landlord has to be admitted as such first.


John Gordon Ross: And he cannot get in unless he makes.application signed by a tenant prior to June 30.


Charles Edward Johnston: He is not a landlord until that application is signed.


John Gordon Ross: That is right. Therefore there cannot be any dispute about that landlord because he is not there.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I take it that the application is not eligible for payment
unless signed by the tenant. But a man could make application to the municipal secretary even if the tenant refuses to sign. The application could be received, but would not be eligible for payment until either it is signed by the tenant or the minister makes a decision.


James Garfield Gardiner: As it is now, a landlord to be eligible for any payment under this act shall make application not later than June 30, 1942, to the secretary of the municipality in which his land is located or, in the case of unorganized areas, to the provincial government. In practice, if the renter does not admit that this man is the landlord, the government just keeps the money until it is admitted. The only difference is that he may admit it after June 30.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In which event the landlord would get his share.


James Garfield Gardiner: This simply says that the man must admit it before June 30; after that the government will pay the money to the renter, if that admission has not been made. As it is now, if the renter does not admit that the man is the landlord; if he says the man has nothing at all to do with the land, unless they go to court to settle it we just keep the money.


Charles Edward Johnston: Then a landlord would have to take the tenant to court before June 30 to establish his rights?


John Gordon Ross: That was what had to be done under the old section, but the new section says that the applicant, the landlord, must have the signature of the tenant prior to June 30.


James Garfield Gardiner: We say that before we will pay we must have the signature of the renter. All we are saying now is that we must have that signature before June 30, or we will pay the money to the renter and let the landlord do his own collecting.


Roy Theodore Graham: If that date passes by and the landlord has not become eligible under the provisions of the act, he will have no claim; he is out of it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suggest that the minister should give pretty careful attention to the representations which have been made pro and con, and that he should not have this section passed until there is some unanimity of opinion as to the construction of the section. I am impressed with the argument of the hon. member for Moose Jaw. In order that this payment may be made to the landlord there must be endorsed the acknowledgment of the tenant that the

Wheat. Acreage Reduction Act

applicant is the landlord; that endorsement must be secured before the landlord makes his application for payment, which must be prior to June 30. Is that not the position under the section as it now reads?


Mr. RALSTON:: I was suggesting that the words "previous to payment" be inserted after the word "endorsed", so that the endorsement would not necessarily have to be before June 30.


Gordon Graydon: Would the minister say whether to his knowledge there are very many cases in which section 6 or section 7 would apply? Is it an extensive thing, or are there just a few odd cases before the department?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is fairly extensive; if I were to go through the records carefully I could indicate the effect of it. Practically all the 1941 claims that we are still dealing with are in connection with cases of this kind. We have just held up one-third of the money, which is lying here in the treasury. The farmer says, "I am entitled to it; no one else has any right to it, because I own this land," and while that dispute goes on we just hold-the money.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why should they not be left their remedy at law?


Mr. BOUCHER:: It seems to me that we are leaving it to the minister to decide who is the landlord, the procedure being based upon the action taken by those who claim to be landlords, together with the statements of the tenants. In other words, we are asking that body of men actually to decide a point of law. Should there not be some provision in the act for some preliminary procedure in a court of law in order to have a declaration as to who is the landlord, with the proceedings to be filed with the minister on or before a certain date? In that way there would be no question of a hit-or-miss decision; there would be a clearly defined legal principle and a legal decision as to who is the landlord. That would take away from the minister the responsibility, which I am sure he would not relish, of deciding as between two opposing parties and saying who is the landlord and who is not. The landlord also would have the protection of not being dependent upon the tenant to get his application in to establish the basis for his claim.


James Garfield Gardiner: I can give the figures which would indicate the outside number of those affected. Farmers making application numbered 191,334; farmers paid numbered 178,014. Those farmers have been paid up; there was apparently no question about those cases. That leaves some 13,000 farmers who have made claims but who have not been paid.

All the cases of which I am speaking now, remaining from two years ago, will be included in the last figure, but I should say they would be a very small proportion even of the 13,000.


Gordon Graydon: Reading sections 6 and 7 together, since they relate to the same thing, I am wondering whether the minister has given serious consideration to the position in which he is placing himself. I should not like to see the minister -being called Mr. Justice Gardiner in the days that lie ahead, but since I have come into the house I do not think I have ever seen a section quite like this. It may be that there is nothing seriously in dispute, but I do not think it is a good idea to place one of the executive, which is actually the government, in what might be called a judicial position.
I do not wish to argue the question from the point of view of dry law, because, after all, that might not meet the situation, but I think the minister should give some consideration to the fact that his is a busy department; that he himself has heavy responsibilities, and to me it would seem rather a dangerous procedure to place upon him the duty of rendering judgment in respect of what might amount to 13,000 disputes, though the number will probably be much less. The minister should reconsider the matter, because I think he will be letting himself in for a great deal of trouble that he might just as well avoid. I believe I know his desire and motive in this connection; it is to get this thing cleaned up as quickly as possible and to distribute the money. Nevertheless, there is a principle involved here, even apart from the whole question of constitutionality and the legal aspect of the matter. The minister might consider the matter from the practical point of view, because, after all, I hardly think he wants to make his a judicial as well as an executive department.


James Garfield Gardiner: My colleague the Minister of National Defence has suggested that in line 11 of this page the section be amended to read:
The landlord to be eligible for any payment under this act in respect of the wheat acreage reduction on any farm in any year shall make application, on which shall be endorsed previous to payment the tenant's acknowledgment that the applicant is his landlord.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You would require evidence upon which you could base payment, in any event, and this change would not carry the principle any further. You would never pay unless you had evidence upon which to act.

Wheat Acreage Reduction Act


James Garfield Gardiner: We made payments in about 170,000 eases.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suppose those were cases in which there was absolutely no dispute.
I would1 ask the minister to review the position with respect to section 7. We are not really on that section, but a discussion has arisen in which it is involved. The leader of the opposition has said he has not known of a ease where it has happened before. If he reads section 6 he will find that in respect of disputes the minister has constituted himself a judicial officer. That is a bad principle.


James Garfield Gardiner: No; I have constituted the renter a judicial officer.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Under this the minister is constituting the renter a judicial officer, or proposing to do something like that. But under section 7 the minister, who is an administrative and executive officer of government, is setting himself up as a judicial officer to decide a dispute between a landlord and a farmer, or between two or more land1-lords. That is the purpose of the amendment. He is including the larger class of cases. On principle, that is an improper piece of legislation.
Why in the world should the minister even seek to constitute himself an arbitrator between two classes of claimants, or two or more classes of claimants? That is the sort of position an executive officer of government and a member of a cabinet should seek to avoid. On what is he to act? Is there to be a hearing? What evidence is to be heard in support of one position or another. I think on reflection the minister ought to avoid this whole responsibility, and leave the parties in a position where they must take some other recourse. If necessary, set up an adjustment agency in the form of a county judge or a district court judge, and let the county or district court judge decide' the dispute after the hearing; because after all, in this instance the civil rights of individuals are being dealt with. Here the minister is taking it upon himself to decide those rights. How is he to do it? Section 7 gives him authority; but by what procedure? How is he to determine the respective rights of the parties, and upon what evidence? Is there to be sworn evidence? Is there to be the right of cross-examination? Does the minister see the impossible position in which he is placed?
If I were the minister I would never yield to legislation like that, or allow myself to
be put in that position. Politically I think it would be a veiy bad thing for the minister. He would be open to charges of favouritism. Where he may please one man he may displease another. The minister would be well advised to get rid of any jurisdiction of this kind. On principle he should not seek to place himself in this position. Here, under a statute, he would be acting in three different capacities. Surely he does not wish to assume a burden of that kind and, on principle, he ought not to assume it. This is bad legislation.
If I read the side-note correctly, subsection 2 of section 7 is to be reworded to take in cases of disputes between two or more landlords, as well as cases of disputes between landlords and farmers. He has that jurisdiction now; just why, I do not understand. I never paid much attention to the section before; but if my attention had been drawn to it I would certainly have pointed out to the minister that he will occupy a position he ought not to occupy, namely, that of exercising a judicial function between two claimants for the same sum of money. That is what courts are for. How is the minister to make the decision? What procedure is he to follow? What evidence will he have? How can he decide? Will his decision be made on the say-so of one of his inspectors? That is not good enough. There is such a thing as legal evidence, and there is hearsay evidence. There is a rule governing the best evidence.
I am trying to think out loud, and debate the matter on principle, not otherwise. I am not personally concerned with what happens to the measure. However, my view would be that they should fight it out in the courts. I suggest to the minister, in all sincerity, that if he takes on these judicial functions he is putting himself in an impossible position. He ought not to do so.


James Garfield Gardiner: In reply I would point out that, at least in theory, I have to make that decision in every case. I have to decide whether or not a man is a farmer, before he can receive any payment. Under this definition I have to make all these decisions; but in practice I do not do so. It is done under the administration.
The only added power under section 7- which, by the way, is not at present before the committee-is that where there happened to be two landlords, the same authority is given that I had previously in connection yvith one. There has not been any great difficulty in the matter in the two years we have been carrying on. The other is simply a matter of

Wheat Acreage Reduction Act
providing a means of getting the money out to someone whose money is held back, and who cannot be paid.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is under section 6.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. Personally I have no definite feeling in the matter. I am quite prepared to leave it in the hands of the committee. This suggestion comes from those who are in charge of administration. They say they have had moneys lying there for two years, and they want to know what they are to do with them. In their opinion this is a method of getting the money out to the renter, and the landlord has his rights in law to collect. In the first instance we have put ourselves in the position of collectors, and we say we are quite prepared to go on and collect, where it is admitted between the parties that there is a landlord and a renter. But where it is not admitted, the landlord will have to prove he has the right to collect.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Neither the landlord nor the tenant would get anything out of it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Possibly not. The renter will get the money, and the other fellow will claim it, if he thinks he is entitled to it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And the lawyers will get it all.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Never mind the lawyers. I am approaching the matter only from the point of view of principle. I am not concerned at all with the personal end of the matter. I know a great many lawyers, but I do not think a good lawyer drafted this legislation, because he never would have put a minister of the crown in a position where he must exercise administrative, executive and judicial functions at one and the same time. That is not the theory of our government. It ought not to be, and certainly it is most repugnant to any theory of government set out under the American constitution. The greatest injustice might arise.
No doubt the minister would act on the advice of his administrative officers. He could not possibly make his own judicial decisions, unless he held hearings. I suggest that, on principle, the whole thing is wrong, and cannot be defended. I suggest that the minister leave it until Monday.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not remember of a single case coming before me in the two years the act has been administered. There is just one case where there are difficulties in getting a decision. Here are two landlords, and the officials say they have power to deal with only

one. They go to them and say, "Here is the settlement you ought to make", and it has always been made.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then why put it in the bill?


James Garfield Gardiner: But the authority is there. A man may read it and say, if he wanted to, "The minister could do this, if he wanted to, and we had better settle it." That is the way
it is.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is not the way in which the courts hand out justice.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am afraid, as was said, that if it were done in any other way neither would have anything when they were finished.


Richard Burpee Hanson: As a rule, how big are the payments?


James Garfield Gardiner: The average payment was only $198, and a third of that would be the amount involved.


Roy Theodore Graham: I am sure all hon. members agree with the minister in his effort to get this bill through as quickly as possible. I suggest that the minister strike out of section 6 that portion-


James Garfield Gardiner: If the hon. member will move what he wants struck out we will get it settled.	.


Roy Theodore Graham: I move that section 6 be amended by striking out the words, "on which shall be endorsed the tenant's acknowledgment that the applicant is his landlord." I suggest that the minister take up this matter with his legal advisers.


James Garfield Gardiner: It has all been discussed. I am asking the hon. member to move the amendment and we will decide on it.


James Arthur Ross: Would this amendment permit the minister to clear up these overhanging balances?


James Garfield Gardiner: I doubt it very much.


James Arthur Ross: They are small
amounts, and I agree with the hon. member for Davenport that if you have to go to law, you will not have very much when you are through. I say that with all due respect to my legal friends. In many cases the interested party will not want to go to law. What we wish to do is arrive at some formula whereby the government can pay out these balances without any court action taking place. I doubt if there are many cases where the tenant would refuse to sign some acknowledgment.


Roy Theodore Graham: The section is not retroactive.

Wheat Acreage Reduction Act


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon. member for Swift Current has admitted the necessity of getting this bill through, and he then moves an amendment which will bring forth considerable discussion. We are not in favour of that amendment, and I think the hon. member ought to withdraw it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It was not seconded.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It seems to me that the section as it stands covers the situation very well and that these people could be paid. I do not think some of the difficulties that have been mentioned are as serious as they seem to be. The signature of the tenant is not necessary in order to make a bona fide application; it is only necessary to make the landlord eligible for payment. That is proven by the next section. There may be two landlords. A man may make an application before June 30 and become a potential landlord, but he is not eligible for payment until he gets the signature of the tenant.


James Garfield Gardiner: We are not compelled to pay the money even after the tenant signs.


Mr. TRIPP:: It is quite possible there might be a dispute over the amount, and if two landlords were involved the tenant might tell them to go ahead themselves, that he would not interfere.


James Garfield Gardiner: That would be a foolish thing for a man .to do, because in most cases he owes a certain amount of money to the mortgage company and he will not prevent the government from paying it out. Individuals will not do that; it is too unreasonable. The money would still be owing in spite of the fact that the tenant has not signed. The landlord could go on and collect just the same.


Jesse Pickard Tripp: Would the landlord still have a claim on the money?


James Garfield Gardiner: He has a claim.


Jesse Pickard Tripp: There may be two apparent landlords, one the mortgage company and the other the owner of the land who has sold the property under an agreement of sale. -


James Garfield Gardiner: That would be covered by section 7.


Roy Theodore Graham: The mortgage company and the landlord could still make applications and have a dispute.


James Garfield Gardiner: When it is determined what interest each landlord has, we divide up the one-third in proportion to their interest. They have nothing more to do about the matter.


Jesse Pickard Tripp: Supposing a tenant refuses to sign the application?


James Garfield Gardiner: Then he is refusing to allow the government to pay part of his debt.


George Russell Boucher: I wonder whether I could put a theoretical case to the minister.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am arguing this question only because of my officials. I am somewhat in doubt about it myself. If the committee will vote on it, I shall be satisfied, because it does not matter to me which way it goes.


George Russell Boucher: There may be eases where commissions or temporary ownership of the property may be involved, and when it comes time to make the application the tenant may not be in position to decide who actually is his landlord. He may be loath to sign any certificate for either one. Then the time in which application may be made expires, and neither landlord has put in an application, with the result that the bonus may go by the board. Matters might, be complicated with the use of strict honesty, and if there was dishonesty there would be havoc. The minister would be acting in a judicial capacity if he undertook to decide the question even though the formalities were followed. The result might be that some meritorious people would be excluded from making a proper application.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


The CHAIRMAN:: There is now an amendment before the committee. Those in favour will please say "yea."


Robert Fair: Before this amendment is
passed I suggest that we find some way around the difficulty, by paying the tenant on the land and, as suggested by the hon. member for Swift Current, leaving in escrow, the landlord's share, if there happens to be any dispute. I know that in several cases since the act became operative tenants' payments have been held up on account of some difficulty with the landlord; and although I do not approve the present amendment, and intend to vote against it, I should like to see something done along the line I suggest.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: In my opinion the
yeas have it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I ask for a
recorded vote.
Amendment (Mr. Graham) negatived.

Munitions and Supply Act


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: While I am
opposed to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Swift Current, it seems to me that if there is any doubt about the meaning of the section, the minister might wish to have it referred to his officials for redrafting.


James Garfield Gardiner: The section is as the
hon. member discussed it before the dinner recess; that is the intention of it, and I think that is what it says.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I think it
does, too.


Robert Fair: I understood the minister before the dinner recess to say that in any case where the landlord did not put in an application before the 30th of June, the total amount would be turned over to the tenant.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the case now.
If the landlord does not put in a claim before the 30th of June, the total amount is paid to the applicant.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.	-
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply) moved the second reading of Bill No. 7, to amend the Department of Munitions and Supply Act.
Gordon Graydon: I assume that the minister intends to give some detailed explanation in connection with this bill.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The urgency of passing this bill arises out of the explanatory notes, which state:
The Department of Munitions and Supply Act was passed at the fifth session of the eighteenth parliament held between September 7 and September 13,	1939, chapter three of the
statutes of that session. The act was brought into force by proclamation on April 9, 1940.
The act limited the life of the department to three years, and to-day we have arrived at April 9, 1943. At midnight to-night the great department expires.
I wish to thank the official opposition for dealing with this bill to-night. I appreciate that the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) had made a special study of the

bill and that he is absent from the house to-night, but hon. gentlemen opposite, in view of the emergency, are willing to proceed in his absence. For this I am grateful.
This bill is more or less a consolidation of amendments which have been made to the Munitions and Supply Act by order in council as the experience of the department has indicated the necessity. The act limiting the life of the department to three years is repealed. I think it is obvious that a definite limit to the life of the department should not be established at this time. The department is now the owner of real property in the right of his majesty to the extent of over $800,000,000, and it will, of course, take a considerable period after the war to liquidate these properties. I visualize that the department will continue until it is merged with one of the existing departments of government. I think that will probably be the aftermath through the years. But I am sure that, in the light of three years' experience, we shall all agree that it is not wise to fix a definite date for termination.
I believe we can deal more appropriately with each section in committee, but I will run through them briefly.
The first section brings the act into conformity with practice. Since the early days of the department appointments have in fact been made by the Civil Service Commission of Canada rather than by the governor general in council as prescribed in the act, and it is thought wise to correct the act in that regard.
Then, the ministerial powers were designated in the original act as "His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland whether through the medium of the British Supply Board or otherwise", and also mentions the "government of the Republic of France." Of course the British Supply Board has disappeared, and the department is buying to-day the purchases in Canada by all or practically all the united nations. This is amended accordingly.
Then there is the matter of signatures. The deputy minister or the acting deputy minister is required to sign all requisitions of $5,000 and over. In a department such as ours a number of signing officers are required for smaller purchases, and the act is amended to permit the delegation of signing authority up to $50,000. The amendment corresponds with the act in that the minister must sign any requisition for $50,000 or over.
Then, the original act provided that the minister had jurisdiction to purchase up to $5,000 without the consent of the governor general in council first having been obtained. That limit has been raised to $15,000. It was found that the volume of orders in council

Munitions and Supply Acl
ranging between $5,000 and $15,000 exceeded greatly in number the orders appropriating amounts more than $15,000. But there is a provision that each week the department must report to council purchases in the range between $5,000 and S15,000.
A further amendment was found necessary within the last few months. As hon. gentlemen know, it is becoming more and more difficult to 'purchase such commodities as meat, eggs, vegetables-commodities which do not keep for long periods-and to legalize action which was found necessary, the limit of purchases of food without an order in council was raised to 850,000, with the understanding that such a purchase would be reported to council at the first opportunity. That exception has been availed of on several occasions and has allowed us to meet a situation of emergency in a legal way.
The next section deals with a situation where the management of a war plant is found to be unsatisfactory or incompetent. This section permits the minister in such a case to appoint another manager to carry on. The section has been used on several occasions, perhaps as many as ten, where the management of a plant has collapsed and it has been found necessary for the government to appoint a controller to carry on operations.
The next section deals with relations between the department and its contractor. It requires the contractor to carry on accounting to the satisfaction of the department. It permits the auditing of the books not only of the main contractor but also of the subcontractors and provides for the recovery of overexpenditures and of profits unduly large.
The only new section, and by new I mean one which has not been operative for a considerable time, is section 23. The purpose of section 23 is to protect the title of the crown in property purchased by the crown. It deals particularly with machinery installed by the crown in a privately-owned factory with a structure that is so involved with privately-owned structures that it is not possible to obtain ownership of land and segregate government property from the privately-owned plant. I think that section will commend itself to all.
Then, I propose to offer a new section which provides for the re-negotiating of contracts where the margin of profit has increased unduly since the contract was placed. We find in many types of production that the cost of the article drops very rapidly as the workmen become more expert or as repetition work goes on for a considerable period. I think practically everything we make has been reduced very sharply in cost during the course of the
war. This section will permit the government to re-negotiate the contract at any time it believes the margin of profit has become excessive.
That, I think, covers the scope of the bill, and we can and will examine the clauses in committee at the proper time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, generally speaking, there can be no objection to this bill, and that, after all, is the matter we are mainly concerned with in any discussion on the second reading. As I understand the position, it is absolutely necessary that this legislation should be passed in view of the limitation on the life of the legislation which was first passed in the short session of 1939 and brought into effect by order in council in the following year. I recall somewhat the discussions that took place in this house in the session of 1940 when substantial amendments were made to the measure. They will be found as originally passed, and about the time when the proclamation bringing the legislation into effect was issued, in chapter 31 of the acts of 1940.
Having said that, I should like to say this, that the present measure with the exception of one or two sections is really the incorporation in statute form of what is taken to be the law as a result of the passing of various orders in council passed since August, 1940, under the provisions of the War Measures Act, incorporating into legislation by way of order in council certain stringent and drastic amendments to the law which I assume experience has shown are necessary from time to time as the department has grown.
I would have hoped that the lawyers in the department, and they have many of them there would bring in a measure which would have been a real consolidation of the statute, if this is to be a continuing department for an indeterminate time, as the minister has indicated and as I think necessity demands. But as it is, one will have to go to three different statutes from time to time to find out just what the law is. This would have been a grand opportunity, I suggest, to have had a consolidation of all the legislation into one act. That would have been much more convenient in operation for the department and its officials and for those having to deal with the department or with the subject matter of the act. That is not possible now, but if we had plenty of time I would recommend strongly holding up the bill and reintroducing it in much better form than it is in at the present time. I offer that not
Munitions and Supply Act

in any critical sense, but as a suggestion of what I think is proper draftsmanship in legislation of this kind. We have an example in the Income War Tax Act. Unless one is favoured with being provided with a copy of the office consolidation which the department issues from time to time, it takes the proverbial Philadelphia lawyer to know what the statute law is in relation to income tax. However, I mention that merely in passing.
One other general observation. I wonder whether hon. members, aside from members of the ministry and those who have given some attention to the subject, realize the enormous power that this bill confers upon the minister. I am sure he has a sense of responsibility for the powers vested in and conferred upon him. This is a statute which in peace time no parliament ought to pass. I realize, however, and, indeed I was one of the first to realize, that in time of war extraordinary powers must be granted to the executive. But for that I should be opposing this type of measure with all the power at my command. Those are powers that ought not to continue after the war or for more than a reasonable .period thereafter. I put that on record as a suggestion to those who follow after us, that legislation of this kind should not be allowed to continue in the post-war period, because it delegates to the executive powers that ought to be reserved to parliament in peace time. These are general observations and are not made with the intention of in any way holding up the passage of this bill.
There have, I think, been experiences in the immediate past of the department which probably call for some of these drastic powers. Within the memory of all of us abuses have crept in. As far as I am concerned1, and speaking for myself alone, I say that the minister did right in connection with certain prosecutions that were instituted in Montreal. Public opinion has supported the ministry in the action taken; public opinion will continue to support it if they operate in the same way. Anybody who conspires to make by fraudulent means undue demands upon or undue profit out of the heavily taxed people of Canada should1 get what is coming to him. I make that statement without any reservation and irrespective of any individual to whom it may apply. I only wish that we could be sure that all the guilty people are being properly looked after. I have no specific cases in mind, but it is almost certain that in the huge transactions being carried on by the department there will always be someone trying to make an

undue profit by ways that will not bear the light of day. I am, however, glad to think that industry as a whole in this country- I am sure the minister will support me in this assertion

has gained favourable reputation by the way in which they have dealt with these great public contracts. I know one of the biggest corporations in this country, a corporation that some hon. gentlemen take occasion to throw mud at from time to time, that is carrying on huge operations for this department without one cent of profit, not even a management fee. I have pleasure in naming it; it is Consolidated Smelters. I know of no company which has a better record in that regard. It is a pastime with some people in Canada to throw mud at big business. Well, there is big business, which is giving an example to the people of Canada to-day of carrying on huge operations without a dollar of profit from the taxpayers of this country. I could name others, but I am not going to. I could tell of the paper companies-I am saying this for the benefit of those who criticize industry from time to time-who have put at the disposal of this nation at war all the facilities they have in certain instances with respect to mechanics and industrial production. I think this word of credit ought to be spoken regarding them at this time.
I am a little far afield from the purpose of this bill, and I am not going to follow that further. I say this to the minister, that the powers given to him under this bill are great powers, and arising out of that very fact they ought to be exercised with the utmost discretion. Under this bill power is given to go in and take over my plant if the minister in his judgment thinks I am not operating it properly. That is a great power to vest in any one man; it is a power capable of great abuses if one were so disposed. I am not suggesting that there has been in any specific case an improper exercise of the powers given to the minister, but I recall that with respect to one company the management of which was taken out of the hands of the directors, they did protest against the minister's action. I am not in a position to judge as to the merits of their claim, but it illustrates this point, that unless the greatest care is taken great injustice may be done under the powers conferred by this bill. Therefore I beseech the minister and those who are advising him-because he must depend upon the sagacity and wisdom and judgment of his advisers, those who are sitting around him in an executive capacity-that they will be as wise as Solomon himself when they come to deal with this matter.

Munitions and Supply Act
There are some provisions in the bill which do not commend themselves to me. When we reach certain sections we shall take occasion to point them out to the minister; I do not know that we can do more than that. The section to which he has referred as being the only new section will repay careful reading on the part of hon. members. I ask everyone to read this bill. We are not in a belligerent mood; we are in a rather judicial atmosphere here to-night. I ask hon. members to read section 23, the last section of the bill. It conveys to the minister and the authorities very grave powers. If I interpret it correctly, it violates certain principles of property and civil rights, and under normal peace conditions would be wholly unconstitutional. I have grave doubt whether this should be done even in war time.
Then, there is another section that caught my eye as I hurriedly read the bill this morning, with respect to the legal rights of parties in regard to damages that might accrue to them as a result of certain actions by the department. This parliament should not, even in war time, lightly legislate to take away the legal rights of citizens of this country. If we are to err at all we should err in favour of the citizen as against the crown. Every taxing statute; every statute that I am aware of dealing with the rights of the subject as against the crown, is always interpreted, under the standard canons of construction, where there is any doubt at all, in favour of the subject. I place myself in the judgment of the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) if that statement is not generally correct. There are one or two sections here which definitely take away from the subject his common law rights, his rights in the civil courts of the country, and I would ask this house to scan those sections most carefully when we reach the committee stage. It may be that we shall all have some views on the subject. I appeal to those in the house who are lawyers to bring to this discussion their best knowledge and ability, because I do not think any hon. member, no matter where he sits or who he is, would willingly be a party to injustice by passing a statute, or who would willingly by statute, deprive a subject of his rights at law. None of us wants to do anything like that.
At a later stage on one of these sections I shall raise a question with respect to the right of the department to do certain things for other governments. We are all, in the united nations, fighting a common enemy. We are proceeding on the principle that if one of the allied partners has something which is required by another member of the partnership,
there is an obligation which will compel us to utilize our facilities for the benefit of each other. But I know of a case-I will not mention the names of the parties since the matter is more or less in litigation now-in which this government requisitioned a company's ships not for its own purposes but in order to hand them over to the United States, which at the time was not even in the war. The minister knows to what I am referring, and I do not intend to be more specific than that. I suggest to the minister that this was an abuse of the powers of the crown. If the nation to which I have referred, had been a belligerent at the time, the action taken might have and possibly would have been justified; but to take the ships of a Canadian citizen, even in time of war, hand them over to a neutral country, and then pass a statute, as the Minister of Public Works had one passed in this house in 1940-I remember catching that statute as it went through-which derogated from the common law rights of the owner to protect his position, was an abuse of the powers of the crown that ought not to have been allowed. I am sure if the implications of the whole thing had been understood by the house; if it had been understood by the ministry to what uses these statutes would be put, at all events it would have caused them to pause before taking such drastic action. You see how easy it is to have this happen when you give such power to a minister, no matter how good he may be, no matter how conscientious he may be, no matter how sincere in the performance of his duties. Someone will advise him wrongly; some one will recommend that he do thus and so, perhaps without giving him full knowledge of all the implications, and injustice creeps in. The granting of extraordinary powers carries with it as a corollary the demand and the obligation that such powers shall be used with the utmost justice, and that injustice never shall creep in.
Having made these general observations, I am quite content to have this bill given second reading, with the understanding that we shall be able to discuss particular features of it in the committee stage. Before sitting down, however, may I renew the appeal which I have made to the minister, and may I repeat the fear I have expressed that some of these powers at some time will be used, by the operation of other sections of the statute, to inflict great injustice, and that the right of the subject to redress as against the crown will, to say the least, be greatly diminished. I regret to have to make that statement, but I think the minister is going too far in respect of certain provisions which have the effect of cutting down the operation of the common law as
Munitions and Supply Act

between the crown and the subject. I appeal to the sense of justice of the membership of this house not to give the approval of their countenance to legislation of that kind without the utmost justification.
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, there is more to this than has been pointed out by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson), although I agree with the hon. member that it is our duty to scrutinize carefully this legislation which makes some changes in the Department of Munitions and Supply, the largest government department we have in Ottawa. I do not believe only in the letter of the law. We must take the letter and the spirit together, and we must go back to the time when the first information was given in regard to this department. I am interested in that, because I took part in the discussions concerning the famous Bren gun probe. The first chapter of the history of this department was written at that time, when the present Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) was Minister of National Defence, and when Mr. Dunning, who was a very close friend of Mr. Purvis, was Minister of Finance. The probe came to no conclusion; there was no report. During the sittings of the committee the present Minister of National War Services (Mr. LaFleche) was attacked;-unduly, I thought-and at the time, strange to say, I was the only member of the House of Commons to defend the hon. gentleman from my place in this chamber. In similar circumstances I would act again in the same way.
The beginning of the Department of Munitions and Supply was an organization known at the time as the national defence purchasing board. It was created before the war, and for a time it was not put into operation, because no man could be found in the dominion service to head a board of that kind. Finally an appeal was made to the Canadian National Railways, and Mr. Vaughan, who was one of the vice-presidents of that railway, and in charge of the purchasing branch, was appointed the first temporary head of the national defence purchasing board. He had with him a well known business man from Montreal, namely, Mr. C. E. Gravel, and Mr. H. B. Chase, who represented the labour unions. All three were very able men.
But that is not the point. Although no specific accusation was then made against the then Minister of National Defence-and there was only one minister of national defence at the time-the Minister of Finance of that time took advantage of the occasion to take from the Minister of National Defence the right to make any purchases. The Minister of National

Defence had no right to make any purchases, but only the right to make requisitions to what is now known as the Department of Munitions and Supply, and at that time as the national defence purchasing board. Imagine such a condition!
After the institution of the national defence purchasing board the Minister of National Defence was rated as a clerk. But the big man of the Department of National Defence, a man who had .no particular knowledge of the needs of the army, was the Minister of Finance. He could say to the Minister of National Defence: "You have asked for a cap, and you have asked for a Sam Browne. You do not need them. I know that, because I am Minister of Finance. You have asked for a gun. You do not need it, and I will not pay for it."
From the time of the institution of the national defence purchasing board the Minister of National Defence had not the right to buy a cap for a soldier or a sword for an officer. All those rights were in the hands of the national defence purchasing board, and that was under the then Minister of Finance, who was close to the late Mr. Purvis.
I said at the time that it was an institution which could not work, and that its creation was nonsensical. The Toronto papers said that I was the only Liberal who was voicing any protest. I was not merely the only Liberal; I was, sir, to my great surprise, the only member of the House of Commons who protested against the creation of such a thing. In the name of patriotism all members of the house had been canvassed.
I hold in my hand a copy of the Montreal Gazette of July 13, 1939, announcing the appointment of Mr. Vaughan, Mr. Gravel, Mr. Chase and also Mr. Sherman to the board. Then, on October 7, there appeared in the same newspaper a dispatch from F. C. Mears, the Ottawa correspondent of the Montreal Gazette, headed with these words, "Ottawa Supply Board to act as agents for British purchases."
Then, the war supply board, an altogether different organization, was created on November 1, 1939, under the chairmanship of Mr. Wallace R. Campbell of the Ford Motor company. Mr. Campbell stayed in Ottawa for some time. I hold in my hand another newspaper article from the same newspaper, under the date line of November 22, 1939, and headed with these words: "Defence deals will be tabled in parliament"; and the subheading:, "War contracts to be made public, Premier King states; good cause for delay; bigger flow of orders promised soon; propaganda bureau is planned."

Munitions and Supply Act
Then, an November 24, two days afterwards, the present Minister of Munitions and Supply was named to head the board of war supplies. It was at first the Minister of Finance who had taken upon himself the very great responsibility of having the national defence purchasing board placed under his own direction. What happened? This was a little more than six months before the death of Mr. Rogers, who was then Minister of National Defence. At that time the present Minister of National Defence was Minister of Finance. The war had just started. He had under his jurisdiction that white elephant known as the national defence purchasing board.
In its article of November 24, 1939, the Montreal Gazette said: "Howe is named to head board of war supply", and carried the subheading "Move leaves Ralston free for finance duties." That is right; the Minister of Finance could not handle it any more, because the war had started. This proves clearly, beyond doubt, that the attitude of the member for Temiscouata when the national defence purchasing board was instituted was sound and right. Then, supervision over all those purchases was given by the Department of Finance to the Minister of Munitions and Supply, who was then holding the portfolio of Minister of Transport. Finally-


Thomas Vien: If the hon. member will permit me, I understand there is likely to be a blackout in Ottawa this evening. Just when it will be I do not know, but it may be during the course of this sitting. I suggest that when the blackout occurs the house should suspend its sitting, because all lights in the building will be turned out. Hon. members may do as they think best, either remain here or go to their rooms.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will try to throw some
light on the subject. The Minister of Finance could not handle the job. What had been forecast by his predecessor, Mr. Dunning, proved to be wrong. The system would not work in war time. Therefore, it was transferred to the present minister of munitions at the time when he was Minister of Transport. When it was found that he could not handle both the supply board and the Department of Transport, another minister took charge of the Department of Transport, and he himself became the head of the Department of Munitions and Supply.
I cannot understand the present relations between the Department of Munitions and Supply and the Department of National
Defence. I understand that the munitions department is really the storeroom for everything needed by the three branches of the service. I have no objection to that, but I understand also that the financial powers of the Department of National Defence were first transferred to the Department of Finance and then were given away by the Department of Finance to another department, the munitions department. How is it that the Department of National Defence has a financial adviser? He is Mr. Magee, president of Barclay's bank, a former co-director of the present minister. I mentioned Mr. Magee on February 21, 1941, but I also mentioned another gentleman. Mr. Henry Borden, a nephew of Sir Robert Borden, former leader of the Conservative party, was also a co-director of the present Minister of National Defence before the war. This gentleman has been climbing all the time, and he is now coordinator of controls and chairman of the wartime industries control board in the Department of Munitions and Supply.
It will be seen how this association of vested money interests holds the trumps. The three ministers of national defence gave out a statement at the beginning of the war to the effect that there would be no patronage in their departments. When I mentioned the fact that the Minister of National Defence had brought his old chums from Barclay's bank to his department, he protested and said that Mr. Magee was a good Canadian citizen.


Mr. SLAGHT:: I did not catch whether
Your Honour said that there would be an adjournment for half an hour, after which we would return, or whether we were adjourning for the evening.


Jean-François Pouliot: I can tell my hon. friend
that it is immaterial.


Thomas Vien: The house was to be suspended during the blackout but was to resume when the lights come on again.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If I may interject, the fates
seem to be against us on this bill. It has been put off from time to time and to-night we seem to be working under difficulties. I would suggest that the debate be adjourned.


Jean-François Pouliot: I move that the debate
be adjourned.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Howe the house adjourned at 8.55 p.m.



END OF VOLUME II