[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of special1 committee on veterans affairs.-Mr. Tucker.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South Centre) presented1 the first report of the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 174 (from the senate), to incorporate Canadian Slovak Benefit Society.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 175 (from the Senate), to incorporate Canadian Conference of the Mennonite Brethren Church of North America.-Mr. Maylbank.

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

Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	Has the government made any plans for research and development to be maintained regarding defence?
2.	If so, what are these plans?
3.	What is the total amount of money which will be spent, (a) on research and development during the coming year; (b) how much is being allocated to the atomic energy project?
4.	Are the facilities at Research Enterprises for carrying on research being continued?
5.	If so, to what extent?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Following the deliberations of the war committee of the cabinet a committee on research for defence was formed August 9, 1945 composed of the following:
Chairman, Hon. C. D. Howe, Minister of Reconstruction and Supply; C. A. S. Air Marshal R. Leckie; A. M. R. D. Air Commodore A. L. James; C. N. S. Vice Admiral G. C. Jones; C. G. S. Lieut. Gen. G. Foulkes; M. G. 0. Major Gen. J. H. McQueen; R. D. Harkness, Gen. Manager, Northern. Electric Company; Dr. C. J. Mackenzie, President, National Research Council; C. A. R. D. E. Dr. D. Rose, Supt. (Can. Army Research Development) ; Doctor C. H. Best, Banting and Best Institute, University of Toronto; Wing-Commander A. M. Cameron, Secretary, Privy Council, Secretary.
Also, a representative of the Scientific Research Section of the Navy to be appointed.
Also, coordinator of Production, Reconstruction and supply.
The terms of reference of this committee are in part:	1
To act as the government's principal advisors and referees on broad questions of research policy in collaboration with industry and with the scientific institutes and with bodies representative of other governments.
To review and to suggest measures for the coordination of the activities of the various government agencies engaged in research for the need of optimum use of resources available.
3.	Inasmuch as the need for secrecy is obviously apparent, it is considered that it is not in the public interest to reply to this question.
4.	Answered by the Minister page 2363 of Hansard, November 21, 1945.
5.	Answered by No 4. [DOT]


STEVENSON AIR FIELD, WINNIPEG
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	Have any plans been made for enlarging the airport at Stevenson Field, Winnipeg, by successive stages?
2.	If so, what are the various stages contemplated ?
3.	Has an estimate been prepared as <to the eost of the same?
4.	When will work commence on ithe first of these stages?


Mr. McILRAITH:: In so far as the Department of Transport is concerned:



Questions

1.	Yes, preliminary plans only.
2.	Studies have been made and are continuing, but no detailed plans have been prepared yet.
3.	Numerous preliminary estimates only.
4.	Unable to state at this time.


CHRISTIE STREET HOSPITAL
Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	What is the total amount of money expended on Christie Street hospital, Toronto, between 1st September, 1939 to 30th September, 1945?	*
2.	What was the accommodation for patients on September 1, 1939, and on September 30, 1945, respectively?
3.	Is accommodation provided in the hospital for members of the (a) administrative; (b) medical; (e) nursing staffs.
4.	What is the size of each of these staffs respectively? '
5.	How many patients were there in this hospital on September 30, 1945, classified (a) surgical cases; (b) medical cases; (c) neurological cases?


Mr. TUCKER:: 1.	$1,004,286.80.	'
2.	September 1, 1939: 499 beds; September 30, 1945: 1,417 beds.
3.	Sleeping accommodation: , (a) no; (b) yes; (c) yes, at Nurses' residence.
4.	Staff, as in question 3, given sleeping accommodation: (a) nil; (b) 4; (c) 56.
5.	(a) 850; (b) 319; (c) 93.


SURPLUS WAR ASSETS-MOTOR VEHICLES
Mr. KNIGHT:: 1.	Were any graders, construction vehicles, tractors, re-fuelling wagons, jeeps and motor vehicles of any other description shipped from Saskatchewan airports and military camps to eastern Canada for disposal? If so, how many?
2.	How many were disposed of within the province of Saskatchewan, and how?
3.	Were all vehicles advertised for sale in the province of Saskatchewan before being shipped out of the province?
4.	If so, what medium of advertising was used, and for how long a period was it used?


George James McIlraith: ,
1.	No such equipment has been shipped by War Assets Corporation from Saskatchewan to eastern Canada.
2.	(a) Seven pieces of construction equipment and three hundred and sixty vehicles, (b) They were sold.
3.	Answered by No. 1.
4.	Answered by No. 1.
tMr. Mcllraith.]


BONUSES OR SUBSIDIES ON FUEL WOOD-YUKON
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	To whom in Yukon were bonuses or subsidies on fuel wood paid?
2.	What amount of public money was paid to
each recipient?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1 and 2. In accordance with government policy as stated from time to time by the Minister of Finance in the House of Commons, it is not considered to be in the public interest to provide information with respect to subsidies paid by Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation Limited to individual concerns. (Ref. House of Commons Debates, No. 47, dated April 24, 1944, page 2280).
BRITISH WAR GUESTS '	.	'


Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	How many British war guests came to Canada during the recent war, under the government's sponsored plan?	_
2.	How many returned to Great Britain?
3.	What was the total amount of money given to the government by charitable organizations to be used in assisting with this work?
4.	How much remains of this fund? _
5.	What disposition will be made of it?


Mr. GLEN:: 1.	1,532.
9 1 337
3.	$80,114.92.
4.	The total amount has been expended.
5.	Answered by No. 4.	*


OTIS FENSOM COMPANY-BOFOR GUNS
Mr. PEARKES:: 1.	Has a contract been let to the Otis Fensom Company at Hamilton for the modification of the carriages of Bofor guns?
2.	If so, how many such carriages are to be
modified, and what is the contract price per gun carriage?	_	_	_
3.	Are any similar modifications being made in Vancouver? If so, by whom and at what contract price?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	Yes. Contract was awarded June 19, 1945 and amended August 4, 1945.
2.	195, at cost plus fee of 3 per cent.
3.	No.


AERO TIMBER PROJECT, QUEEN CHARLOTTE ISLANDS
Mr. ARCHIBALD:: 1.	Has the Aero Timber Project at Justkatla,
Queen Charlotte Islands, been sold? If so, to whom and at what price?	_	.
2.	What was the government's investment in' this project?

Questions as Orders for Returns


Mr. McILRAITH:: 
DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE-DISCUSSION OF AUGUST PROPOSALS
Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	Has the government sept a representative to the provinces to discuss the proposals which the government of Canada placed before the Dominion-Provincial Conference at its meeting in August last?
2.	If so, who was that representative and what position does he occupy in the government service?
3.	Did he make a report to the government?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	No. Mr. D. A. Skelton, secretary of the coordinating committee of the conference visited the provinces to discuss with the provincial authorities the procedure and agenda for the meeting of the coordinating committee on November 26.
2.	Answered by No. 1. Mr. D. A. Skelton is research adviser in the Bank of Canada and secretary of the cabinet committee on dominion-provincial relations.
3.	No. He made notes to guide him as its secretary in preparations for the meeting of the coordinating committee.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	How many Fairmile naval ships did Can-' ada own; who built them and at what cost
each?
2.	Have any been sold? If so, to whom and and at what price?
3.	Who authorized their sale and when?
4.	Were tenders called for such sales?


George James McIlraith: Return tabled.


APPLICATIONS FOR RADIO LICENCES
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	How many applications have been made since January 1, 1944, to the radio commission for the issue of radio licences in the provinces of Ontario, Quebec and the maritime provinces?
2.	Who were the applicants in each case?
3.	How many of these applications have been, (a) granted; (b) refused; (c) directed to be held in abeyance?
47696-157i


FLOUR AND WHEAT
Mrs. STRUM:: 1.	To what countries has Canada exported flour since September 28, 1943?
2.	What companies are supplying this flour?
3.	What price have millers paid for wheat used to produce export flour since September 28, 1943?
4.	What price have millers paid for wheat used for domestic consumption since September 28, 1943?
5.	What price has the Canadian wheat board obtained for wheat exported since September 28, 1943?
6.	What is the amount of subsidy by which
the consumer in Canada has been subsidized through a reduction in the price of flour made possible through supplying Canadian mills with wheat at lower prices since the adoption of price control in 1941?	.
7.	What is the cost of subsidy borne by the Canadian government since the adoption of price control in 1941?


SHEDIAC PUBLIC BUILDINGS
Mr. WHITE (Middlesex East):: 1.	Did the government build any buildings at 'Shediac, N.B. since the beginning of the war?
2.	If so, what was the purpose for which these buildings were built?
3.	What was the cost of each building?
4.	Are these buildings still being used?
5.	How many people were employed in each of these during the years 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945?
6.	Were travelling expenses between Scoudouc and Shediac provided for workers in these buildings? If so, how much per worker?
7.	Was this equivalent to a monthly railway ticket? If not, was it more or less? If more, how much more?
8.	Did some of the workmen have railway passes?
9.	If so, did they also receive travelling allowance?



LEGAL SERVICES-BORDEN, ELLIOT, SAN KEY AND KELLEY

Mr. POULIOT:: Since the beginning of the war, how much was paid each year by the dominion government and any dominion board, commission and corporation and any other dominion agency to:
1.	The law firm of Borden, Elliot, Sankey and Kelley, barristers and solicitors, of the city of Toronto?
2.	The following partners of the above-mentioned firm: (a) H. Borden, K.C.; (b) B. V. Elliot, K.C.;	(c) R. II. Sankey, K.C.;	(d)
W. A. G. Kelley; (e) J. T. Johnson; (f) I. G. Wahn; (g) A. D. McAlpine, and (h) Hon. C. P. McTague, K.C.?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mir. GILLIS:: For a copy of all orders in council, agreements, arrangements, letters and other correspondence between the government or any of its officials and the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation regarding subsidies or other assistance to the steel industry at their plant, Sydney, Nova Scotia.	; ....	..,,
Motions for Papers


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the motion calls for letters and other correspondence which are very voluminous; and in addition they disclose some matters as to the competitive position in industry. I have spoken to the sponsor of the motion about this, and I understand he is satisfied to have the words "letters and other correspondence" deleted from the motion. Subject to that, there is no objection to the motion passing.
Motion as amended agreed to.



JAPANESE NATIONALS

Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg North) moved:: For a copy of all petitions, letters and other correspondence received by the government during the past year, asking that the applications to go to Japan signed by persons of Japanese origin be reconsidered.
He said: I am informed that this would entail a great deal of work, and I am therefore quite willing to drop the motion in view of the fact that I can examine the originals.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I wish to thank my hon. friend for what he has said. A large part of the correspondence asked for is wholly repetitious. The same application has been made in the same words in hundreds of letters. If my hon. friend will go to the Department of External Affairs or the Department of Labour the officials will be pleased to allow him access to the entire files to assist him in obtaining the information he may wish to have.
Motion dropped.



CIVIL SERVICE-RECLASSIFICATION

Mr. BLAIR:: For a statement showing, (a) the names of all civil servants who have been reclassified by the treasury board and/or the civil service commission in each year since December 16, 1940, stating in each case whether temporary or permanent employee; (b) the increase awarded to each, and the date of such awards.


Mr. MARTIN:: This motion would entail a great deal of work; it. would require the services of twenty stenographers working for five months to compile the facts. It would necessitate the examination of some 48,000 files. In view of these impressive facts perhaps the hon. gentleman would be willing to drop the motion.


William Gourlay Blair: Yes.
Motion dropped.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
[Mr. Gillia.l
Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I do not know, Mr. Speaker,
whether this question should be addressed to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of Finance: I think I handed a copy to the office of the Prime Minister. On Monday, November 12, the Minister of Finance gave the house a statement of the further legislation to be presented to parliament at this session. Is it still the intention of the government to proceed with the legislation then indicated? If so, I believe it would greatly facilitate the business of the house if all the remaining legislation could be introduced at an early day. I make the suggestion to the Prime Minister that this be done, in the belief that the house will then be in a better, position, not only to consider these measures, but to facilitate their passage and at the same time avoid an unseemly rush of work as the end of the session approaches.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am obliged to my hon. friend for bringing up the question he has. The government is anxious, as I am sure all hon. members are, to get through the business of this session as early as possible before Christmas, and, also, to give adequate time to the discussion of the different measures. To further this end, the government has gone over the list of bills mentioned by the Minister of Finance. Some of these it will be possible to have postponed to another session. I might say that we had hoped to get through the bill respecting citizenship, nationality, naturalization and status of aliens, which is an important measure; but so long as it is understood that it will be one of the first measures to be proceeded with at the next session, I think it may be allowed to stand, if near the end of the session we should be pressed for time. The ratification of the extradition treaty is another matter which might be allowed to stand over until the early part of the next session. Approval of the Bretton Woods agreement will have to be proceeded with; also an amendment to the Export Credit Act, and an amendment to the Dominion-Provincial Taxation Agreement Act. It relates to the province of Alberta and, I understand, is not a contentious measure. The maple sugar industry bill has been introduced in the senate and will come from that house to this.


John Bracken: We should be sending one like that to them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was thought the senate might get through the discussion of it to begin with.

Winnipeg Newspapers Strike
These, in the main, are the bills of which mention has been made already. So far as proceeding with some other bills is concerned, much depends on the bill giving the governor in council powers in respect of the national emergency following the war. If that bill is passed, certain matters could be dealt with under its provisions which otherwise would have to be dealt with in separate bills to be introduced at this session. I might mention, for example, measures which the Minister of Veterans Affairs had it in mind to bring in at this session. The minister has on the order paper a bill to amend the War Service Grants Act, 1944'; that bill will have to be proceeded with, but there are, I am informed, five other bills which the minister had thought of introducing. I understand it will be agreeable to those who are most interested if the matters contained in those measures are dealt with, so far as the next few months are concerned, by order in council under the emergency bill, with the understanding, of course, that bills will be brought in early next session to have them thereafter dealt with under statute. There is also a bill which relates to foreign exchange control: that is another measure which might be dealt with under the emergency powers should they be granted, and not gone on with in a separate measure at this session. Hon. members will find notice of practically all the other measures which will have to be taken up on the order paper of to-day.
This morning the coordinating committee of the dominion-provincial conference had a meeting in the course of which there was some consideration of matters which might be dealt with under the national emergency powers legislation. The government has thought it advisable, on account of the further consideration we wish to give to that subject, not to proceed with that measure this afternoon as was announced on Friday night but to allow it to stand as far as to-day's proceedings are concerned.


John Bracken: The Prime Minister indicates that the emergency powers bill will not be dealt with this afternoon. Having regard to some question arising in the conference which is now in progress in this city, may I ask whether it is expected that we shall proceed with this bill at an early day, or will it be delayed until the pending conference is over?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot
inform my hon. friend how long the co-ordinating committee of the dominion-provincial conference will continue its sittings, but I can say that it is the desire of the government
to proceed with the emergency powers bill at as early a day as possible. I hope it will not be delayed any great length of time.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alistair McLeod Stewart: I should like to ask two questions of the Minister of Labour; I have given him notice. Has the Department of Labour any information about the deadlock in the negotiations between publishers of the daily newspapers in Winnipeg and the union? Have the workers applied for unemployment benefits, and if so, will they be granted?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: The hon. member gave my office notice of the questions, and I wish to thank him for having done so. The answer to the first question is as follows: The Department of Labour has been informed of developments in the strike of the employees of two Winnipeg newspapers, and Mr. Justice Major of the Manitoba supreme court was appointed industrial disputes inquiry commissioner in order to assist the parties to compose their difference. The commissioner was not able to bring about a settlement of the dispute, which involved negotiations for a new collective agreement covering wages, hours, and working conditions. The last word received from our Winnipeg office on Friday last was that the publishers had applied to the Manitoba wartime labour relations board for permission to prosecute the union for alleged violation of the wartime labour relations regulations P.C. 1003.
The answer to the second question of the hon. member is, that twenty-seven persons have claimed unemployment insurance benefits; none of the claims has been considered as yet. Employees who lose their employment through a labour dispute are not entitled to insurance 'benefit during the stoppage of work caused by the dispute, unless they can establish that they as individuals are not participating in, financing, or directly interested in the dispute nor do they belong to a grade or class of workers who are participating in, financing, or directly interested in the dispute.



STRIKE AT FORD MOTOR PLANT, WINDSOR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day!
Mr. FRED ROSE (Cartier):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is the money spent by the Ford Motor Company for full-page advertisements throughout the country deductible from income tax?
2492	COMMONS
International Aviation


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: The question should properly be directed to the Minister of National Revenue.



FURNITURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. F. KUHL (Jasper-Edson):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I have been told that a very large proportion of the furniture which is manufactured in Canada is being exported to the Union of South Africa. In view of the tremendous unsatisfied demand for furniture in Canada on the part of war veterans and civilians alike, I should like to know what comments the minister is prepared to make on this situation.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The hon. member has not the right according to our rules to make a statement. If he has any question to put to the minister, it should be brief and to the point.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: I have just asked the question, Mr. Speaker: what comment the minister has to make. *


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The hon. member
has given me no notice of his question. I shall look at it.



INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, November 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe:
That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the interim agreement on international civil aviation signed by Canada on December 7, 1944, tabled on September 7, 1945, the convention on international civil aviation signed by Canada on December 7, 1944, tabled on September 7, 1945, and the international air services transit agreement signed by Canada on February 10, 1945, tabled on September 7, 1945; and that this house do approve the same.
Motion agreed to.	[DOT]


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction) moved the second reading of bill No. 19, to amend the Aeronautics Act.
Mr. FLEMING:: Will the minister make a statement with reference to the progress made to date by the air transport board', both in

regard to organization and in regard to regulations promulgated under the terms of the amendment of a year ago?


Mr. HOWE:: I have a statement which I intend to make but I suggest that it might be as well to allow the bill to move into committee and I could make the statement at that stage, when discussion could take place. It cannot take place very well on the second reading. Is that satisfactory?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It occurred' to me that it might be useful to have the statement at this stage, since 'it might have a bearing on the attitude of the house towards the reading of the bill.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The bill to amend the Aeronautics Act contains provisions chiefly of a formal character. Most of them are already familiar in other legislation on transportation. Hon. members [will recall that part II of the Aeronautics Act, which is being amended by this bill, was enacted only last year. It was inevitable that experience would indicate some need for amendment. In a moment or two I intend to refer briefly to these amendments.
I would indicate briefly something of the action taken to carry out the authority granted1 by parliament in enacting part II of the Aeronautics Act. It will be recalled that amendments made effective on September 11, 1944, provided for the establishment of a board of three members to be known as the air transport board. This new board was set u,p and charged with the responsibility for licensing and regulating commercial air services and for advising in all matters relating to civil aviation. The organization of the board was not without its difficulties, owing to the conditions which existed during the closing months of the war. However, the board! is now fully equipped to examine and determine the numerous specific and broad questions which arise daily in the new and rapidly developing field of air transport.
Experience since the board was appointed has fully confirmed the view of the government in March of last year that it is essential to have in this new field an organization specially assigned to its problems. The board has special divisions on economics, research, aeronautical engineering, licensing, on audits and on traffic tolls and tariffs to assist it in the discharge of its responsibilities.
Regulations and directives have been drafted and issued in consultation with interested departments and carriers. The air transport board has become and will continue to be a focal point for screening and advising on all matters relating to civil aviation. In the introduction of the air transport board into

Aeronautics Act
the field of civil aviation care has been taken to avoid duplication of administrative machinery. The board is a small body staffed only to carry out its regulatory functions andi to analyse and advise on civil aviation problems with special responsibilities in respect of the economic aspects of commercial air services. Close cooperation and frequent consultation is necessary between the officers of the board and those of the Department of Transport, air services branch, who are responsible for technical standards, safety regulations and many other matters of a technical nature.
Since the Department of Transport has an extensive regional and field service in connection with its varied responsibilities, the air transport board has not found it necessary to retain its own regional or field offices, but relies for such assistance as it requires on its clbse cooperation with that department. Similarly many mutual problems have been studied together by the board and the department alone or together with other government departments or agencies. In this way it is assured that the decisions which must be made in respect of air services, airports and related services will be made after full and effective consideration.
The proposed amendments are chiefly of a formal nature and most of them are considered to be necessary in the light of the board's experience during the past year. They require little explanation, but I would like to say that I consider the new definition of "commercial air service" as particularly important because the act in its present form does not cover all forms of commercial air activities. It seems obvious that the board should have power to control all such activities to whatever extent may be necessary in the public interest, and the amendment is designed to provide for this.
Section 4 is intended for' the purpose of authorizing the board to relax its regulations or orders in cases, for example, where the operations of the carrier are of a limited extent or subject to unusual conditions.
The only other provision to which I wish to refer is section 6. In this regard I would point out that the subject of free and reducedwate transportation is now dealt with under the regulations. This subject is of such importance that it is proposed to include it in the act. I would have liked to be able to give a detailed report on the activities of the air transport board during the past year; however, as time is limited I wish to assure hon. members that a tremendous amount of spade work has been done. Whereas our railway transportation system has been built up over a long
period of years, it is clear that at least the framework of the air transport system must be provided for in a matter of months. That the foundation of this sjrstem be soundly laid is of the utmost importance, and the air transport board has been and is working diligently toward this end. Hon. members will appreciate that the great handicap of stimulating bush flying or flying of a feeder line nature is the difficulty of obtaining suitable equipment. During the war years all the activity of aeroplane builders in Canada and in other countries was directed toward the building of aeroplanes for war. While aeroplanes of a war type are being made available for civilian work, none of them is suitable for commercial purposes. While they will do certain work, they are not of a type that can be considered money makers. Therefore the best the board ' can do at the moment is to accumulate information which will assist in building these feeder lines. To that end traffic studies have been made and the movement of population studied and tabulated in a form which can be readily available to those interested in undertaking a new operation.
Licences have been granted for a number of charter services. Those are a necessary adjunct to civil aviation at the present time, and charter services are being formed and centred on a number of our larger cities.


Mr. MacNICOL:: What section would
charter services come under?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I cannot say. I think we shall come to it in the act. I may say there is no amendment relating to charter services, but when we get into committee. I shall be glad to refer the hon. member to the chapter.
Hearings are being held in connection with new mail routes. Licences will issue in due course, but here again the board is reluctant, and has been reluctant, to issue licences covering mail routes to applicants who obviously cannot furnish the type of equipment which is likely to make the route profitable.
I shall be glad to answer any other questions that my hon. friend has to ask in committee.
Motion agreed to; bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-Commercial air service.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I should like to ask the minister a question which is based on the words "commercial air service". I have had quite a number of letters in the last few days from Yellowknife. Doubtless the minister has had similar letters.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yea.
Aeronautics Act


John Ritchie MacNicol: They were from gold mining companies in that country who are greatly worried about their inability to purchase bunker oil, which has placed them in a very dangerous position. Those who cannot obtain tractors to go many miles out to the sparsely wooded areas to get fuel find themselves in a difficult position. The minister knows that a number of tanks have been built at Yellowknife. Two companies that I know very well now have five tanks which are empty. I am wondering if under this bill the minister has sufficient powers-and I should like him to have all the powers required to do this-to arrange for some transport company to transport bunker oil in barrels by transport plane from Norman Wells to Yellowknife. On one occasion I mysel'f flew over that country in a large transport plane which was capable of carrying twenty-eight passengers. Such a plane ought to be able to take care of a hundred barrels of fuel oil. A hundred barrels of fuel oil would contain 3,500 gallons, and would weigh approximately 35,000 pounds. There must be many. transport planes available now that the war is over. If it could be arranged to use some of them to transport oil in 100-barrel lots from Norman Wells to those mining areas in Yellowknife, which are now doing the best they can to get into production, it would be good for the country. It would mean much business and employment and would save the companies from the danger of having their equipment frozen up, especially those who cannot get wood. Is it possible to obtain transport planes which could be sent into the country in an emergency to transport oil at the rate of a hundred barrels a flight? It would not take more than a matter of three or four hours to fly from Norman Wells to Yellowknife, so that even in the short days the plane would be able to make safely one trip a day. Could that be taken care of for the sake of opening up that country?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The movement of bunker oil is hardly a matter for aeroplanes, because of the cost. The difficulty last season was that an unexpected demand developed during the latter part of the season. Water transportation was handicapped by low water and lack of craft. The result is that there was not as much bunker oil moved to Yellowknife as there should have been. However, next season the demand will be better understood. We shall be able to start at the beginning of the opening of navigation, and I think there will be no difficulty so far as the obtaining of sufficient oil is concerned.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is this winter I am thinking of.	'


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is aware that a land airport has been built as Yellowknife which will be in use this winter. If meed for transportation does develop, the nearest source of supply is Edmonton, and it will be possible to fly oil in from there to Yellowknife if it becomes necessary, although the cost of transportation is away out of proportion to the cost of fuel oil. Expensive items can stand air transportation, but fuel oil, being a cheap commodity, can hardly do so. .


John Ritchie MacNicol: The distance in each case is about the same. The distance from Edmonton to Yellowknife is approximately six hundred miles by air, and it is about the same distance the other way.


Clarence Decatur Howe: About eight hundred the other way.


John Ritchie MacNicol: From Edmonton to
Yellowknife?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, from Norman Wells to Yellowknife.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I did not think it was quite that far; but in any event the oil will be much cheaper at Norman Wells than at Edmonton. I do not think they would have bunker oil at Edmonton, but they have it at Norman Wells.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I cannot help but feel that if there was an opportunity to send in bunker oil by plane at a subsidized rate of a hundred barrels per trip it would pretty soon overcome the difficulty. The minister knows that at Yellowknife they are up against a real difficulty. We cannot afford to have anything interfere with the expansion at Yellowknife. It is going to be one of the greatest gold mining areas in the world, if not the greatest.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Every effort will be made by the Department of Transport or the air transport board to see that there is no interruption of operations at Yellowknife owing to lack of fuel oil.


Mr. STIRLING:: There are in southern British Columbia at the present time a great many air-minded people who are concerned with the idea of service being given to those communities dotted along a little north of the boundary all the way between Lethbridge and Vancouver. Can the minister give us any information in regard to consideration having been given to assisting such developments?
I believe at the present time three or four applications are before the board, and it may

Aeronautics Act
be that they are being considered even now. Could the minister develop that matter a little? The T.C.A. of course jumps from Lethbridge very nearly through to Vancouver, and service cannot be given in that way. It is true that railway service exists, but it is by no means speedy; and for at least a month or two in the middle of winter the highways are scarcely usable. Many people through the Kootenays, in the Okanagan and in these other settlements are looking forward to the day when there may be some air service supplementing T.C.A. Can the minister give the committee any idea of the cost per passenger mile, for instance, in such a pick-up service, whether it be in that mountainous area or .in the flatter land of the prairies?


Clarence Decatur Howe: As the hon. member for Yale has indicated, there are three applications before the board for a service between Vancouver and Lethbridge through the Crowsnest pass. The air transport board has set down a hearing in Vancouver for January 15, when the three applications will be considered. In the meantime they are studying the merits of the three routes for which application has been made. The applications are not identical; each specifies different stops, and it will be the purpose of the board to see that, whichever application is granted, the applicant will be required to give an adequate service to the citizens in that area.
This is considered an excellent aeroplane route. The rail transportation, as I think my hon. friend will agree, is not the best, and weather conditions are such that from time to time the highways are blocked. Another fortunate feature is that the area is well supplied with airports, so that a well-equipped and well-financed company should be able to give an excellent service and should find it a profitable operation.
I am sorry I cannot give my hon. friend an indication of the rate. Local services of that type require a higher rate than the Trans-Canada service, on which the rate is about 5i cents a mile. This rate will be somewhat higher, but I think it will be desirable for those operating the route to set a rate that will attract patronage, and it will be the duty of the air transport board to see that the rate is not excessive. Just what rate will be established is a matter between the operator and the air transport board.


Grote Stirling: Would the minister hazard a guess that it might be twice or three times as high?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My guess is that it would not be as much as twice as high.


Mr. COCKERAM:: Previously those of us who were interested in aeronautics appeared before the board of transport commissioners, but under the amendment to the Act passed in August, 1944, we set up an air transport board. What was the justification at that time for setting up the board?-Because certainly the board of transport commissioners carried out their duties in an efficient manner. I was surprised when the minister was not able to give us a report for the period during which the air transport board has been in operation. Perhaps the minister can enlarge on that, telling us who are the members of the board and why it is not possible to get a complete report on the activities of the board up to the end of the fiscal year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are three members of the board. First is Mr. R. A. C. Henry, formerly deputy minister of transport, formerly head of the bureau of economics of the Canadian National railways, a man with great experience in air transport work. The next member is Mr. J. P. R. Vachon, formerly of Trans-Canada Air Lines and Canadian Pacific Air Lines, an experienced pilot with long years of service in bush flying. The third member is Air Vice-Marshal Alan Ferrier, formerly in charge of air regulation in the Department of Transport, who had distinguished service in the Royal Canadian Air Force during the war, and who is thoroughly qualified to serve on a board of this kind. The reason for separating the work of this board from that of the board of transport commissioners was that it was felt that air transport would require stimulation. The work of the board of transport commissioners is regulatory, and that board is not equipped to deal with the stimulation of transport services. For example, the studies the air transport board has been making would not be in the line of the ordinary work of the board of transport commissioners. Furthermore the board of transport commissioners is bound by the act under which it operates. It is a judicial board, and the act was designed for regulating railways. Regulation of a -somewhat different type is required for air service. The board has been in operation only a few months. It has existed only about a year, and that is why the annual report has not been brought down; but the statutory report will be brought down at the end of the fiscal year, as required by the act.


Alan Cockeram: Have these two boards the same powers?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. The powers of the air transport board are related to transportation by air, and are of a different nature from those granted the board of transport commissioners.

Aeronautics Act


Alan Cockeram: They can fix rates?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is true.


Mr. HAZEN:: Is there not another difference between the two boards? Does not the air transport board act under the jurisdiction of either the minister or the governor in council ; and is not the railway board a semijudicial board which makes its own decisions?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, that is right.


Mr. HANSELL:: In the light of what the minister has said with respect to the report being brought down each year might I ask if the minister contemplates any parliamentary committee being set up, similar to the existing committee on railways and shipping. That is a very important committee which deals with the Canadian National railways, and in its discussions many important matters relating to railways and shipping generally are taken up. I recognize that this committee does not go into the work of the board of transport commissioners, and that this measure has to do with' the air transport board. I think it would be an admirable thing if a parliamentary committee similar to the railway committee were set up for the purpose of annually reviewing the operations which might come under a bill such as this. Does the minister contemplate anything of the kind? Often we have bills of this kind passed, government bodies are set up, their reports are made annually and placed upon the table of the house, but we have no opportunity to make a detailed study of or pursue any investigation in respect to such reports. They are just placed on the table for anyone to read, and that is all. I am a great believer in parliamentary committees looking into the operation of government institutions and boards.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The appropriate committee would be the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines; perhaps we could expand that to read, "railways, canals, airways and telegraph lines." The work of the committee on railways and shipping, government-owned, is of a different character. This board deals with publicly and privately owned institutions, but it would come within the field of the other standing committee. I should be glad to cooperate with my hon.. friend and see that the report of the air transport board is referred to that committee for study.


Alan Cockeram: What remuneration is paid to the members of the board? What is 'the total number of the staff at this time? What is the total of the salaries and wages paid to the staff?
{Mr. Howe.]


Clarence Decatur Howe: The chairman of the board is paid $12,000 per annum, the same as the chairman of the board of transport' commissioners.


Alan Cockeram: That is Mr. Henry?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Henry. Each member is paid $8,000 per annum.


Alan Cockeram: Are they full-time jobs?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. I may say that up to the present time Mr. Henry has been able to devote only three days a week to this work, and 'he draws only half his salary, by arrangement. Until such time as he can sever his connection with his former occupation, which he has not been able to do, he divides his time and receives only half the statutory salary.


Alan Cockeram: What is the total number on the staff and the total wages paid?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are approximately
forty-one on the staff, including members of the board. It will take a little time to add up their salaries, but I can give' that later.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Quorum.
John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister says that the chairman receives $12,000 a year and the other two members $8,000. How are those salaries arrived at? How do they compare with salaries paid in big business? Big business must buy in the cheapest market and sell in the best market it can get, and the salaries of officials in large corporations rarely reach $12,000 per year, or at least they did not in my time. They may be up to that now; I do not know. It seems to me it is a good salary. I am not complaining, but I should like to know how it is arrived at and how it compares with salaries paid by corporations and other transport companies.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is the amount .that is believed to be necessary to get a man with sufficient experience to make a contribution to the post. It is not much use putting a man with little experience in a position of great responsibility, because his background will not permit him to make a contribution to the post. My hon. friend asked for a comparison of these1 salaries with those paid in business. I may say the chairman of the board left a position paying a salary of $35,000 a year to accept this one with a salary of $12,000. Twenty years ago he was receiving $10,000 a year as deputy minister of railways and canals, and later on he received a much higher salary as chief of the bureau of economics of Canadian National Railways.

Aeronautics Act


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is a government concern; I was thinking of private business.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He left the post of vicepresident of Montreal Light, Heat and Power, where he was receiving a salary of $35,000 a year.


John Ritchie MacNicol: At the same rate we ought to pay the Minister of Reconstruction a salary of $100,000 a year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be grateful for that.


Mr. CASE:: How many members are there?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Three.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: They are all paid?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They are all paid.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: This section provides that two shall form a quorum?
Air. HOWE. That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Jurisdiction.
Air. BLACKMORE:: Can the minister give the'reasons for permitting the apportionment of sqch tremendous powers to any one member of this board as are indicated in this section? The new section 7B which is to be added reads:
The board, or any member of the board, may order that any person resident or present in Canada may be examined upon oath before, or make production of books, papers, documents or articles to the board-
And so on. These are far-reaching and extensive powers, and I should like to know why it is deemed advisable to give such powers to any one member of the board, apparently without his being required to get the consent of the whole board before he takes action.


Clarence Decatur Howe: These are really not extraordinary powers; they are the ordinary powers of a justice of the peace or a member of a court. A subpoena is to be issued by one member of the board rather than the full board as a matter of convenience. This is simply giving the board the ordinary rights of a court to require the attendance of witnesses and the obtaining of information.


John Horne Blackmore: Is there anything
similar to this in any other act or any other organization under the government?


Clarence Decatur Howe: As a matter of fact it is in the wartime prices and trade board act and the Department of Munitions and Supply Act, with which I happen to be familiar, and in many other acts.
47696-158i


John Horne Blackmore: Permitting one member of the board to do that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think so, yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member has directed attention to a section which contains some very arbitrary features. It is significant that the bodies referred to by the minister just now were set up by order in council; they are not bodies created by statute. What we are dealing with here is a body created by a statute of this parliament in 1944, and its powers are being extended by the bill now before us. One could search in vain through the Railway Act to find anything comparable to the powers conferred by this section on any member of the board. If hon. members will read this section they will find that the powers conferred on a member of the board are not confined to the mere issuance of subpoenas. A single member of the board has power not only to issue subpoenas but to examine under oath any person summoned before him. He has also power to direct such a person to submit to examination by an officer of the board. I submit that that is arbitrary. I do not think we ought to have legislation of this kind, conferring such broad powers upon a member of a board created by statute.
We have just approved section 2, which provides that the quorum shall be two members of the board. Why should not any proceedings under 7B (1) with reference to the examination of witnesses be taken on the action of not less than a quorum of the board? Let it not be said that this is only a trifling matter of procedure. It is a great deal more than that. It confers a power capable of arbitrary exercise. Look at the provisions of section 7B (1):
The board, or any member of the board, may order that any person resident or present in Canada may be examined upon oath before, or make production of books, papers, documents or articles to the board, or any members of the board, or before or to any officer of the board, or before or to any other person named for the purpose by order of the board or such member, and may make such orders as seem proper for securing the attendance of such witness and his examination.	.
In other words the power is unlimited in any 'member of the board to direct any person, resident or present in Canada to appear before him, or such person as he may designate, and to produce books, papers, documents and articles on any subject. There is no justification for conferring powers so broad upon a board of this kind. It is not a large board, and there is no hardship in requiring the board to proceed in the normal way through a

Aeronautics Act
quorum. I think that this section ought to come out altogether, certainly those portions of it which confer on a single member of the board the wide powers to which I refer. Here you have a board of three. Suppose one member does not fall in line with the views of the majority; it lies within the power of that one member to issue subpoenas compelling persons to appear before him, or any person he may designate and to produce books, documents and articles on any subject, possibly at great 'expense. They may be secret documents. I do not think this parliament can entertain the thought of conferring powers so broad on any board created 'by statute.
Mr. HO'WE:	May I point out the nature
of the inquiries that the board may conduct. These include many matters affecting applications for licences, rates or complaints. They may concern matters arising out of aeroplane crashes. A crash may occur in the Northwest Territories, and an officer is sent there to get the particulars. He must have the right to examine survivors of the accident, to examine the log of the ship, to examine persons in the vicinity who may have been witnesses to the crash, and to examine other circumstances associated with it. Usually a serious loss of life and property is involved in an aeroplane crash. I think my hon. friend would hardly wish to call a full meeting of the board before such an examination could be made. The more promptly it is made, the more likelihood there is of establishing the facts of the disaster. Crashes are not infrequent. I am sorry to say that hardly a month goes by .without an aeroplane crash somewhere in the dominion, which must be investigated1 by putting witnesses under oath. It may be as far away as Greenland or in the Northwest Territories or any other remote part of Canada, and prompt action is the essence in determining the cause of the accident.


Douglas King Hazen: I think this section is highly objectionable and I agree with what the hon. member for Eglinton has said about it The explanatory note on section 3 says:
Similar provisions exist in the Railway Act respecting the board of transport commissioners.
If you turn to the Railway Act, section 62, you will find that the provisions there are not the same at all. This section of the bill is worded quite differently. Section 62 of the Railway Act says:
The board may order that any witness resident or present in Canada-
And so on. The power and the authority-rests with the board under section 7A(1) of this bill as it does under the Railway Act, and

it should be the board that has this power, not any member of the board. Certainly the explanatory note is misleading when it says that similar provisions exist in the Railway Act, for similar provisions do not exist in the Railway Act. Under the Railway Act the board may7 "order any -witness resident or present in Canada to be examined upon oath before or make production of books," and so forth, to any member of the board. There is nothing; objectionable in that. But as I say, section 7B(1) does not follow that provision. The power rests in the board, and the board should have the power in consequence to examine witnesses and order the production of documents. I submit that it is quite objectionable as it is worded. The words "or any member of the board" should be deleted from section 7B (1) and the wording of the Railway Act should be followed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have no objection to that.
It is a matter of convenience that one member should have the power to issue a subpoena, but it is not a matter of great importance, and I am quite willing to have .the words in question deleted.


John Horne Blackmore: Would not the difficulty be obviated by saying, any7 one member of the board acting upon the authority of the board? Then it would be obvious that the board was in concurrence with the action of that member.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The deletion would have
exactly that effect.


Douglas King Hazen: If I am in order, Mr. Chairman, I would move that the words "or any member of the board" in line 32 of section 7B (1) be deleted.


John Horne Blackmore: How would that make it read, Mr. Chairman?


The CHAIRMAN:: As amended it would read:
7B. (1) The board may order that any person resident or present in Canada may be examined upon oath . . .
And so forth.


Douglas King Hazen: The section will be just the same as section 62 of the Railway Act: it will give this board the same powers that the board has under the Railway Act.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not quite agree with that. You will have to alter lines 35 and 36 -"or any member thereof"; and then you have in line 38 "or such member". You will have to take* it out of that section wherever it occurs.

Aeronautics Act


Douglas King Hazen: No, you do not.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: It is in the Railway Act as it is there.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The board must issue the subpoena, but any member of the board may make the examination-.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minutes of the board will read that it has been considered and that on their order such and such has been done.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Alan Cockeram: The minister stated just now that the primary purpose of this clause was to cover accidents and the like. My opinion is that it should be specifically outlined what kinds of books, documents and evidence are to be covered by this section.
I should like the minister, if he would, to enlarge on that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is a consequential
amendment of line 38. The words "or such member" in that line should be deleted. I will ask my colleague the Minister of Agriculture so to move.


Mr. GARDINER:: I so move.


William Ross Macdonald: Mr. Gardiner moves:
That the words "or such member" in section 3, clause 7B (1), line 38, be deleted.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clarence Decatur Howe: Answering the question of my hon. friend (Mr. Cockeram): the board .should be in a position to demand any paper or any document which is required by its subpoena, just as the board of transport commissioners have that power, and for the same reason.


Alan Cockeram: This section, then,
covers more than investigations into accidents and such affairs? This covers everything-rates, and what have you?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Alan Cockeram: The general competition and operation of the aeronautical business?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall the clause as amended carry?


Grote Stirling: It seems to me that it implies an enormously wide meaning unless this section is related to inquiries into crashes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They may inquire into other things. They can inquire into rates, or-


Grote Stirling: "Other things!" To make an almost ridiculous case of it: a passenger
who travels for a certain firm is a casualty. Under this wording, all the books, documents and papers of that firm can be ordered by this board.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend would hardly think the' board would order that.


Grote Stirling: Maybe not, but there is the power.	*


Clarence Decatur Howe: Pertinent documents to the inquiry or any inquiry of the air transport board should be procurable.


John Ritchie MacNicol: They would likely order what was necessary to establish their responsibility and as to what costs, if any, they have to pay to the injured person or company.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In that case, I assume, they should be able to obtain the documents they require. I should not think they would ask for all the books.


Grote Stirling: That is perfectly true, but
this says so.


Douglas King Hazen: Does section 7B(1) refer back to section 7A(1), which states:
The board shall have full jurisdiction to inr quire into, hear and determine any application by or on behalf of any interested party-
Complaining, or requesting certain things. Then you go on to section 7B(1), which says that the board may order that witnesses be called and examined. Is 7B(1) restricted in its operation to the jurisdiction given the board' under 7A(1) to inquire into complaints and' requests?
Mr. HOWE,: No; section 7B(1) refers to the whole scope of the board's activities.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall the clause as
amended carry? Carried. Clause 4, regulations.	.


Douglas King Hazen: We have been discussing, as I understand it, clause 7B, subclause 1.


William Ross Macdonald: I understood we were discussing the whole of clause 3, and 7B(1) is part of clause 3. Now 7B(1) was amended and carried, and then I asked if section 3 as amended was carried, and I understood that the committee carried the whole clause.


Douglas King Hazen: We seem to have got on to 7B(1) and discussed it before we gave any consideration to 7A(1) of section 3. In connection with 7A there is one matter I should like to bring to the attention of the
Aeronautics Act

committee, and that is subsection 2, which is on page 2 of the bill. The marginal note says "mandatory orders", and the section reads:
The board may order and require any air carrier to do, forthwith . . . any act, matter or thing which such air carrier is or may be required to do under this part or any regulation, order or direction made thereunder by the board-
And so on. It seems to me, though I may be wrong about this, that before the board orders an air carrier to do or to refrain from doing a certain thing the air carrier should receive some notice from the board of its intention and have an opportunity to be heard by the board if it so desires. Just to hand out an order by the board to an air carrier that "you have to do this and you have to do that" without giving them the opportunity to be heard is not fair to the air carriers. They should, it seems to me, be given notice of the board's intention and have an opportunity- to be heard before the order is put into effect.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This clause is precisely the same as a similar section in the Railway Act. Obviously the procedure would be that the board might order a certain action taken and the air carrier would have the right to enter .an appeal after the event but they could hardly -delay the action pending the filing of the appeal and the hearing of the appeal. It is to ,-get immediate action in case such action is daken.


Douglas King Hazen: Is there provision for an appeal, and if so in what section?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Section 18 of the Aeronautics Act provides for an appeal:
(1) An appeal shall lie from the board to the Supreme Court of Canada upon a question of jurisdiction or a question of law, or both, upon leave therefor being obtained from a judge of the said court upon application made within one month after the making of the order, decision, rule or regulation sought to be appealed from or within such further time as the judge under special circumstances shall allow, and upon notice to the parties and the board, and the cost of such application shall be in the discretion of the judge.


Douglas King Hazen: I should like to ask the minister's assistant if under that section an appeal can be taken on a question of fact.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, it says so.


Donald Methuen Fleming: A question of fact cannot now be appealed from the board of transport commissioners.
' Mr. HOWE: No, but it can from the air transport board.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You can get a mixed question of law and fact before the court on appeal but not a question of fact.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is provided that appeals shall lie from the board to the Supreme Court of Canada upon a question of jurisdiction, or upon a question of law, or both.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But not a question of fact.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, not a question of fact, but a question of law.


Douglas King Hazen: I do not think you could appeal on a question of fact. If you cannot appeal upon a question of fact and the board makes an order on a question of fact, the air carrier has no redress. He receives no notice of what your order is going to be; he has no opportunity of being heard by the board before the order is made, and first thing he knows he gets an order. He should have an opportunity to be heard before the order is made against him.	.	.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I thought the minister would make a statement on the point raised by my hon. friend, which is one of great importance. The board of transport commissioners is a highly respected body. It has been fair in all its dealing, and even those who at the outset.may have had some misgivings about being brought under regulation by that board would not to-day have it otherwise. One of the reasons why that board has been so highly respected is that it has not at any time proceeded in an arbitrary manner, but with due notice to persons involved, and it has always been generous in its hearings. As a matter of fact there is provision for rehearings on application of parties to the board, and the board frequently directs rehearings where some party has complained about not having had ample notice.
When you come to the air transport board you are faced with a problem. I do not raise this point out of any selfish regard for the legal profession. The board of transport commissioners has always had not fewer than three members-I believe that is the rule- who have been members of the legal profession, so that it has always had among its personnel persons well acquainted with legal processes and who have been always anxious to see that those appearing before the board are given all the protection which the courts ordinarily afford to litigants. I do not reflect on the personnel of the present air transport board. They may be eminent men in their 'respective fields, but there is no one on the board at the present time who has had legal experience, or who has been accustomed to

Aeronautics Act
thinking in terms of the rights of parties or of giving due protection to them. That does give some point to the question raised by my hon. friend, who feels that there is no provision here guaranteeing to every person affected an opportunity to be heard. I was hopeful that we might have a full statement from the minister in regard to the way in which the board should proceed and the method by which it proposes to conduct its hearings.
Reference was made earlier by the minister to the fact thn* the board is something more than a judicial body. The board of transport commissioners is administrative as well as judicial, but in its hearings it has never lost sight of the rights of all parties in matters of procedure or otherwise. It is vitally important that the air transport board, should regard 'itself not merely as an administrative board responsible to the minister-there is too much of that in the act now-but as a quasi-judicial body with definite legal functions, and under obligation to proceed, so far as possible, as the courts do in giving due consideration and protection to parties who may be affected by their order.


Douglas King Hazen: The board, it is provided, may order and require any air carrier to do certain things, or it may forbid the carrier to do certain things. Read subsection 2 further and1 examine the last two lines*, "and shall, for the purposes of this section, have full jurisdiction to hear and1 determine all matters, whether of law or fact." The words are "hear and determine." It seems to me there is an implication there that the board should hear these matters before- it makes its order. The board is given authority to hear, and I suggest that it must be the intention that the board is to hear the matter, hear the air carriers, before it makes its order. If I am right in that, would there be any Objection to providing in the section that, before making any such order, the board must give the air carrier notice of its intention and afford it an opportunity to be heard, or words to that effect?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can hardly accept my hon. friend's suggestion. Orders are frequently required in emergent situations. For instance, a report is received that a certain plane is operating unlawfully and an order is given immediately to stop it. I think that the board can be counted on to use the power with discretion. Certainly the intention is to hold a hearing before the order, but in the air you are dealing with a new medium and1 emergency orders are required, without notice, on the understanding that a hearing will be afforded when opportunity offers.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 4-Regulations.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Paragraph (cc) provides for "establishing classifications or groups of air carriers." We are entering into a new field1 of transportation. We are probably on the threshold of great expansion and a great increase in the size of planes, and I have been wondering what will be the effect of this paragraph and of paragraph (dd) on various airfields. Some airfields will not be equipped to receive 100-ton planes or, later on, 500-ton planes, with the result that a particular city or airfield will be discriminated against if an order is issued to prevent planes from landing there. The board seems to me to have power to discriminate against an airfield.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not think the purpose of these two sections is as suggested by my hon. friend. lit is to make provision for a class not formerly provided for, the charter services. I have consulted authority and I find that for once I am right. That is the purpose of the act. Previously charter services were not distinguished from regular air line services, and the purpose of this is to allow the board to make the distinction between those two types of services.


Alan Cockeram: Will the minister explain what is meant by: "establishing classifications or groups of air carriers"? How does he propose to go about that in the bush operations?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We propose to issue two
classes of licences, one for the air line services and the other for charter services. A charter service is a service by a plane based on a particular airport to carry to another point within reasonable range of its base. The air lines service travels a scheduled route, and has to perform certain functions on the route. It is to make a separation between those two types of transportation.


Alan Cockeram: I want to carry that a little further, if I may. The minister is probably aware that at the present time a great many mining companies are thinking of purchasing and operating their own planes. What will be the effect of this paragraph on companies operating their oiyn planes in connection with their own mines?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The air transport board would not be required to license a plane owned by a mining company and operating solely in its own service.	The board deals only with
planes which are licensed to operate for hire and reward.
Aeronautics Act


Alan Cockeram: They could carry anything they like?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Carry anything they like.
Mr. MacNI'COL: Take a company -in the northwest that did have its own plane; if that company picks up an engineer at Edmonton and flies him to Yellowknife, what protection will the engineer have if the plane does not have a licence from the air transport board? What protection will the engineer or any other passenger have who could ;be picked up at Edmonton and taken by plane to Yellowknife or anywhere else?


Clarence Decatur Howe: If the plane is owned by the company, and the engineer whom they pick up is an employee of the company, it would be up to the company to protect him. If they wish to pick up the engineer and charge him a fare for riding on the plane, then they must be licensed.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Has this bill any general application to private flying? Has the department yet given consideration to the method to be employed in licensing private individuals who wish to fly?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Under part I of the Aeronautics Act the Department of Transport licenses planes as airworthy, and licenses pilots; but a private flyer does not require an air transport board licence and is not covered by part II of this act.


Alan Cockeram: What about flying
clubs?


Clarence Decatur Howe: If they operate as a club, a non-profit operation, no licence is required. If it is owned by individuals who are expecting to make a profit from the operation, the planes must be licensed.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
On section 6-Free and reduced rate transportation.
John Ritchie MacNicol: This section' has to do with rates. What authority will establish and regulate the rates, both freight and passenger, for air transportation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This particular paragraph has not to do with rates; it has to do with no rates. It is to prevent the issue of free transportation or transportation at reduced rates. The rates require the approval of the air transport board. The procedure is the same as with the board of transport commissioners. 
The carrier files the rates, and those rates are approved, disapproved or amended by the air transport board.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Can people, companies or organizations, appear before that board to question the rates?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; the rate can be appealed either by the carrier or by the public.


Mr. IV RIGHT:: With regard to the question of transportation, members of parliament from western Canada and from the maritimes find .themselves in a very different position from that of members of parliament from Ontario and Quebec with respect to attending to business of their own. Under the charters of the two railways we have free transportation on the railways. It seems to me that there should be some provision made whereby members of parliament who are five hundred ' miles or more distant from Ottawa-


An hon. MEMBER:: Why five hundred?


Mr. WRIGHT:: We have to draw the limit somewhere-should receive one or two trips by air during each session to enable them to return to their constituencies. This is a matter which should be given consideration. Certainly the members from western Canada and from the maritimes are working under a great handicap with respect to attending to their own business.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The difficulty, of course, is that the number of persons who travel bv air as compared with the number who travel by rail is very small. I might remind my hon. friend that there are 245 members of this House of Commons, which is roughly twenty-four plane loads of passengers.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: All willing to go.


Clarence Decatur Howe: All willing and anxious to go. We own only twenty-two planes; therefore we could not carry all the members of parliament if they all wished to travel the same day. If we had any proportion of free transportation by air I am afraid the public would have something to say about it. As a matter of fact even the employees of the lines are not allowed to travel on thek planes if a paying passenger requires a seat. The president of the air lines was here the other day. He was very anxious to get to Winnipeg in a hurry. He could not get a seat without displacing a passenger; therefore he got on the train and went to Winnipeg.


Percy Ellis Wright: I am not suggesting that it be opened wide; I am suggesting that members living over five hundred miles away

Aeronautics Act
from Ottawa should1 have a limited number of trips each session, say, one or two. I think they should be granted some consideration in this matter.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Like the hon. member who has just spoken, I have thought for some time that some provision should be made for members outside the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. I do not think we should be selfish about this thing. They have a greater problem than we. I know it is good for me to get- back to my constituency, and I know how much they must appreciate it. Is there anything in section 11(a) which could be construed as eliminating competition?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: The minister says "no," but the bill reads as though it would be entirely in the hands of this board to determine what rates should be fixed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is true, yes. The board can determine rates, but the rates it determines will apply to all.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.	,
On section 7-Exception.
Douglas King Hazen: Would the minister explain why this section has been inserted in the bill? Section 12 (3) of the original act provides:
The board shall not issue any such licence unless it is satisfied that the proposed commercial air service is and will be required by the present and future public convenience and necessity.
So that the public convenience and necessity are the governing factors. This section gives the board power to issue licences when public convenience and necessity are not the governing factors. Why is this section put in; or, to put it the other way around, why is the section I have just quoted from the original act left in? Why not just give the board power to issue licences as and when it sees fit?	,


Clarence Decatur Howe: In the case of charter services, for instance, it is difficult to prove convenience and necessity. Another reason is that a service based on a certain city may get pleasure riders, people who like to go riding in aeroplanes just for the sake of the ride, and in such cases it is difficult to prove convenience and necessity. The purpose of this section is to give the board some leeway in the event that convenience and necessity cannot be proved for a service which prima facie should be able to exist and make a living for the operator.


Alan Cockeram: Can the minister tell us something of how they propose to establish rates for these operations? Are these commissioners qualified to do that? How will they go about establishing equitable rates?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The rates are established
largely by experience. The board has its department of economics which studies the cost of operating the service; and it will be the duty of the board to see' that the prospective profits are not abnormally large, while on the other hand it will not be the puipose of the board to drive down the rate so that the line cannot pay its operating expenses.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-Operating certificate necessary.
Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not want at this point to reopen the whole question which was debated last year when the amending act was under consideration in the house. At that time, as the committee will recall, strong exception was taken to the limiting powers which were left with the minister. In view of the fact that the amendments now proposed do not contemplate any relaxation of the minister's ultimate control over the field of commercial aeronautics, I should like to ask what use has been made up to the present of the right of appeal to the minister and, in the second place, of the minister's right to pass judgment on decisions of the air transport board.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There has been no appeal to the minister since the act came into force.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The other question was, has the minister in any way varied or revoked any order or decision of the air transport board; or is it just a case of its not having had to do anything yet?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There have been no such occasions?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What is to be the minister's policy with reference to the exercise of the powers conferred upon him under the 1944 act? In the first place it will be recalled that the powers reserved to the minister under that legislation are not specifically conferred upon the Minister of Munitions and Supply or the Minister of Reconstruction, but are conferred on the Minister of Transport; but the power is reserved to the governor in coun-

Aeronautics Act
oil to appoint some other minister in lieu of the Minister of Transport, and I take it that rthe governor in council has exercised1 that power to appoint the present Minister of Reconstruction as the minister under the 1944 amendment. There is a further qualification, that in matters relating to national defence the minister for that purpose is the Minister of National Defence for Air. Would the minister make a statement to the committee in reference to the policy he proposes to follow in connection with the exercise of the powers conferred upon the minister by the 1944 act, either to vary, revoke or otherwise amend orders made by the air transport board, or on appeal from their orders?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is difficult to announce in advance of an appeal just what will be the decision of the minister. If the minister is asked to review the facts he will d'o so and make his finding. The appeal to the minister is provided because it is the duty of the minister to see that the board conducts its affairs in accordance with announced government policy. Several announcements of government policy in relation to the air have been made in this .House of Commons, and it will be the duty of the minister to review the operations of the board to see whether that policy is being carried out.


Donald Methuen Fleming: 
Clarence Decatur Howe: Government policy as
announced in the house will guide the deliberations of the board, and it is the duty of the minister to see that this is so. Naturally parliament is supreme in fixing the policy to be pursued in the development of the air. As far as the judicial functions of the board are concerned1, that is a matter for the board.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 9-Suspension, cancellation or amendment.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Under this section I have just been wondering what will be the effect on the C.P.R. service from Edmonton to Fort McMurray and from Edmonton to Aklavik. Being a surface transport company, they will not now be allowed to conduct that air service; so what will happen to it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This provision is to allow an application to be varied. If, for example, the original application specified that the plane moving from Montreal to Toronto might stop at Kingston, this would give the board power to vary the application and say that it should stop at Kingston and Oshawa. It is just to vary the application in minor points.


John Ritchie MacNicol: My question had to do with the far north. Under the act, as I understand it, all surface transport companies are now wiped out as far as the conduct of air services is concerned, and I have just been wondering what is to be the effect on the C.PJt. services from Edmonton to Yellowknife and from Edmonton all the way down to Aklavik.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Those licences are not wiped out; they are still valid', and they will be reviewed, as provided in section 14 of the act, one year after the act comes into effect. As far as I know it is not the intention to wipe out any licences.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If the 'C.P.R. cannot operate, the licences will be wiped, out, or they will have to be sold to someone else.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, someone else will operate them.


Douglas King Hazen: This section gives the board power, among other things, to suspend or cancel a licence. It seems to me ib would be only fair and just, before any such action was taken, that the air carrier should be given notice of the intention of the board and should have an opportunity to be heard. There is nothing in the section that provides for that action to be taken. .My suggestion is that the section might be amended to provide that before a licence is cancelled, the air carrier shall be notified and have an opportunity to be heard by the board. Is there any objection to that amendment being made?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The insurance on an aircraft operated by a carrier may have expired, or the board might suddenly get word that the operating certificate of a carrier was cancelled because his aircraft was not in airworthy condition. It might be necessary to suspend a licence without notice, but obviously the board would not do anything that would prejudice the position of the carrier, unless for good reason.


Douglas King Hazen: Has that not been given? There should be a section in the bill to provide for the cancelling of operating certi-

Aeronautics Act
ficates. The bill provides for the cancellation of licences but there is no provision for the cancelling of certificates.


Mr. LESAGE :: I do not think any power to cancel a certificate has to be mentioned because the right to cancel a certificate is correlative in law to the right to grant it. There is nothing being added to this section; this amendment merely clarifies it. The right to issue a licence includes the right to cancel, suspend or amend it.


Grote Stirling: Is there any reason why the words "or any part thereof" could not be included in subsection 8?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My legal adviser does not think they are necessary, but there would be no objection to having them in.


Grote Stirling: I think it would be a good thing to have them in.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs to -move that section 9 be amended by adding in line 29 thereof after the word "licence" the words "or any part thereof".


Mr. MACKENZIE:: I move accordingly.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: Those words are useless; it is putting in a lot of words for nothing.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is being diplomatic, though.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. COCKER  AM@: Why should the appeal be to the minister? If I were the minister I think I would always support my subordinates, and I believe that is what the minister would do in this case. I am wondering if the appeal should not be to some judicial body?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is an appeal to the supreme court on questions of law.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 10-Operating without a licence.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: This section provides that every person who operates a commercial air service without a valid licence shall be liable upon summary conviction to a fine of five thousand dollars or imprisonment for a term of six mofiths or to both such fine and such imprisonment. The fine seems to be arbitrary.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend will appreciate that the five thousand dollars is a maximum
fine. We may be dealing with some rather substantial corporations, and questions may arise where a fine of one thousand dollars would be a minor penalty for a serious infraction.


Douglas King Hazen: If this is the maximum fine, why should the wording not follow that of section 5? Before the words "five thousand dollars" we should have the words "not exceeding". If five thousand dollars is to be the maximum fine, as the minister has said, then I would suggest that the words "not exceedi-ing" be put in- before the word "five", to follow section 5.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He may receive a fine or imprisonment or both.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: The college of physicians act in the province of Quebec provides for a fine of $200 or sixty days in gaol for a third offence, but that has been interpreted by our courts as not being a maximum but a fixed payment because it does not say "not exceeding". I think the words "not exceeding" should be in this section.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will ask my colleague to move that section 10 be amended by adding in line 38 thereof the words "not exceeding" before the words "five thousand".


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Joseph Arthur Lesage: Is the same principle not involved in connection with the term of imprisonment?


Douglas King Hazen: I suggest that we follow the wording of section 5.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I agree. I will ask -my colleague to move that the section be amended by adding the words "not exceeding" before the words "six months" in line 39.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move accordingly.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Then you will have to go back to section 5 and do the same thing.


Grote Stirling: We should follow the wording of section 5 which is, "not to exceed a fine of five thousand dollars or imprisonment for six months."


Joseph Arthur Lesage: The words "not to exceed" cover the fine and imprisonment.


William Ross Macdonald: It is moved that section 10 be amended by striking out the word "for" in line 39 and inserting the words "not to exceed" in lieu thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Fish Inspection Act
Douglas King Hazen: How will the section as amended read, Mr. Chairman?


William Ross Macdonald: It will read, starting at line 38:
Upon summary conviction to a fine not to exceed five thousand dollars or imprisonment for a term not to exceed six months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 11-Powers subject to international agreement.
John Ritchie MacNicol: What is the significance of this statement "international agreement or convention relating to civil aviation to which Canada is a party"?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It means that the board must be bound by any international agreement entered into by the government.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Mr. Chairman, are we not going to insert the words "not to exceed" in section 5 dealing with penalties so as to make it conform with the amended section 10?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have amended both sections to read "not to exceed $5,000 and not to exceed six months imprisonment."
Bill reported.



FISH INSPECTION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on bill No. 91, to amend the Fish Inspection Act-Mr. Bridges -Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.	.
On section 1-"Fish".
Grote Stirling: There has been an amendment to this section in committee, Mr. Chairman.


William Ross Macdonald: Yes. The clause was amended in the committee by adding after "fish" the words "and crustaceans".
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 2-Regulations.


Grote Stirling: Has this section been amended in committee, Mr. Chairman?


William Ross Macdonald: No; it is reported unamended.
[The Chairman.]


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Seizure of fish and containers.
William Ross Macdonald: This section has been amended by the committee as follows: In lines 17 and 18 the words "reasonably suspects" have been struck out and the following words substituted "suspects on reasonable grounds"; and in subsection 2 the word "three" at the end of line 24 has been struck out and the word "two" inserted in its place.


Grote Stirling: The committee made no change in subsection 3, Mr. Chairman.


William Ross Macdonald: No.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported.


James Horace King: When shall the bill be read a third time?


John Bracken: Next sitting. There have been amendments, and I understand that that is the general practice.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, Mr. Speaker,
amendments were made to the bill in committee which were not in possession of the members of this house, and therefore my hon. friend the leader -of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) is quite right. The third reading should be at the next sitting of the house.



WAR SERVICE GRANTS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of
Veterans Affairs) moved the second reading of bill No. 176, to amend the War Service Grants Act, 1944.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on the resolution stage preceding this bill I said that 'I would make a few remarks on the second reading. I shall be very brief. This is a bill to amend fhe War Service Grants Act passed in 1944.
The bill has 'been recommended by the special select committee on veterans affairs, and a copy of it has been printed in No. 16 of the minutes of the committee for Friday, November 9. This is one of a series of bills dealing with the reestablishment of former members of the forces, all of which are being dealt with by the same procedure.

TVar Service Grants
The others will be presented to the house as soon as they have been completely reviewed by the committee, and recommended by council.
It will be remembered that on October 4, this house in appointing the select committee authorized them to consider all legislation passed since the commencement of the war relating to pensions, treatment and reestablishment of former members of His Majesty's forces and of other persons who have otherwise engaged in pursuits closely related to war.
The committee was also instructed to prepare and bring in one or more bills to clarify, amend or supplement the above legislation.
The War Service Grants Act is the first of these acts reviewed by the committee, and the amending bill is the first of the committee's recommendations to the house. The recommendations of the committee have been accepted by the government and the bill is now in the form of a government measure.
The act was passed in 1944, and we have had a year's experience in administering it.
As is very often the case with new legislation affecting the rights and privileges of individuals, we have found by experience that the original measure was capable of improvement.
The act authorized the governor in council to make regulations, and two major orders in council were passed embodying regulations under th'e two parts of the act, one dealing with war service gratuity, the other dealing with reestablishment credit.
Under the emergency powers conferred upon the government by the War Measurfes Act several orders in council were passed which had the effect of amending the original act.
As soon as the select committee was set up, the act, the various amending orders in council, and the regulations, were placed before the committee for review, together with a draft bill prepared by the department's legal advisers. This draft bill embodied the various changes which had been made since the act was passed by parliament, but did not introduce any new principles other than those which were already in effect by order in council.
Departmental officers, representatives of veterans' organizations, and others were examined as witnesses.
The committee then gave a most searching and critical analysis to every clause and every sentence of the draft bill.
The amending bill which I am mow bringing before the house, upon recommendation
of the committee and with the approval of council, constitutes substantially a measure to incorporate in the act the various changes effected by orders in council as the result of administrative experience.
I should be doing very much less than justice to hon. members of the select committee * if, however, I were not to inform the house that many important improvements have been effected as a result of the committee's deliberations.
The constant objective of the committee, fully concurred in by the government, was to 'tighten up the wording of the various sections so as to protect in every possible way the interests of the veterans. This will appear conspicuously in the amendments to the interpretation clause, clarifying and broadening definitions. 1
The most important new principle introduced since the act was dealt with on the floor of the house in 1944 is the establishment of a board of review to deal with cases where a gratuity is withheld on account of disciplinary action taken against a member of the forces during the time of his service.
The board ' is given the right to authorize payment of gratuity where its refusal would constitute an unjustified extension of the punishment already inflicted by the service.
While such a board of review had been set up by the Department of National Defence, the provisions in the bill are much broader and more specific than those adopted by regulation.
The proposals now placed before the house are, in fact, the recommendation of the select committee which has been accepted by the government and in which I am sure the house will heartily concur.
The other features of the bill, while important, are matters of detail which can better be discussed when the bill reaches the committee stage in the house.
I am going to ask my parliamentary assistant, the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker), who has been the able chairman of the able parliamentary committee on veterans affairs, to take active charge of the detailed clauses of the measure now before the house.
Mr. A. J. BROOKS (Royal):: I should like
to say a few words with reference to the bill which is now coming before the house. Since the session opened we have listened to a good many remarks as to what we owe to the men who fought for us overseas, and I am sure we all feel very grateful indeed that the war is now over and that we are returning to the ways of peace.
War Service Grants

Our first problem as a nation is, I am sure, to see that those who have made it possible for us to enjoy victory and to retain our much-loved and desired way of living are properly reinstated in the life of this country and that they take their proper places in every phase of our national activities. This should not be so difficult a matter for us in Canada as it is with most of the other nations. Some few nations, perhaps, like the United States, Australia and New Zealand, are in much the same position as Canada, but for the nations of Europe rehabilitation will be a much more difficult problem than it is for us in Canada. For our more favoured position our people should be grateful.
The minister has made his remarks this afternoon very brief. That is rather an exception in the case of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, but it is an exception we all appreciate. He spoke of the veterans affairs committee and his satisfaction at the work which has been done by the members. I might say, as a member of that committee, that we have been sitting for the past five or six weeks, meeting on an average about four days a week, from half-past ten in the morning until one o'clock in the afternoon. The veterans affairs committee, as the minister said the other evening, compares favourably with any other veterans' committees we have had in the past. I have had the honour and the pleasure of sitting on some of those committees, and I know that one idea actuated all their work, namely, to see to it that the very best legislation could be obtained for the veteran. I should say in this connection that the veterans have had the benefit of the work of the returned men's associations, and for the past twenty or twenty-five years we could not and would not have had in this country the good legislation which sometimes we think we have if it had not been for the efforts of the various soldier organizations. This country and the returned men of Canada owe a great debt to the Canadian Legion and other such organizations of returned men.
Gratuities are not something entirely new.
I remember that when the minister spoke before the committee some time ago he gave great credit for the work which was done in this regard from 1916 until the present time, and I think he then mentioned that the gratuities after the war of 1914-18 were considered generous for that day. I might recall what was paid following the last war; for three years or more of service overseas, six months pay and allowance of rank; for two years or more overseas, five months pay and allowance of rank; for one year overseas, four months pay and

allowance; for less than one year overseas, three months pay and allowance.
We have had the benefit of the experience and the legislation of the past, and I would point out, when we hear criticism, as we often do, of what was done after the war of 1914-1S, that the men who legislated at that time had not the experience of former wars. It was practically a new field. I agree with the minister's statement on a former occasion, that the men at that time did a good job. As far as these war service grants are concerned, every section of the bill has been carefully considered by the committee; and I think it is one of the least contentious measures, if not the least-contentious, that will come before the veterans affairs committee. I base that opinion on the fact that the legion and other war veterans' organizations which appeared before us had less criticism and offered less advice on this measure than on any of the others.
The minister has mentioned a section tvhich was particularly difficult for the members of the committee, and that is the section dealing with gratuities and benefits to men of the services discharged for misconduct. Many of our sittings were taken up in discussing this difficult problem. The members of the committee were most anxious that no injustice should .be done to members returning from overseas. We all had in mind that very often a good soldier, with two or three years' active service, because he has been overwrought or for some other reason has committed an offence which is regarded as a serious military infraction and is given a term of imprisonment or some other detention for misconduct. This was reacting against the soldier in the old aot and it was felt that in the new one something should be done for such men.
There was quite a feeling in the committee that this section should be eliminated altogether and that all men who had served overseas, irrespective of whether there was a charge of misconduct against them or not, should be given the gratuity. However, the matter having been thoroughly discussed and considered from every point of view, it was felt that this could not be done. But the next best thing was done-I will not say the next best thing but probably the best thing- and that was the decision that a board of review Should be set up to consider every case of misconduct. The members of the board of review sat with the committee in all their sittings and heard opinions of members. heard opinions of men in the armed services,' army, navy and air force; and I am satisfied that this board of review, when it sets about its work, will see that no injustice is done to any deserving man who has been

War Service Grants
discharged from the service. I am satisfied that all deserving men will receive the gratuity which the country intended they should receive.
There is, however, one principle that does not seem to me to be altogether right. There are men to-day serving term# in the penitentiary. Some of these men were given a year or two or three years in the penitentiary for offences. When a man is punished by a court we can usually consider that the punishment he receives is the punishment to which he is entitled. Under our gratuity act a man can still, if the board of review so decides, have his gratuity taken away from him. The matter was brought up in the committee. It seems as though we were giving double punishment for one offence, which we might not regard as British justice. However, this point,, like the others, was thoroughly discussed, and all members of the committee felt that no great injustice would be done with a board of review going over these cases individually and deciding each case on its merits.
Most of us who know the personnel of the board of review are satisfied that the type of men on the board is such that they will do justice to the returned men. It would not be fair or right for me to take up the time of the house in going into the bill section by section. That will be done by the committee. But looking back to 1944, when the purpose of the measure was set out, I find it was then stated that the purpose of the bill was to recognize the services of the members of His Majesty's forces who have been on active service and to assist them in their reestablishment. That is the purpose, to recognize the services of our forces and to assist them in their reestablishment.
I should like to point out ways in which I feel that this purpose of assisting the men in their reestablishment is being defeated. I have only to mention that in our opinion the two main things in reestablishment of returning men are, first, to provide the man with suitable and decent living quarters in this country and, second, to provide him with a job. This is not what we find in Canada to-day. Very much to our regret, many thousands of our men are returning to find that there are no homes to which they can take their families, and they are spending very much of their gratuity money in going from place to place looking for a proper home, for proper quarters for themselves and families.
Again, in the matter of looking for jobs it is common knowledge-our daily,papers confirm it-that there are fewer jobs than there are men for them. Only this morning a report
stated that there were 40,000 more men looking for jobs to-day than there were jobs for them. This means that a great many returned men have to use the gratuity which was supposed to be for their reestablishment to keep themselves while they are looking for jobs.
There is another matter which I think might be mentioned as defeating the purpose of reestablishing our returned men, or, at least, a number of them. I mean the cases of the men whose wives are still in England. I have received a great many letters, as I am sure many members have, from men returning whose wives are still in England and who find it impossible to be reestablished here until those wives with their families are brought back from the old' country.
It has been the contention of the Minister of National Defence that our soldiers should be brought back first. In general, we can, perhaps, agree with that point of view. Still, if we had properly organized the return of opr men to this country I think we could have brought back thousands of these wives at the same time. I had a letter from a man who said that he had been in the air force for four years. He had been married for four years and had seen his wife for only eleven days in that time. He was back in Canada now; it looked as though it would be months before his wife and child could be brought out to this country, and it was impossible for him to be re-established until they came. A ship might have been set aside to assist in bringing out the wives of these men.
I believe also there are thousands of men who have been returning to Canada who spent only a short time overseas. We talk about first in, first out, but we all know that is a principle which has not been followed. Many thousands of men have been returned here who had only a short service overseas. I believe the wives, of men who had served for four or five years on the other side should have been given preference over those men who had such little service. I might go farther. I believe, knowing the chivalry of the soldiers of this country, had it been requested of them, there would have been no difficulty at all in obtaining some of the space they have taken for bringing these stranded wives to Canada.
We are satisfied that this bill is the expression of the opinion of the returned men of this house. It also expresses the opinion of the veterans who gave us advice. Over the last twenty-five years we have had what we have considered to be very fine veterans' acts. There is no question about that. On paper they look good; but we have also found that in the administration of those acts there
War Service Grants

were many shortcomings. If I can gather from what I have heard expressed in this committee, it is the intention that in the future there will be no more penny-pinching m the administration of veterans affairs. It is our idea that the returned man should always have the benefit of the doubt.


John Ritchie MacNicol: He never gets it.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: We should see that no injustices are perpetrated in the name of these rigid and hide-bound regulations which in the past have so often defeated the real spirit of veterans' legislation.
As .1 said, we shall discuss this bill section by section. Along with the minister I feel that there will be very little with which hon. members will find fault. If it is administered as it should be; if every effort is made to see that our men obtain housing in this country; if every effort is made to see that they receive proper employment, and if some of the other abuses which are perhaps outside the minister's department are attended to, then I am satisfied that this measure will be a very great help to our returned men.


Clarence Gillis: I have no intention of making a speech at this time; I merely wish to say that as a member of the committee I agree with most of what the last speaker had to say. The committee worked in harmony. The decision that brought about this bill was unanimous. Nevertheless I wish to place this group on record by saying that while we approve the grants as set out in this bill, we desire to emphasize that it will not in any way replace useful employment, which is still our major responsibility. It is still our major responsibility to returning personnel to see that we do not get into the frame of mind of thinking that when we relieve their immediate circumstances on their coming out of the service by grants of 'this kind, the job is complete.
I should also like to say a word with respect to the discharged service personnel who are coming out with a misconduct discharge. The test of this particular bill will be its application. We approve the board of review set up to examine all discharges for misconduct and the board of review which is dealing directly with gratuity applications * as to whether they will be granted or otherwise. Up to the present time the personnel of the boards are in every way, so far as we can determine, suitable and sympathetic; but we must bear in mind that the personnel of these boards are open to change from time to time. The present wording of the act puts wide administrative powers in the hands of these

boards. I say that because I think the veteians affairs committee under the present minister, and a capable chairman, has an obligation. We shall be here for the next four or five years. We wish closely to follow the administration of this particular section of the bill to see that every last service man or woman affected by a misconduct discharge gets a proper examination and that the board makes what in our judgment is a decision in accordance with the interpretation or opinion of the members when this particular bill was drafted.
When the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) spoke about penny-pinching I took my mind back to the time when a gun was placed at the head of pensioners and civil servants in this country forcing them to give up either their job or their pension. I hope we never get back to that kind of administration. The members of this group are supporting the bill. We think the committee did a fair job in the time at its disposal. The subject-matter covered by this bill is a controversial one, and we could have been many months at it. In the time at its disposal the committee did a first-class job, and we shall watch the administration of the measure very carefully.
I just wish to leave one thought with the minister with reference to service personnel discharged with a misconduct discharge. I know this does not come within the purview of the department. The dependents of those particular people have had no pay and allowances for months and months. I discussed this matter with the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Abbott). I hope I am going to get an answer some time. Christmas is coming on. The husband is incarcerated and there has been no allowance for months. Therefore it will not be a very bright Christmas for such people. I suggest that the minister might use his persuasive powers with National Defence to see if they cannot loosen up and do something.
Mr. Speaker, I just wish to place the members of this group on record as being cognizant of the implications of the bill and to say that we shall watch its administration very closely.


Mr. J. A. MARSHALL (Camrose):: Representing as I do the Social Credit group, I wish to say on their behalf that we are thoroughly in accord with this bill What I might say at this time would be repetitious, because I heartilly agree with the sentiments expressed by the two previous speakers. In committee we raised objections to certain sections of the act, sections 4, 11 and 12. We shall be content to allow the bill to go

War Service Grants
through second reading in the hope that perhaps we may offer some constructive suggestions when the bill comes into committee. That is about all that I have to say at this time, Mr. Speaker


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed	to.
On section 3-Payment of gratuity in case of death of member of the forces.
Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Might	I	ask
under which section "misconduct" will come?


Mr. TUCKER:: Sections 10, 11 and 12
deal with "misconduct".	We	have	not
reached them yet.


Percy Ellis Wright: Section 2 (1) gives the
definition of "misconduct".


James Alexander Marshall: I should like to say
- a word on this section. It says, and I quote:
(1) If a member of the forces dies on service or after discharge but before he has been paid gratuity in full, payment of the gratuity or the unpaid balance thereof shall be made:
(a) to a person who was in receipt of or who, in the opinion of the dependents' allowance board, was eligible for dependents' allowance on behalf of the deceased member immediately prior to the member's death or discharge.
We dealt with this section in committee. At page 255 of the proceedings of that committee the hon. member for Acadia had this to say, and I should like to put it on Hansard because it sums up the whole matter from our point of view:
A man's life is the main thing. If a man goes through the war he gets a gratuity, and if a man is wounded he gets a gratuity up to the time of his discharge. I understand now that the department are considering giving a gratuity while undergoing hospitalization. If a man is killed overseas the gratuity should be paid up until the end of the war.
That is the point around which the discussion centred and we are still of that opinion. This gratuity should not be cut off as of the date of death but should be extended to the end of the war.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I do not want to start an argument at five minutes to six o'clock, but I should like to ask another question for the sake of clarification. A recommendation was brought in by a special subcommittee as to the,meaning of "misconduct", and I Wish to know when this recommendation will be brought before the house. As a member of that committee I am prepared to accept the various clauses, but I understand' that the matter dealt with by the subcommittee is to be -put in a separate recommendation to the
house, concerning a different department of the government. However, I think we might have that recommendation explained.


Walter Adam Tucker: The subcommittee to which the hon. member refers dealt with the difficulty a man might experience in finding employment after his discharge if it was stated on his discharge certificate that he had been discharged1 for misconduct. It was considered that this would be a great handicap. The subcommittee which studied the matter made a recommendation, but it is not a matter for our department since, of course, discharges come under the Department of National Defence. However, at the next meeting of our committee we -plan to study the recommendation of the subcommittee and to hear representations in the matter from the Department of National Defence, in the hope of making some tangible and helpful recommendation to parliament with regard to this matter.


George Alexander Cruickshank: As one member of that committee I cannot quite see eye-to-eye with the chairman of the committee. I do not see how one can recommend- the adoption of a bill which, as I understand it, defines what "misconduct" means, without bringing before parliament the interpretation of "misconduct" as far as the act is concerned- I brought up this matter in the committee, and I intend to stay with it, but I wish to know -what the recommendation of the committee was. Whatever it was, I am quite prepared to abide by the majority, but I want to know what the recommendation of the committee was with regard to the recommendation brought in by the subcommittee in reference to misconduct.


Walter Adam Tucker: In the first place I think the hon. member is under a misapprehension as to the purpose of the subcommittee. The committee accepted the definition of "misconduct"-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Oh, no.


Walter Adam Tucker: That is correct; the committee accepted the definition of "misconduct". The purpose of the sub-committee was to see if something could1 not be done, when the appeal board ruled that a service man should get his gratuity and reestablishment credit, to have a new discharge certificate issued or something of that sort, so that when he went to hunt for employment he would- not have to show a certificate which indicated that he was discharged for misconduct. But "misconduct" as defined1 in the act was actually accepted by the committee on the understanding that this sub-committee would- study this other related question. It did so and1
War Service Grants

brought in a report; and1, as I say, it is hoped to study that report at the next meeting of the committee.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I want to take exception to that.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. QUELCH:: Soldiers who are brought 5ack wounded and who enter hospital come mder the Department of Veterans Affairs, md I wish to know whether such men will be iwarded gratuity up to March 31, 1946. I 3hould like to quote from page 199 of the uinutes of proceedings of the special committee, as follows:
Mr. Woods:	Mr. Chairman, I have under
consideration at the present time an amendment to our recent regulations that would enable us to carry that man on in hospital up to the deadline of March 31, 1946, for gratuity. We have under consideration an amendment.
I understand that certain difficulties have arisen and I was wondering what the final decision might be.


Walter Adam Tucker: The matter is under consideration and may actually have been passed. At any rate it is close to being dealt with.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
On section 6-Manner of payment of gratuity.
Percy Ellis Wright: It was agreed in the committee that the payment of gratuities and reestablishments grants should be based on the number of months served in the forces. There had to be twelve months service in Canada to become eligible under the Veterans Land Act for settlement on the land. We agreed to that in committee, but I have since been informed that there are certain men who were in the forces and who were sent by the authorities to serve in other establishments. For instance, there were men who were sent to serve in civilian air training schools. They might serge there for eight or nine months or a year and then be recalled into the air service. The time spent in the air training school does not count in the computation of points for discharge. These men find they have a small number of points for discharge and are being held in the air force, while

other men, who continued in the force, are getting their discharges. It seems to me that these men have a reasonable kick in not being allowed paints for discharge for their service in the air school, especially when they were sent there by the authorities. I wanted to bring this matter to the minister's attention so that it might receive consideration, because there are a number of men in this category.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to. i
On section 7-Reestablishment credit.
Victor Quelch: As the committee knows, if a veteran elects to take the benefits under the Veterans Land Act he is debarred from receiving a reestablishment credit, but under this section provision is made for the veteran still getting a reestablishment credit, provided that he only comes under section 13 of the act. Where a veteran has come under section 13 of the Veterans Land Act and is under the impression that he would not be able to obtain a reestablishment credit, will he be notified by the Department of Veterans Affairs that he is eligible.


Walter Adam Tucker: Yes, I think I can assure my hon. friend that that will be done.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-Conditions of availability of reestablishment .credit.
Section agreed to.
Sections 9 and 10 agreed to.
On section 11-Exceptions to entitlement.
John Horne Blackmore: I think the question ought to be asked once more, whether or not the war gratuity was conceived of and introduced as a reward for services. Would the minister care to tell us whether that was the object?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With the consent of my hon. friend I would quote from memory what the Prime Minister said last year in this house when he referred to the war service grants as being an expression of the nation's gratitude for services rendered. In my mind there is a difference between a war service grant and a reestahlishment credit. The latter is for a period of ten years and is bound u,p with the reestablishment of the ex-service men and the building up of the national economy, the two things really being

War Service Grants
synonymous. The first, the grant, is definitely an expression of gratitude for the services rendered.


John Horne Blackmore: That is as I would
interpret it, using just the ordinary common sense of a layman. Therefore I am quite astounded to find that any idea has been entertained by this house of denying to a soldier a gratuity for the days and weeks and months during which he served his country; *simply because, perhaps after years of faithful service, he has erred and has been punished by court martial or otherwise. When the original act was passed and sections 11 and 12 were included, this house did violence to its own intelligence. Surely, if the gratuity is a reward for service, then every day and week and month a soldier serves he should receive his gratuity for that day and week and month. But as matters are now, it appears' to me that the gratuity has been used as an additional means of punishing the soldier.
Some i hon. MEMBERS: Oh, no.


John Horne Blackmore: Of course it is. How else can one possibly interpret it? If a soldier after a long period of service commits an offence and is punished, and then is given not only the military punishment for his misdeed but the additional punishment of being deprived of the gratuity which he had earned through his many trying days and experiences, surely that is a miscarriage of justice of the most flagrant kind. I protest against the inclusion of these two clauses in the act, Mr. Chairman, and I believe that the committee should delete them and grant the gratuity as an expression of the nation's gratitude, as the minister has so well said, thus giving the soldier a reward for the service which he has rendered. But as this act stands to-day a man might have won the V.C.; he might have saved a thousand lives; he might have won the most important positions in the enemy's lines; yet because of some inadvertence he might lose all his past gratuity.
I am told that an understanding has been arrived at by the committee this year, in virtue of which a board1 or group of men have been set up with instructions to 'be very considerate and sympathetic toward the soldier when considering the possibility of depriving him of his gratuity. That is a step in the right direction. My contention is that the other course was a step in the wrong direction and never should have been taken. I am astounded that any member of the house ever entertained that idea with any degree of tolerance whatsoever.


Mr. SKEY:: I should like to point out one thing in connection with what the hon. men>
ber for Lethbridge has said. It is the ordinary practice under military law that when a soldier commits a crime and receives detention for it, he loses that much time in his -service record but he does not. lose seniority beyond that. In peace time we recognize the principle which the hon. member has advocated, that he should not lose beyond the time during which his services are not available to the nation.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 12-Reappointment or reenlistment-deferment of gratuity or credit,
Walter Adam Tucker: When the committee was considering this section it was thought that there might be cases where the soldier reenlisted and where his gratuity or credit would be suspended until he came out of the forces and that in the meantime he might have undertaken obligations, relying upon his gratuity to fulfil them. It was therefore felt by the committee that the minister should have the right, on the soldier making application and making out a case, to grant him his entire gratuity and reestablishment credit even if he reenlisted. It was thought that subsection 4 of section 16 as enacted by this section 12 covered that, and I assured the committee that it did, but on thinking about it since I am not sure that it does, and to make amply sure that it does I would ask that the words "unless the minister otherwise directs" be inserted after the word "granted" in line 29 of page 11 of the bill, so that it will read "shall not be paid or granted unless the minister otherwise directs." That makes it very clear that if the man reenlists he can, if he makes out a case, have the minister order that he get his entire gratuity or reestablishment credit.


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: I so move.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 13-Persons of Canadian domicile who served in other commonwealth forces.
Lawrence Wilton Skey: A graduate of the Royal Military College who happened1 to be in England in September, 1939, served with the British forces for four years and then came back to Canada and served with the Canadian forces for one year, and he has not received one cent of gratuity to this day. He has now been out of the forces for a year. Would the minister explain how the department deals with such a case?
War Service Grants


Walter Adam Tucker: There is no reason in the world! why he should not get his gratuity under this section as amended. Formerly there were cases where discharges took place and the soldier did not sign the application for gratuity. It is signed now as a matter of form along with the other papers, but formerly in some cases the application, for gratuity was not signed and the soldier wondered why he did not get his gratuity. It was because he had never applied for it. But now upon discharge that is one of the forms he signs as a matter of routine.


Clarence Gillis: What machinery is there set up in Ottawa to look after the gratuity of Canadian nationals who served1 in the British forces? Only a few days ago I was in touch with the estates branch of the R.C.A.F. in Ottawa trying to get some information as to how a dependent mother of a flying officer killed with the R.A.F. might go about settling his estate.- The R.C.A.F. advised me that they had nothing to do with the matter and suggested that I get in touch with the R.A.F. If we have accepted1 responsibility, as we have under this act, it seems to me that some administrative machinery should be set up in Ottawa which would handle such cases, because it is pretty difficult for an old lady in Vancouver or far away on the east coast to carry on the necessary legal untangling required to settle her son's estate with the British authorities overseas. Is there any such machinery in Ottawa, and1, if not, is it intended to set up such machinery?


Walter Adam Tucker: I think the suggestion of the hon. member is a very good one, because these people are used to dealing with the estates of Canadian servicemen and they might very well extend their activities to assist ' dependents of those Canadians who went into the R.A.F. It is a very good suggestion and I will bring it to the attention of the Department of National Defence under wh.ose administration the handling of estates of deceased servicemen comes.


Mr. LENNARD:: I know of a chap who is a member of the R.C.A.F. and went overseas, took special dhties and was required to join the R.A.F., and who was killed while engaged on those special duties.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What year?


Frank Exton Lennard: I could not say exactly; it was several years ago. He was killed while operating as a member of the R.A.F. His case, I presume, would also come under the suggestion just made.
	'	.


Walter Adam Tucker: It will be a matter of bringing it to the attention of the Department of National Defence.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Is there any coverage in the act for Canadian nationals who joined' other allied forces; for instance, United States, Polish, French or Dutch forces? Are they eligible for gratuity?


Walter Adam Tucker: That is now being actively considered', and it is hoped1 that something will be done about it shortly.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 14 and 15 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. W. MAYHEW (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the Canadian National Railway company to issue securities not exceeding $8,800,000 in principal amount to provide the moneys necessary to meet capital expenditures made or capital indebtedness incurred during the calendar year 1945; to authorize the governor in council to guarantee the principal, interest and sinking funds of securities issued by the company for the purpose aforesaid; to authorize the making of temporary loans to the said company secured by such securities and not exceeding $8,800,000 in principal amount to enable the said company to meet such expenditures and indebtedness; with authority to give financial aid and assistance to other companies of the said national system.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.
John Ritchie MacNicol: I think the acting minister had better give us some explanation of this measure.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The bill which will be founded on this resolution is similar to those which have been passed on previous occasions. The general explanation of it is this. It is for the purpose of providing authority for the financing of the capital expenditures of the railway system and the retirement of miscellaneous maturing obligations, either by way of loan by the dominion or by the issue of securities of the company to the public on the guarantee of the dominion. The total

C .N.ifGuarantee of Securities
amount to be provided for this purpose is limited to $8,800,000 divided as follows:
Additions and betterments, less retirements	   $15,008,000
Acquisition of securities	 1,015,000
Retirement of maturing obligations, including sinking fund, and equipment: principal payments	 10,777,000

Less available from reserve for depreciation and debt discount amortization	 18,000,000

The capital budget as set out above was approved by the standing committee on railways. -
I think, Mr. Chairman, that is all the explanation which is probably necessary at this time.


Mr. FRASER:: Why cannot this money be taken out of the earnings of this year?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: It is all taken out of earnings but. $8,800,000.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Well, why could not that be taken out of earnings? This is the best year the railway has ever had.


Douglas King Hazen: I was a member of the committee to which the annual report of the Canadian National railways was referred. I had the opportunity of hearing the evidence which was given by Mr. R. C. Vaughan, president of the company, and other officials of the railway. There are one or two matters arising out of their evidence which I should like to bring to the attention of the committee, but since I did not know that this matter was coming on until some time this afternoon, I trust the committee will bear with me if I follow very closely the notes I have with me.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The bill cannot be distributed until after it has been introduced; therefore hon. members have not the bill in front of them. So may I suggest that the hon. member should allow the second reading of this resolution to pass and make his statement 'in committee on the bill itself.


@Acting Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: (Mr. Golding): What is before the committee now is the resolution. If this is passed, the bill will follow.


Douglas King Hazen: I am speaking to the resolution, Mr. Chairman, if I am in order. The report of the directors of the Canadian National Railways to the Minister of Transport, which was dated March 15, 1945, and which was submitted to the committee for examination stated on page 7 that the cash surplus for the year's operations was $23,062,924.35 as compared with $35,639,412.23 for the
previous year; that is, there was a decrease of $12,612,000. This is a very large decrease. When it is considered that the operating revenues were over half a million dollars more than in the previous year it is an alarming decrease. The decrease was the result of the operating expenses of the railway being $38,072,000 more than in the previous year.
The report states:
This increase in operating expenses was occasioned by higher wage rates in 1944 as compared with 1943, amounting to $23,348,000; higher prices of materials $7,102,000; and additional maintenance of track and equipment $5,893,000. The amounts referred to for wages and materials do not represent additional man-hours or additional quantities of material but result from higher unit prices paid by the railway -for labour as the result of retroactive wage awards by regulatory authorities and the increased prices paid for fuel, ties, rail and other materials used in maintenance and operation.
The report goes on to say that the average price of fuel increased from $5.37 to S6.10 per ton, involving an added expenditure of $4,906,000. New rails averaged $57.33 per ton as compared with $55.26 per ton in the previous year. Treated ties averaged $1.65 compared with $1.42, and untreated ties, $1.04 compared with 88 cents. There was an increase of 2-5 per cent in the price of other railway materials. These figures show clearly that the "historical decision", as the Minister of Finance called it in his budget speech, at page 1035 of Hansard, made by the government in October, 1941, to consolidate wage controls, institute salary controls and impose comprehensive price ceilings, has not been lived up to so far as our railways are concerned.
In connection with this matter I wish to call the attention of the committee to the replies to one or two questions that were asked Mr. Vaughan, president of the Canadian National Railways, when he was before the railway committee, as reported on page 23 of the proceedings:
Mr .Reid: What about the cost of materials? I notice that fuel oil has gone up by at least 14 per cent, coal lias gone up, new rails have advanced and the price of steel. Some of these articles were under the price ceilings. Evidently something has escaped the price ceiling.
Mr. Vaughan:	That is true. When some of
the steel mills wanted an increase in the price of their products it was felt that the ordinary consumer of steel could not pay. Apparently in Ottawa they thought the railways were doing pretty well and they could afford to pay, so they selected some of the commodities the railways use and advanced the prices.
Mr. Reid:	And they went over the ceiling.
Those steel prices were not under the ceiling, so they made the railways the goat.
Mr. Vaughan:	Those prices were ceiling
prices. That ceiling price was raised by the wartime price control on some of these commodities that the railways use:	That was true
2516	COMMONS
C.N.R.-Guarantee of Securities
of other commodities such as ties and lumber. AH those prices were increased very substantially.
Mr. Reid:	Do you think the raise was
allowed so the steel companies could get a little more from the railway companies on their steel?
Mr. Vaughan:	Well, it was felt that the
railways use certain steel commodities that no one else uses, such as track fastenings, steel rails and things of that kind, and apparently at that time, if the steel mills received an advance on the products that the railways used that would satisfy them for the time being.
The report of Mr. Vaughan to the minister contains the following words on which I should like to lay some emphasis:
The directors feel that more than passing attention should be directed to the higher cost of operation due to these increased unit prices for labour and material over which the management has no control.
Mr. Vaughan was asked, when he was before the committee, as reported1 at page 23, whether he thought the committee should direct their attention to this statement in the report and whether he had any suggestions to make as to how they could approach it. In his reply he said he did not think the committee could do much about it.
The report of the auditors of the railway, which was read to the committee, also refers to this matter, as will be found on page 2:
_ Looking forward to the post-war period, the impact of the accumulated war-time increases in wage rates and material prices on the operating results from prospective revenues of that time is a matter to which we commend the consideration of parliament.
The future operation of this company is a 'matter which, it se,ems to me, should be seriously studied1 by the Minister of Transport and the government. Now that the war is over, the revenue of the railway will be greatly reduced. There can be no question about that. Mr. Vaughan, in his statement to the committee on October 23, page 4, said:
I feel it is necessary, however, to sound a note of caution. It is probable that when the war emergency is over traffic will recede from war-time levels. To what extent it will recede we shall have to wait to find out.
We may have to wait to find out the exact amount, but I do not think the government should adopt a policy of wait and see. I am calling the matter to the attention of the committee and of the Minister of Transport and the government .because I think the government should take steps now that the situation has been brought before them, to inquire into ways and means of preventing the road from becoming again a great drain on the taxpayers of Canada.
To use Mr. Vaughan's wordte, more than passing attention should be directed to this

matter and it should have the careful consideration of the government now.
This brings me to another matter: I believe there should be closer cooperation between the C.NJR. and1 the C.P.R. From questions that were asked Mr. Vaughan I got the impression that there has not been as close cooperation as there might have been.
Part II of the Canadian National and1 Canadian Pacific Act, which was passed in 1933 and assented to on May 23 of that' year, states that the two railways:
. . . are, for the purposes of effecting economies and providing for more remunerative operation, directed to attempt forthwith to agree and continuously to endeavour to agree, and they are authorized to agree, upon such cooperative measures, plans and arrangements as are fair and reasonable and best adapted (with due regard to equitable distribution of burden and advantages as between them) to effect such purposes.
They are further directed:
That whenever they shall so agree, they shall endeavour to provide, through negotiations with representatives of the employees affected . . . for a fair and reasonable apportionment as between the employees of National Railways and the Pacific Railways respectively of such employment as may be incident to the operation of such measure, plan or arrangement.
The act goes on to state that:
It shall be the duty of -the companies, and they are hereby required, to meet by their proper officers forthwith and from time to time as they may agree, to discuss and to effect by agreement, if .possible, the purposes set forth in this part of the act.
I think the Minister of Transport or the government should make some inquiries into what cooperation there has been between the two railways with a view to seeing that the intentions of this act are lived up to.
I said a moment ago that I got the impression that there was not as close cooperation between the railways as was intended when the act was passed. I got that impression despite the fact that in the course of. his evidence Mr. Vaughan said:
The Canadian Pacific Railway officials and our officials are in touch with each other almost every day on some matters. We cooperate with them closely.
Mr. Vaughan went on to say:
After all, we are keen competitors. I do not suppose there is any place in the world where there is keener competition than between the , Canadian National Railways and the .Canadian Pacific Railway. I do not think that can be avoided as long as the two railways are operating as they are.
Now, competition makes for efficiency, but it should be subject to proper controls; controls that provide on the one hand for proper hours of work and living standards and wages;

C.N.R.-Guarantee of Securities
for employees, and on the other hand provide protection to the taxpayer from unnecessary expenditures and cutthroat competition which may result in large deficits.
Not only must competition 'be subject to controls, but competition must be fair. It seems to me there can be no fair competition between two companies if one of them is permitted to go ahead, or it if it should go ahead, with the idea or- on the presumption that the government, that is the taxpayer, will pay any deficit it incurs, while the other is obliged to meet its obligations out of earnings, and in addition, pay large taxes.
Cooperation is as essential as competition in the interests of the taxpayers of this country.
There are two other factors that enter into the picture. One is the fact that Trans-Canada Air Lines, which the government has established as 'a great monopoly to control trans-Canada airways will have an adverse effect on Canadian National Railways earnings. Mr. Symington, president of Trans-Canada Air Lines, was asked what effect the air lines which it was proposed to establish to the British West Indies and South America would have on the earnings of Canadian National Steamships. He replied that he did not know if the matter had been considered. In reply to another question he said:
There was no use blinding our eyes to the fact that they (that is the T.C.A. and other air routes) are going to interfere with the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian National Steamships.
It is going to cut into the earnings of those two companies. The question of government-owned transportation systems cutting into each other's business should be studied by the government, for it is not in the interests of the taxpayers to have one government-owned transportation company cutting the throat of another government-owned transportation company. That should be avoided. As I have said, the Minister of Transport and the government should direct their attention to this question.
I would suggest that the government might give some consideration to amending part II of the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Act, which provides for cooperation, so that it might include government and other air lines operating in or from Canada.
The other factor which should be given some consideration is competition between railways and auto trucks. I hold in my hand a report of a statement which was made by Mr. Hector L. Lapointe, Canadian National
Railways economist, in an address which he made this month. This is what he says:v
Competition between railways and trucks has never been, and is not now, fair or equal, and annual losses in revenue to the railways have assumed alarming proportions.
This is a statement of a C.N.R. economist, a qualified official. He goes on to say:
As a result, in the pre-war years, the situation was so grave that the financial stability of the railways was badly shaken. In fact, it was only through the very heavy war-time traffic that the railways were able to replenish their treasuries. To-day their position is sound, but will only remain so as measures are taken to place all forms of land transport on an equal basis and also to correct the business ways of the trucker which, under existing conditions, promote cutthroat tactics, wasteful competition and discrimination.
Mr. Lapointe went on to say that the first and most important steps toward a solution was a proper coordination of all methods of land transport. I would direct this statement of an official of the national railways to the attention of the Minister of Transport and to the government.
These, Mr. Chairman, are the only suggestions I wish to make at this time.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: Before the resolution carries, I would first commend the hon. member for St. John-Albert for his thoughtful remarks with respect to this resolution. I should like to direct some special questions to the parliamentary assistant to the minister who has the responsibility for this resolution or to the Minister of Transport This resolution provides for the capital expenditures required by the Canadian National Railways for the current year and, I presume, for the ensuing year. I should like to ask the hon. member who has the resolution in charge and the Minister of Transport what provision has been made for the construction of the Canso causeway or bridge and also for the realignment and improvement of the grades on the railways serving the eastern part of Nova Scotia. That subject has been discussed in the house on different occasions and has been supported by members from Nova Scotia, including the hon. member for Cape Breton South. It was before the reestablishment and reconstruction committee, who approved it. It was approved by the government of Nova Scotia, whose premier at the time, Hon. A. S. MacMillan, gave evidence before the committee I just mentioned. As I remember his evidence, he staked his reputation that the causeway, including the diversion of the railway, could be built for
84,500,000,	though personally I believe those figures would have to be confirmed by accu- '

C.N.R.-Guarantee of Securities
rate engineering surveys. I also understand that, following another visit to Ottawa, Mr. MacMillan quoted the Minister of Munitions and Supply, perhaps in his capacity as Minister of Reconstruction, to the effect that this causeway would be built. In any event such an announcement was made to the people of Nova Scotia, and it has been confirmed by Hon. A. L. Macdonald, the present premier and his candidates.
I believe this is a proper occasion to ask for a statement from the hon. member who has this resolution in charge, or from the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Reconstruction. This is an important matter to Nova Scotia, especially eastern Nova Scotia, and at this time, when we are dealing with what I presume is the only resolution to provide funds for capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways, I believe there should be a declaration of policy.


Clarence Gillis: I should like to join in the remarks just made by the hon. member for Cumberland. I did not intend 'to say anything on this matter until the bill Was in committee, but since the hon. member has raised it now I wish to make a few observations. My only objection to the resolution is that the government are not asking for enough money, if they require $8,800,000 for their ordinary requirements. As I recall the details of the matter raised by the hon. member for Cumberland, the estimate of the Canadian National Railways in connection with their end of the work, double-tracking the main line from Sydney to Moncton and making a number of necessary changes, was for something around $6,500,000, according to a statement made by Mr. Fairweather when he appeared before the reconstruction committee. So that I should like to see the government increase the amount asked for in this resolution.
The reason I believe some statement should come from the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Reconstruction in this connection is that the matter of building the causeway across the strait of Canso, double-tracking the main line, improving the yards and so forth, has been given a great deal of consideration by members of this house. I remember attending meetings of the reconstruction committee for weeks, probing the possibilities of jobs in the post-war period. In connection with this particular project we heard the chief engineer of the Department of Public Works, and we heard from Mr. Fairweather, chief economic adviser of the Canadian National Railways. After a great deal of consideration, that committee prepared a report which was tabled in the house and accepted. On two 
occasions the Minister of Munitions and Supply stated in this house that this was to be one of Nova Scotia's main post-war projects.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And so it should be.


Clarence Gillis: To appreciate how far-sighted that committee was in its estimate of the employment situation in that part of the country one need only look at the employment figures in Nova Scotia to-day. Then he will see that unless this project is gone ahead with there is practically nothing else to provide employment in that province. Every war industry that ' functioned there has been closed out. No new industries have been created, and from one end to the other that province is a straight unemployment camp. The sad thing about a matter of this kind is the loss of prestige on the part of public men generally. This government was definitely committed to that undertaking as a major post-war project'; the Minister of Munitions and Supply stated they were definitely going ahead with it. The then premier of Nova Scotia also definitely went on record that this was one of the main considerations in the post-war period. The present premier of Nova Scotia, who was then minister for naval services, also was definitely committed to it. It is rather sad now to read the editorial comments in the newspapers in connection with matters of this kind. In the Ottawa Citizen of November 24 I found an editorial clipped from the Sydney PostRecord, which stated that Hon. Angus L. Macdonald was committed to this project: the present premier of Nova Scotia was committed to it; I was committed to it; the Minister of Reconstruction was committed to it, and then they wound up by saying that it looked as though it was only a balloon which was flown for political purposes. I hope that is not the case; but to-day, after the election is over, the Minister of Munitions and Supply begins to talk about the difficulties of getting these things done.
The resolution now before the house definitely links the Canadian National with this project because, according to their own estimate, if it is proceeded with they will spend $6,500,000 to carry out their part of the programme which was recommended in the report of the reconstruction and reestablishment committee, which report was tabled in this house without opposition. This leads me to believe that hon. members were unanimously in favour of it. Therefore I believe that the Minister of Finance should be prepared to come here and make a statement one way or the other, and say whether the Canadian

C.N.R.-Guarantee oj Securities
National are going ahead with it, because this resolution definitely provides for next year's capital expenditures.


Lionel Chevrier: No, it does not.


Clarence Gillis: Then I have not read the resolution correctly.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: This only provides money for the current calendar year.


Clarence Gillis: That is for 1945?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Yes. In other words we have about a month to go.


Clarence Gillis: And it is to guarantee principal and sinking funds, and so forth. Nevertheless the project I am talking about was recommended in 1943. Now 1944 has gone by, and this is 1945; we are providing for their 1945 capital expenditures, and still there is no mention of this undertaking. As far as I am concerned I want something definite on it. If they are going to build it, that is fine. If they are not going to build it, I want to know, and so do the people of Nova Scotia. The thing I want to find out is, can I believe the Minister of Munitions and Supply when he makes a statement in this house? Unless you are prepared to live up to the promises made both inside and outside this house-
Some lion. MEMBERS: Order.


Clarence Gillis: I am listening.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I do not think the hon. member for Cape Breton South should question whether he can believe a member of the government, and I do not think he intended to do that.


Clarence Gillis: No, I did not mean it in that way. What I did mean is that editorials in the daily newspapers across Canada are questioning the veracity of every member of this house in connection with this particular project. As the hon. member for Vancouver East says, I do not know whether I can believe myself. Before this bill carries, I should like a definite statement from the minister on behalf of the Canadian National Railways that they are going ahead with this project. We are depending on it to create employment in the province. If we are not going to get any employment from that direction we shall have to start thinking about something else. This project was* played up all over the province as being one that would employ 7,000 men for three years. That would relieve the unemployment problem in Nova Scotia to a considerable extent, but if this project is not going to be carried out we shall have to replace it with something else. If the parliamentary assistant is not in a position to give an answer 47696-159
at this time, I suggest that before the bill carries some decision should be made.


Mr. DECHENE :: In view of the fact that other hon. members have discussed the matter of new construction to be undertaken by the National Railways, may I ask if it is in order to discuss branch lines and new constructions under the resolution now before the house? If so, I also have something to say.


William Ross Macdonald: The resolution refers to expenditures for the calendar year, expiring on December 31, 1945. I do not think there could be much further work started this year, and therefore I would not think a general discussion on the building of branch lines would be in order.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is there any item in the estimates covered by this amount for plans and specifications for the Canso viaduct and the building of a railroad to Truro?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Nothing I could find. I should like to have this moved from the resolution stage so that we may introduce the bill. The suggestions that have been made by hon. members will be noted.


Percy Chapman Black: I think we
should have a statement from the Minister of Transport with regard to this matter which has been brought up before by the hon. member for Cape Breton South and myself.


Lionel Chevrier: I submit with deference that this resolution has nothing to do with the causeway of Canso, either directly or indirectly. I am not in position, nor do I intend to make a statement on government policy with respect to that important project. As hon. members will see, the resolution is to bring in a measure to authorize the Canadian National to issue securities not exceeding $8,800,000. The budget of the Canadian National Railways for the year 1945 was submitted to the railways and shipping committee and approved by the committee. In that committee there was set out in detail what the $8,800,000 was for. It included additions and betterments to the railways amounting to $15,000,060 and some odd; acquisition of securities, a little over $1,000,000; retirement of maturing capital obligations, including sinking fund and equipment principal payments. $10,777,000; less depreciation from reserves and discount amortization, $18,000,000, leaving $8,800,000 required for capital expenditure. The details of the additions and betterments were given to the committee. This is for expenditures already made or indebtedness incurred, and it could in no way be linked with the project at Canso. When the time comes, whether it be on my estimates or on the estimates of the Minister of Recon-

Supply-Agriculture

struction, which I understand are not yet complete, a statement on that project will be made.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Why is this not taken out of the present revenue for this year?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: They have already taken $26,800,000 out of revenue.	.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Mayhew thereupon moved for leave to introduce bill No. 178, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain expenditures made and capital indebtedness incurred by the Canadian National Railways system during the calendar year 1945, and to authorize the guarantee by His Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National- Railway Company.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the first time.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
51. Departmental administration, $639,578.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
179. Dominion fuel hoard, administration and investigations, $32,120.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
18S. Battlefields memorials, $49,625.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
229. Canadian travel bureau service, $77,950.
Item stands.
John Bracken: That brings four more departments into supply. May I ask the minister how many departments still remain to be brought in?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think there are three, and I wish to assure the house that the rights of all. hon. members are protected if there are any matters they wish to bring up for the redress of grievances.


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $136,035.
Mr. ROSS (Souris):: I have a question to ask the minister about future production and marketing, and perhaps it would shorten the proceedings if I put my question before the minister makes his statement.

I wish to touch on the production programme in this country as it pertains to marketing. It will be realized that, despite the great carryover of wheat that we had a few years ago, that problem no longer exists with us to-day. According to the chairman of the wheat board we shall very shortly have disposed of one billion bushels of wheat in the three years since 1943. While it is not safe to have a carryover of less than 60 million bushels of wheat, we shall be down to that figure before we start to harvest the 1946 crop. While that will be our position, our neighbours to the south, the United States, may be able to export some 300 million bushels this year. So that the entire picture of wheat carryover for exporting countries is vastly different from what it was a few years ago. While there is a great demand for wheat at this time, our governments, by legislative action, have kept down the price of wheat. The only grain product we have selling on the open market is rye. Some days ago rye sold for $2 a bushel on the open market in Winnipeg. In normal times rye sold for from ten to twenty per cent less per bushel than wheat, so that' it will be realized what the price of wheat would be to-day if an open market existed for wheat. I am not saying that it should, because we must maintain the situation as it should be for the consumers of this country. But I cite the price of rye to shoNv what the price of wheat would be if there were an open market for it to-day.
While there is a demand for our wheat at the present time, there is no guarantee at all as to the future requirements of our wheat. Even the officials of the Canadian wheat board who are making a constant study of this matter, claim that the future for our wheat is most uncertain as to both markets and price. We all realize that the same may be said of oats and barley, in which our carryover is considerably less than it was a few years ago, and that affects our production of live stock and meat in this country.
I have here a chart-and I should like to compliment the authors of it-of our weekly live stock and meat statistics. It appears in the Live Stock Market Review of November 15, 1945, and reviews the situation comprehensively. It shows that the slaughterings of hogs from January 1, 1945, to date have decreased in western Canada by 40-5 per cent, while in eastern Canada there has been a decrease of 24-7 per cent, or an average decrease for the whole country of 34-9 per cent as compared with the same period in 1944.

Supply-A griculture
Cattle have shown a great increase in slaughterings, an increase for the same period for Western Canada of 41'1 per cent, and an increase for eastern Canada of 24-8 per cent, or an average increase for the whole country of 34-1 per cent. There has been a consistent increase in the numbers of our beef cattle in Canada year by year since 1939. In 1939 we had 4,693,500 head of beef cattle in Canada; in 1945, as of September 28, we had 6,760,400, or an approximate ihcrease of forty-two per cent in beef cattle during the war period.
The number of hogs in Canada in 1939 was 4,363,800; in 1945, 6,025,600. We reached the peak in 1943, with 8,148,500 hogs, and that dropped this year, as I have said, to 6,025,600. which is quite a big decrease. The great decrease has taken place in western Canada, where the decrease has been far greater than in eastern Canada, but there has teen a great decrease throughout the entire dominion. I am sure that the entire hog situation will have quite an effect on world marketings. I think the Department of Agriculture here have proof already of the manner in which our Danish friends are regaining the old country market for bacon.
I noticed that at a dairy convention held in the city of Winnipeg a few days ago the officials stated that whereas feed grains had increased by forty per cent in cost to the dairy producer, mik had increased in price by only 11T5 per cent, and farm wages had approximately doubled. The consequence was that a good many producers were going out of dairy production entirely. It has been pointed out in this house that the McDougall memorandum to the league of nations in 1940 showed that to equalize standards of diving throughout the world, that is in order to ensure that mankind receive a greater amount of food and a higher standard of nutrition, an increase in production was required as follows; of cereals, an increase of 50 per cent; meat 90 per cent; milk and other dairy products, 125 per cent; vegetable oils, 125 per cent; fruit and vegetables,. 300 per cent. It is evident that to attain national equality in nutrition and a sufficiency of food a great expansion and distribution programme must be initiated upon national and international lines.
Just yesterday the Ottawa Citizen carried an editorial on "Food-Planning for Plenty". It stated that the officials of the food and agriculture organization had been saying that the gamble must be taken out of the marketing of food and that the grain producers of Canada were greatly concerned over price fluctuations. The editorial had interesting facts for the Department of Agriculture here and for other 47696-159i
agencies that are concerned with food production in other countries at this time.
Many of us are inclined to forget or perhaps do not appreciate how much scientific research has done for agriculture in this country. I was reading an article only the other day which covered agricultural developments in the past 130 years in this country. It pointed out the crude manner in which we started with our cereals in this country, and what, every three, four or five years, scientists had brought forth for us. I am sure we should appreciate what they have done. In recent years, especially, they have developed rust-resistant wheat; and it would be difficult to estimate, even in millions of dollars, what this has meant to the grain producers of this country. In certain years during the past we would not have produced, because of rust, any wheat of our old types. Along other lines scientists have rendered a great service to us. They have inspired the confidence of farmers by the development of better varieties of grain, forage crops, fruits and vegetables, better strains of live stock, valuable farm practice methods, and workable disease and pest controls. We should not. soon forget the work those scientists have done for us. Many of our producers throughout the country fail to realize this. It is certainly my belief that the officials of our treasury board do not adequately realize what these men are doing for us, by expressing that appreciation adequately in a practical form. I have been able to obtain some figures as to what our scientists in the Department of Agriculture receive, in contrast with what is paid to men similarly employed in the United States and in Great Britain, and I should like to put on record two of these comparisons which to me are enlightening. In Canada, grade 4 scientists in agriculture receive from $3,300 to $3,600; in the United States, $4,730 to $5,698; in Great Britain, from $5,280 to $6,160. A grade 6 scientist receives in Canada $3,900 to $4,500; in the United States, $6,853 to $7,777; in Great Britain, $8,800 and up. That is quite a contrast. The figures are based on our currency, allowing $1.10 for the United States dollar and $4.40 for Great Britain's pound.
I know we are all concerned about the expenditure of public money, but I ask the committee to consider the significance of these contrasts. I have used this argument in the past, though without having the exact figures, because I believed that something should be done to keep our best types of scientists in the country and not have them going across the line in the numbers that they have gone during past years. It is something to which we must give due consideration, because these
. .m
Supply-A griculture

men are most important in assisting our producers to improve their standards of production, and they should be properly remunerated1 for so doing.
It is quite evident that with proper national planning and international arrangements the nation may have an economy of abundance with fair remuneration to all. I should like to have that point emphasized now, because many of our producers who have done such a magnificent job during the war years are to-day in great fear and doubt. They do not want to be caught by depression and lower prices as they were in the past, and many of them talk about quitting now, while prices are fair and they can probably get out with reasonable prices for their equipment and what stock they have. It is surprising how many people, especially in western Canada, are possessed with that viewpoint to-day. Therefore I think that if the minister would say now what the government's plans are and what has been done to assure - the 'agricultural producers of Canada future markets and fair and reasonable price returns it would be of great assistance to those producers. Before we return to another session, the most efficient of these people will be laying plans for next year's production. I trust that whatever proposals are decided on will be upon some basis of parity, not forgetting that our producers of timber and our manufacturers of textiles and other articles are not to-day being held down in the matter of price as are the agricultural producers. Figures have been given on several occasions about the great percentage of our timber production which is going to the southern market, and at a much handsomer price than is paid in Canada. That in turn has increased our building costs as much, in many cases, as fifty per cent. Those are the figures of experts in our government departments. I trust that, whatever is done for agriculture, these facts will be kept in mind, and that farmers will be given a, reasonable break to assure them remuneration which is fair in relation to that received in other vocations in this country to-day.
I repeat that it is most important that our producers, especially of grain and live stock, should be given some lead at this time as to what they may expect, at least for next year's production, and it will be beneficial if they could be given some idea as to what they may expect in this matter in the next few years.
If the minister can do that now, it will save a number of questions on several other items as we come to them, besides being beneficial to the producers of this country.
[Mr. J. A. Ross.l


Percy Ellis Wright: I am going to offer no excuse for taking up some of the time of the committee to discuss agriculture. Over two months and a half of this session have passed, and this is the fijst opportunity which the government has given to the house to discuss this matter. Agriculture is such an important phase of Canadian economic life that we might well have had an opportunity at an earlier stage to discuss some of its problems.
There are people who say that agriculture has not many problems to face at this time, that agriculturists are receiving reasonable prices for their products and that they are satisfied. However, I think we can easily prove that there is a great deal of misgiving among farmers with respect to the future. We need more agricultural production in Canada and throughout the world than at any time during the war. In Canada, Great Britain and the United States governments endeavoured during the war years to get an increase in agricultural production, and they used various means, including subsidies and advertising urging farmers to produce, to accomplish this purpose. Agricultural production is now needed to a greater extent than ever, if we are to believe the reports which are coming out of Europe, and the statements made by the Prime Minister the other day upon his return from Great Britain, when he told us that during this winter probably twenty million Europeans will be on starvation rations and hundreds of thousands will die of starvation during the next six months. So that production is essential at this time.
The agricultural industry of Canada did a very good job during the war. The increase was due, I believe, largely to three reasons: First, the desire of the farmers to do their share in the war, to see that production was sufficient to meet the needs during the war period. They did a good job, despite the fact that, they were short of help and equipment. In respect of several agricultural products they doubled their production. This achievement was due largely to the individual farmer, to the man and woman on the farm who went out and milked a few extra cows, who kept a few extra hens, who took on these extra jobs feeling that that was their duty and their share in the war effort. The second reason for increased production of agricultural products was that nature was very good to us during the war years. In 1942 we had probably the largest agricultural production ever known in the dominion, thanks to a bountiful nature. We had plenty of rainfall. The third reason, in my opinion, was the stabilized prices which agriculture has received for its products during

Supply-A griculturc
the war. In 1941, when agricultural prices were frozen, during the basic period from October 20 to November 15 of that year, agricultural prices were low. But as a result of representations made to this house by organized agriculture and owing to various other influences which were brought to bear on the government, agricultural prices were gradually brought to a level where they at least represented the approximate cost of production for agricultural commodities.
These very three reasons which contributed to the increased agricultural production are working in reverse to-day. There has been a let-down. The people engaged in agriculture feel that they do not need to do the extra work they did during the war. Many of the older people who were engaged in extra work at that time feel now, since the war is over, that they can take it easy, and so far the younger people who were engaged in the war have not returned to agriculture to take up the reins and increase production.
At this critical period the government should give some lead to agriculture in the matter of keeping up its production, but I fear they have failed to do so. At least they have not given an assurance of what the future of agriculture will be. Let us take the grain growers of Canada to-day, and of western Canada especially. We have been asked to accept a ceiling price of $1.55 a bushel for wheat and we have accepted it. But I wonder if the committee realizes what the acceptance of that price means to the grain growers of Canada. Let me point out what it means in dollars and cents this year. I will show the significance of that $1.55 a bushel on export wheat and the $1.25 on wheat that is being sold to the millers for flour used in Canada and wheat being sold to the feed industry in Canada for feed wheat consumed in this country.
We are exporting this year approximately 325 million bushels at $1.55 a bushel. Suppose we were to receive the export price on wheat which the importing countries are paying to the United States and which, when we figure it in Canadian exchange, comes to approximately $2.03 a bushel. In other words, we are accepting 48 cents a bushel less than the world market for 325 million bushels of wheat, or a total of $156 million less than the world market price.
Take wheat that is milled in Canada. We consume approximately 60 million bushels of wheat. The wheat board is selling this wheat to the millers at $1.25 a bushel. That is the return which the Canadian farmer receives for this wheat. If he were to receive the export price of $2.03, that is 78 cents a bushel more on 60 million bushels, he would receive
$46,800,000 more on this year's crop. If we figure that there are 20 million bushels of wheat which will be consumed for feed purposes in this country, it means $15,600,000 more than he would receive for that wheat had he received the world price.
Then take barley. To-day it is selilng in the United States, or it was on November 20, the last figure I have, at $1.22 a bushel. In Canada the ceiling price is 64j cents plus 20 cent equalization payment, or 84f cents a bushel. On barley there is an approximate loss to the grain grower of about $28 million. On oats, which are selling in the United States, basis New York, c.i.f. No. 2, at 93 cents a bushel, there is a loss of $10 million to the grain grower here. In all, in western Canada to-day we are accepting this year $253 million less than the world price for our crop.
What are we getting in return for this? The government passed order in council 6112 which placed a floor price under wheat, or rather gave a guarantee. I will not use the words "floor price"; the minister objects to that term. The government guaranteed that wheat would not go below $1 a bushel before 1950. The minister states that to-day the floor price under wheat is $1.25 a bushel and he is perfectly right, but that floor price is only a floor price for this year and we have had nothing from either the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Trade and Commerce guaranteeing that $1.25 will be the floor under wheat for any further period.
I have here a report of a speech which the Minister of Agriculture delivered to the Cooperative Wheat Producers in western Canada and the statement is confusing. Probably he was misreported. I am afraid that some of our western papers have become so accustomed to misrep-orting what people in political life have to say that they even mis-report some of their own followers. I quote:
There is nothing to indicate at present that the price of wheat will drop below the present floor price of $1.25 during the next five years. Hon. J. G. Gardiner, federal Minister of Agriculture, said in an address delivered in Regina on Friday ... On the other hand he pointed out that if within the five-year period it became necessary to reduce the price it could drop below'the dollar floor price which the government has established for the five-year period ending in 1950.


James Garfield Gardiner: They stated the next day that they had left a "not" out before "drop".


Percy Ellis Wright: I rather expected that was what had happened; nevertheless it did leave much confusion in the minds of many people when that statement came out. The minister should give the committee some assurance as to what floor prices under agricultural prod-
Supply-Agriculture


Mr. FAIR:: Mr. Chairman-


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member for Fort William has the floor.


Mr. McIVOR:: It is too bad for one Irishman to get ahead of another, but I know he will forgive me at this time. I have two reasons for speaking to-night. The first is that I was brought up on a farm. I was taught the rotation of crops and to farm in the way which pays. You might call it the horse-and-buggy days, but it pays for the farm and it pays for the farmer.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Does it pay for the horse and buggy?


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: The other reason is that in the district of Thunder Bay, which takes in Port Arthur and Fort William, there have sprung up in our district in the last ten years some of the best farms in Ontario. The district farmer, Mr. Norman Harrison, will bear me out in this. They are farmers who farm the farm instead of farming the community.
They have been taught that it pays to farm their farm, stay on their job and attend to their affairs.


Mr. CARDIFF:: How many hours a day?


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: The reason for that is that the district farmer and the experimental substation which the present Minister of Agriculture saw fit to plant in that district-and it was needed years before-advise the people all over the country. The advice of the expert who runs that farm and of the district farmer is sought all over the country, and in the fall of the year they give splendid leadership at the agricultural fairs which are held in the different districts.
One thing stands out in this district, namely, the increase in the production of potatoes. They have a 500 bushel to the acre club. One man will take it one year in one district and another man will take it another year. This year one man took it in a distract fifteen miles from Fort William. His prize-winning potatoes were the Irish cobblers. Another high-liner was a man with a non-Anglo-Saxon name. He grew the Chippawa. The next man took a prize with Green Mountains. It is not an unusual thing to see a beautiful farm of potatoes. It was a joy to any real Irishman who loves a potato crop to see those potatoes turned out in the fall. The best potatoes I have seen since I left the old sod were grown not with the help of barnyard manure or artificial fertilizer, but with the help of fish. These fish were known by a special name and even the Indians did not want to eat them, so that they were made into fertilizer for the potatoes, and I have never seen a finer crop. There was not a smell of fish on the potatoes; when you fried them you goG-


An hon. MEMBER:: Fish and chips.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: -the very finest results, and they were the best potatoes I have seen in this country. Then we have something else that interests us and interests the farmers. We have a fall seed fair; and if you could go into the city hall in Fort William and see the samples of seed there you would say, long live the farmers of this district and the experts who lead them. The inspection of hogs, too, has prompted the farmers to take up this branch of farming. One man who has been in the business for only about six years now has over five hundred hogs. So that we just go back a bit and thank the minister for putting an experimental farm station in that district. If any hon. members have a good big district far away from a centre, go after the Minister of Agriculture. You will find him ready to
Supply-Agriculture

step on it, and you will get something that will make your heart glad.


Mr FAIR:: I am thankful the Irish are
such a peaceful race; otherwise the hon. member for Fort William and I would probably be in a battle in the middle of the floor right now. I do not know what kind of country he comes from, but it seems that every once in a while the hon. member has to rise in his place and keep the name of Fort William before us; otherwise it would be entirely forgotten; and as somebody says, where is Fort William?
I did not take time to kiss the blarney stone before leaving old Ireland, and apparently the hon. member for Fort William did; consequently my remarks this evening wili be very brief, because I believe as we go along and take up the various items we can discuss anything we wish to mention. However, there is one matter I should like to bring to the attention of the minister and the government once more; that is, that the farmers of Canada should receive something closer to their proper share of the national income than has been the case in the past. I make this statement because I think we all realize that approximately one-third of the people of Canada live on farms, and that during the years from 1926 to 1940 one-third ofi the people received only 11*3 per cent of the national income, or approximately one-third of that to which they were entitled. Again, on many occasions I have pointed out that the farmers work many more hours than any other occupational group in this country, and take chances on climatic conditions. At'the present time many of us have our crops under fifteen inches of snow and will not have an opportunity to^ reap them until spring. In addition to all this, we are up against the manipulation of markets and many other things. To-day we find that at least a large proportion of labour in Canada is on strike for better agreements, union security and increased wages, and we are also told in the columns of the press that labour is now aiming for a forty hour instead of a forty-eight hour week, with no decrease in pay. I believe some of our farm leaders in Canada are slipping, because a number of them are satisfied with the prices we are receiving. In my opinion those farm leaders should set their sights a little higher than is the case at the moment. I make that statement, because practically every other occupational group is taking steps to secure its fortunes in the future; and if we are to succeed on equal terms with the rest of the people of Canada it is up to us to do something for ourselves.

Many reasons might be given for the troubles that have been experienced by agriculture. It is often said that God must love the common people because he made so many of us, and I believe a very large percentage of those common people have been placed on the farms. One of our troubles is that in the past we have failed to organize. I well remember back in 1923 when we organized the wheat pool and had quite a hard time to get even fifty-one per cent of the farmers in our province organized. Then, in a very short time, as soon as the line companies offered a better trade for grain, even though they stole up to five bushels a load the farmers bootlegged their wheat from the pool to the line elevator companies. While that condition exists, it is not very easy for us to get along. So that unless we have something like equality of treatment for the farmers of Canada we cannot have a prosperous country. If one section of our people are slaves while the rest are masters, that is not a healthy condition.
One thing I should like, as I have pointed out previously, is to see the Prairie Farm Assistance Act amended to provide a general crop insurance scheme, even if there should be some extra cost to the farmers. That can be done, and I believe it should be done in order that the interests of the farmers may be protected. I also believe the income tax problem of the farmers should receive very favourable consideration. The Minister of Finance has stated that the. question of farmers' income tax is being reviewed. When that review is completed I hope something worth while will be done in the interests of the farmers, because I believe we all remember that while the farmer was taking his losses during the depression years, there was no attempt by the Minister of Finance or the government of that day, nor has there been any attempt since, to see that the farmer was given any relief by way of reduction in interest charges or reasonable prices for the things he sold and the things he had to buy. During the war the farmers sacrificed millions of dollars in the prices they received for the products they sold, so that we think we should now be given a square deal.
I believe we shall be able to discuss the matter of hog and cattle prices later on, but in passing I suggest that an increase in prices of cattle and hogs would help make more food available for Europe, and also would do away with the bureaucratic rationing we have at the present time. As far as I am aware, the farmers are not complaining about rationing, but we feel that a proper policy for agricul-

Supp ly-A griculture
ture would do a great deal to relieve the necessity for the rationing which is imposed upon us at the present time.
I do not think I need say more just now. On behalf of the members of this group I have made my remarks brief, but we intend to discuss the various items as we go along.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: I do not think I can be accused of unnecessarily detaining the house in previous debates, but I wish to bring a few items to the attention of the minister and hon. members under the heading of agriculture. The farmers of my constituency are particularly interested in three aspects of our agricultural policy: first, marketing arrangements, to assure stable and satisfactory marketing and farm income; second, disease control, to ensure satisfactory crops; and, third, intensive research in the field of marketing problems and disease control. At some future date I intend to deal at greater length with the question of marketing, but because of the urgest necessity of getting on with the business of the house I am going to be quite brief in dealing with that question to-night.
The farmers I have the honour to. represent realize that at this time there are three aspects to the marketing question: the international, the national and the provincial.
As far as the international marketing situation is concerned, the newly born united nations food and agriculture organization, which by the way is the first of the allied organizations to be set up under the world peace programme, is a first and great step toward the solution of the marketing of agricultural surpluses. As at present constituted, it is a research fact-finding and policyforming organization. Under its present constitution i't has no authority to deal in commodities. No doubt- at this stage, in order to get general agreement and support, this limitation was necessary, but I am certain that ultimately the food and agriculture organization must have some authority guaranteed to it by the participating governments if its real objectives are to be attained. I am confident of this development when the proposed world farmer federation is a reality and the tillers of the soil bring to bear their effective influence in support of the ideals and objectives- of the food and agriculture organization. We can rejoice that the first steps have been taken in this direction.
I should like to deal briefly with the question of provincial marketing. In British Columbia we have had for some time a natural products marketing act that has been of great value to the fruit and vegetable producers of the province. This act was placed on the statute books of British Columbia at the request of 47696-160
the fruit growers of the Okanagan and Kootenay districts, and upon it has been based the orderly marketing of tree fruits and vegetables that prevails at the present time in the province. Occasionally one hears this type of legislation- condemned on the score that it is coercive and not in keeping with British justice; that is, it savours of regimentation and robs the individual of his rights. If majority rule is coercive, then this legislation can be so classed, but any act which requires the agreement of seventy-five per cent of the producers, in my opinion, is democratic to the last degree. As a result of experience, the great majority of tree fruit and vegetable producers of British Columbia are behind this legislation. If agriculture is ever going to come into its own we must have unification of action by producers, first within the provinces and then throughout the dominion.
I have dealt with the embryo scheme for international marketing and the scheme we have in British Columbia which has made some progressive moves with regard to provincial marketing. I should like to say a few words now about the national marketing picture. The ill effects of the lack of national marketing legislation have been largely overcome during the period of the war by the War Measures Act. But when this act, or the one that replaces it, ceases to operate, we shall be faced with our pre-war difficulties unless we have national marketing legislation as the essential link between international and provincial arrangements.
Realizing	this	serious	possibility	of thefuture, the	tree	fruit	growers of	BritishColumbia were the first to give consideration to this question, and a draft copy of a proposed national products marketing act was passed by the Canadian federation of agriculture and, I understand, submitted to the dominion-provincial conference this year. This act was drawn up	by	representatives of	BritishColumbia producers, men of experience in this direction, in an	effort	to present	an act
which would not be ultra vires and which would be complementary to various provincial acts in effect. I am not going to deal further with this matter at this time, but I urge hon. members to secure a copy of this proposed act and study it before the next session of parliament. This is an act which the Canadian federation of agriculture believes is a necessary link between provincial and international marketing arrangements.
I should like to make a few brief remarks with regard to disease control. The farmers of my constituency are known for being an exceptionally progressive group. They have

Supply-A griculture

always been particularly interested in the control of disease of farm crops and farm stock. At the present time the fruit growers are seriously concerned over the spread of what is generally known as little cherry disease. I think hon. members who represent ridings in which fruit growing is of considerable interest would be wise to listen to this. I'am going to deal with it for a few minutes for the information of hon. members. Not only is it, on present indications, a threat to the orchardists of West Kootenay and British Columbia, it is a threat to all the fruit growing sections on the North American continent.
It was around 1936 or 1937 that we began to notice small cherries at a certain point in West Kootenay but we did not think of them as being diseased at the time. I might say that this small cherry is a cherry which ripens with the usual colour; it is much smaller in size than the normal cherry, but it lacks sugar content. The theory generally accepted was that the heavy freeze which we had in that district in .1935 had affected the trees but that there would be a recoveiy. When there was no sign of recovery in the following years the growers began to look for other causes and suspected a nutritional deficiency, but this theory was soon discounted after investigation by various representatives of the science service. [DOT]
Further investigation revealed the fact that this disease had been present as far back as 1932, but apparently it was confined to one orchard. The disease appeared to remain static until about 1938 or 1939 and then an unfavourable market reaction, so far as the sale of cherries was concerned, caused further investigation. It was found that nearly all the orchards of the west arm of Kootenay lake were affectedi Since that time we can say that the spread of the disease has been fairly rapid1 to other sections of the Kootenay district.
I am not sure of the year, but I think it was in 1940 that further investigations were carried on. The first hint of the virus nature of the disease was obtained in 1941 when Doctor Foster got what appeared to be a genuine transfer of little cherry by placing buds from affected trees in the Kootenay district on three healthy trees on Vancouver island. Unfortunately, since the disease had not been found on Vancouver island, the science service officials could not assume the

responsibility of introducing it there. Therefore the material had to be destroyed before a full evaluation of its significance could be obtained.
However, following this lead, a conference of provincial and science service officials was he;ld and a programme of further research outlined. Science department officials realize that this is a great threat to the fruit industry and say that it will require a team of entomologists and pathologists working together, which will mean a lot of slow, painstaking and costly work. I am informed that the problem in general is not one of appropriations, but of man-power; that the problem can be solved only by adequately trained investigators. I am informed also that there is a great shortage of trained personnel, which is one of the obstacles facing the government in developing a full-scale attack on this and similar disease problems.
Before concluding, I should like to deal briefly with the question of trained personnel. Why are we at this time short of trained personnel in Canada? Everyone recognizes the fact that we are short of trained personnel in the agriculture industry in Canada. I say it is because the dominion and provincial governments of this country have a scale of salaries too low to retain the services of many of our best men in this field. I wish to pay a tribute to the many men who do stay in the service of the dominion and provincial governments, at a financial loss to themselves, because of their devotion to this country.
In my opinion, considering comparative academic qualifications and the cost of obtaining them, agriculture graduates in most positions in the fmfolic service should be just as well paid as engineers and foresters, and, I should say, considerably higher than lawyers. Most agricultural positions in research now require at least a .master's degree, with preference for a doctorate. As an illustration I should like to give the range of salaries paid to agriculture science workers in Canada and the United States. Assistant professors in the United States average $2,900 to $3,800, whereas the average Canadian salary is $2,500 to $3,200. Instructors in the United States average $2,000 to $3,800, and in Canada the average is $1,500 to $2,100.
The salary advantage in the United States universities is larger for the lower paid teach-

Supply-Agriculture
ing positions, and this no doubt accounts for the large number of younger men being attracted to the United States from Canadian universities. '
I wish to quote a few figures comparing salaries paid to agricultural graduates in provincial and dominion government employ with salaries paid by commercial firms. In a recent ' survey of agricultural graduates employed in industry, more than half the number of graduates replying to a questionnaire stated that they had been -attracted from universities or government employment by greater advantages.
I will quote a few salaries paid by one commercial concern to college graduates without post-graduate degrees:
Feed department manager		$>5,400-$6,000
Assistant manager	
3,600-	4,000Salesman-	
4,200-	4,800Assistant salesman	
3,300-	3,600If hon. members will compare these salaries with the salaries paid* by provincial and federal governments in this country to men with similar qualifications and experience, they will find there clear evidence to anyone who looks beneath the surface that -the present situation and trends, unless speedily corrected, will eventually result in the loss of many of our best agricultural research workers to commercial work.	^
It is significant to note that right within the federal government services, higher salaries are obtainable in other departments than in the Department of Agriculture. A marked instance was an advertisement by -the civil service commission early last spring. One for the Department -of Trade and Commerce called for an economist, with university graduation only, with a salary range of $5,000 to $5,600; the other called for an economist, with graduate and post-graduate training, plus definite experience, for the Department of Agriculture, at a salary range of $2,880 to $3,120.
I wish to bring to the attention of the members of this committee one particular case, that of Mr. Platt w-ho is employed at the Swift Current dominion experimental station, ha^, I am told, a wife and four children and is a graduate agriculturist. -I am informed that Mr. Platt is the man behind the discovery of saw-fly resistant wheat, and for this great service that he is rendering to Canada he receives the princely total of $1,800 a year. I am also informed that he has -been offered 47696-1601
$5,000 a year by Kansas state university, but prefers to remain in Canada. I am further informed that if the work -which this young man is taking -part in with others is successful it will mean at least an additional $25,000,000 in the pockets of the western wheat producers annually.
I want to quote from a table I have here which further illustrates my point. I shall quote only a few figures and then ask the permission of the committee to place it on Hansard. This table, has been gathered at considerable expense.


William Ross Macdonald: Do I understand that the hon. member has unanimous consent to place the table on Hansard?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I thank hon. members for that privilege. First, however, I would quote a few figures from the table which gives the starting salaries for technical personnel in the following professions in Canada: mechanical engineering; electrical engineering; mining engineering; civil engineering; metallurgical engineering; chemistry, geology, mathematics and ph-ysics.


John Bracken: Would the hon. member
quote his authority?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: This table was gathered from many sources and was compiled from information that I have received from graduate agriculturists in this country. I may say that I have been a member of what was the former Canadian Society of Technical Agriculturists since its formation, now known as the Agricultural Institute of Canada, and I know a large number of the members ip Canada.


John Bracken: Are these figures which
the hon. member has assembled himself from other people.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: With the assistance of
other people.
The table shows the average salary received per month by the graduate in these various professions, with no experience, as compared with the average salary received by the trained agriculturist graduate. The trained agriculturist receives $137 a month on starting, whereas the- average for the ten other groups is $160 a month on starting. After twenty
Supply-Agriculture

years' experience the average salary of the trained agriculturist is $210 a month, as compared with the average salary in the other
professions of $316 a month. I will now with the permission of the committee put the table on Hansard. The table is as follows:


TABLES OF STARTING SALARIES FOR TECHNICAL PERSONNEL
[Stage Direction]
No. of years out of college	Mech. Eng.	Elec. Eng.	Min. Eng.	Chern. Eng.	Civil Eng.	Metall.. Eng.	Chem.	Geol.	Maths. &Ph.	Agrie.	Total 10 groups0 	180	155	166	161	176	159	155	166	156	137	1601 	206	176	192	184	192	186	163	179	172	147	1772	223	200	207	195	209	205	179	192	184	157	1913 	236	215	218	205	219	218	192	205	194	166	2034 	249	228	227	215	229	230	204	217	203	175	2135 	260	237	236	225	237	239	215	230	210	181	2236 	269	243	244	236	245	247	224	242	217	187	2337 	278	249	252	247	251	253	233	252	223	192	2428 	286	255	259	257	257	259	241	263	227	196	2509 	293	261	267	268	261	264	249	273	232	198	25710 	298	267	274	278	265	270	256	281	237	200	26512 	308	278	288	293	273	280	268	295	246	204	27814 	316	289	303	305	280	290	280	309	253	207	28516 	323	299	318	313	287	299	290	321	258	208	300IS 	329	308	330	319	293	307	298	332	263	209	30920 	334	315	338	323	297	315	305	340	265	210	316
I am sure that hon. members who realize the importance of the agricultural industry to this country and that we must retain the trained agriculturists we are training in Canada instead of losing them to the United States and other countries, will support me in my plea that something must be done to raise the salaries of our scientific workers. The farmers in my constituency, as I am sure, the farmers in Canada as a whole, realize that to retain the services of our trained agriculturists we must establish salary standards equal to those of the other professions. We shall not be able to do the research work required in the immediate future or carry out an effective disease control programme unless we recognize the value of the trained agriculturist by rewarding him accordingly.
This year the Canadian Society of Technical Agriculturists, now the Agricultural Institute of Canada, celebrated its silver anniversary. I think it would be most fitting if this government recognized the work done by that organization and the trained agriculturists of this country by an upward revision of salaries.
When one considers that even in the one problem of the little cherry disease the fruit producers of Canada are threatened with a loss of millions of dollars, a cheese-paring approach to the question of salaries for the trained agriculturists is unthinkable, and I urge . the minister to remedy this long-standing injustice now, and by so doing, make certain that disease control programmes in this country will not be limited because of a lack of trained personnel.
1 Mr Ilerridge.]* 1
Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: Mr. Chairman, may I have a word on this? I will undertake not to burden Hansard with more than a paragraph or so. I live in the western section of the countiy myself, and I am getting perturbed lest people who live east of that very fruitful potato area of my friend the hon. member for Fort William, where potatoes that anyone can eat grow on fish-all you need to do, as
I understand it, is to fry his potatoes and you have fish and chips in the same pan-should think all the farmers in western Canada are broke, because they are not, although one might think so from listening to the cries- and they are just cries-from certain areas. There is a place called the Palliser Triangle out there, a very fancy name for it-we used to know it as the great Canadian desert-an area which perhaps should never have been settled by agriculturists at all. There they have a good deal of difficulty, but that after all is not the great part of our country. One would think iir listening to some who cry for our farmers that all the children's pants were made of flour sacks and that they lived on jack rabbits and gophers.
That is a lot'of nonsense. There have been bad times in that section of Canada; there have been bad times in any country. My native province of Saskatchewan has been hit harder, I agree, than any of the other areas. But take the province from which I come; take that railroad from Edmonton to Clares-holm, a distance of close to three hundred miles; and in an area of twenty miles on

Supply-A (jriculture
either side of it if anj^ hon. member can find twenty farmers who are broke I will buy him the best hat in Ottawa; I admit he should not pay more than 12.50 for it because there are no good hats in Ottawa; their stores are all very much the same.
Our people have had their difficulties, and many difficulties, but we are not all broke and crying to eastern Canada to help us. People down here speak of Ontario as "the old milch cow", and say that we have been living on the old milch cow. We have been doing no such thing. We have kept up our end; we have bought the things they made; we have bought them by exchanging them for what we. could raise. The best cow I ever knew only had four teats, and you chaps down here take care of those four pretty well; there is no doubt about that. But we have been carrying our end in our economy, and we will continue to do so.
I agree that a stabilized policy is what we need. The day has gone when someone could take a piece of land and become a farmer,. As farming is now it is a specialized job: the specialists have succeeded and the others have gone. The same thing happens in- any other industry one may care to mention.


Lionel Chevrier: Including law.


Arthur Leroy Smith: While we do seek equality-I think that is all that most of us out there want, and of course we want it-we do not come begging. We have taken care of our end in the development of this Canada, and all we ask from you is a chance, not a cinch.


Mr. ARGUE:: The matter I wish to deal with to-night is not under the civil estimates and -that is why I am bringing it up. It has to do with special products.
Some time during July last the special products board of the Department of Agriculture agreed to purchase some 40,000 hoTses in Canada on behalf of the governments of Holland and France. The specifications were for mares and geldings ranging from 1,300 pounds up, in good health and sound, age from three to nine years, prices to range from $80 to $160. It is estimated that at the present time there are between 200,000 and 250,000 head of surplus horses in Saskatchewan and an equal number in Alberta. The farmers, because they have more horses than -they can use on their farms, and because in large areas of Saskatchewan and Alberta there is this year a very poor crop, are looking forward to disposing of thousands of their horses.
Then into this buyers' market came the special products board, proposing to buy
40,000 head of horses. The farmers felt that they would have a chance of receiving something like $4 million in total of sorely needed money. Needless to say, the price which was offered by the special products board looked lucrative to the farmers. The farmers came to believe through press reports that the purchases would be made by the special products board direct from farm owners, and that there would be no place for speculators to buy from the farmers at fire-sale prices and to sell to the special products board, making a lot of money in that way.
According to sessional paper No. 214, tabled November 16, the special products board up to October 25 had purchased only 2,936 head of horses. Of this number 786 head were purchased at Montreal. I believe, if the facts of the purchase at Montreal were known, the horses bought there were not in the main owned by farmers but were bought from buyers who had previously purchased the horses in western Canada and who no doubt made a handsome profit by acting as middlemen.
Whether or not the government policy has met with satisfaction at all points, I do not know, but from detailed information I have, I wish to point out what occurred at the Lafieche sale on September 5, 1945. Certainly in this case the action of the buyers of the special products board1 was anything but satisfactory to farmer owners in that vicinity.
I have three specific complaints to make and have complete information to support them.
The first complaint is that the buyers of the special products board did not buy horses in conformity with the policy set out in the bills and the radio announcements advertising the sale. A news account in the Lafieche Press following the sale states:
The much publicized trip of government horse buyers to LaFleche Friday, .September 5, was made hut not to the very great satisfaction of all concerned. The poster issued under the authority of the government regarding weights of horses which would be desirable was not -adhered to in any way. According to reports, and even- after publicity was given to the fact that horses under 1,450 pounds would not be acceptable the minimum weight on the date set proved to be 1,550 pounds.
In correspondence I received from M. C. Ho-we, Lafieche, he states:
On the 4th day of September, a sale of horses was held at LaFleche at which certain government representatives were purchasing horses ott behalf of the government for shipment to the Netherlands. Prior to the sale, the same was advertised by radio, newspapers, and public notices which stated that horses would be purchased with weights ranging from 1,375 pounds and upward. But, at the sale the buyers refused to purchase horses weighing less than 1,550 pounds.
/
Supply-Agriculture

The horse sale turned out to be a regular farce and was a great inconvenience and expense to the farmers in this locality. Some of these horses were broken and brought as far as thirty miles to this sale. In rough numbers there were approximately 300 horses brought to this sale and of this 300 only fifteen horses, as far as we know, were bought directly from the farmers by the government.
The news item in the Lafleche paper says on that point:
Out of some 300 horses brought to LaFleche only seventeen were purchased direct from the farmer.
We have here, in the first instance, the government buyers not adhering to the specifications that were advertised prior to the sale. I wish to say this, that if the specifications were changed immediately before the sale, then proper advertising should have been done to make the changed specifications known by the farmers. More than that, if time did not allow any changes in specifications to be advertised, then special products board buyers should have adhered to the specifications advertised prior to the sale and should have bought direct from the farmers all horses that conformed to these specifications.
Such was not the case. Here we have a spectacle of farmers spending their time and money to bring 300 head of horses to the Lafleche sale and, according to all reports, and in them I include the statement from the Minister of Agriculture, at most not more than 18 of the 300 horses were purchased from farmers. It can be said and no doubt will be said that almost none of the 300 horses brought to the sale conformed to specification, but I have more faith and confidence in the judgment of farmers than to believe that eighteen out of 300, or six per cent, were ail that conformed to specification. All the horses brought to the sale that complied with specifications as advertised should have been bought from the farmers and, if these specifications had to be changed at the last minute, - then the farmers who in good faith brought horses to the sale should have been properly reimbursed.
The second charge I wish to make is that at least half of the total number of thirty-six horses bought at Lafleche were purchased not from farmer owners but from Mr. Walter Stern, who, from information I have, is a Montreal resident. According to a return tabled in the House of Commons under my name, at the Lafleche sale eighteen- horses were bought in various numbers from thirteen individuals who, as far as I know, are probably all residents of the Lafleche district and eighteen horses were bought from Mr. Walter Stern. The Lafleche article states that only

seventeen head were purchased direct from farmers and the remainder of two carloads was purchased from a private buyer.
I have received a letter from a Lafleche resident to the effect that private buyers were at Lafleche ; that the two government men and private buyers had twenty-one head of their own horses in one of the pens of the stockyards; that they took two of these horses out of these pens on the day of the sale and placed them, in the government pens with the government brand put on them with white paint, and that in the evening after the sale was over, after supper, some private buyers and government officers went to the stockyards and placed the government brand on the eighteen head which the private buyers still had in their yards.
Surely the practice of government buyers in buying at least eighteen or perhaps more of the thirty-six head of horses from a private buyer was against government policy. Certainly it was against government policy as it was known to the farmers. That practice was detrimental to the farmers to the extent that over 270 of 300 head of horses brought to the sale by farmers had to be taken home. The eighteen head that were purchased from a private buyer had no doubt previously been purchased from, farmers in the Lafleche area, and the private buyer by selling them to the government buyers was able to make a lot of money in that deal.
On the third irregularity which was brought to my attention, the information I have states that a farmer from Melaval, which is a town a few miles from Lafleche, presented to the government buyers a dapple grey gelding, eight years old, weight 1,710 pounds, and the government buyers refused to purchase this gelding. The farmer then sold the horse to one of the private buyers for $60; on September 6, the day following the sale, the same horse was seen in the corral among the horses purchased by government buyers, and this animal had the government N-brand marked on it. This horse was included among the thirty-six animals, all of which had the government N-brand on them.
This evidence, to say the least, reflects badly on the practices of the buyers and the special products board at Lafleche, and, in turn, on the government. This horse had been turned down by the government buyers on the ground that it did not conform to the government specifications. The farmer then sold the horse to a private buyer for $60. I am sure, from the schedule of rates I have been given, that this horse was worth between $135 and $150. Somebody made a good deal of profit on the- sale of that horse to the special

Supply-Agriculture
products board, and it was not the farmer. On the evidence presented one cannot help deducing that there was an agreement between a private buyer and the government buyers for carrying on this racket, which resulted in the fanner receiving less than half of what this horse was worth.
One or all of the buyers I have mentioned made some easy money on this shady transaction!. Surely the government buyers were instructed to buy horses only from farmer owners. If so, why did they not conform to their instructions? If they were not instructed to buy only from farmer owners,* then the special products 'board was at fault and, in turn, the Department of Agriculture. Even if that policy was not followed; if the horse during the sale, when presented by the farmer, was not up to specification, then I am sure that when that 'horse in turn was bought from the private buyer it still could not have been up to specification. The feeling left among the farmers in the Lafleche area, in the words of one of its residents, was: "The sale was a farce as far as we farmers were concerned, and all our government men were doing all day was shooing us home with our horses, so that they were able to finish up their own particular racket."
I would ask the minister to have a full investigation of the whole of the dealings of the special products board; in particular, to have all the evidence surrounding the Lafleche sale gone over carefully, and that there be a complete statement, first, as to why the specifications as advertised prior to the sale were not adhered to, and secondly, as to why at least eighteen of the thirty-six horses purchased at the Lafleche sale were purchased from Mr. Walter Stem, a Montreal buyer, while at the same time farmers were turned home with over 270 head; why Mr. Fred J. Kickerty of Meiaval had his horse turned down by government buyers and why that animal was subsequently purchased by government buyers from Mr. Walter Stern. To say the least, the sale at Lafleche caused a real stink among the farmers there, and' not until they are given an adequate explanation will that stink be cleared away.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not expect to find it necessary to deal with this particular matter at this time, but I have no hesitation in doing so. The story with regard to the purchase of horses for the Netherlands and French governments is one which has been under consideration since early last winter. The French government approached the government of Oanada in the early part of last winter and' asked us to assist them in securing horses in Canada. When the officials of the department approached me with regard to the matter I suggested that we place the officials of the Department of Agriculture at the disposal of the French government and that they should place their own buyers in Canada to purchase these horses. The French government did not desire to have them purchased in that way; they said they preferred that we should purchase the horses. At that time I indicated to them that in all probability a difficulty would arise through the fact that they would probably want to inspect the horses at Montreal or somewhere else, and we made the condition that the horses were to be inspected by our inspectors after they were purchased by government buyers. We undertook, of course, to see that the horses delivered at Montreal were horses that met the specifications which were set down by the governments of the Netherlands and France.
In order to shorten up the story, I should like to say that in spite of the fact the negotiations started last winter, and because of changes in government, I presume, and the difficulties connected with setting up government in a country which has been overrun by armies, the French have not found it possible, even down to the present time, to sign the contract. We have not yet the contracts signed with France for the purchase of 35,000 horses which they desire to have from Canada eventually. However, the government of the Netherlands did sign their contracts for 5,000 horses some time ago. The total- number of these horses was not to be delivered this year; they are to ibe delivered by October 1, 1946, not October 1945. When completed, the contracts call for delivery of these horses by October 1, 1946, so that a very short time has expired even in so far as the contract which has been signed is concerned. There have been purchased for the Netherlands about 1,800 of the 5,000 horses. There have been purchased for the French government somewhere between 600 and 700 horses, or at least that number has been shipped. Eighteen hundred horses have been shipped to the Netherlands and 600 and some odd to France. The reason for the small number in the French contract up to the moment is that the contract has not been signed, and the further fact that the Netherlands and French governments undertook to find the ships. All the ships which have been found up to date have been loaded. The 1,800 horses were loaded for the Netherlands and the 600 and some odd for the French government. The position at present is that we are negotiating with some others
Sup-ply-Agriculture

to try to obtain more ships in order to make it possible to ship more of these horses before spring or during next summer than we otherwise shall be able to ship.
The facts are that the horses required by the Netherlands-I am speaking now from memory and I may be a few pounds out, but I think I am correct-must weigh at least 1,450 pounds, not at Lafleche but at Montreal. Anyone who has ever shipped a horse from Lafleche to Montreal knows that any shipper must take a margin of at least seventy-five pounds, and probably he would be much safer to take a hundred pounds. Therefore, if the buyers were buying horses at 1,550 pounds in Lafleche, when they reach Montreal those horses would be in accordance with the specifications as set down. France was prepared to accept a limited number of horses at 1,350 pounds, a lighter weight, at Montreal. There was no specification made either by the French government or by the Canadian government that these horses were to be bought in any particular way or by any particular person. There is nothing anywhere in the arrangement which prevents the government from buying horses from any private dealer or from the farmer direct or in any other place they desire to buy them. The only specification is that we shall deliver the horses up to standard at the boat, and, as surmised, the different governments have hired inspectors and placed them at the boat to see that the horses are up to standard. Some of the horses which have been brought down from western Canada have been turned down. We have not objected to their being turned down in spite of the original understanding which we had with the governments, because we would have turned them down even if they had not done so. As a matter of fact, most of them were turned down by Mr. McCallam of our own. department rather than by any other inspector, because they did not reach specifications.


Percy Ellis Wright: Has the minister the numbers turned down?


James Garfield Gardiner: I can get them; I have not them before me at the moment.


Mr. SENN:: Did they have to be sound in wind and limb? '


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, and all the usual things that you get in buying a horse from a farmer-every horse dealer and every farmer knows pretty well what these things mean. They had to have more than that; they had to be of a certain type. They did not want the kind of horse which-1 like, which is the Clyde with long hair. They wanted the clean-legged horse. They preferred those to anything else. That was the situation. I am

not going to accuse anyone of having any designs upon us, but I must say I was a little concerned about some things which did happen in western Canada.
I was in the west during the summer trying to get a little vacation, while at the same time looking after my own farm, when I picked up a Regina paper and saw in big headlines on the front page that the Saskatchewan government was proceeding to organize the province of Saskatchewan to purchase horses. You had to read the article very carefully to find that the dominion government had anything whatsoever to do with it. I went into Regina myself and interviewed some of the members of the government and the men who were representing my own department who were there discussing the matter. What was reported to me was that the special products board had sent a man from Ottawa to report to the three governments of western Canada, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, confidentially the fact that there were negotiations under way between the two goverments of which I have spoken and this government to purchase some 35,000 or 40,000 horses, and that in view of the fact that there was a draught district in western Canada extending through the southern part of Saskatchewan and the eastern part of Alberta, it would be the desire of the government to purchase as many of those horses this fall from that section of the country as possible in order to make it unnecessary for farmers to carry them through the winter on the limited feed which was there. Well, the government of Manitoba did not say anything about it. They treated the information as it was intended to be treated. The government of Alberta did likewise; but the government of Saskatchewan put it on the front page of the paper within ten hours after the information was given to them.


An hon. MEMBER:: What was secret about it?


James Garfield Gardiner: An hon. member over there asks, what was secret about it? I have always found it good practice in government, as in business, when you are given advance information and asked to cooperate in doing any particular job, during the period the contracts have not been completed, to act in accordance with the suggestions which are made.
I wish to say that I do not lay any blame upon the ministers of the government of Saskatchewan; because I had occasion to check the matter still further. I was in the district my hon. friend is speaking of on the day of the Assiniboia fair, in his own town. It was the day after I had checked in Regina and

Supply-Agriculture
asked the officials to do nothing more about the organization of the shipment of horses until they were given further instructions. I was sitting in a booth in the little restaurant just across from the railway station in Assini-boia. One of the officials of the government was sitting in the next booth, and I heard him outline to a group of men the whole plan which no one, with the exception of a very few people, was supposed to know anything about. This was on Thursday. I took the trouble to step into the booth and tell him as well as the other men that the plan had been discontinued, and that further inform mation in regard to the matter would be provided in due course. In spite of that, when I reached Regina on Saturday, after making a trip through the eptire drought area, I found another article on the front page of the newspaper setting out the points at which the horses were to be assembled, and finally it was indicated that the federal government would send men there for the purpose, I think the word was, of checking the horses.
That .item, however, was put out by the provincial government and it was then I checked the matter over with the minister, his deputy and some others. I was told that this preliminary work had been done not by us but by the government at Regina, in asking these men to assemble their horses at certain places; and I may say that suggestion was put forward in the discussions which took place between our men and the government officials. Those discussions had gone forward to the point where I suggested that probably we would have to go through with it on that basis in a certain part of the area, but that in my opinion this was not a suitable plan unddr which to buy horses. I added that immediately I returned to Ottawa I would discuss the matter fully with our own men. I discussed it with some of them and indicated that we would only carry out the plan in the limited area in connection with which it had been discussed, and that then we would set up some other plan unless this first suggestion was found to work better than I thought would be the case.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I must say it did work a little better than I thought it would. We had purchases made at the long list of points set out in the return brought down a few days ago in reply to questions asked by the hon. member for Wood Mountain. After going over that statement, I think he will agree that there was only one point at which purchases were made from a private dealer; in that case I believe eighteen horses were purchased at Lafleche from Mr. Walter Stern. I do not know whether or not Mr. Stern is
a Montreal man; as a matter of fact I had never heard of him until I heard of this horse deal, but my information was that he was a Moose Jaw man who bought horses for dealers in Montreal. I may be wrong in that; it is only information which was given me, but I do not think it makes much difference in any event. After all, men are free, to do business anywhere in Canada, whether they live in Montreal, Toronto or anywhere else.
The real fact of the matter is that the Saskatchewan government printed the first statements that were to be put out. In checking those statements after the first printing, I corrected them in some slight particulars, and then the statements were printed in greater numbers by ourselves and distributed in the areas which already had been more or less canvassed. I submit to this committee, that the farmers must be presumed to have read the particulars, because otherwise they would not have done what my hon. friend says they did. They read the posters and, in accordance with the instructions, brought in horses of certain types and weights.


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: If the minister would1 permit a question, I presume that also included horses under 1,300 pounds which were to be slaughtered for purposes of food, for shipment to Belgium?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, not the horses we were purchasing; we were not purchasing any for slaughter. Those horses are purchased for slaughter at Swift Current, but we are not purchasing any of those; we are simply purchasing the horses which are sent overseas for work purposes. The suggestion is that some farmers, after having obtained all that information, sold for $60 horses which, according to the information, they might have sold for $80 or $90. Well, I suggest that if, after having read those posters, a man sold a horse to anybody for $60-


An hon. MEMBER:: The government buyer turned them down.


James Garfield Gardiner: Then that would indicate that the horse was worth only $60. If a farmer brought in a horse which he was prepared to sell to anybody for $60 I can only assume that the horse was not up to the standards we set, and for which we definitely stated the farmer would get $80 or $90 and up to $150.
The position is that some eighteen horses were bought from Mr. Stern, and from what has just been said I assume that another eighteen were bought from farmers in the surrounding district, making up two carloads out of something over three hundred head.
Supply-Agriculture

A statement iwas made by the hon. member which I am not sure is correct, but I have heard similar rumours previously; that is, that the men took the trouble to break these horses and bring them in. I submit it never was intended that any newly broken horse should be sold under that contract, no matter what its weight. These horses are being sent to the Netherlands to be used in the harness they have left in that country.
Mr. TOWNLEY-SMITH: That horse would not shrink 100 pounds.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the hon. member's opinion, and I may differ. It would1 depend upon the horse.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Would1 the minister say that the horses sent to the Netherlands were broken horses?	-


James Garfield Gardiner: They were. They have been inspected over on the other side, and the Netherlands government has reported to me that they have given every satisfaction. That is so because they are carefully selected, quiet, broken horses that already have done work on farms: They want that kind of horse because of the conditions existing in that country. Men have written to me saying that the German armies took away their harness and general equipment, and to-day many of these horses are working in harness made up of wire, rope and anything they can get. A horse that age, just taken off the range and broken the day before he was brought in to be sold to the dealer, would not be suitable even if he were the best horse that ever walked so far as conformation and everything else were concerned.
As a matter of fact, at the present time we are trying to persuade the governments of the Netherlands and France to accept horses from nine years up to twelve years of age. They wanted them from nine years down to four years of age. We felt that the older horses would suit their needs even better than horses from four up to seven years of age if they wanted to put them to work immediately they arrived over there and after they had been properly handled and kept here.


Mr. BURTON:: That still does not explain the dapple gray.
Progress reported.
It being five minutes after eleven o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Tuesday, November 27, 1945.
/ The house met at three o'clock.


GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
[Stage Direction]
. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF ADDRESS IN REPLY
James Horace King: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received a message from His Excellency the Governor General, signed by his own hand, reading as follows:
I have received with great pleasure the address you have voted in reply to my speech at the opening of parliament, and thank you for it sincerely.
Athlone.
Government House Ottawa.


REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
[Stage Direction]
Second report of the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills-Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruee).

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. E. HARRIS (Grey-Bruce) presented the first report of the special committee on a distinctive national flag, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to report that after conferences I have had' with the representatives of the Ford Motor Company of Canada and the men's organization, along with Hon. Charles Daley, Minister of Labour for Ontario, a formula has 'been developed which we feel will 'be acceptable to both sides.	.
I think it is inadvisable for me to give any details until the parties have had an opportunity to discuss the matter with those concerned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That on and after Wednesday, November 28, 1945, until the end of the session, the house shall meet at eleven o'clock in the morning of each sitting day and that in addition to the usual intermission six o'clock p.m. there shall also be an intermission every day from one to three o'clock.

Morning Sittings
He said: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members are aware, the government has been making an effort so to arrange the business of the house as to ensure our being able to prorogue at least a week before 'Christmas, and the thought of beginning morning sittings of the house is to ensure that end, and an even earlier prorogation if at all possible. I had this motion placed on the order paper on Monday so that hon. members might have time to see its implications. If hon. members are prepared to accept the motion, the government will be quite ready to go ahead on that basis.
I should like it understood, however, that the government itself is not pressing the motion to begin morning sessions to-morrow, unless it is going to meet with the general approval of the house. Our intention would be, if we began morning sittings, to devote the mornings to supply so as not further to delay discussion on supply. Also I should make this clear. At present we are holding, as hon. members know, a meeting of the coordinating committee of the dominion-provincial conference, at which some members of the government-three or four-are expected to be present. As meetings of the coordinating committee take place at ten o'clock in the morning, some of the members of the government will not be in the house on the orders of the day, until after the committee has concluded its discussions, if we begin morning sittings. I mention these matters now that hon. merhbers may express their views. I should be veiy happy to have the motion adopted as it is, or, if it is the desire of the house to delay a little longer, before beginning morning sittings, to alter the date in accordance with what may be suggested by hon. gentlemen opposite.


John Bracken: Speaking for the party I have the honour to lead, I am glad to say that we are in perfect agreement with the motion moved by the Prime Minister.


Mr. M. J. COLD WELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: This is in line with the general discussion which took place the other day. I think it is essential that the estimates be given full consideration, and I believe this is the method of achieving that end. We therefore support the motion.


John Horne Blackmore: The Social Credit group will be perfectly prepared to cooperate with the government in this matter.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: That on Saturday, December 1, 1945, and every Saturday thereafter until the end of the present session, the house shall meet at eleven o'clock a.m. and the order of business and procedure shall be the same as on Friday.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.	'

[Stage Direction]
EXPORTS TO SOUTH AFRICA-CANADIAN 1	REQUIREMENTS
On the orders of the day :
James Angus MacKinnon: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day were called yesterday the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Kuhil), asked a question concerning the exportation of furniture. His question was:
I have been told that a very large proportion of the furniture which is manufactured in Canada is being exported to the Union of South Africa. In view of the tremendous unsatisfied demand for furniture in Canada on the part of war veterans and civilians alike, I should like to know what comments the minister is prepared to make on this situation.
I wish to advise the hon. member that up to the end of October there had been no exportation of furniture, either metal or wood, to the Union of South Africa since 1942.



AERONAUTICS ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction) moved the third reading of bill No. 19, to amend the Aeronautics Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. F. G. BRIDGES (Minister of Fisheries) moved the third reading of bill No. 91, to amend the Fish Inspection Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. GLEN (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved the second reading of bill No. 16, to amend the Alberta Natural Resources Act.
He said: The purpose of this bill is to settle differences which have arisen between the dominion and the province of Alberta
Alberta Natural Resources
[Stage Direction]
on the ownership and control of three developed power sites on the Bow river lying within or adjacent to Stony Indian reserve. All three sites were developed and are now operating under authorizations issued by the dominion government. They were under exclusive dominion jurisdiction prior to the transfer of natural resources in 1930 to the province of Alberta. Afte-r the transfer had taken place, the dominion, relying on a series of opinions furnished by the Department of Justice, claimed that. the major interest and the duty of administration remained with Canada as trustee for the Indians, and only those parts of the developments lying outside the Indian reserve had passed to provincial control.
The province claimed that while the Indians were entitled to receive their appropriate share of revenues arising from the developments of the power sites, the power sites themselves had passed to the province as part of the interest of the crown in the waters and water powers within the province under the North-West Irrigation Act of 1898 and the Dominion Water Power Act.
The agreement is a compromise of the claims of the dominion and of the province, having in view the rights of the Calgary Power Company who are licensees under the agreement. There are three sites affected by the agreement. One is called Horseshoe Falls, which lies wholly within the Stony Indian reserve, as well as the land flooded by the construction of the dam. Development began by the Calgary Power and Transmission Company in 1909. It was assigned to the Calgary Power Company Limited in 1910 and completed in 1913. The present installation is 19,500 horse-power.
The second site is called Kananaskis Falls, near the western boundary of the reserve below the junction of the Bow and Kananaskis rivers. The dam and other works lie almost wholfy within the reserve, but the greater part of the flooded lands lies outside the reserve along the banks of the two rivers.
Developed by Calgary Power Company Limited in 1913. The developed head is 72 feet, of which 45 feet is inside the reserve and 27 feet outside. The present installation is 11,600 horse-power.
The other site affected is called the Ghost site, near the eastern boundary of the reserve below the junction of the Bow and Ghost rivers. The greater part of the dam and powerhouse lies outside the reserve. Rather more than half of the flooded land above the dam is in the reserve. The rest is land under provincial control except for one parcel of public land, lot 8 of the Morleyville settlement

referred to below. The site was developed by the Calgary Power Company Limited in 1929, and the present installation is 37,400 horsepower.
Under the terms of the agreement, which have been agreed to by the province and the dominion, it is* provided that the land and water-power at the two sites in which the Indian interest predominates, namely, the Horseshoe and the Kananaskis, are to remain in the dominion, while the Ghost site, where the provincial interest is substantial, shall be deemed to have passed to the province at the time of the transfer of the natural resources.
The Minister of Mines and Resources, called in the agreement the dominion minister, will issue all three licences which are to replace the existing authorizations, as those were originally intended to cover only the construction period, and the dominion will continue to administer the Horseshoe and Kananaskis developments, while the province will be responsible for the administration of the Ghost development as soon as the final licence is issued.
In all three the rental payable by the power company will be substantially increased.
As to the Horseshoe site, the interest of the crown in the waters and water-power of this site is to continue to be vested in the crown in the right of Canada. The dominion minister is to issue the licence provided for in the present water-power agreement, and in any renewals of the licence, but there is to be no change in the rental or other conditions of the renewed licence except by agreement between the dominion and the provincial ministers.
There is provision for fixation by arbitration in case these ministers fail to agree on a readjusted rental for a renewal period. There is also provision for a voluntary transfer of the licence to the province or an authority of the province. All payments now being made by the power company and all payments under the new licence are to be payable to Canada for the benefit of the Indians of Stony Band.
As to the Kananaskis site, the interest of the crown in all waters and water powers at this site, including those appurtenant to the present development which are outside the reserve, shall continue, as and from October 1, .1930, to be vested in the crown in the right of Canada. The dominion .minister is to issue the licence provided for in the existing water-power agreement, except with respect to land outside the reserve. Provision for renewals is exactly the same as in the case of' Horseshoe, and there is the same provision for a voluntary transfer of the licence to the crown or to a provincial authority.

Alberta Natural Resources
The province will issue a lease to the power company for the flooded lands outside the reserve, and in the event of Canada taking over the power development when the licence expires or is terminated, the province will renew the lease to Canada or its nominee on terms to be mutually agreed upon or settled' by a judge of the supreme court of Alberta. The rentals payable by the present licensee, the Calgary Power Company, are to toe apportioned as follows: (a) All sums payable for the Indian interest in land and water power at this site under the existing arrangement with the Indians of $1,500 per annum will continue to be payable to Canada for the benefit, of the Indians, (fo) From the date of the transfer of the natural resources, which was on October 1, 1930, all sums payable under the existing water power agreement, which was a sum of $100 per annum, are to be divided between Canada and the province in proportion to the developed head within and without the reserve, namely 45/72 to Canada and 27/72 to the province, (c) The rental under the new water power licence will be divided in the same proportions, provided that Canada's share shall never be less than $1,500 per annum, the amount now paid to the Indians. If Canadla takes over the development under the terms of the licence, the province is to continue to receive a rental equal to the amount payable to the province in the year preceding the taking over by Canada, (d) Rental under the provincial lease for land otitside the reserve will be payable to the province. For the Ghost site the terms are as follows : the dominion minister is to issue the final licence provided for in the existing interim licence. The undertaking as described in the licence is to include besides the Ghost power development all the company's interconnected transmission and distribution systems in the province, and in proceedings for the regulation of rates and services, such undertaking is also to include the Horseshoe and the Ivananaskis developments and all other power and storage developments in the province constituting at the time one interconnected power system of the licensee. For purposes of the regulations the dominion minister is to fix the actual cost of the Horseshoe, Kananaskis and Ghost power developments.
The licence is to have the same effect as if issued prior to October 1, 1930, and the land and water power rights covered by the licence shall be deemed to have passed to the province on that date. Consequently, as soon as the licence is issued, the province takes possession of the power site-I am speaking now of the
Ghost site-and shall be responsible for its administration, in accordance with the terms of the licence.
The financial arrangements are as follows:
(a)	The water porver rental payable under the interim and final licences from October 1, 1930 onwards is to be paid in equal shares to Canada and the province, (b) The land rental under the interim and final licences since October 1, 1930, is to be paid to the province, (c) When the licence expires or is terminated, the province will pay to Canada a rental equal to the average annual rental payable to Canada in the previous five years so long as the generating plant continues in operation. If the plant is closed down, the province will pay to Canada, so long as the dam contributes to storage or river control, the sum of $3,500, which is the amount now being paid by the Calgary Power company; and all payments to Canada are for the benefit of the Indians.
The three licences referred to in the agreement do not form a part of it but are to be prepared iji advance and are to be in the form and terms of drafts initialled for identification by the dominion and provincial ministers. The draft licences have been prepared and have been approved by the province. The agreement will make the licences valid and effective apcording to their terms, but is not to be deemed to be a waiver of any other rights, interests or obligations of Canada or of the province.	„
The benefits to the Indians under this agreement are as follows: The issue of the water power licences is long overdue. As a matter of fact these matters have been under consideration for the past eight years. The department was prevented from taking effective action by the opposition of the province, and also toy the reluctance of the Calgary Power Company to accept the proposals that were put forward from time to time. The company has been .paying the stipulated rental for Horseshoe and Kananaskis, but has paid only the minimum rental due to the Indians for the Ghost development. The present draft licences, now accepted by the dominion, by the province and also by the Calgary Power Company, remedy this condition and provide a greatly increased revenue for the Indians, as shown in the following statement of the annual payments:
The Horseshoe development; present rental, the share of Canada for the Indians is $1,501; the provincial share is nil.
A|r. MacNICOL: Per annum?
Mr. GLEN:: Yes. The new rental is S6,375, Canada's share for the Indians, retroactive to October 14, 1935. The provincial share of the rentals is nil.
Alberta Natural Resources

The Kananaskis rentals, present rental, Canada's share is SI,562; the provincial share is S38. But the new rental provides for $2,750, Canada's share for the Indians, retroactive to October 14, 1936, and the provincial share will be $1,650, also retroactive to that date.
The Ghost rental: The present rental is $3,500, Canada's Share for the Indians, and the provincial share is $4,000. The rental under the final licence will be approximately $8,000, Canada's share for the Indians, and $8,500 for the provincial share.
Owing to the retroactive nature of the arrangements large sums will be payable for the benefit of the Indians as soon as the licences become effective. The amounts up to January 1, 1945 are approximately as follows: For the Horseshoe, $49,768; Kananaskis, $16,119 ; the Ghost, $41,099, a total of $106,986, which will be paid to Canada for the Indians. And thereafter for a considerable number of years there will be an annual revenue for the Indians of approximately $17,125 in place of the present income of $6,600. This is part I of the bill.
There is also schedule II dealing with certain sites that were set aside for migratory wild fowl. For many years the policy of the dominion government has been directed toward the protection of migratory wild fowl as a valuable natural resource. This policy has been furthered by the setting aside of suitable areas as bird sanctuaries and breeding grounds and" the establishment of public shooting grounds where the general public may have access to a reasonable and fair share of game birds. The practice of setting aside certain areas for bird sanctuaries in accordance with the Migratory Birds Convention Act was adapted in Alberta after careful investigation. In consultation and cooperation with the chief game officer of the province, seven separate areas suitable for bird sanctuary purposes were set aside on crown lands and water areas in the province of Alberta under the provisions of order in council P.C. 1334, dated June 15, 1920, and order in council P.C. 346, dated' March 9, 1925. Of these the Buffalo lake bird sanctuary was cancelled by order in council P.C. 2039, dated December 7, 1926, this action being necessary owing to changed local conditions. The six remaining sanctuaries comprised an area of 20S-73 square miles.
In 1925 it was recognized that areas offering shooting facilities to the general public were limited, and in the interests of sportsmanship and recreation it was decided that the time was opportune for taking steps to reserve suitable areas which would be freely available to the public. Officers of the crown

made careful selections from available dominion lands, at the request and with the cooperation of the provincial authorities concerned. As a result, thirty-two separate areas, totalling in all an area of 363-4 square miles, were, under the provisions of section 76(e) of the Dominion Lands Act, 1908, reserved permanently as public shooting grounds ini the province of Alberta by order in council P.C. 356 dated the 9th day of March, 1925.
Under the Alberta Natural Resources Transfer Act, 1930, these bird sanctuaries and public shooting grounds were transferred to the province along with other natural resources. Section 19 of the Alberta Natural Resources Agreement provided that the province would further continue and preserve as such the bird sanctuaries and public shooting grounds which had already been established and would set aside such additional bird sanctuaries and1 public shooting grounds as might thereafter foe established by agreement between the- dominion and Alberta governments.
Under the terms of the agreement, no provision was made whereby any bird sanctuaries or public shooting grounds established in Alberta could be subsequently cancelled. In the course of time it was observed that changes in precipitation and1 other natural conditions as well as changes in the population of surrounding areas in Alberta had reduced or nullified the value of some bird sanctuaries and public shooting grounds for the purposes for which they had been established. After inspections conducted jointly by our chief federal migratory bird officer for the prairie provinces and a representative of the Alberta provincial game department, it was revealed that in Alberta three of the bird sanctuaries and fourteen of the public shooting grounds had become unsuitable as such owing to the unavoidable changing of conditions. The proposed agreement provides that those reservations no longer suitable for the purpose for which they were established may be cancelled by agreement between the two responsible ministers concerned, with the approval of the governor in council and the lieutenant governor in council. It is also mutually agreed between provincial and federal authorities that in case of cancellation of any bird sanctuary, an area of value for the conservation of bird life will be set aside to replace it.
I have a schedule showing the bird sanctuaries and public shooting grounds which were transferred to the province of Alberta, including a list of those sanctuaries and shooting grounds which have become unsuitable as such. With the consent of the house I might, put this list on Hansard.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.

Alberta Natural Resources


James Allison Glen: The list is as follows:
Bird Sanctuaries and Public Shooting Grounds Transferred to the Province of Alberta
Bird Sanctuaries
Sq. Miles
Many Islands Lake	 21-05
Birch Lake	 14-97
Pakowki Lake	 44-50
Miquelon Lake	 11-04
Ministik Lake	 24-90
Lac La Biche	 92-27
Public Shooting Grounds
Sq. Miles
Grassy Island Lake	 7-0
Sounding Lake	12-4
Gooseberry Lake	 2-2
Houcher Lake	 1-1
Baxter Lake	 4-1
Kirkpatrick Lake	 8-2
Dowling Lake	[DOT]	 12-2
Wavy Lake	 6-0
Whitford Lake	 7-5
Little Fish Lake	 5-4
Farrell Lake	 4-8
Shooting Lake	 3-5
Beaverhills Lake	 76-6
Wanisan Lake	 -7
Joseph and Oliver lakes	 8-3
Red Deer Lake	 11-9
Bittern Lake	 17-5
Hastings Lake	 3-9
Cooking Lake	 18-8
Samson Lake	 3-3
Big Hay Lake	 3-9
Goosequill Lake	 1-6	V
Manawan Lake	 4-9
Wizard Lake	 1-7
Gull Lake	 39-5
Sylvan Lake	 17-1
Lloyd Lake	 -8
Lac La Nonne	 4-5
Lake St. Ann	 22-7
Majeau ^/ake	 8-7
Wabamun Lake	 33-2
Isle Lake	 9-4
Bird Sanctuaries and Public Shooting Grounds Unsuitable as such
Bird Sanctuaries
Birch Lake Miquelon Lake Pakowki Lake
Public Shooting Grounds
Bittern Lake Lloyd Lake Grassy Island Lake Kirkpatrick Lake Wavy Lake Whitford Lake Farrell Lake
Dowling Lake Sounding Lake Big Hay Lake Gull Lake Wizard Lake Beaver Hills Lake Sylvan Lake
These,I think, are the particulars concerning this agreement which, as I have said, has been the subject of discussion for years with the province and with the Calgary Power Company in an endeavour to settle the dispute between them. After these negotiations they arrived at conclusions which are embodied in the agreement. The province of Alberta is satisfied with the terms of the agreement. If the bill passes this house a similar bill, with the agreement attached, will be introduced at
the next session of the provincial legislature in order that the agreement may be confirmed. As I have said', this is the end of a long course of negotiation between the dominion and the province. I believe the terms are very favourable, and the Calgary Power Company is also satisfied.
iMr. MacNICOL: Before the minister sits down will he tell us what horse-power it is possible to obtain from each pf the three power plants?


James Allison Glen: At the present time?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes.


James Allison Glen: At the Horseshoe falls, 19,500 horse-power; at the Kananaskis, 11,600 horsepower, and at the Ghost site, 37,400 horsepower.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister said the government was Satisfied and the province of Alberta was satisfied with the agreement. Could he tell us if the Indians are satisfied with it? I ask that question because, whilte they seem to receive quite a lot of money, it is perhaps not more than they deserve. I do not believe the minister told us how many square miles are being taken away from the Indians.


James Allison Glen: Of course we are on second reading just now. Perhaps in committee we might discuss the matter further.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is satisfactory.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: Can the minister tell us whether or not the Indians were consulted, and how many Indians there are on this Stony reserve who will be affected by the agreement? We should like to know also what the engineers have stated as the possible development of these falls. We are interested in finding out whether or not the rights of the Indians have been encroached upon, and whether the deals which have been made in their behalf have been equitable.


James Allison Glen: May I suggest that the bill be given second reading, and when we are In committee these questions may be asked and answered? We are on second reading just now.


George Hugh Castleden: I quite agree; but we are discussing the principle, and in agreements of this kind the house should be given some assurance that the rights and privileges of the Indians have been protected. However, I am quite wiling to wait until we go into committee to have these questions answered.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I should like to direct the attention of the minister to two or three features in connection with
Alberta Natural Resources

this bill, which is to validate an agreement between the government of Canada and the government of Alberta in regard to these natural resources. When the resources of Alberta were returned to that province in 1930 we hoped that since Alberta was so rich in coal and falling water through power and hydro-electric energy, the government would lay down some national policy for this country in regard to water power. As you know, we in central Canada are largely dependent upon American coal; yet during all the years between the two wars nothing was done to relieve that condition, although in 1923 I had a motion that was discussed for two days for a national fuel policy so that all coal should be developed under our flag.
In this case the Calgary Power Company developed the resources on the banks and bed of the Bow river. Back in 1930 we hoped that some definite national hydro policy would be laid down concerning water power, not only in connection with this particular province but for the whole country. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the water power available in Canada totals some 40,000,000 horse-power, of which only about 7,000,000 or 8,000,000 horse-power have been developed, and part of that development is only seasonal, during certain months of the year. In view of the difficulty we have had getting the splendid Alberta coal in central Canada I had hoped that in the long period since 1930, when the Alberta Natural Resources Act was passed, the government might have kid down a long range national hydro-electric policy in connection with the water powers of Canada.
As far as this particular agreement is concerned, the three sites named in section 1 were developed by the Calgary Power Company. Now under these agreements in the future two of them are to be developed and operated by the dominion, and the other at Ghost site is to be operated by the province. Has Alberta no provincial policy of its own, regarding the water power of that province? Is there any provincial control in these schedules over rates? Two sites are to be operated by the federal power and the other |site by provincial power. Is there any federal control over those two sites, and over the company, in connection with the rates they may be allowed to charge? Then, in the second schedule is there any control by the province in respect of the rates, or has this province laid down a hydro-electric provincial law in that respect?
British Columbia was the last to enter this hydro-electric power-at-cost project, and now there is a power-at-cost policy of hydroelectric sites for the province of Alberta. We

were in hopes that the government would lay down a national hydro policy in 1930, when the natural resources of Alberta were considered. I had hoped that in the fifteen years since that time the government of Canada would have written into these agreements some control over rates and some policy as to national hydro. I fifid, however, that there is no such provision.
The minister now in charge of the department is a most capable one, and I do urge that 'he consider a national power policy for the country so that we may preserve waterpower facilities for the common good, and so that we may protect ourselves from the cold winters we have had in the last few years.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Mr. Speaker, I shall detain the house only long enough to find out if my understanding .of what is taking place is the correct one. I have read the bill and the agreements, and I understand they merely put in statutory form the arrangement arrived at between the two governments and the Calgary Power Company. Is that correct?


James Allison Glen: Correct.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I take it that all the moneys which come to the dominion are for the Stony Indians on the reserve. Is that correct? May I express the hope, since this matter is in the minister's department, that these moneys or such other moneys as the dominion government may have will at long last do justice to that band of Indians, wdio have worked very hard to get along on nothing more than a stohe-heap. That is where they live to-day. I hope the government will consider Hhe purchase of some arable land at the east end of that reserve for the benefit of these splendid men and women. When I describe them in that way I am not speaking too strongly. The house should know that not a Stony Indian has been convicted of any breach of criminal law in more than fifteen years. I wonder what other part of the country can make that claim.
It is my sincere hope that we shall look at this thing broadly. They are raising all the cattle there they can possibly raise; they could not feed another animal, because there is only one high meadow of about 400 acres. Half the band is now off the reserve simply because they cannot make a living on it.
This is not a matter of politics, because all hon. members have been interested in it. But we have been permitting a terrible injustice so far as that band of splendid people is concerned; and I feel sure that the minister will see that justice is done for the benefit of these worthy citizens.

Alberta Natural Resources


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: How many square miles does this take away or flood out from the Indians? Are the Indians satisfied] with the agreement?


James Allison Glen: The hon. member has asked how many acres were taken, from the Indians or were flooded out. The Horseshoe site is one of 1,000 acres, for which $10,000 was paid.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Was that paid to the
Indians?


James Allison Glen: Many years ago. Then the Kananaakis is of course 95 acres, for which $10,000 was paid, and the Ghost is 1,232 acres, for which $20,337 was paid. These lands were surrendered years ago, and1 that money was paid to them.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Are the Indians satisfied under the new agreement, and were they consulted?


James Allison Glen: The Indians were satisfied. They surrendered the lands, and received a rental of $1,500 at that time. That was the agreement. As will be seen, we are at this time increasing the rentals to a point considerably over what was formerly received.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Have they been consulted?


James Allison Glen: I do know that they were consulted then, because they had surrendered the lands and had received payment. There would be no need for further consultation with them.


George Hugh Castleden: This afternoon the minister outlined the development of waterpower on the Indian reserve. Has he any engineers' figures to show the extent to which the power development can be increased?


James Allison Glen: These sites are practically fully developed now.


George Hugh Castleden: I understand that this Indian reserve has very little arable land and is not possible of economic development. The moneys paid would have been paid in trust to the Indian Affairs branch?


James Allison Glen: Yes.


George Hugh Castleden: And administered by the Indian Affairs branch, and the agency?


James Allison Glen: Yes.


George Hugh Castleden: How many Indians are affected? How will the money the Indians are to get be used? Will it be held in trust,
or is it the intention to carry on some development to improve the economic condition of the Indians at that point?


James Allison Glen: There are about 700 Indians.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does that include the families?


James Allison Glen: That is the total population. The hon. member for Calgary West was referring to the Stony Indians. At this very moment an officer is out there looking into this whole matter affecting those Indians. He will endeavour to carry out the wishes the hon. member has expressed, with a view to purchasing some other lands so that these families may have proper attention and proper care from the Indian branch. This has been very much in their minds. We are hoping we shall obtain land which will be sufficient for the maintenance of these families.
In answer to the hon. member for Yorkton, I may say that the money now being received by the dominion government will be used for the benefit of the Stony Indians. That is part of the agreement. All that will be done with the money will be done for their entire benefit, maintenance and care.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is a pleasure for me to speak briefly on this matter, Mr. Chairman. I supported a bill when it was before this house in a previous parliament to turn over to the Calgary Power Company the waters of the upper portion of the Ghost river, which were diverted and turned into lake Minnewanka in Banff park to produce more power for making munitions; and I am going to support this one.
The Calgary Power Company deserve a lot of credit for their oversight in making use of the maximum amount of water from the resources of the Bow river to provide power for Alberta. What is needed more than anything else in some parts of Alberta, and particularly, in Saskatchewan, is cheap water power. I do not know just what the Calgary Power Company are charging for their horsepower, but I have no doubt that their rates have been checked and are reasonable. The fact that they are able to produce this much power at a reasonable rate will be a great inducement to industry to settle in that part of Alberta where industry is so sorely needed.
I believe that there is one other source of water power that the Calgary Power Company can acquire, and perhaps will acquire later on to increase its power at these various sites. It is in the valley west of Banff; I have forgotten the name at the moment; I did not know this bill was coming up to-day or I would have had these names on the tip of m3'
Alberta Natural Resources

tongue. But when the company does make application for that power I am going to support the application, because I believe it would induce more business to settle in southern Alberta, and the more business you have there, the more employment is created. One thing that the western provinces need more than anything else is cheap power, so that industries will be established there to supply Work for a multitude of artisans in various trades.
The particular power in question is most fortunate in that there are three dams one after the other, using the same water, and that makes for the production of cheap power. I made a thorough survey of each one of these dams and the whole area round about, because I have always had a warm feeling for the Stony Indian tribe. This was the tribe, as the minister may know-perhaps he does not know but I do-among which the late and famous Reverend George McDougall, laboured as a minister. The stone marking his grave is not far from one of: these dams ini the neighbourhood of Morleyville. The reservoir is located quite close to Morleyville. It is an historic site.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The Ghost
site.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is near that site that
the church is located that was built by the Reverend Mr. McDougall in 1860 or a little later. He died not far away from the site of the Ghost reservoir. Just near there is the ancient crossroads of the Indians travelling from north to south and east to west. The old and historic church at Morleyville is nearby and that site was chosen so that the Indians could have a mission there. Later on I wish to associate myself with a programme to commemorate that historic site.
I have been wondering whether the $17,500 which the minister said was about the amount which the Indians will receive from these power sites is an adequate return. If it is, I am satisfied. There will be about 37,500 horsepower, the minister said, generated at these three power sites. The Calgary Power Company is up against considerable expense keeping these dams in order. One of them has quite a long bank which has been built to contain the waters, and it may be expensive to maintain. I should like to know whether the department is thoroughly satisfied with this annual fee of $17,500, because if the power company have to pay more they will have to add to the selling price of their power, and I am convinced that the power should be sold at the cheapest possible rate to encourage more and more industry to estab-

lish there, thus creating more and more employment. But if the department is satisfied, I have nothing more to say on that.
I want to add a word to what the hon. member for Calgary West has said about the Stony Indian reserve. I went over it carefully. It is a pitiful place on which to settle Indians. If this increased revenue for the Indians-the $17,500 is an annual return, is it not?-


James Allison Glen: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If it will enable something to be done for this long-suffering tribe of Indians and give them an opportunity to thrive, that will be all to the good. Someone has said that the tribe has been reduced in numbers. The day I was there, half the tribe were away working in southern Alberta for the farmers, picking beets, I suppose, or tending cattle. These Indians deserve a great deal. They have a good school, the principal of which is the Reverend Mr. Staley, one of the finest men it has been my pleasure to meet. His heart and soul are in his work for the Indians. He told me that his Indian pupils were as well educated, up to the age to which Indian children are educated, as the children of any other school. But where do they go from here, he asked? That is the great point. As the hon. member for Calgary West has said, perhaps more land could be bought. I hope that this $17,500 will be used to assist 'the Stony Indians and that a great deal more departmental money will be used to give these Indians a chance that they never yet have had. An industrial school might be located there to train the Indians for the jobs that will be available when this cheaper power is developed in southern Alberta. My own experience in employing Indians is that you can get good results from them in certain lines of industrial activity. I have had them working in plants, and they are thrifty and industrious. I hope that this increased return will work to the benefit of the Indians on the land-and that must be done. I may say to the minister. If the minister has not been on the reservation, I suggest that he should visit it at the first opportunity. He will ask himself why any previous government placed any band of Indians on that reservation. It is almost impossible for them to keep body and1 soul together. In addition, to this, I hope more will be given them. Give them a chance to live.
When the minister goes there and has a chat with that wonderful man, Reverend Mr. Staley, I am sure he will agree that the Indian children should have some place to go after they are through with school. To-

Alberta Natural Resources
day there is no place for them to go. Perhaps, as I said a moment ago, with an increase in money a small industrial school may be developed there, and the Indians given a chance to work in the plants which I, for one, hope will be established in and around Calgary to take advantage of this power supply. I have a keen recollection that we voted previously to allow the power company to divert water from the upper Ghost river and pass it through Minnewanka lake. Owing to the much higher head that the water had to fall there, they were able to develop a great deal more power. I trust that as a result of this bill the Indians themselves will benefit. The benefits to the white people are less important, but we too will reap advantages from more industries and cheaper power. I am more concerned in seeing to it that the Indians shall benefit to a much greater extent from this power than they have ever done before. We all know how the Indians of Oklahoma have been enriched; although a, former United States government put them on what was a poor reservation, Almighty God placed oil underneath it, the oil was found, and to-day they are rolling in wealth. Let us hope that our Indians too will have a much better chance than they ever had before.


James Allison Glen: I am sure I shall have an opportunity of visiting that area, because it is one of the many visits which the hon. member has promised that we will take together to see these lands. As far as the rentals were concerned, they were the subject of very keen scrutiny on the part of departmental officials. The Indians themselves already accepted $1,500 as a rental for each of these sites, and the amount has been increased very substantially since that time. I can assure the hon. member that all the money put in the hands of the government on behalf of the Indians, and especially the money which is for the Stony Indians, will be applied for their benefit. This has been in the minds of the officers of the department, and of the hon. member for Calgary West, who has. interested himself in the Stony Indians. As I have already said, one of the departmental officers is there at this moment, for the purpose of which the hon. member is speaking, namely that land be obtained for these Indians upon which they will have a reasonable hope of maintaining themselves in a proper manner. The moneys which we now receive from these rentals will be applied for the benefit of these Stony Indians. May I also point out that when the licence expires The rentals will be subject to revision.


John Ritchie MacNicol: All of these?


James Allison Glen: Yes. They will be subject to revision, and in the light of the circumstances which then exist I am quite sure that those in the department who are trustees for the Indians will see that whatever is due to them will be obtained for them.


Thomas Langton Church: There is one question I want to ask the minister before sections 2 and 3 of the agreement are confirmed and validated by this parliament. There will be tremendous developments in this great province, which is so rich in water power; and while I appreciate what the Calgary Power Company have done during the time that splendid company has been in existence, I would like to know if there is to be any control over power rates for commercial and domestic lighting before these agreements are validated and final licences granted. That should be declared before the final certificate of ratification of the two agreements and licence are granted. Surely the department must have some national hydro policy regarding the vast unexplored parts of this great province. Is there no agreement in these licences, either the interim one or the final one, or -under the agreement set out in schedules I and II, for the control of rates by some public body, federal or provincial? I think that matter should be looked into.
While I appreciate what .private companies have done for commercial and domestic electric lighting, and realize that in many cases their charges have not been out of the way, in some cases they have been, and we have seen the results in other provinces. British Columbia has recently come into the power-at-cost hydro picture. In Ontario such hydroelectric companies pay taxes on lands and buildings and personal property and are treated in the same way as privately-owned light companies. I think there should be in the agreement some protection for the consumer, because after all is said and done the consumer is paying the taxes for commercial and domestic lighting. As far as I can see, the two sections of the agreement which cover the subject fail to mention control of rates and there has been no declaration of a national hydro policy. I repeat, this being the final licence, what is the policy of the government on national power schemes for this great province?


James Allison Glen: Presumably the hon. gentleman is speaking with regard to the revision of rates. That matter is provided for under the water power regulations for public utilities, and will be subject to the jurisdiction of the provincial board. .
Alberta Natural Resources


Mr. HARKNESS:: I am extremely pleased to learn from the minister's statement that the income of the Indians from these water power developments will be so largely increased. I should like to join with the hon. member for Calgary West in urging that the money so received be used immediately to purchase the agricultural land so urgently needed by the Stony Indian band. I would point out that they have no land upon which they can grow a vegetable crop which they can be sure of harvesting. As a matter of fact they have harvested, I understand, only two crops of potatoes in the last twenty years, which gives some idea of their very serious plight as far as agricultural land is concerned. Do the moneys of which the minister speaks include payments to the Indians for the power line which runs across the reserve, and which, I understand, they were, at one time at least, to get a separate settlement for?


James Allison Glen: I am informed that that was covered by the cash payments which were made to the Indians many years ago.


George Hugh Castleden: How long has that power site development been going on there?


James Allison Glen: The beginning was in 1909. There were others in 1914 and 1929.


George Hugh Castleden: I see that some development has been going on there since. Why are the payments made retroactive to 1935 rather than, say, 1930?


James Allison Glen: The matter was the subject of a good deal of contention with the power company at that time, and when the proposals were made for the licences to be issued and the new agreement to be completed it was felt that they had been pretty hard in fixing the amounts which should be paid, and the departmental officials were satisfied that they had made a good bargain as far as the Indians were concerned.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am not much of a judge of power rates. We do not worry about our rates in Alberta. The city of Calgary has a power plant of its own, operated with coal; it is not a stand-by plant. If you live where we do, and have coal all around you and underneath you, it will pretty well take care of the rates being charged by a power company. What I was anxious to say ,to the minister or to the staff who made this financial arrangement is that I think they are very greatly to be complimented upon having settled this matter in the very satisfactory way they have for the benefit of this Indian tribe.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-final licences.	*
Douglas Scott Harkness: Paragraph (e) on page 7 of the bill states that as and from October 1, 1930 all sums payable for the use or occupation of land under the terms of the interim licence of January 17, 1929, shall belong to and be payable to the province. Did the Stony Indians get any benefit from that part of their lands covered by the water of the Ghost dam, apart from payments they have already received, or will this particular clause cut them out of payments in the future?


James Allison Glen: This is an amount of $500 per annum that goes to the province for the use of the water bed in respect of the Ghost site only.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On schedule I.
George Hugh Castleden: Was there any consultation between the department and the Indian tribe on the reserve at the time the agreement was arrived at?


James Allison Glen: Is the hon. member referring to this particular agreement?


George Hugh Castleden: Yes.


James Allison Glen: At the time they surrendered the land there was consultation with them. This land was in the dominion for the benefit of the Indians, but no consultation was had with them with respect to this particular agreement.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Schedule II agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
SOS. Departmental administration, including expenses incidental to organization, $1,500,000.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
1.	Departmental administration, $136,035.
Robert Fair: I wish to thank the Minister of Agriculture for getting a bit closer to us in the chamber. We farmers hope that he will get a little closer-and I mean closer-in sympathy before these estimates are disposed of.

Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: Before proceeding to a general discussion of the estimates, I desire to call the attention of the committee to the item with which we were dealing at adjournment last night, and I do so in order to complete the record on this subject. The question under discussion at that time was the purchasing of horses, and had I been listening more carefully at the beginning I would have directed the attention of the hon. member who was discussing the matter to what he himself suggested, namely, that it should properly have been taken up under the special items towards the end of my estimates rather than as a matter of general discussion. Had. that course been followed I should have had the facts with me last night and I could have given a more intelligent answer to what was said. I did. however, give a general outline of the plans which have been made with regard to the purchase of horses, and the results of those plans, and some of the facts in connection with what has been done to date were brought out in the return which was put on the record the other day at the request of the member for Wood Mountain.
I desire to summarize the results of that return. It shows that from August 16 to August 25 we purchased horses at about a dozen points along the eastern side of Saskatchewan in order that we might gain some experience in tl^e methods to be followed before embarking' upon the purchase of horses in the drought area, which after all was the area -we desired to get into and in which to make considerable purchases if possible before winter. On August 25 we began to purchase horses in the south at Weyburn. We followed through at twenty-odd different points from August 25 until September 8, purchasing at different points throughout the southern part of Saskatchewan and at two points in Alberta, namely Monitor and Consort. In other words, by September 8 we had just entered upon the purchase of horses in the drought area of Alberta and had covered a very considerable part of Saskatchewan.
So far as my own records show, we had only two complaints in writing regarding the activities of the purchasers. One of them came from LaFleche, and the other from Coronach, which is down in the same part of the province. The complaint with regard to LaFleche did not come direct from LaFleche to me but from the Minister of Agriculture in Saskatchewan, Mr. McIntosh. I have his letter before me and mine in reply. The letter which Mr. McIntosh wrote me contained most of the complaints which were given by the hon. member for Wood Mountain last night. I
think they were largely taken from, a newspaper which is published in LaFleche.
In view of some of the things which were said last night I think probably it would be advisable for me to place on record the letter which I wrote to Mr. McIntosh dealing with that particular matter, because it covers the points which were raised in a manner which will not only be an explanation but will probably give some information. Mr. McIntosh wired .me on September 24 setting forth that there had been complaints in from LaFleche. I wired him stating that iwe had no complaints here and asked him for information. He then wrote me under date of October 24 giving me approximately the information contained in what was placed on Hansard by the hon. member for Wood Mountain last night; and on October 27 I wrote him as follows:
Hon. L. F. McIntosh,
Minister of Agriculture,
Regina, Sask.	.
Dear Mr. McIntosh:
I have yours of October 24. Your letter is the first intimation I have had as to what the alleged difficulties were at LaFleche. I shall, of course, have the matter looked into and receive a report from those who were conducting this purchase.
If the story as told by your correspondent is correct, it bears out the fears which I expressed to you and Mr. Auld during our interview at the beginning of the plan. You will recall that after your man had made some arrangements for the bringing together of horses in this manner as a result of consultation with some of our representatives, I expressed the view that the plan would not work to the satisfaction of anyone. Although we called off the first arrangement, there was some disagreement with me on this, with the result that we tried it out in a few places. I do not think that there was entire satisfaction anywhere.
Some of the difficulty was caused by the fact that we were not able to get a final signing of the French contract, and have not been able to get it signed even up to date. It was the French who desired to have the lighter horses-the Netherlands wanted heavier horses. Because this contract was not signed it was impossible for the lighter horses to be purchased.
I quite agree with those who complain that if it were atr all possible to do so farmers should have been informed in advance of the change, but you will realize that to do this would have been most difficult. As a matter of fact, it is just a further indication that the plan which was evolved will not work satisfactorily.
About the same time that this sale was held information was received that boats could not be secured to ship more horses at present. For [DOT] this reason the whole plan has been called off until next spring. I can assure you that whether all claims made with regard to the LaFleche experience are correct or not, we have had sufficient experience with the plan itself to know that it will not operate satisfac-
Supply-Agriculture

torily. We are, therefore, developing new plans with regard to' any future activities in that direction.
About August 24 a press statement of the policy that we were following was put out, and I think I should read that to the committee in order that it may be on the record as well. It was as follows:	.
The Minister of Agriculture has completed arrangements with the governments of the Netherlands and France under which the Department of Agriculture agrees to purchase about 40,000 horses between now and October, 1946, to be shipped to those countries for use on farms and elsewhere.
The horses purchased must be clean-legged and well-broken and sound of limb and wind. They must weigh not less than 1,375 pounds for France and 1,450 pounds for the Netherlands. Those purchased immediately will be for the Netherlands.
The minister has announced that the area which is short of feed in Saskatchewan and Alberta will be combed carefully for every available suitable horse. To make this possible, a committee composed of George Spence, director of P.F.RA.., and Mr. 0. Freer, who is in charge of community pastures, and Mr. J. J. Bowlen, a rancher of Calgary, Alberta, has been set up to organize these districts. They have called in the secretary-treasurers of the association of rural municipalities in 'Saskatchewan, and will call in the secretary-treasurers of the same organization in Alberta to assist in making a survey of the numbers of suitable horses available in each rural municipality. It is planned to ask each secretary-treasurer in the poor crop areas to assemble information as to the number and owners of suitable horses for sale in each poor crop municipality. The Prairie Farm Assistance inspectors when they visit these municipalities will assist in organizing the assembling of these horses in numbers, preferably at farms where they can be properly cared for and fed, to be examined by a purchasing party. The purchasing parties will be under the direction of Mr. Jack Byers of the agricultural department.	,
Farmers who have suitable horses to sell in the area west of the 'Soo line and south of the Saskatchewan river in .Saskatchewan and throughout the poor crop areas on the east side of Alberta, should apply to the secretaries of their rural municipalities for circulars indicating the type of horse and the possible prices. Other poor crop areas will be covered as soon as possible. They should then notify the secretary as to the number of such horses he could supply at some convenient asesmbling place to be reviewed by a purchasing party. Each purchasing party will have on it a qualified veterinarian to examine the horses, and notice will be given to all those desiring to sell horses as to the time and place at which horses are to be assembled.
A survey has been made of certain areas east of Regina in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, which shows that there are sections where quite a number of suitable horses can be secured.
These areas will be utilized to provide horses required on short notice to fill boatloads in the early stages of the plan and when the poor crop areas have been fully combed will, in common with other parts of Canada, be covered to obtain horses to fill the contracts. An effort is being made to get available horses out of the areas where feed is short before winter.

It is suggested that farmers who intend to bring horses to the assembling place should whenever .possible visit one of the previous sales to acquaint themselves with the types required and thereby save themselves the experience of taking horses in which would not be acceptable.


Joseph William Burton: Was that statement issued to the press?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, it was issued to the press and published I think in the Regina Leader-Post, and I do not know what other papers. It was given to the press and published generally.


Joseph William Burton: Was the Department of Agriculture at Regina acquainted with the matter?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; as a matter of fact I held a meeting with the secretary of the rural municipalities, Mr. Bryden, and with the representatives of the treasury in Regina, and the departmental officials. I have here a letter which was sent out by the department at Regina, indicating what the plan was. They took the trouble to send out a letter to all their own employees in different parts of the province, telling them what the plan was, stating that it would be announced from Ottawa, that the old plan which had been talked abouit earlier, and which I referred to last night, had been dropped, and that the new one would be announced; and it was announced as I have indicated here. They asked their own people to make a check on these notices that were put up with regard to purchases, and to assist in every possible way, and I wish to thank them for their efforts in that regard.


Joseph William Burton: But how does what the minister mentioned last evening, in regard to the plan having been prematurely advertised in the Regina newspaper, work in with the statement he has just made?


James Garfield Gardiner: If my hon. friend wants that, I will give him the whole thing; I have it all here. The first article put out was on July 20, and read:
Province to .Sell Horses in Europe *
Agricultural representatives of the provincial agriculture department next week will begin .a survey of an available supply of wojk horses which may be suitable for sale to the Netherlands government.
The Saskatchewan department is working m cooperation with the federal government in the sale of these horses.
The sale will be confined at this time to the "short crop" areas of Saskatchewan, agriculture minister L. F. McIntosh said Friday.
The Netherlands government, Mr. McIntosh said, wants a supply of the work horses this fall, and possibly a further supply next spring.

Supply-Agriculture
Further down it says:
Already an agent of the federal agriculture department has been through the west contacting provincial agriculture departments with regard to the horse purchases.
Mr. McIntosh emphasized that the purchases will be made from farm owners. -
The method of purchasing will be conducted in the following manner, according to Mr. McIntosh:
Agricultural representatives will first make a survey of the "short crop" areas to find out the available supply of the animals required. It was expected that these "short crop" areas will be able to furnish sufficient horses for the number required this fall.
Once this has been done, farmers with animals for sale will be asked to bring them into designated urban centres where a dominion government buyer and a veterinarian will arrange purchasing. The animals will then be shipped east to seaboard to await shipment to the Netherlands, their sea voyage dependent upon the availabality of shipping.
Then it goes on to indicate the kind of animals required. That was the first announcement that went out, on July 20.


Joseph William Burton: Did the issuance of that
statement interfere with the arrangements the minister's department was trying to* make with the Netherlands government?


James Garfield Gardiner: As a matter of fact I
said last night that our department had not completed any arrangements at that time. As is suggested in this item, we have sent a man to inform the three provincial governments in the west as to a possible plan, and have that matter discussed with them. As I said last night, he discussed it with all three governments and the only one that put anything in the press about it was the government of Saskatchewan.


Joseph William Burton: But the publication of this statement did not interfere wifh the arrangements the minister was trying to make with the Netherlands


James Garfield Gardiner: It was put out before
we had any plan finally evolved at all. It was a possible plan which was discussed with the governments of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba; and the only government that published it was the government of Saskatchewan. As a matter of fact it had not been discussed with me at all up to that time. An official was sent out from Ottawa to discuss the matter first with these governments; then he was to come back and discuss it with me. It had not been discussed and there was not a plan at all at that time.


Joseph William Burton: What I am trying to find out is this: has the minister any reason to
believe that the publication of this statement interfered with the agreements he was trying , to conclude?	'


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not suggest that
last evening. What I said was that at that time we had not an agreement signed with anybody. The agreement was just something in the offing. Later on we* did get an agreement with the Netherlands, but as yet we have not come- to an agreement with France. I do not suggest that it interfered with the making of the agreements at all; I simply say it was announced in advance of our own plans having been completed and that they had to await signing of the agreement with the Netherlands. This made it more difficult for us to do anything else than congregate these horses in the towns and villages, as announced in this statement.


Robert Fair: Would the minister explain how he has been able to ship some 600 horses to France if he has not come to any agreement with that country?


James Garfield Gardiner: We will come to that,
but first let me finish this statement. I repeat, this article appeared in the press on July 20. As I said last evening, I interviewed the persons in Regina who were dealing with the matter, I think on Wednesday' of the- week of July 28. On July 28, in any case, which was Saturday, a further statement, was put out headed, "Horse purchasing centres selected." This again was put out by the department at Regina, giving a list of places throughout the drought area at which horses would be congregated. One of these places is LaFleche, about which we were speaking last evening, together with quite a number of other places where we finally purchased horses. Then on July 30 this statement was put out:
Agriculture Minister Gardiner said (Sunday night the federal government was preparing to buy horses for both the Netherlands and France, and that only well-broken weighty horses were wanted. As soon as plans were complete the -agriculture department would announce them in full.
"The special products board is setting up an organization >to purchase and assemble horses," the minister said. "It is the desire to take as many as possible from the drought area. It has been decided to purchase the first boatload as close as possible to the assembling pastures at St. Lazare and Roekham, Manitoba."
"The experience gained there will immediately be utilized to set up a plan which can be extended to every dry area where suitable horses can be obtained. The desire is to work out some plan which will not require farmers to move horses any considerable distance until they have been actually purchased."
I may say that this article was put out after I had some conversations with officials
S apply-A griculture

of the department at Regina. Then on July 31, which was Tuesday, the government of Saskatchewan put out this statement:
Cancellation of the plan to establish thirty-three points in western Saskatchewan as selection centres for the purchase of horses for Holland was announced Monday by agricultural minister L. F. McIntosh. Instead of having farmers take their horses for sale to selection points, it is understood government buyers will deal directly with farm owners on their farms.
The difficulty in explaining exactly what will satisfy the Netherlands government makes it desirable to contact farmers at home instead of having them take their horses to points previously announced, Mr. McIntosh said.
The announcement of the thirty-three selection points published in the Saturday and Monday editions of the Leader-Post has been withdrawn according to Mr. McIntosh. The minister expressed the hope that farmers who have horses which they think would be suitable for the small farms in Holland will await further announcement of buying plans.
That announcement was published after Mr. McIntosh and I had had breakfast together and discussed the whole matter. He issued this statement in order to indicate that the plans would be changed. Then, as is intimated in my announcement which appeared in the Leader-Post of the 30th, which was Monday, the suggestion was made that we should like to have these horses bought as near as possible to the farms. My desire in that matter was to have the secretary-treasurers of the municipalities ask the farmers to list their horses with them, and then for the secretary-treasurers to notify our man at Regina how many horses were available in that municipality. Then we would arrange to have the horses congregated at different farms, instead of having them brought into the villages, and would send our buyers to wherever there were groups of ten or a dozen horses brought together, where they would be purchased. The plan suggested first was that followed during the first great war in buying horses for the Saskatchewan government. But at the time of the first war we had livery barns all over the place, and it was comparatively easy to bring horses in and take care of them. The horses we were buying then were of a. selected type, namely the cavalry horse, which we wanted to give to the government of Canada in order to assist in equipping our armed forces. So the task of purchasing horses then was comparatively simple, and an attempt was made to put that same plan into effect. I stated that this was an entirely different situation, and that we were asking farmers to bring in any spare horses that they had, which were up to specifications. As I said last night, this request was put on a bill, a Copy of which I now hold in my hand, and which sets out the weights

of the horses, and all the other specifications.
There would be many farmers who would just take a look at a horse and say: He weighs 1,400 pounds, or 1,300, as the case may be, and would bring him to town. They would not have the means of weighing a horse at home. The bill states:
Horses wanted. The Dominion Department of Agriculture wishes to buy work horses for Netherlands and French governments.


Joseph William Burton: When were those bills sent out?


James Garfield Gardiner: About August 20. but previously there had been some bills printed by the province which, I believe, contained about the same information. With the exception of what appears at the bottom of this bill, I believe the others were the same. They were printed by the provincial government under the first suggested plan. I am not certain that any were distributed.


Hazen Robert Argue: What is the lowest weight on that hill at which a horse would be bought?


James Garfield Gardiner: I shall come to that. The first item on the bill gives the grades and prices for French contract under (a) three and four-year olds, with a minimum weight of 1,375 pounds, S80, and (b) five to eight-year olds, with a minimum weight of 1,400 pounds, $85. I am told in the department to-day-and I am not certain as to this, because I have not had an opportunity of checking it back-that it must have been a printer's error, putting 1,400 pounds on the bill, because the weight there was always 1,450 pounds. In any case, it is 1,400 on the bill.


Mark Cecil Senn: Can the minister give the corresponding contract price from the French government at Quebec, Montreal, or some other shipping point?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not able to give that at the moment, but the information can be obtained.


James Arthur Ross: Would it be officials of the federal Department of Agriculture or of a provincial department who actually chose the assembly point at which the horses would be purchased?


James Garfield Gardiner: Let us not confuse the two plans. Under the first plan it was representatives of the provincial government who chose the points. They were all villages and towns. The thing I objected to was the congregating of these horses in villages and towns where there would be no facilities to-feed them, and where feed would have to be

Supply-Agriculture
brought in. I thought that as far as possible these horses should be brought together at some central farm, and the horses congregated in that fashion. This would not require taking them such great distances away from home. However the points eventually decided on under the second plan were chosen by our own officials, and they disagreed with me in that matter. Perhaps I should not say that our officials did, but rather that the secretary-treasurers did. We left it. to the secretary-treasurers to make some suggestion in the matter, and in most cases they said they thought the best places to assemble horses were in the villages and towns.


James Arthur Ross: Municipal secretary-treasurers.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, and I took their advice. Our own men who were right out there on the ground were in agreement with the secretaries on the point. They thought they could make it work in the villages and towns, and that it would operate successfully.
As to grades and prices on the Netherlands contract, there is provision under paragraph (c) for plain horses, serviceably sound, well up to age limit, with plenty of weight, af a minimum weight of 1,450 pounds, $90.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: I believe the minister said he had not yet signed the contract with the French government. Was that done before this bill was put out, or after?


James Garfield Gardiner: I shall come to that. As I said a minute ago, if my hon. friend will let me, I should like to finish my story; otherwise no one will understand it.
The next item is for good horses, sound and well within the age limit, and weighty, with a minimum weight of 1,450 pounds. This is a higher type of horse at $100. Then there is another still higher type with a minimum weight of 1,450 pounds, at $110. The top price is for best, drafters, sound, with weight and quality, with age in their favour, at a minimum weight of 1,600 pounds, and up, $150. Those are all the classifications of horses, but I understand that there was the possibility of an arrangement to pay as high as $160 for a specially good horse at a specially good weight.


Mr. ROWE:: Are the prices the same in the other provinces?


James Garfield Gardiner: Approximately the same, although they would be better farther east, due to freight and shipping charges.


William Earl Rowe: It was not on the same basis, was it?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, on the same basis as with the Netherlands government. The others are on the same terms. The Netherlands government has agreed to pay certain prices for certain types of horses. We have figured back from that price, to arrive at the price we can pay back at the original point.
But the question which was in our minds so far as the drought area was concerned was this. We thought we could go out and buy horses without any commission, and pay the full amount that was made available under the price established in the contract. We could pay a higher amount if the horses were assembled than if we sent a buyer to every farm. It was with a desire to give every possible dollar to the farmers that the horses were assembled in the first place. One of the reasons I had in mind for wanting the horses assembled on the farms-and in view of our experience I still think I was right- was that, in the first place, there is feed on the farms. The horses could be properly taken care of. In the summer months they could even be permitted to run in the pastures, and would not need to be stabled. In that way the buyers could go out and look at them and others, saving cost to the farmer.
The second reason was that these private buyers would not likely be there. We simply say that there is a type of horse that we must have, if we are going to turn them over to the French government and the Netherlands government, and that that type of horse has certain value. That type of horse must be in good condition, so that he can go to work immediately upon getting overseas. He must be well broken, and we must be able to establish the fact that he is well broken, before we buy him. Otherwise if he tries to climb the chute when we attempt to put him on the boat at Montreal they will not take him. So thaJt we try to have all these things assured. I must say that in the contract next spring I will be insistent about carrying out that plan, so that the horses may be congregated as near as possible to the farmers. If a farmer has a dozen horses to sell, we will send a man out to see them. If a farmer has only one or two horses ive will try to interest the secretary-treasurer of the municipality in having those small lots of horses congregated at some point so that a man could go to look at a dozen or twenty at one time. Those found unsuitable can be taken home.


Arthur Leroy Smith: How can the farmer weigh them at home?

Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: Many farmers have
scales, and .they could congregate at a farm when there is a sale.


James Arthur Ross: What was the greatest number of horses purchased at one point? I believe there was quite a variation.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have a list somewhere, but perhaps I had better finish the point I am discussing before I refer to it.
Someone has asked how we came to ship horses to France, when we have no contract. The contract is drawn up, and so far as we are concerned it has been agreed to. The French officials who were here think it will be acceptable. The contract is drawn up in terms which we think will be acceptable to all, but the French government has not yet signed it. To that extent it is different from the Netherlands contract.


Joseph William Burton: Have not the horses gone over?


James Garfield Gardiner: I will tell the committee about that. The French government have sent ships here, and they have arranged to take so .many horses to France. We have been asked to supply them immediately. We have supplied those horses. The number supplied up to date is between 600 and 700. Those horses have been sent over, and the arrangement is that they will apply on any contract signed for some 35,000 horses.


William Earl Rowe: Is there any truth in the rumour that the French government are endeavouring to make a similar contract with the United States? If they make a contract with that government for a similar number of horses, shall we have lost this contract?


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that they have canvassed the position there but that the contract has not been completed.


William Earl Rowe: In other Words, we are not yet sure that we are going to get a contract from the French government.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that the Belgians have a contract with the United States and that the Netherlanders are buying some horses there but not under contract similar to the one we have.


William Earl Rowe: We are not yet sure we are going to get the contract from the French government?


James Garfield Gardiner: As sure as we can Be. Even contracts with Britain drag on for months before finally being signed. In the meantime they are taking horses. I -met the minister of agriculture of France at Quebec.

The first thing he said to me-he was not able to speah English and I was not able to speak French, so that we spoke through an interpreter-was: I want to thank you for the very fine horses we have got from Canada up to date, and he went on to say that they wanted more and he made inquiries with regard to other live stock.


William Earl Rowe: They have received trial shipments from the United States as well. At the present time they have not decided from which country they will buy.


James Garfield Gardiner: They will probably buy from both countries. I do not think they will say definitely that they will not buy any from the United States or from Canada. Eventually they will probably buy from both countries. The number they look for from us was 35,000.	;
Someone asked what the numbers were at the different points. At Watrous, Saskatchewan, sales were held on five days; two sales, one on the 16th, 17th and 18th, and the other on the 30th and 31st. There was some criticism in regard to the first sale that was held. The light horses were not purchased. So that we went back to Watrous on the 30th and 31st. In those two sales 400 horses were purchased at Watrous; at Strasbourg, 103; at Southey, 176; at Baicarres, 276. The only other two points at which the sales ran over 100 were Toronto, with 165, and Montreal, with 786. The horses that were taken from Montreal are largely taken to complete a boatload. They are shipping horses in carload lots from western Canada, and if a boat is in and ready to load we will take horses from Montreal to complete the cargo. We go to the dealers in Montreal, who are handling 20,000 head a year, and purchase through their barns in Montreal enough horses to fill the boat when more are needed.


James Arthur Ross: What would those horses sell at in Montreal?


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that they will average around $150.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Are you taking horses from any other province than Saskatchewan?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have said that 786 were taken from Montreal, 165 from Toronto and 55 were purchased at Pickering.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: The horses taken at Montreal were only to complete the cargo. Do you advertise in the other provinces?


James Garfield Gardiner: No. In the statement that I read a moment ago we said that this fall, before freeze-up, we would take most of the horses from the drought area, and that

Supply-Agriculture
immediately that was completed we would go into all parts of Canada, including other parts of western Canada, and buy greater numbers.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Would not the horses that were purchased in Montreal come originally from the western provinces?


James Garfield Gardiner: Some of them would. Probably a great many originated in western Canada, and quite a number would originate right here in the Ottawa valley, and some in parts of Quebec.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Horses are scarce in eastern Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend is correct in saying that most of them would originate in the west. The only safeguard that we provided against horses being purchased at low prices by dealers and then shipped to places like Montreal was this: These bills were posted all over the place, and I suggest that there were not many farmers who would sell horses at less than those prices, once they had seen the bills. It might happen in a rare case if a farmer wrns short of feed that another farmer would buy his' horse at a lower price' because he had to carry it through the winter.


Mr. FERGUSON:: Were any of these bills posted in Ontario?


James Garfield Gardiner: Not these bills.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: There was a slight glut of horses on the market in Ontario this year, and I am quite sure that our farmers would have been delighted to see bills posted up in Ontario similar to those posted up in the west. I have bought,good horses myself in Ontario this year for S30. I am sure horses could have been obtained in Ontario.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, and just as soon as this transaction had been completed and the horses taken out of the drought area, similar bills would have been put up in Ontario and elsewhere.


Mr. MENARY:: At Lafleehe when they bought that big gray horse that weighed 1,800 pounds for $60-	.


James Garfield Gardiner: I was not there, but my hon. friend will find that these bills were posted up all over the area around about Lafleehe and probably every farmer there saw one of these bills.


Lewis Menary: If the bill was posted up, the man sold his horse too cheap. Who was it that made a profit of $100 to $120 on the gelding? You cannot make it here.
47696-161J


James Garfield Gardiner: When we were handling 2,800 horses in the rather hurried way in which they had to be handled last fall, if there was only one gray horse that sold for $60 which was finally turned into our pens, we probably did not do too badly. I would hope there were not more. The suggestion was made last night that somebody offered the horse for sale, I presume right in Lafleehe, because we did not have buyers anywhere else, and that one of our men said that he would not accept the horse. A veterinary goes with each one of our buying parties and examines all the horses before we buy them. I cannot conceive that a veterinary and an expert horse buyer, because that is what they were, w'ould look over a horse at LaFleche that was offered for sale-and the place where it would be offered for sale would be very close to the stockyards-and then would not recognize the horse very soon afterwards when he saw it in the stockyards. It is alwa3's conceivable, o,f course, that somebody might make a mistake. But it is hard for me, knowing horse buyers and veterinar-ies, to believe that in that short space of time a man would not know a horse he had been looking at a short time before. If he did not, I would say he was not a suitable man to be buying horses.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: I do not want to dtetain the committee; I know what the objective is, but I have some remarks to make.


James Garfield Gardiner: Are they on this particular point?


Wilfrid Garfield Case: No, they are not.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman-


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, now, can I have this understood with the hon. member for Wood Mountain? He made his statement last night; I have made mine: could we leave the further discussion of this matter until we reach the "special" items?


Hazen Robert Argue: I think it would expedite the business if we could complete the discussion now, and -when we get to the particular item I need say nothing further.


James Garfield Gardiner: I should have objected last night to the matter being discussed at all at this time. There is an item under the estimates where we can discuss it. That was suggested by the hon. member himself when he rose. As I said a moment ago, I was not listening as carefully as I should have been to what he started to say, and I let it go through. I think we should stay within the rules and discuss this matter on the proper item when we come to it.
Supply-Agriculture


George Hugh Castleden: What item is that?


James Garfield Gardiner: The "specials", at the bottom. The special war item appears in Hansard of September 28, and it will be discussed along with "specials" at the bottom. It can be found on page 552 of Hansard.


Percy Ellis Wright: I believe the understanding was that anything which came under the minister's war estimates could be discyssed on the general item.


James Garfield Gardiner: No; under "specials" or under the proper item within the civil estimates.


Percy Ellis Wright: Under the minister's civil estimates there are no items comparable with some of the items under the war measures vote, and therefor'e I think the proper place to discuss them would be under the first item.


James Garfield Gardiner: 
James Arthur Ross: It was not the intention of the minister to make a statement at this time on our production requirements?


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member to my hon. friend's left wants to make a general statement.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: I can understand the desire of the hon. member for the Saskatchewan constituency of Wood Mountain to discuss the horse situation a little further. He gave some information which, I think, farmers in Ontario will appreciate, that one can sell horses out there for $60, S80, up to $130 and $150, as against about $30 here. I hope Saskatchewan will do well with their horses.
I could speak for a long time on agriculture. As you know, sir, I come from one of the rich agricultural communities of this province. In field crops and live stock we far exceed any other county in Ontario.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
IMr. Gardiner.1


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What about Simcoe?


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Well, we do. not want to have a war on our hands; I will say that we are one of the most highly productive districts, and I hope all hon. members will be satisfied.
I am a great peacemaker.
But what I am concerned about, and what I rose to address myself to, is the future of agriculture, with particular regard1 to the constant drift of young people from the farms.
I 'believe that is something which should engage the attention of every hon. member. Unless we can do something to make farm life more attractive, this country is indeed in for a very difficult time. I have great hopes, of course, that the introduction of electricity in the rural areas will make farm life more attractive, and that modern machinery will play its part; but something must be done if we are to make it attractive - to our young people to remain on the farms. In the county I have particularly in mind, the county of Grey, this drift to the larger urban centres has been going on, and the country is that much poorer.
I think we may still say that we are primarily an agricultural country, although we have made great strides industrially, and that we depend upon the prosperity of agriculture to maintain our living standards and our general prosperity. It therefore does seem to me that anything we can do to improve the lot of the farmer and increase the general prosperity of agriculture will react beneficially to the entire nation.
Yesterday, when the hon. member for Fort William was speaking about having been raised on a farm, I recalled that I myself had that experience, having been raised on a dairy farm, so that I can appreciate some of the things which the hon. member for Calgary West was speaking about. I know that farm life has been and even now is more or less a life of drudgery, and I am now trying to turn over in my mind this problem: when we have finally achieved industrial peace and arranged a forty or forty-four hour week for the industrial worker, who in the world is going to work on a farm, for there are very few farmers who can finish their work, particularly seasonal work, in any such limited number of hours?
These are the observations I have to make, and I want to set the example of being as brief as possible. In conclusion, however, I should like to make a reference to the statement of the hon. member for Calgary West that some people here speak of Ontario as being "the old milch cow." As an Ontarian, I assure hon. members from western Canada that that statement is not accepted literally

Supply-Agriculture
here. As a matter of fact, a prominent farmer around St. Thomas, who at one time occupied the office of premier of Ontario, used that term, but I believe that in the main it was resented, because we in Ontario have a high appreciation of our great western domain. We can think back to the time when we enjoyed a measure of prosperity with western people, and we hope indeed' that they will return to that era of prosperity which will mean so much to all of us in eastern Canada, and, as far as that is concerned, all Canada. Therefore I assure the hon. member for Calgary West that we do not consider that in any sense we have been under a disadvantage in respect of western Canada, that we have enjoyed many advantages from our association and will continue to do so. So long as they are prosperous we shall be prosperous.


Mr. PEARKES:: During the war, assistance was given to the dairymen and the poultry farmers of Vancouver island by a. subsidy on the feed grains which were shipped from the prairie provinces. If this is the right place to raise the question I should like to ask whether the minister proposes to continue those subsidies or to render other assistance - to the dairymen and poultry farmers of Vancouver island? *


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the general
answer to that would come under an answer to the statement which was asked for last night by the hon. member for Souris; and my hon. friend over here is on his feet.


Hazen Robert Argue: This is the third time I have attempted to speak on the matter I brought up last night. In m3' concluding remarks I asked three questions which were quite specific and fairly simple.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that you rule that the discussion of the horse question be left until ,we come to the appropriate item. It has been discussed at some length now. If you rule otherwise, we shall of course go on with it, but I suggest that it be left for the time being.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding):: The minister's suggestion is perfectly reasonable. I think the hon. member should leave the matter until the proper item is called.


Hazen Robert Argue: I shall be prepared to discuss it at the right time.


Mr. ZAPLITNY:: Agriculture is so important that we should devote a little more time to general considerations before we go on to special items. I understand that at present about twenty-five per cent or a little better
of the population of Canada are engaged in agriculture and that is the greatest number in any one industry in the dominion. Therefore the question of agriculture is perhaps the most important one before this committee. We have probably wasted some time in the past few weeks, but in any discussion of this important item there will be no waste of time.
In my opinion there are two questions to be considered, the immediate agriculture policy and the long-range policy. The immediate problem seems to be a matter of production. After listening to the Prime Minister's statement on his return from overseas, I am sure that all hon. members were more or less shocked into the realization that the situation there is far more grave from the point of view of food than any of us had imagined up to that time.. We were taken aback to learn that hundreds of thousands of people are likely to starve to death in the European countries, and we also realize that it is up to Canada to a great extent to supply the food for the people of Europe since we are the granary of the world.
What is to be done to encourage greater production? From what has been going on in the last six months, or almost a year, we know that production in certain lines has been falling off instead of increasing. That is particularly so in the raising of hogs. It has been pointed out to the government many times during the present session that farmers are going out of hog production. The figures quoted yesterday show the extent to which that is true. When farmers begin to go out of the production of a certain line there must be a very good reason for it, because, whether in war time or in peace, the objective of every farmer is to produce to his fullest capacity. I believe that the reason farmers have been going out of hog production is that the price has not been satisfactory compared with prices of other products, and the government should encourage farmers by guaranteeing a price which would be sufficiently attractive to make the production of hogs pay.
May I call the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to a recommendation made by the Alberta farmers' union. He no doubt has a copy of the circular sent out some time ago, in which it is proposed that a guaranteed parity price of S21 per hundred on rail at the main western points be established. That would be one way of actively encouraging greater production of hogs. Another recommendation is to encourage western farmers to raise coarse grain by paying the existing bonus to farmers who feed grain of their own raising to domestic animals. We understand
Supply-Agriculture

that up to this time the bonus paid has not worked out to the advantage of the farmer who feeds his own hogs with his own grain but more perhaps to the advantage of those who buy grain to feed hogs. I do not wish to refer to eastern farmers, because I desire to go on record as being of the opinion that the problems of farmers, whether east or west, are similar and that there should never be any reason for friction or antagonism.
Another recommendation that has been made, this time by the United Farmers of Canada, Saskatchewan section, deals with the price of wheat. The attitude of this group is clear on the question of wheat, because we went into that very fully in the debate on the speech from the throne. However, I wish to put on Hansard a resolution that has been passed by the executive of the United Farmers of Canada, Saskatchewan section, which appears in a journal known as "U.F.C. Information", which all members have in their possession, because I believe that this resolution comes as close to the line we have taken as anything I have so far seen. It proves also that the representations that we in this group have been making have been put forward not on behalf of our party but on behalf of the people we represent. Here is the resolution:
Whereas Trade and Commerce Minister the Hon. J. A. MacKinnon, has announced the intention of the Canadian government to keep the selling price of Canadian wheat to importing buyers from soaring above $1.55 per bushel for the next five years, but has made no statement to guarantee that the sale price of wheat will not be allowed to drop below that price during the five-year period; and
Whereas we believe that in accordance with the present price of other goods, services and wage levels, $1.55 per bushel basis No. 1 northern at Canadian terminal elevator points constitutes a fair parity of price level for wheat:
Therefore we the executive of the United Farmers of Canada, Saskatchewan Section Limited, resolve the following wheat price policy:
1.	That for the crop year 1945-1946 the initial guaranteed payment on wheat shall remain as at present, and that a subsequent payment be made to conform with $1.55 per bushel basis No. 1 northern at Canadian terminal elevator points.
2.	That for the four crop years following the crop year 1945-1946 an initial payment equivalent to three-quarters of the basic $1.55 per bushel or other parity price be paid on delivery and subsequent payments be. made at appropriate times to conform with $1.55 or other adjusted price to conform with parity.
3.	That in the interest of national, provincial and agricultural social and economic stability a minimum basic selling price of $1.55 per bushel must be maintained during the five crop years commencing with the 1945-1946 crop year.
4.	That legislation in line with this wheat price policy be enacted at the present session of parliament.
fMr. Zaplitny.]
I do not know how much hoipe there is of that being done.
5.	That in the event of failure of government agents to hold the selling price of wheat at $1.55 per bushel minimum, the executive of the United Farmers of Canada, Saskatchewan Section Limited, will appeal to our members to take appropriate and effective action to protect their interests.
I will not hazard a guess as to what the appropriate action which is mentioned there would be, but I have placed that resolution on the record so that it will be clear that what we have been talking about in this group, so far as parity prices are concerned, is something which the farmers in the greatest wheat producing area of Canada have been discussing. So .much for the immediate policy.
The long-range policy is also important and perhaps in the long run the most important. I was interested in Listening to what the hon. member who preceded me said about the trend of young people away from the farms and into the cities. Being one of those who also grew up on a farm, and having spent the greater part of my life there, I realize that there are good and sufficient reasons why young people have not found it possible to stay on the farm. Perhaps the easiest way to illustrate the reason would be to place some figures on Hansard showing just what the agricultural situation has been for a number of years. I hold in my hand some figures- most of them come from the university of Saskatchewan-which show comparisons between the farm population of the different areas and the share of the national income the farmers received during those same years.
In 1921, the farm population was about 33 *per cent; in 1928 it was about 28 per cent; in 1931 it remained around 28 per cent. By 1941 it had fallen to 25 per cent, which shows a downward trend all the way. Righit beside those figures we can place the dhare of the national income received. I have not the figures for 1921. In 1926 the farmers of Canada received 26 per cent of the national income. In 1929 they received 22 per cent; in 1931 'they received 13-9 per cent and in 1941, 18-2 per cent. The committee will notice that in every case the farmer did not receive a fair share of the national income, which is a pretty fair reason why there has been that trend of young people leaving the farms and going to industry. There are other reasons.
We go farther aqd see what the situation is in regard to the ownership of land. We find that in 1901, taking all the farms of Canada, about 87 per cent were fully owned. By 1941 there were only 75-1 per cent fully owned. The rest were either tenants or part-owned,

Supply-Agriculture
or something of that nature. If we take it by provinces we find that in western Canada, where the greatest number of farmers live, in 1901 the percentage of farms fully owned in Manitoba was 88-9 per cent; by 1941 that had fallen to 66-1 per cent. In Alberta in 1901 the figure was 95-8 per cent fully owned; by 1941 that had fallen to 62-8 per cent. In Saskatchewan, which is perhaps an extreme case, 96-1 per cent .were fully owned in 1901; by 1941 that had fallen to 53 per cent.
There is another reason why young people have been drifting from the farms to the city. They have seen that it is very difficult, in some years almost impossible, to feel secure on the land. But to go on with the figures, we find that even the total capital value of farm property has been decreasing over the years. According to these figures, taken from the dominion bureau of statistics, in 1931 the total capitalization with land, buildings, implements and live stock, was $5,247,753,468. By 1941, which is ten years later, where one would expect it to be much higher, it had fallen to $4,222,441,473.
There again the committee will see that farm values even in capitalization, instead of going up as one would expect them to, with new buildings being put up and land being improved, have actually gone down. I shall refer to one more set of figures which I believe may be the most important of all, because it is a reflection of farm conditions. It is a set of figures taken from the Curtis report on housing and community planning, 1943, which shows what conveniences there were in the matter of such things as electricity, telephones, baths and so forth. I shall just quote the figures for all Canada; I shall not take the time to give the figures for the provinces separately. Right across Canada there were 79-9 per cent farm homes in Canada which did not have any electricity to help the farmers with their work. Seventy-one per cent of them had no telephones and 92-6 per cent had not baths or showers. Hon. members would almost think that we go without washing for a long time in this agricultural country. Then 91-9 per cent had to do without flush toilets. When conditions are such as I have enumerated is it small wonder that young people leave the farm? The tragic part of this is that it is often the people with the most ambition and intelligence, the, most go and grit, who refuse to live under such conditions. What we find is that some of the finest of the young people of Canada are leaving the land and going to the cities where they believe that they will be able to make greater use of their talents and abilities and fulfil their ambition more easily than on the land. The
only way I know of that this trend can be reversed or arrested is by making conditions on the farm such that they will be attractive enough for the young people to stay there. That means the raising of the guaranteed price for farm products to a point which will make it pay to stay on the land; the provision of legislation to make the farmer more secure on the land, and a more progressive policy in the matter of research.
I have here some information on research which I think will be of interest to the committee. May I first of all quote from the first report of the interim commission on food and agriculture. One of the sections is headed, "Research" and reads as follows:
One of the principal functions of the organization will be to promote research in the fields relating to its work as a means of meeting the needs and helping to solve the problems of the peoples of its member nations. Competence and
Fersistenee in the search for knowledge, and airness and courage in promoting its application, will establish a solid basis for recommendations and action.
It will be noted by the committee that the food commission evidently felt that research was one of its key or principal functions, as it states in its first report. We also find that there is an awakening of interest in the matter of science on the farm chemurgy. I hold in my hand a pamphlet published by the NorthWest Line Elevators association, which gives some interesting facts about the possibilities of chemurgy in connection with farm products. We have been accustomed to thinking of farming as an industry which provides the food of the country. It has, of course, other possibilities, and if we take a progressive policy in the matter of research I think we shall find that it has far greater hope than we ever dreamed of. Here is a statement which appears in this pamphlet which I referred to a moment ago. I would not vouch for the accuracy of the statement because it is only an estimate. Here is what they say:
Almost every day new uses are being found for farm products. The industrial chemist is the ally of the farmer. Men of science, looking into the future, see an industrial stomach which will consume more farm products than does the human stomach of to-day. The National Chem-urgie Council estimates that an additional 50,000,000 acres may be planted to industrial crops on this continent alone within the next ten years.
As I say, that is only an estimate. We have no way of knowing how close we can come, to that, but we are given to understand that th? industrial stomach, as they call it, will in the future be able to consume even more than the human stomach in the matter of farm products. In order to illustrate some of the uses that have already been discovered for
Supply-Agriculture

farm products in the matter of plastics and things of that kind, I refer the committee to a few pictures which appear in the same pamphlet. I am sure that hon. members either have this pamphlet or can get it very easily. On page 3 I find a picture of a group of young ladies, I believe numbering six. That is not what I want to draw attention to, however, but the fact that practically all the clothes these ladies are wearing in this picture have been made from products grown on the farm. Here is the caption to the picture.
Skim milk, bamboo and grass clothes the modern maiden. "Lanital" a new textile, half wool and half casein (a product of skim milk), along with bamboo and grass were used in making the clothes these girls are wearing. Nylon stockings, a product of coal, air and water, cover their limbs.
That is one illustration of how these products can be used. Then on page 9 I find a picture of twenty-three separate articles used in the construction of automobiles, all of which were made out of the soya bean, which has been used so much across the line. Farther along is a picture showing synthetic wool which has been made out of soya bean protein. So it goes, one page after another, illustrating what is being done already in the utilization of farm products for industrial purposes.
I believe the expenditures we have made each year so far in connection with research for agriculture have been pitifully small in comparison with the great returns that kind of research could bring to the farmers. We in Canada seem to be haunted by periods of shortage and surplus. At one time we are crying because we have too much of something, too much wheat or too much of something else. Then, before we know it, we are short of this and short of that. I believe that if we could use part of our farm production for industrial purposes it would serve as a sort of stabilizer for our surplus products, and in future might provide new industries for western Canada which would check the tendency of people to leave the land and drift to the cities of the east, which as I have pointed out already are congested and crowded at the present time.
Those are some of the thoughts I wish to leave with the minister and the committee. I do not want to go into any greater detail just now, and will leave anything else I have to say until we take up the individual items. I hope the minister will see his way clear to do one thing at least. That is, to increase the amount appropriated for research in order to give the young scientists of this country an opportunity to help the farmers.


Mr. WARREN:: I am not particularly fond of making speeches, especially in the House of Commons, but something happened last evening which inspires me to do so. If I had been given an opportunity of making my speech last night, probably it would have been just as brief as the remarks of the hon. member for Calgary West. I find, however, that owing to the delay I have lost some of the inspiration I had at that time.
I was sitting over there listening to the hon. member for Melfort, the hon. member for Battle River and the hon. member for Wood Mountain, and I thought of the many weary hours I had sat in this house listening to western members talk about conditions in their own part of the country. I cannot recall a western member ever telling us anything about happy homes, or contentment, or men who had got along and achieved comparative riches. We hear nothing of that at all; nothing but gloom comes from the lips of the members who represent our western provinces.


James Arthur Ross: Come on out and see us; we will show you how happy we can be.


Ralph Melville Warren: Well, you know that sort of thing makes me sick, and I was pretty sick when the hon. member for Calgary West rose in his place. You get so tired of listening to people constantly grumbling, people who hive nothing to be thankful for in this fair land of ours. When the hon. member for Calgary West rose and shot a ray of sunlight from Alberta down into this House of Commons, immediately my gloom was dispersed and I thought here at last was something to be happy about, one western member who had a good thing to say about his own country.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is a lawyer, not a farmer.


Ralph Melville Warren: He was very cautious, and perhaps he understated the case when he went so far as to admit'that we are not all broke. I have memories of bygone years, when my relatives and neighbours who had gone west finally found themselves sufficiently wealthy to return home for a visit during the winter months. A common comment from those people was, "I would not take your whole set-up here, farm and everything else, if you gave it to me as a present, if I had to live on it." Some went even farther than that and- said, "I would not take your whole township as a present if I had to live in this country." I spoke to some of them about the cold, but the answer always was, "Oh, yes, it is cold, but you don't feel it." So that everything was beautiful and grand. *

Supply-Agriculture
In 1913 I went west, as far as Edmonton, and the memory which lingers with me most vividly is that about every second man you met was expecting to become a millionaire overnight by dabbling in real estate. Of course that bubble burst; it did not pan out so well for those speculators. Then I made a trip west in 1938; I thought if I was going to get any good from this pass I might as well see the western coast, so I took two and a half weeks off. Of course in that time you cannot do very much more than get impressions, going from here to the west coast and back; but while on that trip I can remember going out to a farm in southern Manitoba and looking at a field that would thresh thirty, thirty-five or forty bushels to the acre. The farmer told me that was the twentieth crop of wheat in succession on that piece of land. What has any person to grumble about if he has land like that? I remember travelling west from Winnipeg and looking at the beautiful homes, the meadows, the stacks of hay, the cattle in the pastures, the shelters around the homes and barns. I thought, "Well, if there is a God's country anywhere, this must be it." When I was in Regina I remember going through the country and being simply amazed at the broad acres with wonderful crops of wheat waving in the wind. Travelling west out of Regina on the train I remember that a stranger sitting beside me said, "Isn't it monotonous"? I replied that it was fascinating, mile after mile of beautiful fields of grain. It was true that you might go many miles without seeing a home, and then you might see a little shack perched up on a high piece of land. My conclusion was that it belonged to some man who came out in the spring, used his mechanized machinery to put in a crop, went home until harvest time and then returned to take off the harvest, someone who probably worked for a couple of months a year and spent the rest of the time retired somewhere in town; a land miner-not a home builder.
An hon. MEMBER; On 25-cent wheat?
Mr. WARREN; Well, if you get enough wheat at 25 cents a bushel you still have a lot of money. I thought that last night the hon. member for Melfort found it pretty difficult to find anything under present conditions which would justify him to stop whining. He did whine when he endeavoured to have the Minister of Agriculture give him a five-year guarantee that conditions would not be any worse in the next five years. Well, the hon. member is pretty anxious to whine, when he must go so far into the future to find something to whine about.
In my travels I got along as far as Ca'lgary, and I recall with pride the means of travel between Calgary and Edmonton. Those two points are served by two buses and two trains each day.


Mr. LOW:: Three.


Ralph Melville Warren: Probably it is three now; it was two then. I thought of all the oil in the Turner valley and of the coal in almost any hill.
Anyway, I went out to see some relatives at Lacombe. I think of the young men who went out to the Peace River district, and of one in particular who has become h comparatively wealthy man within a few years. He would go into our granaries in the east, and would say, "When I go into one of your granaries and see your oats, it just looks like chaff to me." The fertility and productivity of western soil is remarkable.
In the area surrounding Lacombe they have everything within easy reach: timber, wood, plenty of water, oil and coal in abundance. Yet we hear this grumbling from members coming from Alberta. I have never yet heard one of them say a word in praise of his native province. When I saw that area I said: "Well, this is the garden of Canada, and probably the richest	province in the
dominion."


Mr. MANROSS:: May I ask a question?


Ralph Melville Warren: Well, it is nearly six o'clock and I want to finish my speech.


Park Manross: When the hon. member referred to chaff, was he referring to his speech or to the granaries?


Ralph Melville Warren: Well, I can tell the hon. member that I am somewhat boiled up about this matter, and the effect this sort of thing is going to have on the young people from the western provinces.
Let me give an example. I happened to bo on the train and to listen to some boys who were sitting across the aisle from me, and were engaged in conversation. Those boys were on their way home, for harvest leave. After listening to them for a while, I learned where they were from, and eventually got into conversation with them. I remember particularly one fine young man-


An hon. MEMBER:: He must have been from the west.

Supply-Agriculture


Ralph Melville Warren: Yes, he was from Saskatchewan. He told me about coming home on harvest leave in the previous year. He said that he had arrived' home late at night, got on the binder next morning and run that binder steadily for two weeks or it might have been for twenty-one days. One of his brothers was on another binder during the same time, and all the grain they cut belonged to one family, for the family alone were operating the farm. They had cattle and horses-they had everything. Well, if you got only ten cents a bushel for all that grain, you would still have a lot of money. But here is the part that got me-


Charles Edward Johnston: Then you woke up.


Ralph Melville Warren: We'began talking politics, and the name of Jimmie Gardiner was mentioned. Well, one might as well have mentioned the name of the greatest criminal in the world.


An hon. MEMBER:: Were you looking for votes?


Ralph Melville Warren: No; I was trying to get the impression held by these young men. Jimmie Gardiner?-"Oh, he does not do anything for the farmers." Well, I thought of the millions of dollars spent in digging water-holes, in building fences for pastures, and all those other operations which have taken place in western Canada. I began wondering whether in the opinion of these boys there was anything right. They seemed to think everything was wrong.
What is the cause of that? Is it because we have had so many men going through the west trying to capitalize on discontent, and if there is none, trying to create it? Is that why these young people in western Canada are growing up in the belief that nothing is right and everything wrong?


Victor Quelch: It is because they have good common sense; that is why.


Ralph Melville Warren: Well, that remark would help them a lot. I said to these boys, "What is wrong with you fellows? Does every western man expect to get rich?"


Victor Quelch: On 10-cent wheat!


Ralph Melville Warren: He said, "We all expect to get rich." "Well," I said, "there you are.
'Mr. Warren.]
That is the difference between a western and an eastern farmer."


Charles Edward Johnston: That is the exclusive
right of the eastern farmer, eh?


Ralph Melville Warren: I said, "We eastern farmers have no expectation or hope of ever getting rich. We believe that if in a lifetime a man can manage to own a small farm, one which you would scarcely regard as a decent pasture, and can own a home and farm buildings, raise a family and give .them something of a start in 'life, we have done a pretty good job for one lifetime." But these boys admitted that they wanted and expected to get rich.


Mr. JOHNSON:: They had ambition.


Ralph Melville Warren: I am not so sure that that is ambition, because there are so many things which enter into riches. A person can be very poor, as far as possession of this world's goods is concerned, and yet indeed be very rich; on the other hand, one can have large sums of money and still be very very poor.
In the minute left before six o'clock I should like to quote from tthe address by General H. D. G. 'Crenar, delivered recently at Upper Canada college, as reported in the Ottawa Journal of to-day. These were his closing remarks:
One further thought I would like to leave with you. You will get your true happiness in the life that lies ahead of you in accomplishing some worthy thing in which you are definitely interested. It doesn't matter, in my opinion, what that activity is, or whether it's a "white collar" or a "shirt-sleeve" job-providing only that it is useful, and not harmful, to others, as well as bein^ interesting to yourself. Also, it is quite unimportant whether it brings a large financial return, or a modest one. The main satisfactions we get out of life are the mental and spiritual-not the financial. I am sure, also, that it is not the length of a man's life which is important but, instead what he accomplishes in the time at his disposal. It is that conviction which enables me to think quietly, aad with pride, of the 22,000 and more, officers and men of the First Canadian Army who now lie buried overseas. They died for the sake of humanity and a future, better civilization. There could be no greater contribution in any lifetime . .


An hon. MEMBER:: Six o'clock. 1
Item stands.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

.	The Budget-Mr. Coldwell
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, October 19, consideration of the motion of Hon. J. L. Ilsley (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Macdonnell (Muskoka-Ontario).
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, this important debate has had a rather long adjournment and I feel that interest in it will suffer on that account, but I am very glad that we are to resume the debate and to have an opportunity to express our views with regard to some of the proposals made in the budget and the general proposals for the country.
This first peace-time budget reflects, I think with but few exceptions, the outstanding characteristics of the present administration. The budget I would say is cautious and in most respects non-committal. Unfortunately it fails to display those qualities of foresight and imagination so vital to the solution of our problems. It contained, too, at the beginning a very important tariff change, but public opinion since tlhe introduction of the budget has been brought into play and I am glad to see that that proposal has been withdrawn. I hope that the new regulation regarding diesel parts and engines will, .before long, meet a similar fate. ,
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) committed the recovery of the country and the prosperity of its citizens into the hands of so-called private enterprise. The government, now that the war is over, foreshadows its own removal from the national economic scene; that is, its direct removal from the national social and economic scene. It entrusts Canada to the activities of groups and individuals whose motive has always been profit rather than public need. The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell), who incidentally made such a witty speech on the budget, seems to have missed the whole point of what I have just said. He poked fun at those of us who believe that the motive of production must be the satisfying qf human need, not the making of private profit. That, may I add, is the vital difference between a cooperative society and a corporation, a difference which the royal commission on the taxation of cooperatives in its report, which 47696-162i
we shall discuss when we have had an opportunity of studying it more carefully, seems to fail to recognize.
No one objects to anyone who gives service to his fellows receiving a reward for the service that he renders. The trouble with the economic system which my hon. friend supports is that it often demands its rent, its interest and its profit for no service except that of owning the resources and machines by which society must live. Even the authority he quoted, or at best the one sentence he quoted from Professor Lindsay, confused the issue by comparing an assured salary with an uncertain profit, for profit is not what the individual receives from society as a reward for his services and to meet his legitimate living and other expenses in rendering that service, but what he demands merely as the toll which society must pay because he somehow is in possession of the resources and machines to which every man must-have access in order to live. In our capitalist system the ownership of great corporations and financial institutions is usually divorced from the managerial function.


Mr. SINNOTT:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is reading his speech.


Thomas Miller Bell: No, Mr. Speaker, I am following rather extended notes. I am not reading my speech, as the hon. gentleman will find if he looks at what I am holding in my hand.	.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: The hon. member was
reading.


Thomas Miller Bell: I think everybody in
this house knows that I do not have to read my speech. I was going on to say that the managers themselves are responsible to self-perpetuating boards of directors, who in reality exercise very often no managerial functions. The interest of those directors is of course in the strengthening of .the corporation and in the paying of dividends, the rendering of public service often being incidental to the two aims which I have mentioned. Thus Benjamin Disraeli's dictum that the possession of property should be synonymous with the performance of duty is almost entirely disregarded in our present society, and, if I may say so, the Christian ethic that ownership rni^t be synonymous with stewardship is almost entirely absent from the society in which we live.
We are entering a crucial period of our national existence.. Let us be realistic. Let us dispel from our minds the idea that since the world is no longer convulsed by a military straggle we shall merely revert, with no effort, to normal and peaceful living. I think every-
The Budget-Mr. Coldwell

one will agree that we are living in an age of unrest and transformation. We have left behind irrevocably, it seems to me, the world we knew only a few years ago. We are entering a new and complex age, an age full of hope and yet replete with great peril, because the world is in the throes of a revolutionary upheaval, a revolutionary upheaval the like of which mankind has never seen before. For us to maintain the status quo and to effect only minimum changes such as would satisfy powerful social and economic interests in our own land and elsewhere would cause bitterness and resultant social and economic chaos. ''Our task in this house, as in every democratic parliament everywhere in the world, is that of endeavouring to make fundamental changes in the interests of the common man as rapidly and with as little dislocation as possible; in other words, to plan for changes by consent rather than by revolutionary upheaval.
Both the budget and the spokesman for the official opposition show no disposition to undertake such a programme. This is an age of science and of technology. The vast scientific strides that we have made during the war * culminating in the development of atomic energy show the need more that ever, we believe, for democratic control of the nation's resources both natural and financial. Unless proper supervision is exercised of the delicate and complex interrelationship between industry and the public and between industry and science, anarchy and chaos may well result. This we believe involves national economic and social planning under the leadership-hot under the day-to-day direction but under the leadership-of the democratically elected representatives of the people. That belief is now widely shared throughout the British commonwealth of nations, as was indicated clearly the other afternoon when Prime Minister Attlee addressed both houses of parliament.
Inextricably linked with the manner in which we govern our country is the manner in which we govern our finances. Does our present financial structure, exist as a means of serving the nation, the primary needs of the nation, or does it exist mainly to serve the interests of a privileged few?
Certain aspects of the budget fill my mind with doubts as to the ultimate goal of the nation's fiscal policy at the present time. Let us look at. one proposal in the budget. The budget proposes a flat sixteen per cent decrease in the income tax. This measure has been greeted somewhat enthusiastically by certain elements in our country, but as far as the bulk of the population is concerned this amounts to practically no reduction at all. It does not give relief to the
[Mr. Coldwell.1
small income groups which predominate in our society, but it aids those who do not need it; that is, it aids them mainly. I refer to the high-income individuals and corporations. A worker, with a wife and one child, earning SI ,500 a year, with a sixteen per cent decrease will save just S8.80 a year, or S2.20 for the remainder of this year. If I take a very moderate income of an executive or an employer, we will say one making or earning $6,000 a year, the tax relief in that case will amount to $263.52. In other words, the tax relief is going to those who do not need it as badly as some others in our society. Now taxation, to be just and equitable, must be based proportionately on earning power; if must leave all individuals a sufficient amount of money to provide themselves with food, clothing, shelter, and, I would add, those amenities of life to which this scientific age should entitle them; and it must not afford more relief to the wrealthy than to the poor. It is not what you pay in taxes that counts, but what you have left after your taxes are paid. Then may I add this too, that a reduction in taxes will not benefit a man wffio loses his job.
In marked contrast to our government's policy is the policy recently announced by the Labour government of Great Britain. That government has raised the income tax exemption. Of course it was during the war lower than our exemption.


James Lorimer Ilsley: And still is.


Thomas Miller Bell: And still is. But as a matter of fact the British exemptions as they now stand are higher than they were immediately prior to the war. They go down still too low; I admit- that. But in this first budget they relieved two million taxpayers of income tax by raising the exemptions above the prewar level. In addition to raising the tax exemption level they introduced tax reduction on a proportional basis. The lowest groups received the highest percentage reduction; the higher the income, the smaller the reduction; and, indeed, on very high incomes the surtax was actually increased. The result is that the British government has made, in the wrords of Mr. Dalton, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "a further advance toward greater equality." Our own government has unfortunately not adopted the same policy toward the citizens of our country.	[DOT]
I should now like to remind the house-[DOT] because these figures have been put on the record a number of times during the last few years-of some figures regarding the earnings of waje and salary earners in this country. They are from the last available statistical report, the figures gathered in the 1941

The Budget-Mr. Coldwell
census. According to these figures-of course they were samplings of incomes in groups- 1*9 per cent only of our population earned over S3.000 a year; 83-9 per cent of our population earned less than SI.500 a year. I should like the house to bear this in mind. Almost eighty-four out of every 100 wage and salary earners in this country made less than SI,500 that year; and to maintain a family of five in health and self-respect, the cost of living bulletin issued by the welfare council of Toronto estimated that in the year 1942-a better year than 1941 as wages went-$1,757 60 would be necessary. Now let me add this, to be fair, that while not all of the eighty-four per cent are heads of families, it is certain that a fair proportion are, and hence a large section of Canadian workers are not living-or were not living then, and I believe it is still true-at a proper subsistence level. If farm income were broken down for the same year the picture, I believe, would be darker still.
In a country with almost unlimited potential wealth and natural resources, in Canada, our country, I submit that this is little short of a national disgrace. Our first consideration must be, I repeat, the well-being of our citizens. When a government offers little or no relief to the bulk of the struggling citizenry it is failing in its obligations. Just as income tax is based on, a graduated return according to income, so the present decrease should have been graduated. I submit, therefore, that the government should have raised the income tax exemption level. Individuals who are married or who have dependents should be exempt, we believe, from all income tax if they earn less than $2,000 a year. The same exemption should be made applicable to single people earning, we will say, less than $1,000 annually.
The taxes paid at the present time by the higher income groups, in spite of their complaints, still leave a good margin for decent living. They are not in any immediate need , of such consideration, and therefore should wait for reduction until those less fortunate have received substantial relief. The farmer, I have always thought, not particularly in this budget and at this time, has been unfairly penalized by our fiscal policy. I need not remind the house of the various difficulties which have beset the Canadian farmer over the past many years. His income has never been constant. It is highly uncertain, .and perhaps that is emphasized to those of us who come from the prairie provinces, where farm income fluctuates gravely from year to year or from a period of years to a period of years. It fluctuates with extremes of
weather and markets. I have always thought and I have often said that income tax for the farmer cannot be approached or computed on the same basis as for the city dweller. He cannot be asked in fairness to pay on the basis of a yearly tax return. Taxation for him should be based on an average of annual income received over a period, say of five years. In this manner he would be assessed by the government for an equitable tax based on his average earnings. The minister should not have delayed this measure of relief to the farmer until a future .budget is introduced. May - I express the hope that when a future budget is introduced we may get this averaging of the farmers income for taxation purposes.
From the low extreme of the earnings of farmer and worker I should like now to jump to another extreme. We have seen the inadequate budgetary treatment of low-income groups. What consideration do some of the giant concerns in our country, colossal in * financial wealth and control over the lives of the Canadian people, receive from the government? May I add that these are the big fleas that afflict the distressed body politic especially in normal times and in days of near or actual peace-time depression. As the report on international cartels and monopolies, placed on the table of the house' recently, indicates quite clearly, they reach into every home and take their toll from every person in this country, rich and poor alike. They take their toll when we buy matches; they take their toll when we buy electric light bulbs, radio tubes, aluminum pots and pans, aspirin, drugs, paints and a host of everyday necessities which they control.
Allow me to try to remove any misunderstanding from the minds of hon. members as to the extent to which big industrial concerns have suffered under the conditions which have existed during the last six years. Let us take as an example a company which has been in the forefront of the news recently because of its opposition to its employees in regard to unionization. I refer, of course, to the Ford Company of Canada. From 1939 to 1944 the assets of the Ford company increased from $68,698,491 to $95,964,268, an increase of over $27 million, or approximately forty per cent. And this, remember, was during the war years when so many hon. members affirmed the need for equality of sacrifice. It has added over $6 million in the same period to its earned surplus account, earned surpluses being profits held by the company after dividends have been paid; and the statutory rebate of twenty per cent on excess profits tax provided for in 1942 will mean, I am told, a refund of a
The Budget*-Mr. Coldwell


Mr. REID:: When was that produced?


Thomas Miller Bell: A few years ago. I
cannot give the exact year, but is was several years ago. The C.C.F. is not like some political organizations. It does not remain static, clinging to a platform formulated at a national convention in 1919, and never having had one since. Of course such a policy would remain the same. But we hold a convention provincially every year and a national convention every two years, when the rank and file of our organization have an opportunity of making their views felt and heard in relation to our policy. Thus, Mr. Speaker, the relief given-


William Earl Rowe: Page Lewis.
tMr. Coldwell.]


Thomas Miller Bell: I should like to know what that remark means.


William Earl Rowe: Nobody knows better than you.


Thomas Miller Bell: Nobody knows better than I? Let me say this to my hon. friend. I am proud to have associated in the C.C.F. movement, as one of our officers, a man with the brilliant intellect and fine gifts of David Lewis; and may I add it ill befits some of the Tories in Canada to go across the country and try to raise racial and religious prejudice against David Lewis.


William Earl Rowe: We never tried that.


Thomas Miller Bell: I was in North Grey.


William Earl Rowe: So was I.


Thomas Miller Bell: I know you were, and that is exactly why I made the pointed reference just now.
To continue, Mr. Speaker. Thus the relief given for the encouragement of small manufacturing and business is in complete accord with the policy of the party for which I speak. Similar consideration should be given those engaged in agriculture, fishing and related industries which perform an acceptable service to our people. During the war many small businesses suffered. That in the war-time economy was perhaps inevitable. 'In the war years heavy industries producing capital goods were required. Impetus was given to such products and industries as iron, steel, shipbuilding, armaments, aircraft and so on. Today the largest firms are having the largest lay-offs. Government failure, I should add, to plan adequately for reconversion to civilian consumer needs has already begun to reap its fearful harvest of unemployment and insecurity. Lack of government supervision has meant quite simply lack of needed work and production, which in the end will mean restricted consumption.
The speech of the hon. member for Mus-koka-Ontario wound up with an amendment which has little relationship to his pleas. Indeed, I wondered when he read the amendment whether he himself had really drafted it; it seemed so unrelated to the speech which he made. For example, nowhere did he make effective or constructive proposals to ensure either full employment or full production. True he spoke of the necessity of both. He spoke with approval of Mr. Dalton's assurance that the socialist government of Britain had a five-year plan for economic and social progress, but he reminded the house with equal approval that in 1920 the Tory chancellor of the exchequer in Great Britain set

_________ The Budget-Mr. Coldwell
a limit on desirable public expenditures, the absence of which we now know, began the sequence of events which led British industry and her people to the brink of disaster.
The amendment demands the elimination of extravagant government expenditure. The hon. member dealt ably and well with the disregard of economy in military expenditures, which is a by-product of war. But taken in conjunction with his approval of the British budget of 1920, and the record of his party in the past, the inadequacy of his reference to worth-while social and economic legislation and to such projects as family allowances, a national health programme and so on, seemed significant of the kind of thinking which lay behind the words of the amendment.
I commend very heartily and sincerely my hon. friend's complaint that no adequate relief has been granted to persons in the low-income brackets; but if we are to maintain full employment and adequate social services we cannot reduce levies on high incomes and wealthy corporations. The relief of the low-income groups releases that purchasing power which is essential for the achievement of social objectives. Thus our revenues must be obtained more, rather than less, from high-income groups and corporations. This, it seemed to me, my hon. friend failed to recognize or to mention. On ithe contrary, his speech did contain a plea for the wealthy and privileged groups of this country. Having said that, I want to say, if I have misjudged my hon. friend-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: You have.


Thomas Miller Bell: - I shall give him an opportunity to set the matter right, because I am going to move an amendment; for although we of the C.C.F. could vote for the words of the amendment, we cannot vote for what we believe to be the substance of the speech which introduced it or what lies behind the words of the amendment. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maolnnis):
That the amendment be amended by adding to paragraph (a) these words:
"which require the use of our national credit in terms of public need to make possible a large-scale investment programme, the public reconversion of war industries for peace-time needs, the public development of new industries, of scientific research and of our natural resources."
And to paragraph (b) the words:
"and that no programme has been outlined for the expansion of essential expenditures necessary to provide complete social security and adequate purchasing power for our people;"
And to paragraph (c) the words:
"but, on the contrary, substantial and unjustifiable relief has been granted to large corporations and to individuals in the high income brackets."
So that the amendment would then read: This house regrets:
(a)	that no effective plan has been proposed to ensure full production and employment which require the use of our national credit in terms of public need to make possible a large-scale investment programme, the public reconversion of war industries for peace-time needs, the public development of new industries, of scientific research and of our natural resources;
(b)	that no satisfactory policy has been advanced for the elimination of extravagant governmental expenditures and that no programme has been outlined for the expansion of essential expenditures necessary to provide complete social security and adequate, purchasing power for our people;
(c)	that no adequate provision has been made for the immediate relief of the people in the lower income brackets from excessive taxation but, on the contrary, substantial and unjustifiable relief has been granted to large corporations and to individuals in the high-income brackets.
In other words, we have taken the amendment and added' words which imply policy to meet the objections made by the mover of the amendment. I am sorry to see the government place so little importance upon public works projects. With so much to be done in our country, with so many schools, community centres and hospitals, and roads to be built, with so much employment to be derived from such useful projects, I think it is unfortunate that so little emphasis is placed on such vital projects. It is not good enough to wait for a dominion-provincial agreement before going into such policies.
The wealth of this nation cannot be measured by the dry ahd lifeless statistics of a fiscal .policy. In the final analysis it can be measured, only by the amount of goods and services provided to its citizens, by the standard of living they enjoy, by their freedom from oppressive fears of want, war and illness.
In Canada, as elsewhere, we must increase our consumer goods. This can be done only if we are given the public investments necessary to develop our resources to provide essential services and facilities for distributing th'e purchasing power among the masses of the people, which is the result, incidentally, of a high level of employment. Key industries must produce, at minimum cost price, the equipment and materials the consumer industries need. But these basic industries, dominated by one or a few large corporations, have tended in the past to restrict output in order to maintain high prices. The cartel report placed before the house substantiates this fact. This has
The Budget-Mr. Coldwell

been the hallmark of monopoly practice all over the world.. In this country, the production of such commodities as aluminum-and I may say something about aluminum later on when we are able to look into the report which was placed before the house-nickel, chemicals, and farm machinery is centred in the hands of a few major concerns. And, as I want to emphasize again, the truth of this statement can be found in the report tabled in the house a few days ago.
One result, among many of course, is that the small business cannot expand or flourish. To develop our natural resources properly, a public investment programme, plus certain phases of public enterprise, is the only lasting answer.
Now, Mr. Speaker, although there were some other matters with which I intended to deal to-night, I see that I am within two minutes or so of my time, and I do not believe in asking an extension of time when that is not in order. However, I wish to say one other word. I believe that the future prosperity of this country depends in a large degree on the encouragement of scientific investigation and development of our own resources. I want once more to make a plea for a matter which has been up in this house from time to time and which has been borne in upon me again over this last week-end, when I had an opportunity once again of meeting some young and middle-aged Canadians in the great country to the south who left our country because they could not find the opportunities to go on with the technical and scientific work for which they qualified in this country. We cannot. expect a man who has spent years in training himself for a particular scientific work, and who obtains, we will say, his PhD. degree, to accept $2,100 a year. There was a time just before the war when some were ready to scoff at professors and men with Ph.D. degrees, but that time has passed. Largely they are the ones who gave us radar; they gave us the scientific developments and economic advice that helped us to win this war; they have given us the power to develop atomic energy. I want to say to the government that I was disappointed ini reading the war appropriations bill and the normal estimates to see that there had been an actual reduction in the amount allotted for scientific research. To my mind, if you take the total amount allotted it is so relatively insignificant in our national budget that this house should look very carefully into the matter and do what it can to see to it that we retain and maintain in our employ those brilliant young scientists whom we are in danger of losing.

I -want to make that plea, not in a partisan spirit but because I believe the future of this Country depends so largely on the scientific development of our natural resources that all should make every endeavour to see to it that our young scientists are encouraged to remain in this country and do the job for Canada and for the. Canadian people for which this country has so well equipped them.


Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: On a question of privilege. I should like to correct one misapprehension or one misstatement which I am sure the hon. member made unwittingly. I shall be very brief. The hon. member suggested that I had approved the British budget of 1920. I wish to read one sentence from my speech showing that, while I pointed to it as an objective that we might seek to attain, I said this:
Let me say again that I think that- Referring to their action.
-was too sudden; I think in a financial sense it was too heroic, and I think it is quite arguable that by the sudden action taken in that way evil results flowed therefrom.


Thomas Miller Bell: But it was heroic.


James Horace King: It is moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis):
That the amendment be amended by adding to paragraph (a) the words, "which require the use of our national credit in terms of public need to make possible a large-scale investment programme, the public reconversion of war industries for peacetime needs, the public development of new industries, of scientific research and of our natural resources;" and to paragraph (b) the words, "and that no programme has been outlined for the expansion of essential expenditures necessary to provide complete social security and adequate purchasing power for our people;" and to paragraph (c) the words, "hut, on the contrary, substantial and unjustifiable relief has been granted to large corporations and to individuals in the high income brackets."
So that the amendment would then read:
"This house regrets:
(a)	that no effective plan has been proposed to ensure full production and employment which require the use of our national credit in terms of public need to make possible a large-scale investment programme, the public reconversion of war industries for peacetime needs, the public development of new industries, of scientific research and of our natural resources;
(b)	that no satisfactory policy has been advanced for the elimination of extravagant governmental expenditures and that no programme has been outlined for the expansion of essential expenditures necessary to provide complete social security and adequate purchasing power for our people;
(c)	that no adequate provision has been made for the immediate relief of the people in the lower income brackets from excessive taxation but, on the contrary, substantial and unjustifi-

The Budget-Mr. Low
able relief has been granted to-large corporations and to individuals in the high income brackets."


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think the amenc}-ment as put by Your Honour is not exactly the amendment moved by the hon. member. As read by Your Honour the amendment includes part of the amendment which was moved previously by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell). The amendment moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) would be the amendment which would result if it overcame the amendment moved by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario. I do not think this house is entitled to vote upon the consequence of (he amendment made by my hon. friend to the main motion.


Thomas Miller Bell: I presumed that the Speaker had received both the amendment and the amendment as amended. I am very sorry the error has occurred through my sending up the two documents, which I read separately.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is really no difference except that Mr. Speaker has placed before the house the resulting amendment which my hon. friend's amendment to the amendment would bring about.
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, in a good many respects this is a peculiar budget debate. My mind goes back to 1938 when a similar situation arose in the province of Alberta when I was presenting the budget in the legislature at Edmonton. I just got my budget before the house when I was called to Ottawa to deal with seed grain advances by the then Minister of Finance, Mr. Dunning. For a period of ten days I had to leave my budget before the house to be shot full of holes in my absence. However, I note that in this case the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) guarded against any such thing and saw to it that the debate did not continue until he got back. I think that is a very good thing.
I should like to remind the minister that I am in good company. I recall that the newspapers of the day in their caridatures and cartoons on the front pages showed the minister of finance of Alberta as a mother who had just placed her baby on the doorstep of a big house, suggesting perhaps the parliament, and then was sneaking away and leaving the baby to its fate. Under the whole picture was the caption. "He has no mother instincts." I presume that there are two of us who have no mother instincts with respect to these babes, the budgets.
However that may be, it is my impression that it is the dream of every minister of finance to build a perfect budget, just as it seems to be the dream of every person with criminal instincts to plan and execute the perfect crime. I hasten to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I do not suggest any connection between the two, although many people consider the greatest criminal in the country is the Minister of Finance. "Kill 'Ilsley" seems to be a common slogan in many quarters of Canada. I sometimes think the minister does not make his burden any easier to bear by his inertia and his standardized attitude toward the matter of financial improvement and progress. However that may be, the minister has my sympathy and I want him to know and feel that.
No sooner is his dream of the perfect budget taking shape than along comes something or somebody to take the whole edge off it. Either a war starts or a tragedy occurs within the nation which necessitates the expenditure of large sums of extra money, or somebody gets an idea which starts a raid on the treasury from a dozen different quarters.
I can see the minister can appreciate that because of his experience. The urge to spend is very strong in the departments of government and so the dream of the minister is shot. In the end the minister is forced to bring into the house such financial proposals which do not in any way reflect his idea of a good budget. Here again I do not suggest that there is any connection between that very short budget and the one that he has brought in.
Let me make just a statement about the treatment now given to the Minister of Finance as a rule in this house. It seems to me that the treatment the minister receives as a rule does not help him very much. He does have suggestions made to him from time to time, but the criticism is usually pretty destructive. It must be quite cold comfort to a tired, overworked and harassed Minister of Finance to have some of hon. members rush in to help him hoist from the backs of the public and from his own back the old man of the sea

that is, the dead-weight of taxes that were spoken of by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell)-only to find that they have prepared for him a bed of Procrustes, on which he is supposed to rest when the burden is lifted from his back.
If our budget criticisms are to be of any value to the government it seems to me that they must be more than demands for reduced expenditures. Surely it is only reasonable that the minister might expect from financial experts scientific recommendations in keeping
The Budget-Mr. Low

with the advanced time in which we live. The minister has a right to expect from his critics something more than blind and misguided loyalty to narrow, financial and economic notions that have been outmoded for many years.
It seems reasonable, too, that we on this side of the house, and in fact hon. members in all parts of the house, should expect from the minister the application to his problems of some of the progressive mental thought and practice much more in keeping with an age in which any but the mentally atrophied must know and realize and recognize that what is physically possible can be made financially possible.
While the minister was presenting his budget and I was following most carefully his admirable presentation of a fairly complicated set of financial proposals, now and again my mind slipped back to the many budgets and the many sleepless nights I spent in trying to build budgets, and particularly to build my perfect budget-because I had the same dream. The figures which I juggled in those days were puny when compared with the ones the minister juggles. But the principle underlying the two were certainly just the same.
Later, as I studied the document, and supporting schedules and budget papers, I was tempted to do just a little budgeting on my own-just to keep in practice you know, in case the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) decides to make the Minister of Finance the president of the international bank for reconstruction and development, and asks me to take his place to help the Prime Minister get this country on a twentieth century financial structure.
But seriously, Mr. Speaker, I was anxious, as a matter of fact to look beyond the present ' year, perhaps even beyond the next year, to a time when our war and our main rehabilitation expenditures will have been reduced to peace-time levels, and when we shall be once more on a purely peace-time economy. To do this I set up, using the government's own figures and proposals, what appears to me to be the minimum peace-time burden of fixed charges and variables in the budget which the people of Canada will have to meet out of their production during the years to come.
I should like to refer to a breakdown of the budget which grows in my mind. These are the fixed charges that I find in the present budget: family allowances of approximately $200 million. I do not mean of course to criticize these, because I find myself in substantial agreement with many of them. Then, interest on the debt, including service, which

of course I do not agree with, including annual amortization and bond discount, premiums and commissions, 8400 million. Then, subsidies to provinces, not including special compensation to provinces in lieu of income and corporation taxes, $14,500,000 in round figures. Then, old age pensions, $33,500,000; superannuation and retirement allowances, $3,100,000; unemployment insurance; that is, the federal government's contribution to the fund, and the cost of administration, $20 million; veterans affairs, for rehabilitation and treatment services, payments to and for dependents, including administration of the Veterans' Land Act, and statutory amounts, $74 million. This makes a total minimum for years to come of $745,100,000 of fixed charges.
This represents merely those charges which are fairly thoroughly fixed as to minimum, so long as the government continues to operate under the present system of debt and taxation, and so long as it continues to honour its present commitments. Every single item in that schedule is bound to grow, except pen haps the item of interest and debt service. And even that will continue to increase verjt rapidly unless the government takes some determined action along sounder lines than has ever before been followed in government financing in this country. I might have more to say about this at a later stage, if time permits.
Thus far I have set out only the fixed part of the financial picture for the immediate future. There has yet to be considered federal government financial commitments in case the proposals made to the provinces under the dominion-provincial conference are given effect to. The chief of these follows-and the figures I present are only the increases in the expenditures above those which I have already included in the fixed charge burden necessary to fulfil the commitments to the provinces.
The first of these is national old age pensions and assistance, including administration costs, of approximately $200 million; health insurance, in the early stages only, of $70 million; subsidies to provinces, an irreducible minimum-and I am using only a minimum- of $12 per capita of provincial population, 'based on the 1941 production figure of $8 billion, giving an amount of $124 million. Then comes the extension of unemployment insurance-and this is an estimate after studying the proposals before the dominion-provincial conference-amounting to $20 million. These would total $414 million. With this added to the burden of fixed charges already presented of $745,100,000, we have a grand total minimum of $1,159,100,000 for years to come in those two items.

The Budget-Mr. Low
We might also consider the variables in our peace-time budget. These consist of defence budget and ordinary government budget which would include provision for trade requirements. These two will doubtless run normally at about $800 million, unless of course we carve back drastically our expenditures for defence, and also tackle seriously the problem of reducing administration costs.
It is my opinion that there is much that can be done, particularly along the latter line. The position this group takes is this: Cut out all. waste; carry on a businesslike administration; quickly find out the position where economy, efficiency and strength, meet, and then stay on that ground.
I -would remind the minister that some heavy bureaucracies have grown up in the past, ten years in the administration of this country, and it will require determined action on the part of government to get rid of those bureaucracies. But might I suggest most earnestly right here that the government see to it that in cutting down these staffs to an efficient peace-time level the fathers and mothers who gave their all, who made such a noble sacrifice during the war, and who were temporary war workers, be the last to be dismissed.
Taking the complete picture of fixed charges and of a variable running normally to about $S00 million a year, we can foresee these minimum normal requirements of approximately $2 billion a year to meet the programmes that have been outlined by the government.
This figure does not include any provision whatsover for debt retirement, and it does not provide for repayment to the people of Canada of the refundable portion of the income and excess profits taxes amounting to $444,271,000. These two items will require considerable additional expenditure above the $2 billion minimum if we are ever to cut down our very heavy load of debt. I suggest that we must tackle this debt problem realistically and at the earliest possible time. We should start reducing our debt now and keep on reducing it until the people of the country are free from the burden of debt.
If we assume that the total national production of $10 billion is maintained, the government will have to tax from the people a straight 20 per cent of their incomes or they will have to continue deficit budgeting, in which case the debt will continue to rise year after year, and consequently a larger portion of the revenues will have to be devoted to paying interest. My advice to the government is that they get on a pay-as-you-go basis as quickly as possible and stay there. With
flexibility gone from the budget, and with their bridges burned behind them, the government must soon realize that they are between the upper and the nether millstones.
I also suggest that it will require some rather bold and determined action on their part to keep those millstones from grinding them and with them the country to dust. Twenty per cent of the national income is a very high tax rate indeed. I suggest that it is a double tithe. When you add to that burden the weight of provincial and municipal taxation the taxpayers of this country face a pretty gloomy future unless the government makes a new approach to public finance, and I suggest that there is such an approach.
I said a moment ago that the government had burned its bridges behind it. What I meant was that the government of the day had committed itself to a very large programme of social and other services, resulting in a burden of fixed charges in the budget of one and a quarter billion dollars, or twice the size of the whole of the largest pre-war budget. But having given its undertakings, of course the government must carry through or go down or lose face. It is not my purpose to criticize the programme at this stage. I merely' want to emphasize and point out these facts in our Canadian economy. The government must-find it essential to keep the national production high in Canada. That is the first and most fundamental requisite of a prosperous peace time. No programme such as has been mapped out could possibly be successful without keeping the national production high. There is evidence, to me at least, that the government realize this quite well, and I want to assure them that this group in the Social Credit movement in this house will do everything within our power to assist them in keeping the national production high. In fact, we of this group are demanding an expanding economy wherein full opportunity is provided for Canadians to enjoy a rising standard of living. It is within reason.^ I am sure, that this should be. Canadian^ have always been ready to make any sacrifices necessary to bring Canada through her emergencies and through, her times of stress. Our people have made tremendous sacrifices during the past six years, and it is only simple justice, I submit, that Canadians should be allowed to enjoy to the full the security which the abundant resources of this country can provide.
In their efforts to ensure that production is kept up in Canada I feel certain that the government will face certain difficulties. I want briefly to warn the government respecting two or three of those difficulties and to pass on to

The Budget-Mr. Low
it if I can some helpful suggestions in connection with them. I do not have any desire for destructive criticism but merely to make suggestions that might prove helpful. In the first place in the efforts of the government to maintain production, I am certain that imbalances are likely to appear and grow in our economy. I believe that ordinary observation to-day reveals a great deal of these aggravating conditions in Canada right now. I shall take time to refer briefly to only two.
Live stock production has dropped dangerously low on the prairies and especially in the Peace River area, and this on account of the fact that tihe relationship ,between grain prices and live stock returns has been allowed) to become such as to discourage the production of live stock. The farmer will not slave from sunup to sundown or from long before sunup to long after sundown day in and day out throughout the whole year unless he foresees a reasonable chance that he will lbe paid for his work. He did not (hesitate to do this in war when he felt that his sacrifices would contribute to victory over our enemy. Right here I want to say that in my opinion Canadian farmers did make a magnificent contribution to Canada's war effort. But now that the war is over, it should1 be kept in mind that there is no financial incentive whatever for the farmer to keep his nose to the grindstone throughout the year feeding and finishing live stock. He can make a good living from grain and can get enough meat for himself and family easily enough. He responded splendidly in war time to the appeal for increased meat production and other production. But now he is five years older and he is definitely tired. Most of our farmers were middle-aged men when war broke out and the younger ones either went or were taken into the army. The older men carried on during the war without adequate help and now they feel justified, since the conflict is over, in taking things a bit easier.
I suggest with all respect that the shortsighted policy of the government in guaranteeing a price on wheat for the next five years without arranging a comparable and similar policy for meat production has resulted in a very bad slump in live stock prices. Cattle are not selling well at rural auction sales throughout the west, and especially in the Peace River district, where there are practically no hogs whatever for sale. The older farmers will not go back into stock raising without material encouragement and certainly they will not induce the younger returning men to raise live stock. The government have been repeatedly warned of this situation, but thus far it Seems that they have refused to see

the facts. An individual whose judgment I respect wrote me from the Peace River country, and I should like to quote a paragraph or two from his letter by way of evidence of what I have said. He said:
I personally, through filling out gas applications for several hundred farmers each year, on which applications a complete statement of live stock holdings was shown, could see what was coming up. Up until a year ago every farmer in this district listed from twenty-five to two hundred pigs. This last spring only one reported two hundred and the average was between one and five. If we had a quota to fill for Europe any sane man should see that rationing is not. the answer. What we need is a policy to build up production again to adequate levels to meet our own needs and at the same time to meet the-needs of starving Europe. This could easily be done. People up here have possibly not been heard in the rationing discussion, but.I can tell you as a fact that they have no sympathy for it..
The people up in the same section of the country. I am told, are somewhat bitter about, sugar rationing, believing that no effort has been made to increase production in Canada where refineries have operated' up to only a. little more than, half their capacity. They believe that, there is a combine racket in this field; my judgment tells me that there is something very peculiar about the situation, and I aim to get to the bottom of it when I have time.
What I wanted to emphasize was that as we set out to bring up our national production to the level required, if the Canadian people are to meet the demands of the various governments for taxes and services, we must take pains to establish by every means possible a balanced economy. One of the essentials in this effort must be a price structure that is based upon the parity principle and that will guarantee primary producers in every field their fair share of the national income and the national production. It goes without saying, too, that if we are to be successful in our efforts in this respect there must be some vision on the part of the government and also close and sympathetic cooperation amongst the Department of Finance and the Departments of Agriculture and Trade and Commerce.
I turn to a second problem that will have to be faced. In the second place, as the programme of full production gets under way, the government must- be on its guard against the building up in Canada once more of huge unsaleable surpluses of goods. A careful study of economic experience of the past reveals, to me at any rate, that when unsaleable surpluses begin to show themselves in the country we are beginning to enter a depression period. What has been striking to me. ^r, is this. A study of depressions

The Budget-Mr. Low
shows that they recur at intervals largely in inverse proportion to the inability of the Canadian people to produce; that is to say, that the interval of years between major depressions grows shorter when our productive capacity increases, and roughly in the same proportion.
What does this mean? Let us take a glance at the facts of the history of the past fifteen years. I recall that when, on October 12. the minister presented his budget he indulged in some history. I propose to do a bit of the same thing.
In 1929 Canada ran into a period of business recession the like of which we had not had in our history before. Merchants at that time found themselves with full shelves and warehouses but with few customers able to buy the goods they had in abundance. Consequently merchants ordered no more goods from wholesalers; wholesalers, with full warehouses, cancelled orders from manufacturers; and manufacturers, unable to get orders, laid off men and therefore stopped paying wages to the men. This reduced still further the . ability of people generally to buy the goods which retailers had for sale; and worse still, it started the vicious circle which ended up in a first-class [DOT] unemployment problem. Bread lines, trade stagnation, and poverty in the midst of abundance became the order of that day,, and to make matters worse, during the first fifteen months after 1930 more than S900 million in purchasing power was withdrawn from circulation in Canada and was cancelled out of existence.
Did this condition of depression come about because producers would not produce? No; that is not true. Common observation at that time revealed that production remained fairly high in almost every branch of productive effort, until the country was surfeited with goods of almost every description that we could produce. Was it, then, because distributors would not distribute the goods? I submit that the almost frantic race for markets which drove prices down far below economic levels indicates that distributors did their best to sell their goods. We all remember that, in their efforts to remove the goods which lined their shelves, distributors resorted to deferred payment plans which mortgaged years of the future earnings of those still fortunate enough in this country to have work, and therefore incomes.
It was about this time we began to hear the old Fabian cry, "the poor are poor because the -rich are rich", and the idea carried with it was, of course, "soak the rich." Was that the explanation of the whole sordid condition which existed then? I maintain that
that contention is stupid when it is subjected to careful scrutiny. If it were true that the poor were poor because the rich were rich, then I submit that a steeply-graded income tax that bore heavily upon the rich, with the proceeds distributed among the poor, would have solved the whole problem. That is exactly what was tried, notably in England. The poor for a' while were a bit better off through the dole, but the process finally intensified the ills rather than cured them.
Social Crediters at that time said that the first sensible step to take in starting back toward prosperity would be for the government to lay down a financial policy under which purchasing power in considerable quantities could be put into the hands of the consumers of the country. If this had been done the goods on the shelves of merchants and other distributors throughout Canada would have begun to move out into the hands of consumers; retailers would have ordered from wholesalers; wholesalers would have placed orders with manufacturers who, to fill their orders, would have had to take on men to work in their factories. The salaries paid to those men would have stimulated business all the way along the line, and as a result Canada would have started along the road to recovery. Social Crediters advocated that policy in season and out of season. We pleaded with the minister of finance of that day, but he said that there was no money, and anyhow, he contended, such a procedure would cause a dangerous inflation. So that the situation was allowed to drift and to deteriorate until war broke out in 1939. The banks and other financial institutions in this country clung to the same hoary theory of inflation as was held by the then minister of finance. They stoutly claimed that there was no money to start the wheels turning to put men back to work. "Where is the money to come from?" was their frenzied cry. Social Crediters replied, "where all money comes from, the end of a fountain pen in the hands of those authorized by law to write the figures in the ledgers of the banks." Of course we were looked upon as crazy, but I have noticed that some other people have since caught a measure of the same kind of craziness.
The Minister of Finance, in reviewing on October 12 the principles which he laid down in his first war-time budget at the special session of 1939, said, as reported in Hansard, at page 1035:
The second principle enunciated in September, 1939, was, that after an initial credit expansion, designed to facilitate a rapid increase in production, we should -endeavour to limit our borrowings as closely as possible to the genuine savings of the country.
The Budget-Mr: Low

Now just a word about this principle; immediately upon the outbreak of war the government took the first important step toward making Canada ready for a strong war effort. As the Minister of Finance said, "they arranged an initial credit expansion to facilitate a rapid increase in production." In taking that step the government also initiated the process of making Canada once more a prosperous country, a thing she had not been since 1929. The government did not take long to make up its mind what had to b'e done in the emergency to enable us to fight a military war. I wonder why it did not occur to the government that a similar step might have proved just as effective in preparing Canada for a successful fight in the economic war that we had back in the thirties? No member of the cabinet would deny that a good fight against poverty is just as important as, and perhaps in some circumstances more important than, a strong military campaign. Anyhow, that first credit expansion was arranged. As a result of it, Canada quickly stepped up her production year by year, until by 1945 we were able to produce nearly three times the total value of what we produced in the last pre-war year. I do not know who finally convinced the Liberal government that the first step necessary in our programme of making ready for an effective war effort was to increase the amount of money in circulation in Canada. But I do know that for some years before the war we Social Crediters pleaded with the government to start things going by arranging an expansion of credits-to use, in fact, the social credit of this country. We were ridiculed, but our contentions, in some measure at least, have been vindicated by time and history. Just to emphasize how far we have gone down the road of "credit expansion", I wish to quote another short paragraph from the minister's speech of October 12. On page 998 of. Hansard he is reported as having said:
It is possible to make a rough estimate only of the "savings" held by Canadian individuals in certain liquid forms.
Such an estimate, which cannot be too wide of the mark, indicates that as of May 31, 1945, in currency, bank deposits, refundable taxes and dominion government securities, Canadian individuals held savings of more than nine and a half billions and that these savings had increased by more than six and a half billions since the end of 1938. Now, sir, where did this six and a half billions come from? That is the S64 dollar question.
Another way of looking at this picture is this. In 1939 the total amount of currency in all Canada was, roughly, $200 million, and the total amount of bank deposit money was 
$2,400 million, according to the reports of the Bank of Canada. By 1945 the total amount of currency in Canada had increased to $1,070 millions, and of bank deposit money, to over $4,500 million. The supply of money in these forms has increased by $3 billion during the time when consumer goods and services were *becoming more and more scarce, and yet we have had no wild inflation. During the depression years, Mr. Dunning, then minister of finance, became quite hysterical in this house when it was suggested that $200 million of new currency be created to be put into circulation to provide jobs-get that, to provide jobs-for the unemployed and to try to check the disastrous course of deflation in this country. He said at that time, in his hysterical way, that it would be crude inflation.
But that is not all. In July, 1942, when it was suggested in this parliament that we make greater use of the Bank of Canada in conducting the war, the present Minister of Finance, as recorded at page 4271 of Hansard of 1942, stated:
If we put into circulation a billion dollars of new money, it would blow the price ceiling to kingdom come before you could say "Jack Robinson."
Now even the Minister of Finance can be wrong. When he uttered those words in this parliament in July, 1942, the total amount of public bank deposits in Canadian chartered banks, together with the total value of all notes in circulation in Canada was $3,600 million. By 1945 the aggregate of these same forms of purchasing power was $5,570,000,000. I submit that nearly twice the billion dollars of new money spoken of by my hon. friend' has been put into circulation in Canada, but I have not heard that the price ceiling has been blown to kingdom come, nor has the Minister of Finance said "Jack Robinson" so that anyone could hear him.


James Lorimer Ilsley: My hon. friend is talking about two different things. The billion in question was Bank of Canada issue and not increase in bank deposits or the other kind of money he speaks of.


Solon Earl Low: I took the trouble to look up that speech carefully, and I note that all through the debate which took ,place at that time suggestions were made alternatively or in various places about Bank of Canada notes and currency and credit.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No. I remember precisely the proposal, how it was made, and when it was made. It was either one billion or $1,200 million of Bank of Canada money, borrowings from the Bank of Canada, or issue of Bank

The Budget-Mr. Low
of Canada notes. That is different entirely from the two or three billion in bank deposits which the hon. member talks about.


Solon Earl Low: The minister knows quite well, and I quoted exactly what he said, that he did not differentiate at all between Bank of Canada notes and the type of money which we had been advocating in this corner. He knows full well that it is necessary to make that distinction very clear.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I did.


Solon Earl Low: I am trying to make it clear now.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I made it very clear at the time.


Solon Earl Low: Very good. Let me make the matter perfectly clear. The type of credit expansion, the type of money that had always been recommended in the house by this group, was exactly the type of purchasing power and credit which had been used' with increasing effect during this war, exactly the same, and that is what I am referring to. Now, sir, I ask you this question: Where did' all that purchasing power come from? It was not in existence anywhere in the world in 1942. The government of Canada did not borrow it from abroad and did not create it all. I will tell hon. members where it came from. The Canadian chartered banks, who went to such pains in ithe hungry thirties to convince people that there was no money, did not differentiate between Bank of Canada notes and ordinary credit expansion. But they said that there was no money for humanitarian purposes during the months when we were suffering from unemployment and trade stagnation. During the months since 1942 the same banks have lent to various people in Canada, includ1-ing the government, nearly $2 billion of what they said they did not have, and they are receiving interest on it all.
What is the answer? I submit that the banks created and lent into circulation $2 billion of new money. They made use of the social credit of the Canadian people. They did exactly what a Social Credit government would have them do under a proper economy, except that instead of the banks being allowed to lend it into circulation, thus creating a debt to the banks on which they could continue to collect interest, the banks would
have issued money for the government interest-free and the government would have arranged for the banks a nominal service charge for services and bookkeeping.
Such a procedure would remove from the banks the power to bring on periods of deflation and their power to call in and cancel loans that had been made to the people. Many sound-money advocates entirely overlook deflation. That condition might be and often is far worse than inflation, and it has proved so in the past in Canada. Social credit money is exactly the same kind of money being used now. It is not "funny money", and I should like to emphasize that point for the benefit of hon. members who constantly shout that this is a funny money scheme. If it is, then the present situation in Canada, and the policy which has been followed since 1939, is certainly a funny money scheme. It is different from our present money-I am speaking, of course, of social credit money-but only in this respect, that it is issued into circulation without adding to the nation's debt. And remember that social creditors advocate issuing new money only when there are goods and services already in existence to be distributed by money; a dollar of purchasing power for a dollar's worth of goods and services available, no more and no less. I suggest that under such circumstances there could not possibly be any inflation.
Now let me suggest to the government that when unsaleable surpluses of goods begin to pile up on the shelves of the warehouses, as sooner or later they will because of the inherent weakness of the financial system, and when at the same time there are Canadians who need and want these goods for their own use, the government should arrange another credit expansion equal to the value of the goods to .be removed, and see to it that this new money finds its way, debt-free, into the hands of consumers, starting first with old age pensioners, the blind, scholars who want to stay in school to finish their education but have not the means to do so, and the unfortunate of the country. I suggest that no Canadian should henceforth ever have to go hungry.
I have dealt, sir, with two of the problems . which the government will doubtless encounter in its efforts to keep up the volume of production to a level which will be high enough to ensure a decent standard of living for the Canadian people to enable them to take care of the burden of taxation of their governments.
The Budget-Mr. Low

I have just one or two points to mention in conclusion, but before I sit down I should like to mention briefly a third. I shall cut it short. I refer to the problem of taxation. If we investigate carefully the conditions that existed among the Indians before the white man appeared, we shall find that the Indians were free, and they really had the spirit of freedom; there is no doubt about that. There was absence of chaos among them, and that absence of chaos was not because they did not have any government. They had a government, but the political authority that did exist in that government was devoid of the power of taxation. As we study the development of society since those very early days, we become aware of a power which gradually transformed a social government into the anti-social state. This power is the power of taxation. Many authorities, such as Jefferson of the United States and others, have warned the people that the power of taxation, placed in the hands of government, must in the end bring about a softening of the moral fibre of the people. How does that happen? The process of deterioration is quite simple. As more of the production resulting from the efforts of the individual is absorbed by the state through the ever-increasing tolls of taxation, the less the individual has for his own enjoyment, and therefore the more he has to work in order to maintain for himself circumstances that are decent in which to live.
The dignity of the individual disintegrates under the hammering of want and the fear of want. On the other hand, the power of the state increases in proportion to the wealth which it takes from tbffe people through taxation. There is an interesting aspect to this which I should like to submit to hon. members. Since wealth is economic power, then taxation simply means transferring economic power from the individual to the state. As a result of heavy taxation, and in times of depression, the individual is often pressed into Bargaining for some of what was his property by right of his own efforts in producing it. In most cases the bargaining is very much one-sided, and all too often the individual is harassed by fear and utter necessity, so that in his bargaining with the state he is forced to offer up, as the price of success, many of his rights for a simple hand-out from the government. These rights the individual has always looked upon as inalienable; but when a man is forced to seek a hand-out, whether in the form of unemployment insurance or the dole, he progressively loses his rights, and in the end he ceases to be free. This is one aspect of the taxation problem as we have experienced it down the years and since the time of the

Indians. It seems to me that we should now begin to reverse the whole process so as to revitalize and rehabilitate the individuals and to make them free.
Under the debt-financing policies followed by this and practically all other governments in democratic countries the burden of taxation of necessity grows heavier and heavier decade after decade. I have already pointed out in this house that in 1923 the people of Canada paid to the federal government 3-7/10ths per cent of the whole national income in taxes. By 1944 the taxes, to this government required 25-3/10ths per cent of the national income. To-day it requires close to 50 per cent of the total incomes of the people to meet their tax requisitions to the federal, provincial and municipal governments. It must be obvious that unless the national production is kept high, the people will not for very long be able to pay even the present high percentage of their income to the state. Yet, in their efforts to keep production up to a high level in Canada the tax structure as represented in the budget recently presented by the minister will certainly prove to be a deterrent.
I submit,.sir, that the flood-gates of production cannot be opened wide to meet the needs of Canadians unless we undertake at once a general downward division of taxation. In times of peace men will not exert themselves very hard if fully half of the product of their labour is taken from them by a super-state.


James Horace King: Order. I understand that the hon. member has already spoken for fifty minutes. If he has the unanimous consent of the house he may proceed but, if not, he must resume his seat.	.


Solon Earl Low: I have just about a minute left, sir.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: All right.


James Horace King: Has the hon. member the unanimous consent of the house?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: For one minute, yes.


James Horace King: The hon. member may have two minutes.


Solon Earl Low: Very good, sir. I would suggest, sir, that since hon. gentlemen of the other place have indicated some new-found energies and have advocated complete revision of the taxation structure, we should give them that responsibility and help them out by all that we can do.

The Budget-Mr. Lapalme
I have just one other thing to say in conclusion. We have heard it said that the condition of things in which men have been in the habit of living is a necessary condition of things. I suggest that there are better ways of doing things than we have been used to doing them in the past. I suggest that it is possible for us to find- those better ways if we keep our minds alert and if we are amenable to progressive suggestions. I offer these suggestions to the government, feeling my responsibility in making them, and knowing full well that if they are followed they can put Canada into a much better position.


Mr. G. E. LAPALME (JoIiette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking on the budget debate I cannot ignore a warning recently given by an hon. member to another hon. member who, like me, was a newcomer in this chamber. Apparently one should not be obliged to wonder later on, "Was I really like that in my first session?" So, upon entering this debate in order to express a few opinions, I am filled with certain apprehensions.
I am not an expert in financial matters, and I am not one of those who consider the budget as a most fascinating adventure. The budget of a nation is filled with so many facts that in order to discuss it in all fairness, one should know all the mysteries of national and even international finance. One should also be aware of all the needs unknown to the population at large, but known by those who are in constant touch with the -pulse of the nation. I believe this is the right attitude to take in order to grasp the human element of a budget. Let us not forget that a budget is applied to- human beings and not to robots. In so far as I am concerned, this is the angle in which I am interested.
If the statement handed down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) gives us a general picture, often without details as to the origin of particular needs of various parts of the country, it dbes not mean that in order to obtain a final result local questions had to be ignored, and that the country had to be considered as an indivisible entity. I would believe rather that particular attention was paid to the various needs created by the geographical position, local production and particularly the human condition, of the many classes which constitute the Canadian nation,
Representing one of these districts that has special needs which are sometimes common to the whole country, I believe it is my duty to speak in the name of the county where was bom and where studied Sir Whlfrid Laurier. During the war an attempt was made to give mankind a superhuman stature;
from the physical point of view the maximum had to be exceeded, and morally our minds had to be directed exclusively toward one goal. It was most extraordinary that we succeeded and that- this success has lasted for six years. The torch race was kept, up at the same speed unceasingly without the runner ever falling. Now the race is over, but how is the runner?
In order to form a true picture there is nothing like looking around. Near the town of Joliette in my riding the largest war factory in Canada, and even, as I am told, in the empire, was established. Where wealthy farmers lived thirteen- thousand people came and through their work supported the armies of the united nations. From the St. Lawrence in the south to the Laurential forests in the north; that is, from the factories to the lumber camps, everything was directed toward the war effort.
Grappling with a thousand problems, agriculture was endeavouring to obtain manpower from the factories. Organized labour, constantly growing stronger in centres like Joliette close to Montreal, threatened to spread even to the smallest districts. And now? War factories are slowing down their production and forcing workers back to their original homes. Our veterans are coming back from overseas. Lumber camps are asking for workers whom sometimes they cannot find. Agriculture, with a greatly increased production, is also suffering from a lack of manpower. In the industrial field the smaller industries view with anxiety the excessive expansion of large manufacturing industries.
The enthusiasm shown, during the last war loan reveals nevertheless that the Canadian people are confident in their lucky star and are ready to face the problems of the future. By no means are. they exhausted by the hardships of war. Now all this must be directed toward a peace effort as sustained as was our war effort. It is in these circumstances that the population of my county were expecting the budget speech, and I believe the5r repeat the words which the financial critic of the opposition said in the house immediately after the budget. He said, "The minister has removed from the minds of the people of Canada a fear which many of them had." It is true the same critic said shortly afterwards, "Has the government really developed a peace-time mentality in the question of public finance?" This worry was rather peculiar since the hon. member seemed to ignore the significant words of the Minister of Finance.
The minister stated that war expenditures never decrease as quickly as war undertakings. That is true. When shells cease being fired on
The Budget-Mr. Lapalme

the battlefield the home front does not collapse suddenly. The nation's economy cannot revert overnight to its pre-war position. Therefore .the budget speech, in the words of the opposition, has removed a fear which many people had.
I wrould not be truly representing a county which is the centre of tobacco growing in the province of Quebec if I did not direct attention to the following statement made by the Minister of Finance:
We foresee an increase in the revenue from excise taxes and duties on tobacco.
As far as I can remember, Joliette in the province of Quebec has always b,een the-most important market for raw leaf tobacco for pipe use. Furthermore, in the last few years Joliette has become the only place in Quebec where Quebec cigarette tobacco is both produced and graded. It is quite normal, as was stated in the budget speech, to expect increased revenues from this source. However, I should like to make a few comments which may not be a warning but which will recall certain facts that are capable of leading to serious thinking.
An increase in production and sales of cigarettes and raw leaf tobacco in Ontario and Quebec will certainly bring about an increase in excise revenue. The Ontario marketing board in setting a price of 331 cents a pound for cigarette tobacco has had an effect upon the 4,500,000 pounds produced in the Joliette district. This increases prices to a higher level than during previous years. This is of interest, not only to the growers but to the department of revenue. As far as cigarette tobacco is concerned, if I had a cause to defend I would defend that of the growers because this trade is exclusively in the hands of the larger industries which are not to be pitied.
But the same situation does not exist with raw leaf tobacco for pipe use or even for cigars. In this field, both the farmer and the trading manufacturer, if not the cooperative as well, have a worthy cause. Formerly-and here I am recalling personal recollections, because for family and local reasons I have spent all my life among tobacco even though I am a lawyer actually-the trade in raw leaf tobacco in the Joliette district was divided among many trading manufacturers of various importance who each hired a certain number of workers who earned an honourable living out of this business. This was a small industry, humble but alive. Purchasing and selling were a very simple matter. I remember as distinctly as if it were yesterday seeing transactions between grower and dealer performed without any written document on the running board of a car or in a buggy.

,Everyone knows what changes were brought about by the war of 191448. Taxation, like other things, became of full age. The raw leaf tobacco grown in Canada was affected, but only for a short time. Conditions became normal but afterward deteriorated in a sensational manner. At the present time the tax is twenty-eight cents a pound. I cannot tell if contraband is at the same rate as this tax, because here as elsewhere we have "free traders."
A certain difference in price has always existed between Quebec and Ontario tobaccos; prices for Quebec tobaccos have always been higher because of the varieties that are grown. What was bound to happen has happened. As far back as 1918-19 dealers in Kent and Essex counties began to build up an export business from Ontario to Quebec, which business persisted until it was stopped a few days ago by a federal order. Therefore in our district we are acquainted with the Ontario tobacco market, especially since we now grow cigarette tobacco on a large scale.
As was often asked, was the infiltration in retail trade of Ontario tobacco branded with a Quebec label a factor in creating the truly rotten situation which exists at present? I leave the answer to specialists. Nevertheless, in this matter, nothing can be compared with the tax which, according to fluctuations in prices, always amounts in normal times to at least twice the purchasing price; occasionally it is even four times this price.
Furthermore, the prices and trade board, for many months if not years during this war, set the sales price of dealers at a lower level than the price paid growers. While I was preparing these notes, dealers learned that a new order was upsetting the market for small tobaccos. I believe that it could have been possible to do justice to all without running the risk of ruining those who, after all, maintained this business during many years. When the last order setting prices of the present crop was passed, the dealers had bought all the small tobaccos at a higher price than that which they should have paid in order to sell this tobacco -in accordance with the rates established in this order, which by that very fact had a retroactive effect.
Here we have an industry which formerly was prosperous, which supplied work in many small centres throughout the province and, all things, considered, even handled a large volume of business. To-day, it is no more what it used to be. To-morrow, will it have completely vanished? It is said that trusts are threatening it; would this be true? Will cooperatives be successful in saving it? I hope so; nevertheless I ask the government

The Budget-Mr. Lapalme
to think the matter over twice before they allow this industry to die. It is worth the trouble of lightening the leaden cloak which is smothering it, and which is called taxation.
I know very well that first of all we must reduce taxes on the necessities of life, and that tobacco cannot be placed in that category. But what permits us to obtain these necessities? At any rate, as soon as circumstances permit, it is to be hoped that government officials will review this situation, and by doing so they would only be doing justice to this cause. I have just used a great word- "justice". Indeed it recalls the claims of all nations, and especially, with an ever more disquieting acuteness, the claims of labour. Moreover, all social classes are demanding it.
At this moment, I am reminded that, in the economic history of our times, if labour, and especially organized labour, were often ostracized by employers, it would be dangerous for the opposite reaction to occur nowadays. Revolutions always were reactions of this kind. Two factors, usually determine the swing of the pendulum: the human factor and the economic factor; we are dealing with men, and men are prompted by needs.
These thoughts are going through my mind because I am aware that the budget shows the ever-increasing importance which the Department of Labour assumes in public expenditures. Labour is part of the social problem. I said, "part" of the social problem. It does not by itself constitute the whole social problem, though it takes much space in the picture we have of the world. The social problem affects everyone; labour is one of its most important elements. It is worthy of all our attention.
In a discussion of the budget, it is very difficult to restrict to figures this complex question. It is quite true that one can always mention with satisfaction the lowering of income tax with respect to the working classes, together with a thought for agriculture when one considers the tax exemption on machinery used for producing food.
But the labour problem takes on an altogether different meaning when it is connected to man himself man who is made [DOT] of intelligence and flesh. It is the family question, the dwelling conditions, the conditions of his labour, his security, his health, his immediate and remote future.
Family allowances have become part of his social life. Why not his house; why not tomorrow the family salary? Talking of his house, undoubtedly one thinks of the labourer living in a large city. I am thinking especially of small towns like mine. The town of Joliette has a population of approximately 15,000
people. The surrounding population raises this figure to 18,000. What does the National Housing Act do for them? Nothing; we are ignored. It is all the more impossible to obtain help in a small village. Joliette had her glorious dead on the battlefront; a few hundred veterans of the three armed services are coming back. Will they be able to rely on Wartime Housing? I hope so, but I am doubtful. In the meantime, those who intend to build must rely on their own means only.
It has been said of the labourer: "Give him a fair salary and everything will be all right." A fair and reasonable salary is necessary, but the increase in salaries will reach its ceiling some day, and one cannot expect an indefinite progression toward astronomical figures. This state of uncertainty must cease.
What then, is more stable than a home and a house? In a travesty of what I was saying a while ago respecting salaries, one could say: "Give the labourer his own house, and everything will be quiet and stable." If I speak in this manner, it is because I consider the labourer as a man, and too many laws have disregarded man. Instinctively and out of necessity, is it not true that man will look for a shelter before he will even look for a living? Social peace will find therein one of its' main props, because this problem, as a member stated in the house, is truly a social as well as an economic problem. As long as we are at the mercy of financial organizations in connection with cheap dwellings in smaller centres, I am sure of this: In their eyes, we will remain of no importance. Until to-day, they have done nothing for us.
During the last six years, the country has lent billions to the government ; now in return, could the government not lend1 directly to the people? Is this impossible? Farm loans were carried into effect; direct loans for the .purpose of erecting houses to be occupied by their owners could also be carried out. This is not in contradiction of my request for lowering taxes on tobacco-because I am advocating a loan, not a gift. A special organization could thus work toward improving the social standard, as directly and as effectively as family allowances.
I wish to request for the benefit of labour the help of the financial organization called the industrial development bank, and I make this request seriously. If this bank cannot be of any benefit to smaller industries in all our provinces, then local labour will be the loser. Until now, this bank has not yet revealed1 its existence in my county, which is one of the most thickly populated rural constituencies in the country.
The Budget

Mr. Lapalme

It is quite true that all these social problems may assume more importance in the succeeding budgets after an agreement has been reached over federal-provincial matters, and we may entertain the hope of a complete agreement. I am quite in favour of provincial autonomy, but I am more strongly in favour of the welfare of the total Canadian population. To help labour, give it homes; grant it monthly allowances. Among other things, these are means which are capable of giving to the nation a robust health and a stable economy. As it was written recently: "Economy, instead of serving the golden gods, will serve mankind."
(Translation): Mr. Speaker, pre-war budgets can no longer be expected. We can no longer ignore the social needs which war has so bluntly revealed. We shall soon be confronted with the problem of finding employment for all. And then, going outside our own boundaries, we shall participate in the reorganization of a world with which we are bound up.
At the very moment when the, nation's demands on the government are heaviest, the Minister of Finance will be asked to reduce the taxes. A heavy task is thus devolved upon this generation, and especially upon those who have to manage the national economy.
My preceding remarks were intended to be helpful and constructive. This budget comes during the transition period and it already gives us a welcome reminder of the restoration of peace. Let us hope that the next one will take us outside the realm of war so that we- may attend still more earnestly to the solution of our social problems..
In concluding, I wish to bring to.'the attention of the government a matter which is of special concern to my -constituency.
The plant at St. Paul 1'Ermite to which I referred at the beginning of my remarks has cost about twenty million dollars, I believe. A short time before the- end of the war, we were promised that it would be kept in operation even after the cessation of hostilities. Nevertheless, it is no longer ini operation. Am I going too far in recalling those former promises?
(Text): Mr. Speaker, at this moment when ' victory is still in our memories-and may we never forget it!-when the country has just shown in a resounding way its faith in peace to the same extent that it has done in war, I believe that social questions have become the most important issues of the moment. Canada has already begun to lead the way in this field; in thus continuing, it may probably find what it needs above all-national unity.


Fred Rose: Mr. Speaker, there is only one way in which we can judge the present budget: Do its proposals give the assurance that the government is taking its full employment policies seriously? Thjs is the first peace-time budget since 1939 and was brought down at a time when the country is faced with the problems of reconversion from war to peace, lay-offs and the need to maintain consumer purchasing power. The people are looking to the budget for an indication of the plans of the government to maintain employment, to provide jobs for the workers and for the men and women who are returning from overseas. People want to see whether this budget provides for the social security measures that are necessary, and for large scale housing and for other measures that will make it possible to avoid an early post-war depression. It is against the background of this urgency that we should examine the budget before the house.
It is most appropriate to remind the house of some of the government's -own statements of policy and of what it thinks is the actual job of a budget. In its white paper, "Employment and Income," issued last April, the government stated:
Fiscal policy during_ the war has necessarily been based on economic as much as purely financial considerations. It is proposed to extend that practice into the post-war years and apply war experience to the problems of peace.
In the same white paper we further read:
The government will be prepared in periods when unemployment threatens to incur -the deficits and increases in the national debt resulting from its employment and income policy.
In the proposals of the federal government to the dominion-provincial conference on reconstruction we find this statement:
It is the responsibility of the government to pursue policies that create conditions in which the initiative, energy and resourcefulness of individual citizens can .achieve rising standards of life. The modern governmental budget must he the balance wheel of the economy.
With this, Mr. Speaker, I fully agree. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) elaborated on this subject in introducing his budget to the house, when, he said:
The government has adopted as a major aim of government policy the maintenance of a high and stable level of income and employment. Accordingly it has become a major consideration in budget policy.
But when we look at the budget and its application we find none of the promises of the white paper fulfilled and none of the things contained in the proposals of the dominion government to the dominion-provincial conference on reconstruction, nor do we find any substantiation of the statement made by

The Budget-Mr. Rose
the Minister of Finance to the house. This budget does not help to maintain full employment; it does not provide for it, and therefore we find that government practice is quite out of line with government theory.
How are those job to be provided? On the basis of this budget the jobs are to be provided by holding out to big business so-called incentives. If incentives are necessary, it is the Canadian people who need them because 'big business which talks so much of the need for incentives in order to give more employment has already had enough incentives given it to provide full employment for the people of Canada. For instance, the Bank of Canada statistical summary, analysing the account of 700 Canadian companies, points out that after taxes and depreciation the net income to the stockholders increased from $242 million in 1938 to $292 million in 1943. The increase in profits before taxes was of course much greater. Profits increased from $410 million in 1938 to $799 million in 1943. But there is much more to the picture than that. Accumulated surpluses and surplus reserves increased from $800 million in 1938 to $1,188 million in 1943; and at the same time these companies were able to reduce their funded debt from $1,015 million to $892 million.
Individuals as well as corporations have not done badly for themselves during the war years. In 1937-38, according to figures given by the Minister of Finance to the house on March 24, 1939, as reported in Hansard, there were 382 Canadians at that time receiving incomes of more than $50,000 a year. In 1944, according to the dominion bureau of statistics, there were 650 persons in the same income bracket, receiving a total income of $68 million, or better than $100,000 apiece. After taxes, they still had a trifle of $25 million left. That is not too bad for only 650 people. The minister in his budget now proposes to give these people $95 million more through the proposed reduction in the excess profits tax. My party, the Labour Progressive party, has stated in its programme that the excess profits tax after the war should continue as in war time and should be used for the community as a whole; that is, for a redistribution of income. The present budget does not provide for a redistribution of income, because if it gives anything it gives it to the rich. It makes some concessions to smaller business, and with this I fully agree. That is, small business with profits of less than $25,000 gets some concessions. That is good. But as regards the vast majority of Canadians the budget proposals do not assist in building up their purchasing power. There
was quite a bit of pressure from big business for concessions, and concessions were granted. But the people of Canada-and I am thinking especially or organized labour-have been making certain demands. Through their trades unions the labour movement called for tax exemptions to be raised to $2,400 for married persons and $1,000 for single persons. Their voice was not heeded. Instead, the budget provides for a straight sixteen per cent reduction in personal income tax. This gives very little additional money to the majority of the people but provides a substantial roll to the higher income groups.
The figures I am about to cite are revealing in this respect. They were worked out on the basis of information from the dominion bureau of statistics. They show the following: a group with an income of over $25,000, and numbering about 2,900, will benefit by $15 million. That is, 2,900 people who have each ah income of more than $25,000 will get, as a result of this sixteen per cent reduction, an aggregate of $15 million, or $5,000 apiece. Not bad. But what happens to the mass of taxpayers, those-and there are 1,675,000 of them -whose incomes are less than $2,000 each? The total tax reduction will give them $26,600,000, or $15.90 apiece. There is quite a difference there.
Here are a few more figures in this connection. Those with incomes under $1,000 number sixteen percent of the taxpayers, but they get less than three per cent of the, total tax reduction. Those, however, with incomes of over $25,000, number only one-tenth of one per cent of the taxpayers; yet they get 13Jj per cent of the total tax reduction. These figures reveal quite a contrast between the government's treatment of the wealthy taxpayer and of the man' in the street. There are many more concessions in the budget to men of means. There is the repeal of the ten per cent war exchange tax on goods imported from outside the British empire. The eight per cent tax on machinery is repealed. But will .these concessions be passed on to the consumer? No, they will not. This will only mean more profits and more accumulations for those who already have plenty.
I oppose the reduction in the excess profits tax, as well as the minister's proposals for the sixteen per cent reduction; that is, the straight sixteen per cent reduction in personal income tax. Because the budget fails to put money into the pockets of the people who need it, I cannot support this budget.
Further, the budget does not provide for the health and well-being of the Canadian people. While on that topic I wish to mention a manifesto which, no doubt in common with
The Budget-Mr. Rose

many other hon. members, I received the other day from the Canadian Legion. This document points out that Canada has still to achieve the ideals of peace, and one of those ideals, according to the legion manifesto, is decent homes for Canadians. I quote the following passage: . '
Hundreds of thousands of houses will need to be built. Yet homes are more than houses, and Canadians have the challenging task of creating the kind of homes and family life that will make this nation strong, clean, united.
The budget before the house has not been worked out in that spirit. It provides neither for houses nor for the families who would live in those houses. Service men and service women are returning home only to find that there are no homes for them. They saved Canada, they helped to save the world, but they are unable to find decent homes in which to start life anew with their wives and children. It is estimated that 43 per cent of the returned men have no proper housing.
But the plight of returned men only reflects the plight of many other Canadians regarding houses, a situation which was aggravated by the war. In 1946 Canada will be short of 500,000 houses, excluding rural needs. The houses of 350,000 Canadians are sub-standard. Of a total of 2,635,753 houses in Canada, approximately 600,000 are obsolete. One-third of all Canadians live in bad and overcrowded houses because they cannot afford good hous-. ing; they can afford to pay only between $10 and $20 a month in rent, and even with the aid of family allowances they can pay no more without injuring the health of their families by cutting down on food. Lack of housing and bad housing take a terrific toll of the people.
Sociologists who have made a study of the effects of present conditions on the people have the following to say with respect to United States citizens:
Of the slums and blighted districts comprising about 20 per cent of the metropolitan residential areas they account for 33 per cent of the population, 45 per cent of the major crimes, 55 per cent of child delinquency, 60 per cent of tuberculosis victims, and 45 per cent of city city service costs.
On a number of occasions I have mentioned in this house similar effects on the people in our own country and have pointed to conditions in Montreal. In 1941 it was estimated that the city of Montreal needed 50,000 dwellings. How many were built? In 1944 there were 2,618 units, and in 1945 there were 2,241 units. At this rate it will take twenty years to make up the backlog without allowing for increasing requirements in the years ahead. By the end of this year 5,000 homes will be
fMr. Rose.]
needed by returning men. To add to the seriousness of the situation in Montreal, of the homes put up in 1944 and 1945, 90 per cent are rented at over $40 a month. This lets out 76 per cent of the population whose income does not permit them to rent houses at' such high figures.
The other day the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) said, in regard to housing, t-hat every member-not just one but everyone of us-knows that the housing situation to-day is one of the most serious conditions in Canada. That is true and we all agree with that statement. But iwhat are we going to do about this situation? It is not enough to agree that it is bad. We have legislation and present legislation has not provided houses. Nine out of every ten houses built at the present time are being built outside this legislation, and even those built under this legislation are not within the reach of the worker or of the veteran who is not sure about the future. It should be established once and for all that it is not profitable for the private builder to construct low-rental houses, and he definitely will mot do it for love. This has been the experience in every country and also in Canada. In war time, when we needed tanks, guns, aeroplanes, munitions, the government cut the red tape and saw to it that these materials were produced. Huge munitions plants were built in a few months. There was a feeling of urgency. Well, there is similar urgency at the present time in the matter of housing, and the government must act in a manner different from that which has characterized it up to the present moment. The building of houses will also provide jobs.
How is the government going to deal with this housing problem? The Labour Progressive party proposes that $1 billion, raised through a loan, be used by the government to build 250,000 housing units in the period of five years. I would say that such a slogan as "Buy a bond to build a home for a Canadian" would receive the necessary response from all Canadians, and such bouses should be assigned to the communities that need them and to the people requiring houses, on a basis of priority: No. 1, veterans; No. 2, slum dwellers; No. 3, people who require extra living space.
That is the way in which this will have to be done. I know there are constitutional problems, but the government must find ways and means of building these homes, constitutional problems notwithstanding. Britain has built 1,250,000 low-rent houses-how? The government lends construction capital to the municipal housing board and pays a rent subsidy. Private contractors build the houses-

The Budget-Mr. Irvine
That is the answer for Canada. That is also the answer to the problem of jobs. The construction industry estimates that $500 million a year on construction would provide 479,000 men with jobs. That is the answer.
There can be no piecemeal measures about this, because such measures will not solve the problem. The government must change its attitude toward the problem. I understand that to-day the British government has announced a housing programme which is altogether different from anything that has gone before. They realize that .there is an emergency and are acting accordingly. We in Canada must act from a similar spirit. It is true that our houses were not bombed, but we harm plenty of slums and we need houses. We raised $18 billions for war. Surely we can raise SI billion for homes.
A few weeks ago we concluded the ninth victory loan. The slogan was "Sign your name to victory". I would say that the government will not be signing its name to victory unless it provides for homes and for the welfare of the Canadian people.


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker. I can understand1 that the house will feel impatient, but I do not suppose anyone is very, anxious for a vote to-night.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


William Irvine: I do not think my hon. friends to my right are very anxious to get on with the business; at least they did not display any anxiety a short time ago. I hope that the house will bear with me. I have not taken up very much of its time this session, but there are a few things I would like to say; and as an hon. gentleman to my left has suggested, it might be well if we had a little better order and a little more free speech in the House of Commons.
If I were to criticize the present budget I should say-if I were a private enterpriser- that it was a very fine budget indeed. I regard it as a private enterprising budget and it was the government's duty to bring in such a. budget. The government has a mandate from the Canadian people to implement a policy of private enterprise, 4nd the opposition is always very ready to assist the government in carrying out private enterprise. That is the business of those who believe in private enterprise. I do not believe in what is called private enterprise to-day. I should say that what we understand to be private enterprise is monopoly capital enterprise, and that the very best type of private enterprise is completely surpassed by the present system of monopoly capital enterprise.
I have never regarded a budget-that is to say, a budget which is like ours, which is merely a provision for the expenditures of the government, and in which the only alteration from year to year is a variation in the incidence of taxation, a little more here or a little more there-as being a solution of the economic problems that confront Canada to-day. I want to indicate, even in the few moments at my disposal, what I regard as the sort of budget that we should have had in this country at this time.
Let me remind the house of something which I do not suppose any hon. members will forget, namely, that we have,just come through a great war and won what we call a military victory for democracy. I wish to emphasize that if we are to continue that democratic victory into the field1 of economics and into the field of our social life, then there must be something done differently from anything that has ever been done in this parliament or in this nation. I ask the government, and I ask anyone else who believes in so-called private enterprise, what has private enterprise to-day that it did not have in 1932? If it has not something different, then who expects any different results from those which' we had during the ten years w'hich preceded the war just concluded? Therefore,
I say that the very first principle, of a budget should be, as far as I am concerned, to demand and provide for the unconditional surrender of monopoly capital.
I do not believe that it is possible for any government adhering to free private enterprise to have full production and reasonably equitable distribution, nor do I believe that such a government is capable of meeting the essential needs of the Canadian people. I do not believe that under that system any government can provide what has been commonly called social security. Now, with the view of really making a change in our economic system so as to see to it that we. win democracy in the field of industry and commerce, and economics generally which our men assisted in winning on the field of battle, we must have a budget that would first of all make an estimate of the nation's need of goods, and our capacity to produce, and not only to estimate our capacity to tax what has been produced, not merely a method of extracting a portion of the income from individuals or corporations, but a budget which would envisage the whole national income, which would estimate the actual needs of the Canadian people and would take such steps as would make provision for the production
The Budget-Mr. Irvine

of those things necessary for the meeting of the needs of the Canadian people. That is what I would call a national budget.
There are certain features of such a budget on which I wish to lay some emphasis. The first of those would be that this government and this parliament should give the lead to the Canadian people in what I call a collective purpose; that this nation in the years of peace which are before us should be held as firmly and as enthusiastically to a definite economic and social purpose for the people of Canada as we were held to a purpose of war during the six years of .blood, sweat and tears.
Every one of us recognizes that this government held' the Canadian people pretty well united to a common purpose of defending this nation; and it made a pretty good job of it in spite of all the criticism which has been and may still be levelled at it. They managed the direction of affairs in such a way that this nation stood with a common purpose. That purpose .was to raise an army and to produce the necessary sinews of war. That purpose took .the place of every other .purpose; it filtered into every home, into every industry and into every business. It .was that which held the people of Canada together in the greatest conflict of its history. If .that purpose was necessary in war, and if it was beneficial in leading to great achievements on the part of the nation, then a purpose of peace must be just as necessary. But when we abandon, as it seems to be the purpose of the government to abandon, the economic conditions of this nation to the caprice of free private enterprise, then we have no collective purpose.
The collective purpose, which I suggest in passing, is one which will recognize that there is no need for any want in the Dominion of Canada; that not only is this a country of abundance, bul^ this is an age of 'abundance; that we can produce. The war has shown that we can produce sufficient to meet all . the needs of the Canadian people. I believe it is right to say that during the war years our maximum production approximated some $10 billion of national income. We expended from fifty to sixty per cent of that on war. We lived on from forty to fifty per cent of the remainder, and I imagine that the people of Canada never lived1 very much better than they did during the war period. If, then, we can maintain full production in Canada; if we can produce as great a volume of goods during peace as we did in war, then obviously there should be no hungry .people in this country. There should .be no people forced into idleness without income. I think that would be agreed to by everybody; but just to

remove restrictions, and as the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) said the other day, that the restrictions were to go down the drain

that is fine; I want to see restrictions go down the drain, but I want to see intelligent leadership go on to prosperity. Just to remove certain restrictions does not by any means give us any assurance that Canada will be a country of abundance and its people enjoying the full fruits which our nation and our people combined! are capable of producing.
Therefore, in addition to the collective purpose, and in addition to the statement of what that purpose is or should be, I suggest next that this budget should have been a careful outlining of a planned economic endeavour on the part of the Canadian people, having regard to the collective purpose, such as I have suggested. I know there are people who do mot believe that democracy can plan. There are some people who are more happy when they know they are going nowhere than they would be if they had an idea that they were going somewhere. Some hon. members even would rather aim at nothing and hit it than, aim at the bull's-eye and probably make an outer or come near to hitting it. It is not different with a nation. I think a nation that has no purpose and aims at nothing, will hit it. We are doing that now. We have no distinctive collective purpose that will hold the endeavours of the Canadian people to the achievement of that purpose in time of peace.
But if the government will give that lead; if the government will pry itself loose from the old traditions of private enterprise and undertake to meet the economic needs of the Canadian people in keeping with the capacities to produce which modern technology makes possible, then there would be great possibilities for the future in the Dominion of Canada. But that would imply some planning, and if a democracy cannot plan, then that democracy is destined to inevitable failure. In an age such as the one in which we live, an age of science, to say that in all our economic life we have to entrust ourselves to the caprice of those who seek private objectives which in no circumstances necessarily have anything to do with the requirements of the general public would seem to be economic insanity.
I know the arguments of those who oppose planning our national economy. A great deal of drivel has been uttered about so-called bureaucracy. One would think, to hear some hon. members talking about bureaucracy, it was something that could exist only in government organizations, but I suggest that the worst type of bureaucracy that Canada knows to-day, or ever will know, is the type of

The Budget-Mr. Irvine
bureaucracy that is built up under free private enterprise where those who control the economic destinies of this nation have no responsibility to anyone but their own balance sheet.
I am opposed to bureaucracy as such; I am opposed to regimentation as such. These are not necessarily implied in planning, but they are inevitable if you do not plan. As to the regimentation under the present system, I am sure I do not need to elaborate on that. However, for the sake of clarity in the viewpoint which I am trying to express, let me ask hon. members if they have never seen evidence of regimentation in our present system of economy. I venture to say that there is a great deal of it.
For example, have any hon. members ever seen an employer of labour advertise for twenty men and five hundred men turn up. Twenty men go to the wicket and get jobs, while 480 are sent away. Who did the regimenting there? Who said that twenty men should get jobs and that 480 men should hunt somewhere else? That was the regimentation of private enterprise. Have any of you ever looked into the eye of a soup-kitchen; if' you have not, you are lucky. If you have, then you know that you did not go there because you liked the soup better than any other soup. You were there because you needed some kind of soup and it was the only kind you could get. That is the worst kind, the most inhuman kind, the most unintelligent kind of regimentation. That is the regimentation of empty stomachs and bare backs. That is pure regimentation exercised by free private enterprise.
Democratic planning would not involve either bureaucracy or this sort of regimentation. I say again, with emphasis, that unless this thing we call democracy can plan and can remove the evil features of present-day bureaucracy, unless it can escape from that type of regimentation which is inevitable under the present system; unless it can meet these problems, it cannot possibly continue to exist.
If democracy is to plan, then not only should the budget have made provision for the plans, it should have assured us that the plans were practicable and could be carried out. Any government that undertakes to carry out a budget of national production and distribution in the interests of the common people must of necessity have control erf the means by which that budget is to be fulfilled. That leads me to an observation on public enterprise.
There are certain things in this country that- should be privately owned and there are certain things which just as surely should be publicly owned. I suggest for the consideration of my hon. friends that everything in this nation which is essential to the life of all the people but which cannot be owned individually by all the people, must be owned by all the people together. No individual or corporation should be permitted to have a monopoly control of an agency of wealth production upon which the entire nation must depend for its life. That is not democracy. That is the very antithesis of democracy. We cannot get away by saying that we are a democracy merely because we have the right sometimes to mark a ballot. At times everything is done to see that we do not mark that ballot. But that is a- small part, although, I admit, an important part, of democracy.
We should privately own that which each of us may own and use without depriving other people of the ownership and use of the same sort of things. The principle and philosophy of the movement -which I represent stands for that kind of ownership. Public ownership in Canada of those essential things which lead' to the supplying of the needs of life for the Canadian people would mean that those Canadian people as a whole would own more privately than they ever did in all their lives before. I want to make that distinction between so-called private ownership and public ownership,
The next point I wish to make clear is that provision should be made in our budget and in our planning for full production. The way to do that is to meet the needs of the people. If we can produce more than the people can consume, so much the better; because in that event we can reduce the hours of labour and extend a greater proportion of leisure to the common people. If, on the other hand, we have produced to the utmost extent and we still cannot prodiice all that we can consume, then, of course, the question is to produce to the utmost extent and raise our standard of living to the highest possible notch, comparable with our capacity to produce.
In order to carry out such a programme something must be done about distribution. The hon. member who spoke as leader of the Social Credit party said something about this question, and indicated that some people appear to think that under the present system we have poor people because we have rich people; and he suggested that some taxing of the rich would not solve the problem. I agree with him in that. I think everyone must agree with him on the same point. But

The Budget-Mr. Irvine

the point which he did not make, and which he might very well have made, had he gone on along that line a little farther, was that it is not merely the profits which those who control industry make that bring the greatest disaster to human society. It is that they control, for private ends, means by which alone all the people can live; and thereby they have the right-and they exercise it, too -to curtail production whenever they want to, so as to maintain the rate of their own profits. That is the thing we have to guard against in our distribution.
We must devise a system of equitable distribution which will involve a system of higher wages paid to all the workers; which will involve higher pensions being paid to all pensionable people and all returning men, all old aged people, family allowances, widows' pensions, pensions to the blind, the maintenance of wage scales of those who are laid aside for some time through sickness and are unable to earn their wages, and a pension for those whom we might call the casualties of industry. In. all these ways we should distribute each year in the form of income for all our people sufficient to buy all we produce beyond that which is necessary to turn back for the maintenance of efficiency in industry, and the extension of new capital equipment.
The democratic victory which we won on the battlefields is only the first Step toward the fuller democracy we hope to achieve. I am making a plea to-night for a democratic victory over the greatest enemies of mankind at home. The greatest enemies of mankind in this nation and in other nations are poverty, disease, ignorance and war.
I do not see, anything in this budget which seriously touches any of these major issues. There is no suggestion in it that any steps will be taken to abolish poverty in Canada. There is nothing in it to indicate that a determined effort will be made by this nation to overcome unnecessary disease. Neither is there any provision for equality in education. These -are essential social equalities without which there cannot be a true democracy.
I think most hon. members will agree, as I have already hinted, that democracy means more, a great deal more, than voting on election day. I think most members can quote the definition of "democracy" which the great President Lincoln gave at Gettysburg. But I suggest to the house that when he gave that definition of "democracy" there was not a single monopoly within the boundaries of the entire United States of America. I imagine that if he were speaking again on democracy to-day-perhaps to this parliament-he might very probably say that democracy is not only
f.Mr. Irvine.]
government of the people, by the people and for the people, but that it is industry of the people, by the people and for the people; not industry for Shipshaw; not industry for International Nickel; not industry for the C.P.R. and the banks, but industry of the people, by the people and for the people.
That is democracy. My greatest criticism of the budget is that it does not even make a gesture toward that end. And further let me say that we are probably in very great danger of frittering away the greatest emotion that this nation has ever generated for democracy. Through six years of blood, sweat and tears, the objective of this people has been fixed upon democracy. Now we are looking for memorials. I have said something on this question before. I have no objection, no more than anyone else would have, to people who wish to have symbols. Symbols are always necessary when one has not the reality. If we have not the realities, and the people would rather have symbols than nothing, then by all means let them have the symbols.
But those of us who lost our sons in this war do not need to be reminded that we lost them. What we do need to be reminded of is that they died for something that was worth while. I have no objection to the beautification of Ottawa. I think we should beautify every city, as well as Ottawa. But I am suggesting to the Minister of Finance and the government that the people of Canada will be disappointed and in years to come those who have returned with their lives will be greatly disappointed unless we can make a memorial, through legislation in this house-a bill of rights as a memorial to democracy which will meet the democratic requirements of a democratic country. That will abolish-


James Horace King: I must remind the hon. member that it is eleven o'clock.


An hon. MEMBER:: Move the adjournment of the debate.


William Irvine: I move the adjournment of the debate.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Finish; go ahead.


James Horace King: If the hon. member has the unanimous consent of the house he may continue for a few minutes.


William Irvine: No. Mr. Speaker; I would much rather move the adjournment of the debate.


James Arthur Ross: Good old time waster.
On motion of Mr. Irvine the debate was adjourned.


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

Privilege-Mr. Mackenzie King
Wednesday, November 28, 1945.