1940-07-24

Mr. VINCENT DUPUIS (Chambly-Rou-ville):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, at the request of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) the motion for concurrence in the first report of the joint committee on printing was allowed to stand. To-day I had the advantage of seeing a list of the documents some hon. members want to have printed. I have looked over that list, and from my experience I would say that most of the documents requested to be printed are returns, and generally speaking are of local interest. I do not believe it is the practice to print that type of material; this is the first time I have heard it suggested. Nevertheless, so that justice may be done to every hon. member, the question could be submitted to the committee again for its decision, and any action taken by the members of the committee will be agreeable to me.


Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition) :: Mr. Speaker, at my request this matter stood until to-day. I have been able to give some consideration to it, and after consultation with my colleagues we request that items numbers 60, 60a, 60b, 98, 112, 115, 115a, 115b, 115c, 129, 129a, 129b, 129c, 134, 154, 154a, 154b, 154c, 173, and 175 be printed.
In addition to that I call attention to item 96a, respecting orders in council and proclamations issued under the War Measures Act. It will be observed that in January there were laid on the table-I believe some were tabled at the short session, if I am correctly informed -certain proclamations and orders in council passed under the authority of the War Measures Act. Evidently it was the intention of the government to have these proclamations and orders in council printed. I suggest that item 96a be printed. I suggest also that as subsequent orders in council passed under the the authority of the War Measures Act are issued, they might be printed in some convenient form, because it will be recalled that under the authority of the War Measures Act the government is, in effect, legislating. It is highly desirable that they should be available in some form, and for the duration of the war.
I make these suggestions in the utmost good faith, in the hope that the ministry will adopt them.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleague, the Minister of National

Printing oj Parliament
Defence for Air (Mr. Power) to reply to the latter part of the observations of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Hanson) respecting the printing of orders in council passed under the War Measures Act. Attention is being given to that matter, and the minister will tell hon. members what is being done.
I shall turn now to the first portion of my hon. friend's request, wherein he asked that papers referred to by certain numbers, which he has set out, should be printed. I do not know to what those numbers refer, so it will be clearly understood that what I am saying now is not aimed at any particular item on the list. I realize that there is a natural desire on the part of individual members to have certain returns printed. But the printing of those returns, while it may serve a useful purpose in some localities, might be of small value outside those areas, and would fail to serve any extensive purpose. For that reason the house has appointed a committee to look into these matters.
We should be careful of going beyond the customary procedure as regards the printing of documents laid on the table of the house. In past years I do not think it has been customary for the committee to recommend the printing of individual returns, unless there was some quite exceptional reason for such printing. It may be that the numbers my hon. friend has mentioned come within that list; on the other hand it may be that none of them could be so classified.
I believe we would be wise to leave the matter to the committee for further consideration, realizing that its members will give it the careful attention it deserves.


Richard Burpee Hanson: To a great extent I agree with what the Prime Minister has said. My own feeling is that if the country can save any substantial sum in connection with the printing of these documents-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And the translating.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, and the translating, it should be done. I am informed by the clerk and also by the secretary of the committee on printing that any number of copies of these returns may be mimeographed, free of charge, for members desiring to get them, and that that could be done not only during the session but, upon application, after the session. I am in agreement with the underlying principle that no more of this printing should be done than is absolutely necessary. I am going to ask hon. members who are interested in this matter to confer with the chairman of the printing
committee. Perhaps they may be able to arrive at some decision. I would hope that we might save the country some money in this regard.
With respect to 96a, it seems to me that this is in another category. The government has already printed one volume of these proclamations and orders in council. I have gone through this volume; many of the orders are innocuous, but others are of great importance. Under the War Measures Act certain legislative powers are vested in the executive. While this should not be done in peace time, it is an inevitable result of war. I am not objecting to the procedure, but I do think they might be made available and be printed in a volume.
Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of National
Defence for Air): Perhaps I might be permitted to give some explanation of the procedure with respect to orders in council which has been followed since the beginning of the war. At that time I was appointed convener of the legislation committee of the cabinet and as such it became my responsibility to see that orders in council passed under the War Measures Act received a fairly wide distribution. A registrar was appointed who saw to it that a number of hon. members, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) and the leaders of the other parties, received copies of all orders in council passed under the War Measures Act as fast as they were received from the privy council. There was a fairly substantial number of these orders, and last December or January it was thought that for the convenience not only of members of the house but of the public generally it would be well to have these orders in council which were of general importance published in booklet form. An order in council was passed on January 13, 1940, which appears in the book referred to by the leader of the opposition and entitled "Proclamations and Orders in Council Passed Under the Authority of the War Measures Act." This order in council recites:
1.	That under the provisions of the War Measures Act, a large number of orders in council, many of them having the force of statutes, have been passed;
2.	That many of such orders in council need to be referred to frequently by persons interested in the subjects thereof; and
3.	That it is advisable that a compilation of all such orders in council should be prepared and published in book form, and that all proclamations should be included therein.
The object was to include in this booklet or pamphlet all orders which had the effect of statutes and which were of general interest to the public. Another booklet is almost ready for distribution, which will be volume 2.
Printing of Parliament


Richard Burpee Hanson: That will contain orders pased under the War Measures Act?


Mr. POWER:: It will contain proclamations and orders in council passed under the War Measures Act. I hope this explanation is satisfactory to my hon. friend. I think everyone will agree that there is no necessity for printing the routine orders in booklet form.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I agree.


Charles Gavan Power: The National Resources
Mobilization Act provides that there shall be a distribution of the orders in council passed thereunder. It has been tentatively decided that orders passed under the mobilization act which had the force of statutes or were of public interest should be printed in , the Canada Gazette. I know the leader of the opposition has some objection to printing these in the Canada Gazette; he thinks we might just as well write them on ice. He is probably right, but we have tried to evolve some way of avoiding the trouble of typewriting and mimeographing them. The plan suggested is that a certain number will be printed in each addition of the Canada Gazette, so that members can file the copies separately and keep the orders in council in which they are interested apart from notices having to do with bankruptcy, promotions in the civil service, and so on. This arrangement is only tentative, and I am quite willing to consider any suggestion which may be made along these lines. I suggest that that is as good a way as any to avoid expense and save the trouble of employing additional staff in the office of the registrar.
May I say that all this was done before I ceased to be convener of the legislation committee. My place has since been taken by my deskmate, the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie).


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think some such modus operandi as has been suggested by the Minister of National Defence for Air could be worked out. I should not like to have them printed in the Canada Gazette only. Perhaps they could be issued in such form that they could be bound in a folder.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They would be reprints from the Canada Gazette.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Is the hon. member (Mr. Dupuis) moving that the report be concurred in?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The motion is to refer the question of printing back to the committee.


Georges Parent: The motion I have is to concur in the report.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The committee is to consider the matter further. Until the committee has had the opportunity of so doing, its report ought to be held up.
Motion dropped.



QUESTION OF ADMISSION OF TOURISTS AND OTHER VISITORS TO PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, my attention has been called to the question of the admission of tourists into this part of the building. One of the members of the press gallery satirized the present position in an article written for his paper. If a visitor goes to the senate door he is given a guide and shown through the building, even through this portion of the building if he wants to see it. If a visitor comes to the main door of the building he is turned away, unless he is vouched for by a member; and that is not often done because we do not have many visitors from our ridings. I suggest that there should be some uniformity of practice. Whoever is responsible should get in touch with the senate in order that proper uniform action may be taken. It seems a ridiculous situation that a visitor should be turned away from the main door of the building and that a policeman or somebody else should then whisper to him that if he goes over to the senate door he will be admitted.


Georges Parent: The leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) will recall that about two weeks ago this same question arose. I then stated the practice and procedure that would be adopted. Any visitor wishing to go through the buildings would need to be vouched for, not necessarily by a member of parliament but by someone in a responsible position, one who was well known to the officers at the door. Before making a statement to that effect to the house I communicated with the Speaker of the Senate, who made a similar statement on the same day. If any objection is taken to visitors entering the building it is contrary to the instructions issued to the officers at the time. I repeat, that anyone coming to the building accompanied by a responsible person, a member of the House of Commons, a member of the Senate, or someone in a high official position who is willing to vouch for the visitors he has with him, will be entitled to enter the building. I shall communicate again at the first opportunity with the Speaker of the Senate with a view to having these instructions carried out.

Questions


Mr. LOCKHART:: May I inquire, Mr. Speaker, if guides will be supplied for parties [DOT]visiting the building?


Georges Parent: It is not possible to have guides for all parties but, where possible, a guide will be supplied.



QUESTIONS

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

[Stage Direction]
On the question:
Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	Is Captain Don Davies employed by the Curtis Publishing Company and the National Defence department?
2.	Is he permitted to draw salaries both from that company and the department?
3.	Does the government propose to take any steps to ban the Saturday Evening Post from public sale and circulation through the mails in this country?


Mr. BRUCE:: Mr. Speaker, I should like
to have questions 1 and 2 dropped because they were based upon false information.


Georges Parent: With the permission oi
the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
may I say to my hon. friend that question 3 was answered in a return that was brought down some time ago, and the same answer would apply to the question that my hon. friend is now asking. If the hon. member would like to have the answer given in a formal way, this question can be allowed to stand.


Georges Parent: Question stands as regards No. 3.


NATIONAL REGISTRATION
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Will the government give consideration to allowing all not of military age to file their registration forms and answers to questions on national registration by and through the post office or bureau of statistics, addressed to the registrar of their district or to Ottawa, in the same manner as income tax returns are filed and secured by the government?
2.	Will consideration be given in said registration to questions on housing rents paid and mortgage rates, usury, health matters, soldier family questions, old age pensions, unemployment, hospitalization, insurance and other social questions to be used for other national problems, as proposed for next decennial census, as set out in question in this house in 1940?
3.	Is this registration to take the place of the next decennial census of 1941?
4.	Have the provinces been consulted about the use of superior court judges for this work? What will these judicial officers be paid for this work?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	The plan of organization requires all citizens, male and female, from the age of 16 upwards, to complete registration forms in booths provided in each polling division for this purpose. Consideration is being given to the advisability of enabling individuals, through their employers, to complete cards outside of booths, but the individual will have to attend in person at the booth and present card and secure certificate of registration. Everything possible will be done between now and date of registration to make registration as easy and as complete as possible.
2.	See form of questionnaire approved by order in council and laid on table of the house.
3.	No.
4.	Chief justice of each province has been consulted with respeot to use of judicial machinery, and have received immediate response from all that they will aid in every way possible. They will not be paid but will do this work as part of their judicial functions.


EXPORTS OF PULPWOOD AND OTHER WOOD PRODUCTS TO GERMANY
Mr. TUSTIN:: 1.	How many cords of pulpwood were shipped from Canada to Germany during the years 1937, 1938, and 1939?
2.	What quantities of other wood products were shipped to Germany during the same three years ?
Mr. MaeKINNON (Edmonton West):
1. Exports of Canadian wood pulp to Germany, calendar years 1937 to 1939.
Calendar	Pulpwood, peeled
years	Cords Value
1937	
30,142	$ 279,1531938	
150.988	1,562,3741939*	
223,143	2,247.800
2. Other Canadian wood products shipped to Germany, calendar years 1937 to 1939.
Item	Unit	1937	1938	1939*Logs 	. M.ft.	2,557	3,026	2,308Railway ties ...	No.	2,165Planks, boards.	. M.ft.	2,275	3,065	2,776Timber square .	. M.ft.	60	224	413Wood pulp ..	Cwt.	15,564	9,468	13,495
No exports after August 31, 1939.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-DISPOSAL OF DISCARDED BOXCARS
Mr. WINKLER:: 1. Do the railway companies make a practice of burning boxcars such as have been used for transporting grain to the terminals and which
Questions

i
have been discarded because they are unsafe for that purpose and for other reasons?
2. In view of the forthcoming storage requirements on the farms due to the apparent inability of our grain elevator system to meet the storage requirements for the grain crop that is now maturing, does the government propose to facilitate the sale of obsolete grain cars for storage purposes?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	No. Practice of Canadian National Railways is to recover all possible salvage, including woodwork. Where wood cannot be sold, it becomes necessary to resort to burning, which is not the preference of the railway as scrap metal is deteriorated by fire and minor parts lost.
2.	Obsolete or worn-out boxcars are dismantled chiefly because of deteriorated superstructures which are no longer weather-proof and generally in leaky condition, and unsuitable for grain storage. Canadian National Railway authorities state they have only 221 such cars scattered throughout Canada, and expense of weather-proofing superstructures and reconditioning running-gear to permit of haulage in trains would, the management state, be wholly unjustified as ensuing contribution towards storage requirements would be negligible.


ALLIED SUPPLIES LIMITED
Mr. HAZEN:: Is the Allied Supplies Limited, a company
formed by the government to administer the major explosives and munitions developments now under way in Canada, giving any consideration to establishing explosives and munition plants in the province of New Brunswick?


Mr. HOWE:: Replied to by the Minister of Munitions and Supply, page 1839, Hansard of July 23, 1910.


CONDITIONS IN GASPE AND MAGDALEN ISLANDS
Mr. ROY:: 1.	Does the government intend to donate part of the surplus apple crop to the settlers of Gaspe, where the harvest has been a failure, and also to the poor fishermen of Gaspe and the Magdalen islands?
2.	If not, to whom, in whole or in part, will the surplus apple crop of 1940 be distributed?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	No plans have been made as yet for the final disposal of surplus apples of the 1940 crop.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


Mr. ROY:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to aid the fishermen of Gaspe and particularly of the Magdalen islands who are suffering from poverty as a result of the failure of the fisheries and lack of markets?
2.	Will the government immediately order an inquiry into the distress of these fishermen?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned seems to ask a good many questions.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is not objectionable.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, but I wanted to point out as respects the questions asked by the hon. member that a good many of them relate to matters of government policy, and where they do they will have to be answered by saying that the answer will be made known when the policy is announced.


Georges Parent: Dropped.


Mr. ROY:: I should like to say to the Prime Minister that it is in order, I believe, to indicate to the government that there is distress on the Magdalen islands.


Georges Parent: Order.


Mr. ROY:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to aid the farmers of the agricultural districts of Gaspd and the Magdalen islands whose farms suffered from drought and frost?
2.	Will the government institute an inquiry into the distress among these settlers?
3.	If so, when will it commence?


Mr. GARDINER:: The answer which the Prime Minister gave to the previous question applies to this question also.



MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY-CONTRACTS

['1.\tWhat action, if any, has been taken by the Minister of Agriculture regarding the many requests made to him by various farm organizations and county councils in the maritimes, relative to the granting of export freight rates on grain and grain by-products, to maritime farmers, to relieve their high cost of pork and dairy products production?\n2.\tHow many tons of mill feeds (bran shorts and middlings) have been exported to the United States of America during the past nine months and what was the average selling price per ton in Canadian dollars?\n3.\tDo such exports of mill feeds receive the benefit of Canadian export freight rates similar to those enjoyed by exporters to Atlantic ports?']
Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, this question in practically identical form was asked and answered a short time ago. Question 2 involves the names and other particulars of several hundred contracts, and it is practically impossible to spare the clerical staff to go over that ground once again. It seems to me that the ground is covered by the statement I made to the house yesterday. The same answer applies to the hon. member's question

Mo ruing Sittings
on to-day's order paper with regard to the
Allied Supplies Limited, and I would ask the sponsor to have these two questions dropped.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Let this question stand, and I will see the hon. member.
Question stands.



Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	What action, if any, has been taken by the Minister of Agriculture regarding the many requests made to him by various farm organizations and county councils in the maritimes, relative to the granting of export freight rates on grain and grain by-products, to maritime farmers, to relieve their high cost of pork and dairy products production?
2.	How many tons of mill feeds (bran shorts and middlings) have been exported to the United States of America during the past nine months and what was the average selling price per ton in Canadian dollars?
3.	Do such exports of mill feeds receive the benefit of Canadian export freight rates similar to those enjoyed by exporters to Atlantic ports?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That on and after Thursday the 25th of July until the end of the session the house shall meet at 11 o'clock in the morning of each sitting day and that in addition to the usual intermission at 6 o'clock p.m. there shall also be an intermission every day from one to three o'clock.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, before the motion is adopted I should like to point out to the Prime Minister on behalf of our small group of members that we are finding it very difficult indeed even now to attend to the business that has to be dealt with. There are three committees sitting on which we are represented; the committee on the defence of Canada regulations, the banking and commerce committee, and the unemployment insurance committee. This morning I sat in one of these committees from ten to one o'clock and the committee meets to-morrow again at ten o'clock. These three committees are sitting also in the afternoon and evening. There are in the estimates a number of items in which we are interested and in connection with which we wish to bring forward certain matters, but with the house sitting at eleven o'clock in the morning it will be impossible for us to do properly the work we are supposed to do, and I think our
whip conveyed that information to the chief whip of the government before the motion was introduced. We are willing to do all we can to facilitate the business of the house, but we feel that as private members we are unable to cope with the business we are expected to do if the house is to sit at eleven o'clock in the morning.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that I think all of us are beginning to feel the pressure of committees, the sittings of the house and other duties, and may I venture to say no group more than the ministry itself. My hon. friend will realize that if the house sits in the morning, afternoon and evening, the only time the cabinet has left to hold its daily meetings is between the morning and afternoon sessions, and we shall have to arrange possibly to forego luncheon altogether in order to cover the day's work. But we are prepared to do that if it is going to help members generally to complete the work of the session. I do believe that by some adjustments and mutual cooperation it should be possible for the members who are obliged to do so to attend the committees to finish what work remains to be done, and a sufficient number of other members to remain in the house to look after questions that others may wish to ask and to follow the proceedings. I would say to my hon. friend that the government will try to arrange the business of the house in a way that will inconvenience his group and others as little as possible. If some matter should come up in the house when an hon. member who may wish to speak on it is absent, and someone on his behalf asks that the matter be allowed to stand, we shall try to meet the convenience of hon. gentlemen in that way. If there is that spirit of cooperation generally, as I am sure there is, we shall gain in the end by beginning morning sittings to-morrow. I have not suggested taking this Wednesday evening and I refrained from so doing purposely, also from asking to take Saturday of this week. With morning sittings of the house on Thursday and Friday we shall have Saturday and Sunday intervening before continuing with three sittings a day next week. If we begin morning sittings tomorrow I will .put a notice on the order paper to take next Wednesday evening and also the Saturday following in case we should run on that far, but I think we might be able to get through the business of the house early next week if we start morning sittings to-morrow.


Mr. CHURCH:: Is it the intention to sit in the morning next Saturday?
Prairie Farm Assistance


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not this
Saturday.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If there is any general disagreement with the object of the resolution I should think the Prime Minister would be wise not to press it, but if there is substantial agreement I think we ought to pass it. We are all anxious to conclude the work of the session. It is true there will be inconvenience once morning sittings start, but I am in accord with the principle of the resolution, and unless there is substantial opposition I think it ought to be passed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, 1939, to provide for the establishment of a board of review to determine the average yield in townships and the eligibility for assistance, and to make provision for the payment of administrative expenses incurred under the act.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: This is just a notice of motion, is it not? It appeared only in yesterday's votes and proceedings.


James Garfield Gardiner: With the consent of the bouse we should like to advance the measure one step to-day. Everything which can be discussed on the resolution can be discussed on the second reading.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, we are not going to object to that, but we do object to the thing being done without the consent of the house having been asked; that is all. We are glad to facilitate business, but if the minister wishes to expedite something he should ask the permission of the house.


James Garfield Gardiner: I apologize for not
having done so before. I now ask the consent of the house.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Vien in the chair.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think the minister ought to make some explanation before this resolution carries.


James Garfield Gardiner: When the Prairie Farm Assistance Act was under discussion a year
[Mr. Church.J
ago, when it was first introduced, the suggestion was made by some hon. members, I believe on both sides of the house, that it might be advisable to place in the hands of a board some of the authority which was being placed in the hands of the minister. I stated at that time that we should like to have a year's experience of the act before deciding definitely what form of board might be used for that purpose. It will be recalled by hon. members that during the year, having advanced to a certain stage under the administration of the minister only, we appointed a committee of review, to review the evidence which had been gathered with regard to yield. We are recommending that the act be amended this year to provide that a board, instead of a committee of review, be set up under the act, which will be empowered to do many things *which were done last year by the minister.
So far as the sections of the act are concerned which make provision for the entrance of different provincial areas under the terms applicable to crop failure, it was provided last year that Saskatchewan came in with 135 townships; Manitoba and Alberta or either one of them, was required to have 100 townships each under five bushels to the acre in order to qualify. This year we are changing those figures, making for Saskatchewan 171, which is an increase of 36 townships or four municipalities: we are decreasing Manitoba from 100 to 54, and we are decreasing Alberta from 100 to 90. We regard these as constituting a better distribution of the numbers of townships which would suffer crop failure before effect is given to the act in any one of the three provinces.
Another section of importance provides that along the borderline of areas which are coming in under any of the categories, municipalities will have something to say with regard to where a boundary line will run. To-day the act provides that the boundary lines run at right angles on the township boundary line. We are now making provision, in consultation with the municipal council, that the line shall run where the deviation actually takes place as between an area of crop failure and an area which is better than a crop failure, or an area in the 8-bushel to the acre category and an area in the 12-bushel to the acre category, as the case may be.
Another provision restricts the payment to persons who have not more than 3,000 bushels of wheat, provided that their yield is not over 8 bushels to the acre. In other words, the only persons having over 3,000 bushels of wheat who are entitled to payments under the act are those wTho have yields of less than 8 bushels to the acre.

Prairie Farm Assistance
These are the most important features of the amendments.
Mr. PERLEY': I believe it is commonly agreed that the administration of the act last year was most unsatisfactory, for instance as regards inspections and the delay in payments. There are many ways in which the act could be amended to make it operate better and in particular to ensure that the payments due are made in the proper time. I understand that municipalities have made suggestions, and that at the recent convention of reeves and secretaries of municipalities they offered their services to the government this year to assist in arriving at average yields and yields per acre, so to speak, within their areas.
At this stage I do not propose to detain the committee, but when the bill itself is in committee I shall have one or two suggestions by way of amendments which I believe are worth while. If the minister will agres to give them consideration at that stage I will refrain from delaying the proceedings at this time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There are a number of matters I desire to raise when this bill comes before the house, but I am quite willing to leave them until then, so as to prevent discussion straggling over a period of time.
There is, however, one suggestion I should like to make to the minister before the bill comes down in order that it may be incorporated if it be regarded as at all feasible. Under section 3, in what is called a national emergency scheme, payment of a bonus is contingent upon the price of wheat being less than 80 cents a bushel. The minister will remember that this question was discussed last year. At the moment it is, perhaps, not a very pressing problem, but had the price of wheat stayed where it was two or three months ago-and circumstances might arise to bring it up again; for this is not a field in which a person can prophesy with any degree of certainty-or if wheat were to reach a price in excess of 80 cents, the people who would qualify under section 3 of the present act would not be able to qualify, not because they have not a small enough crop, not because they are not entitled to it, but because the price is more than 80 cents. I know that if 135 townships in Saskatchewan had crop failures they would come under the assistance scheme, but if the number were only 60 or SO or 100 the farmers in those areas would be debarred unless some change were made in this act.
I would ask the minister to give some consideration to incorporating that idea in the
bill. It might not cost the government anything, but it would be very wise to enact that the provisions under section 3 would apply to those who qualified if their crops run into the 4 or 8 or 12 bushel classification, irrespective of what the price may be basis Fort William.


Thomas Langton Church: Hon. gentlemen opposite were for many years free traders so far as the grain growing industry was concerned. They said that our markets for this commodity were down south and not in Britain, France and in the markets of the world. Now, since the present minister came into power, we find that he has been adopting advanced protective measures for the benefit of this industry-bonuses, subventions and subsidies all along the line running into millions of dollars. Last year no one could estimate the loss to the people of Canada. I do not object to liberal allowances to the farmers of the prairies in view of the emergencies of the past few years and the consequent unfortunate position in which the people in that part of the country have been placed, but the principle of this bill, if it is right, should be extended to the farmers of Ontario and Quebec, who have been suffering just as much as those in the prairie provinces. The farmers of these two industrial provinces are largely children of the soil; they and their parents before them have been there for generations. When this resolution was introduced a short time ago we were told that it was only a temporary measure to tide over the emergency of that particular year, but now we find that it is tending to become permanent. If the legislation for assistance to the prairie farmers is right in principle, then I contend it should be extended to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
There are certain questions to which I should like to get an answer from the minister. First, what is the government's policy in regard to the orderly marketing of wheat under this legislation? Secondly, has the minister had any conference with the Hon. H. A. Wallace, Secretary of Agriculture in the United States, with regard to the orderly marketing of wheat, in view of the situation created by the war? In the third place, has not this form of assistance been discontinued in other neutral countries, having regard to the war and the financial situation? In view of the heavy burden of debt necessitated by the war to-day industry is being penalized very severely, paying a tax of 18 per cent, plus 75 per cent, and other levies imposed under the different acts passed by this parliament. This being so, I submit that the government should consider very carefully the
Prairie Farm Assistance

question whether Canada can afford at the present time to continue this practice under a board of review. Everything is being done through boards these days. There is a board for almost every measure that is proposed in this house. There are boards and officials right and left, and the day that passes without the appointment of a board seems to be regarded by the government as a day that is lost. We are fighting Hitler through boards. In my opinion we should have a proper survey of the whole situation with which this legislation is intended to cope. It has not been considered by the committee on agriculture. As usual, an important matter of this kind has been left to practically the last week of the session. The house will be closing soon now and this particular measure should have been given careful consideration by the committee on agriculture.


James Garfield Gardiner: To answer the first question, if we were to apply the principle of this bill to any of the eastern provinces it would never come into effect in that part of the country. Even if we wrote the bill in exactly the same terms and endeavoured to apply it, it would never come into effect in those provinces. The average yields and price, if applied in the other provinces, would automatically throw the act out. With regard to the policy on wheat, that comes under the Minister of Trade and Commerce and, I presume, will be dealt with when the next resolution on the order paper comes up for consideration.


Mr. HANSELL:: The resolution would
indicate that the legislation that is to follow will bring about a smoother functioning, in part at any rate, of the administration of this act. That, I think, is highly desirable, because if there is any reason for people to become dissatisfied, most likely that reason will arise from some criticism of the administration. I am not saying whether there has been any criticism, but naturally people are concerned with the administration of any enactment in which they play any part.
A short while ago an order for a return was passed in the proper way and it would have resulted in bringing down some information with regard to a certain part of the administration of this act. It would have thrown some light on the subject. One order for a return, in my name, was issued on June 12, six weeks ago, as follows:
For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents during the years 1939 and 1940 to date, exchanged between the dominion government, or any official thereof, and the government of Alberta, or any official thereof, with respect to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
IMr. Church.]
I do not think that should have required a great deal of time. I do not believe the correspondence was either exhaustive or voluminous. On June 17, five weeks ago, another order for a return, also moved by myself, was passed as follows:
For a copy of all affidavits sent in under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act from farmers in townships 10 and 11, range 27, west of the 4th meridian, and received by the Department of Agriculture, showing the amount of wheat raised in that area.
I had no ulterior motive in placing these motions on the order paper and in seeking the returns. As a matter of fact, I thought that possibly I could assist the department by making some personal calculation, and that was my particular reason for asking for these documents. One of these returns was ordered six weeks ago and the other five weeks ago. About ten days or two weeks ago I asked the minister when I could expect them. I have not yet received the returns. I am not criticizing the department now, but the day after I inquired when I might expect the returns, I received a telephone call from the department and I understood that the returns were just about ready. I explained to the gentleman who spoke to me-I do not know who he was; it was one of the minister's secretaries-that if I could be of assistance to him in doing any work or in having the stenographer assigned to me help out, I should be willing to do it. I have not yet received the returns. May I ask when I may expect them? Both are to some extent related to the administration of the act. I do not want them for the purpose of criticizing, but merely for information. There should be nothing in the returns that is particularly private, and I do feel a little concerned that I have not yet received them.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not certain
whether it was the hon. member for Macleod or another hon. member who asked me with regard to either this order or a similar one. The order asks for the declarations made by the individual farmers in I think townships 10 and 11 in a certain area. The answer I gave the other day with regard to a similar request for an order for return was that these are confidential returns, and we do not think it proper to lay them on the table of the house and make them available to the general public. They are returns with regard to yields which the individual has declared and sent in. We have checked them in order to determine whether they are correct, but we are not certain that these individuals would desire to have the information placed upon public record to be used by anyone who cares to use it. For that reason we do not like to

Prairie Farm Assistance
bring that kind of information down. But I have no objection to the hon. member coming to my office and checking up on anything he desires in order that he may be able to discuss the matter freely in the house.


Ernest George Hansell: I quite understand that
there may be something in what the minister has said. Perhaps it would not be wise, if the minister did this in my case, to do it in every case, because naturally people do not like other people to know their business.
But I should like to know the position of parliament when an order for a return has been passed by the house and the return is not forthcoming. In view of my short parliamentary experience I have, of course, a good deal to learn. But I think when the order was made the minister might have said something similar to what he is now saying. The basis of this particular order is this. Of course we all realize that sometimes certain farming communities go to their municipalities or secretaries or some body of men to help them out in matters of this kind. I received a letter from a certain municipality asking information with regard to this matter. They evidently had information from various farmers in those townships as to what they declared to be their yields, and their figures apparently brought them within the act. They did not give me the figures but they asked me if I could get the information. It seemed to me the best method of procedure was to move for a copy of the affidavits; all I wanted was to get what returns the farmers in this community had made so that I could send the information back to the municipality. Surely there was nothing out of order in that.
In connection with that particular return, would the minister give me privately, without laying the information on the table, the names of the farmers who sent in affidavits, and the amounts of yields they declared?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the officials
responsible for those records would probably want to say something as to whether the information contained therein should go out. For example, we attempt to get from 300,000 farmers, between seeding and harvesting time, a statement of the exact acreage of different types of crop seeded or the acreage under summer fallow. Later on, an application may be made for assistance in that township. We then question whether they are entitled to assistance or not, and if a question is raised as to whether they are entitled to assistance under certain regulations then there is a committee of review. When that committee and our inspectors disagree, an appeal is allowed, and under that appeal the farmers make sworn declarations as to their acreage and the amount of wheat they grew on that acreage.
It sometimes happens that the statements made in their letters sent in early in the season do not agree with the statements sworn to later on. In most instances that simply turns out to be a matter which most farmers understand. A farmer takes the measurement of his acreage from his seed drill; it is on the drill when he finishes sowing the field. But if three months later he were asked what the acreage of that field was, he might be five or ten acres out. Often farmers do not keep a copy of the return they make, and if one of them were asked six or seven months later to sign a declaration as to his acreage and what the return of wheat was, he might be out ten acres or even fifteen. I have known instances where he has been out more than that. But knowing the conditions under which farmers keep records and the number who do not keep records, and the conditions under which they farm in western Canada, I can understand how that might happen purely as an accident. On the other hand I would hesitate to turn over the form which the farmer made at the time of seeding and the other made perhaps six months later when he takes a sworn declaration that he believes the crop to be so-and-so, and have anyone criticize the fact that the two statements do not agree, because I think in nine cases out of ten, or perhaps even ninety-nine out of one hundred, he is trying to be right in both instances. We would rather not give that kind of information to the public generally, because that would make it very difficult to get the same kind of information later.


Mr. GERSHAW:: If there ever were a year in which some assistance is needed it is likely to be this year; for the information I have is that a large portion of the crop has again suffered from drought and that there will be a great deal of hardship during the coming winter. As far as Alberta is concerned, it strikes me that ninety townships is rather a high number to require, because the benefits under the "emergency year" are not as good as those under the "crop failure year". The situation in Alberta is that part of the south seems to be faced with a severe crop failure, whereas the irrigated districts and the part to the north will not suffer so much. Consequently our people there may be compelled to accept a much smaller amount than they would receive if they could come under the "crop failure year" benefits.
Again, this is not an insurance scheme, because if a man has a small job, such as a postmastership or secretaryship of a municipality, he is not eligible for the bonus, although his salary may be trifling compared with the amount he has lost on his farm.
Prairie Farm Assistance

This leads to severe trouble and difficulty in the administration of the act. I hope some means can be worked out which will make it unnecessary for the farmer to spend days and days travelling round getting affidavits from the different residents of the township as regards yield. This seems to be an entirely unfair proposition. Another factor is that there may be considerable rainfall in one part of a township, but practically none in another part of the same township. I know of instances where a .man has harvested eighteen or twenty bushels to the acre, and still has been eligible for and has received the bonus, whereas another man with two or three bushels to the acre has failed to receive it.
Administration has been difficult, and I do hope that that figure of ninety townships for Alberta can be changed. I hope the administration will leave less opportunity for bitter dispute among the different parties to the agreement.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not think the minister quite completed the answer to my question as to when I might expect the return ordered about six weeks ago in respect of correspondence which has passed. May I ask, further, the procedure, under parliamentary practice, with respect to orders for returns. When may I expect the order for return issued on June 12?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have before me the order for return dated June 12, and it would appear to be a large order. Much of the correspondence takes place between our inspectors in the field and one or other of the governments mentioned. Much of it takes place between the Regina office and one or others of the governments in question, and it would be necessary to go through a considerable amount of correspondence in order to be sure that we have all the letters and telegrams. I am sure that information will be brought down as soon as we can get it. The Regina office must be searched; our office in Ottawa must be searched, and then we must make certain as to what has happened in the offices of some of our inspectors, particularly those in charge of districts. As soon as we can get that information it will be placed on the table. No delay has been caused by anyone, and there is an attempt being made to obtain it as soon as possible.


Ernest George Hansell: I accept the minister's statement, and have no intention of casting any reflection upon him or the department he heads. I believe all hon. members are agreed that he is an able minister of agriculture.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: That is going pretty far.


Ernest George Hansell: I would point out, however, that I should be able more intelligently to discuss the measure if I had before me the correspondence which has passed between the two governments.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: The minister has informed the committee that the figure for Saskatchewan has been raised from 135 to 171 townships. That figure must be reached before Saskatchewan becomes eligible for bonus or assistance under this measure. Working from those figures I find that in Saskatchewan there can be 3,900,000 acres producing less than five bushels to the acre, and still Saskatchewan will not qualify for the bonus. How has the minister arrived at these figures? It seems to me there are certain areas in Saskatchewan upon which this provision will work great hardship. I understand the minister is going to break down the townships into smaller units for purposes of bonus.


James Garfield Gardiner: With regard to the question how we arrived at the figures, I would point out that we have had an experience extending back over ten years. We have had to deal with difficult crop situations, accompanied by low prices. Those two things coming together over a long term of years have created a difficult situation.
The practice followed, not only by this government but since 1931 by the previous government, in deciding whether or not the federal government had any responsibility, was based upon these facts: First, in the early days the responsibility for assistance to farmers in western Canada was considered to be a federal responsibility only so long as the land remained under the ownership and control of the federal government. As soon as the individual on the land obtained his patent, then the responsibility became that of either the province or the municipality. That was the position when homesteading was taking place in the west and when assistance was given by way of seed grain, and matters of that kind. When assistance of any kind was given the federal government assumed the responsibility so long as the person in question was homesteading, and therefore was on land which belonged to the federal government and which might eventually be obtained by patent from the federal government. But when the person in question obtained the patent the responsibility was shifted to one or other of the local forms of government, either provincial or municipal. Through the years, as homesteading steadily diminished,

Prairie Farm Assistance
practically all responsibility passed to the provinces and municipalities.
Then we reached the difficult period in which we experienced ten years of drought and low prices. The federal government of the day took the position that if a province could demonstrate that the problem was so great the province could not take care of it, the federal government would assume some responsibility and by some method would attempt to find out to what extent that responsibility should be assumed. The results have been followed by hon. members during the last ten years. As we gained experience under one government or another during that time we finally came to the conclusion that until approximately twenty-five municipalities in a province were in trouble the problem was not too big for the province. I believe that was assumed in all cases. Then as we went along from year to year the question arose as to when a problem was not too big for a province to handle. The federal government took the position in all provinces that when they got down to ten municipalities we would not give any further assistance, and the province in question would have to take care of its own problem.
Last year we decided to attempt to meet the problem in some way other than that of compelling people to go to municipal councils to plead for assistance, they in turn going to provincial authorities for assistance, and the provinces in turn coming to Ottawa. Through legislation we attempted to set up a system whereby under certain prevailing conditions we would assume some responsibility. We attempted to cover some of the local responsibility, whether provincial or municipal, by placing a levy of one per cent on all grain delivered to the market by persons growing grain in a given area. Then we assumed the further responsibility, on the part of the federal government, to put more money into a fund to take care of the payments which might arise under the terms of the act.
Last year by way of experiment we set 135 townships in Saskatchewan, or 15 municipalities, as the number required before the federal government would assume responsibility. We set 100 townships for Alberta and 100 for Manitoba. I remember when the matter was discussed at that time hon. members for Alberta and Manitoba raised objection to those figures. At the time of the discussion we had a fairly clear idea that there was not going to be a serious crop failure in either Manitoba or Alberta, but that there was likely to be one in Saskatchewan. I pointed out to the committee at that time that section 3, which provides for emergency assistance, was
bound to apply to all three provinces, because we made it apply automatically on account of the fact that there had been ten crop failures over the previous years. We decided that it was not so important to figure it out on the exact basis which would be necessary in order to determine whether these provinces should or should not come in, so the committee at that time accepted 100 for Manitoba, 100 for Alberta and 135 for Saskatchewan. The understanding was that we would base these figures upon the experiences we had had through the year, as well as the experiences of previous years as shown by the statistics. After having made a study of the best statistics available and taking into consideration the conditions which prevailed this year and those which possibly might prevail in the future, we think that the figure 171 for Saskatchewan, a little more than half that for Alberta and a little more than half of the Alberta number for Manitoba constitute about the right division.
We have departed slightly from the old position that a province, whether it was Manitoba, Alberta or Saskatchewan, was always able to look after its own affairs, so long as only a certain number of municipalities were in difficulty. We think we should consider the crop failure area or the drought area as being more in the nature of one large unit extending through the southern parts of the three provinces, rather than consider the possibility of the province being able to look after all the difficulties within its own boundaries.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: How many
townships in Saskatchewan qualified last year under this crop failure assistance section?


James Garfield Gardiner: Two hundred and sixty.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have asked the minister to consider seriously this matter of raising the number of townships which must be in trouble in Saskatchewan in order that that province may qualify. Under section 3 the national emergency which applied by statute to last jrnar, does not apply by statute to this year. This year will not be an emergency year unless an order in council is passed to that effect. Unless the minister gives some intimation that the government intends to pass such an order in council we might as well consider the national emergency feature as being out. That leaves us only the crop failure assistance. The reports we are receiving are that conditions in Saskatchewan are bad. There has been considerable drought during the last few hot days, and the report I get is that in two-thirds of my con-
Prairie Farm Assistance

stituency they will not even have feed. If the minister raises the number of townships necessary to qualify to 171, it will mean that 160, 165 or 170 townships can have no crop; the people will not be able to qualify for the bonus under this section, yet they will not be able to qualify under section 3 unless an order in council is passed. We have no guarantee that this will be done. It means we can have a stretch of country 100 miles long and some sixty miles wide with no crop and no provision to take care of the people living therein. Relief has been cut off for July and there is no guarantee that it will be resumed again. I submit that to raise the number of townships necessary to qualify will cause a serious hardship to these people. The minister has not advanced any satisfactory reason why the number should be raised from 135 to 171. If the minister brings down the bill containing a provision that 171 townships are necessary to qualify, I can assure him that the difficulties of getting it through this house will be just as great as I and those associated with me can possibly make them.


George Hugh Castleden: In how many of the past ten years have there been 170 townships in Saskatchewan that would qualify?


James Garfield Gardiner: I cannot give an answer offhand, but I shall probably be able to do so when the bill is in committee or at some other stage. I can say that in the most difficult years of the last ten the number would be considerably higher than 171. For example, in 1937 we took care of 170 municipalities, and there are nine townships to a municipality. We took care of 100 per cent of the requirements of that number of municipalities and fifty per cent of the requirements of a number of others. Last year there were 260 townships, and I would say that in 1931, which was the first really difficult year, there were approximately the same number as in the year when we took care of 170 municipalities. There would be no question at all that in the difficult years Saskatchewan would come under this arrangement.
With regard to what the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) said a moment ago, under the act it would be impossible for the government to pass an order in council before November next. The previous act provided that the average price of wheat must be under eighty cents between August 1 and November 1. Until November 1 we are not in position to determine whether we have the power to pass an order in council. During the month of November we would have to consider the conditions existing. I am speaking

from memory, but I think I am correct when I say that under the terms of the act it is impossible for us to make any payments without an order in council first being passed. An order in council is required to declare a crop failure area in any province. Orders in council precede everything that is done under the act. Some of these orders in council were asked for by the opposition, probably not by the group of which the hon. member for Weyburn is a member, but by other hon. members on the other side.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister is quite correct when he says that the crop failure assistance section cannot be brought into force until the government has declared by order in council an area to be a crop failure area. The moment they become convinced that there is a sufficiently large area with a sufficiently small crop to warrant its being declared a crop failure area, they can do so, but if section 3 is left the way it is they cannot declare that area to be an emergency area until November 1, when they would know the price. That is why I ask the minister to consider taking out that section which requires the price to be less than eighty cents a bushel. It was not in the first draft of the bill brought down last year, and we never had a satisfactory explanation of why it was put in. The first draft of the bill was much better, and the situation would be greatly improved if this section were taken out. It serves no useful function except to make it impossible for the government to declare an area an emergency area until on in November, which means that the question of paying a bonus would be deferred until December or January.


Mr. QUELCH:: I think the majority of
hon. members who have come into contact with the operations of this act during the past year admit that it has failed to take care of many farmers who, I believe, had every right and justification to expect protection under this measure. In my opinion this is due to three main causes. First, there are certain undesirable features in the act; second, there are certain undesirable features in the regulations and, third, this is due, partly to its being a new measure and the people in control not having had sufficient experience, partly to the incompetence of those who were handling the act and to the partisan way in which it has been administered in certain districts.
I shall deal first with the undesirable features in the act and I shall refer to sections 3 and 4. It will be remembered that when these sections were introduced last year, we in this comer attacked certain clauses

Prairie Farm Assistance
therein. The minister will agree, I think, that as a result of section 3 many farmers received the bonus in spite of the fact that they threshed twenty or thirty bushels to the acre. It is true that the amendment to be introduced will take care of that situation in some instances, but in others it will not.
It is also true that many farmers who threshed considerably less than twelve bushels to the acre, and some who threshed less than five bushels, did not get the bonus. That is a noticeable feature, and the amendment to be introduced will not take care of that situation entirely. In some instances it will, and in others it will not. Where there is a large body of land in a block, it would, but the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) knows very well that land of the same quality does not necessarily lie in the same block. There may be a section of heavy land, a section of light land adjoining it, and then a section of heavy land. Especially in the area in which I live, from Morin east to Hanna, it is not a solid block at all, but the quality of the land varies widely. There will be light land and then heavy land and then light land. You cannot take part of one township and part of the adjoining township and always call it one block of similar soil. You have to deal with the matter on an individual basis. You may have a township where 60 per cent of the land is heavy and 40 per cent light, and in view of the fact that 60 per cent of the land is heavy the average yield in all probability will be above twelve bushels to the acre. Therefore no bonus will be paid. But that does not help the farmer who is situated in the 40 per cent area which is light land. He will probably be threshing less than twelve bushels to the acre, and just because he has the misfortune to reside in the township where 60 per cent is heavy he is not eligible for the bonus. And vice versa, 40 per cent may be heavy and 60 per cent light, and the average yield would be probably below twelve bushels to the acre. The farmer in the 40 per cent area may have a yield well above twelve bushels to the acre, but because he is fortunate enough to reside in an area where the majority of the land is light he will get the bonus. There is no justification for that.
I know that in drafting an act it is not possible to provide for all eventualities, but when we realize that a certain condition exists and we have had one year's experience of the operation of the act, I contend that there is no justification for allowing that condition to continue. The minister admitted last year that there was a certain injustice in this situation and that it might be possible to
correct it on a soil classification basis. I admit that this would be fairer than the township basis, but it would not take into consideration the question of moisture precipitation. I maintain that the only really sound basis is the individual farm basis in order to make it a real crop insurance scheme.
I realize that there are certain difficulties in doing that, but at least every man who contributed would be eligible for the bonus if he had a crop failure. Under the present scheme, however, a farmer or his family may contribute for a hundred years, then have a total crop failure, and yet get nothing.
There is another point. At the present time the determining factor is the yield per acre. The minister will remember that last session we stressed that the bonus should depend not so much upon the yield per acre as upon the dollar value of the yield. At the present time if the average yield of a township is eleven bushels of No. 1 wheat, the bonus can be paid, but if the average yield is fifteen bushels of feed wheat, no bonus can be paid, and yet the actual value of the return to the farmer from the feed wheat is less than if he had had the No. 1 crop. That situation should be taken care of. While we are drafting a bill, let us make it a bill that will deal with the actual situation in the most equitable way possible, instead of dealing with it by this hit-or-miss method.
The minister says that we should not expect too -much from any new bill in the first year of its operation but be satisfied that we are going in the right direction. But the present law not merely fails to hit the bull's-eye; it misses the target altogether as regards those farmers who had a light crop and a small yield in a township where the average yield was above twelve bushels to the acre.
In regard to section 4, when the bill was introduced last year the minister stated that in Alberta and Manitoba the bonus was going to be paid provided that the number of distressed townships was 135 or over, but upon representations being made that number was reduced to 100. We maintain that 100 is still too high, and that ninety as proposed in amendment would be still too high.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: What about Saskatchewan?


Victor Quelch: In Saskatchewan the area is very much larger than in Alberta or Manitoba, and there is justification for having a greater number of townships than in the other two provinces. I cannot agree with the minister's stand that if the area is less than ninety townships, the problem is sufficiently small for the provincial government to be able to take care of it. There might be some justification for
Prairie Farm Assistance

that stand if the farmers were not compelled to contribute to this scheme, but they are compelled to contribute one per cent. Suppose there is an area of fifty or forty townships where not one bushel is threshed. I have seen that condition time and time again. The crop may be burnt up completely, and the farmers may have been contributing for several years. Is the government going to tell them that they are not eligible for the bonus and that they must go on relief. Why should the provincial government have to provide the money for their relief after the farmers have been contributing one per cent of their crop? Mark you, the federal government is making not a grant but a loan. The act says, a loan. I would remind the minister that the former Minister of Finance, Mr. Dunning, stated in the house last year that if the act had been in operation for twenty years we would by that time have had a considerable fund to take care of the situation.


James Garfield Gardiner: When he made that statement he had not examined the records because the records show that over a period of eighteen years there would have been paid out $180,000,000 and only $31,000,000 collected.


Victor Quelch: His statement will be found at page 3839 of Hansard of last year. Mr. Dunning said:
If we should be fortunate enough to have the returns that we have had in the past twenty years, then I can see the basis of a fund which will be standing there to help in days when calamity overtakes us.
That showed that Mr. Dunning believed that it would be possible under this act to build up a fund with a contribution of one per cent, and if the farmers are to make that contribution, then when there is a crop failure in forty or fifty townships they have every right to expect compensation. This act is an attempt on the part of the federal government to shelve that which is recognized as a federal and national responsibility, to remove it from the shoulders of the Canadian people and place it upon the shoulders of the farmers of western Canada. Agriculture to-day is the only industry in Canada to which the government is saying: We are going to increase taxation against your industry and against your industry alone in order to provide for people in your industry who are in unfortunate financial circumstances. But the government does not say to the manufacturers: We are going to increase taxation against your industry and against your industry alone to take care of the distressed people in your industry. They do not say to the coal mine operators: We are going to increase taxation against you to provide assistance for the distressed coal
IMr. Quelch.]
miners. No, they are assisted from the general revenue fund. It is to agriculture alone that the government says: We are going to make you pay a higher taxation in order to take care of the people in your industry who are in unfortunate financial circumstances. That is rank discrimination.
If this was a crop insurance scheme I would have no objection to the one per cent levy. The farmers of western Canada would, I believe, be willing to pay a higher levy, two or three per cent, if in return they were guaranteed that in the event of a crop failure from any cause they would get a satisfactory form of assistance.
I have been amazed to hear western Liberal members call this a crop insurance scheme. It is a farce to call it that. I would ask the minister this question. Suppose he insured his house against fire and his house burned down. What would he say if the agent came to him and said: I am very sorry that we cannot pay you any fire insurance because ninety other houses did not burn down at the same time. What kind of insurance would the minister call that? Yet that is exactly the same situation as these farmers are in. A township may be burnt up completely with drought, and they are told they cannot get any assistance unless there are another ninety townships being burnt up at the same time.
I am satisfied that the farmers would not object to having their levy raised from one to two per cent and perhaps to three per cent if they were guaranteed that in the event of a crop failure they would get satisfactory compensation. I make that statement because I have been in touch with my constituents. I sent out over fifty questionnaires to every part of my constituency, covering it pretty thoroughly, and every letter I received was to the effect that they would not mind it if the levy were raised provided they got crop insurance on an individual basis instead of being on drought relief.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Drought
relief which they cannot count upon.


Victor Quelch: Yes, drought relief which
they cannot count upon; because conditions are so complicated that in many instances it is only a miracle if the farmer gets a bonus at all. We know the chaotic condition which exists as a result of these sections of the act and of sections in the regulations which in many instances have set the act absolutely at nought.
The hon. member for Macleod said that he believed the Minister of Agriculture was an able minister. If he is, I am satisfied he

Prairie Farm, Assistance
cannot have been responsible for the drafting of sections 2 and 3 of the regulations, because nobody with any knowledge of conditions in western Canada could possibly have drawn up such regulations as these, which are foolish and cannot be fulfilled. I am satisfied that if they had been submitted to parliament they would never have passed, because anybody familiar with conditions out west would have known that they were impracticable. I will read sections 2 and 3 of the regulations:
2.	For the purpose of making awards to farmers under the act,'the minister may require that a province within the spring wheat area make application prior to the fifteenth day of August in any year to be included under section 3 or section 4, or both, of the act.
3.	Such application shall be supported by a list of the townships considered to be eligible under the act with all available information pertinent to such application.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not impossible. Some of the provinces did it.


Victor Quelch: The minister also stated in a letter I received that if these sections, referring to them all, were not complied with in future, the bonus would not be ipaid. The minister knows very well that in Alberta- and I am speaking of that province because I am familiar with it-it is not possible by August 15 to say with any certainty that this or that township is going to have an average yield of twelve bushels to the acre or, it may be, twenty bushels to the acre. For example, in years when crops are very late- and I have seen many of them-on August 15 you will have a very green crop of wheat which may look as though it might go twenty bushels to the acre, but on August 17 or 18 you may have ten degrees of frost and the yield will be cut down by one-half. The minister knows that. Again, you may have a very late crop of green wheat on August 15, followed by three weeks of blisteringly hot winds, reducing the yield by fifty per cent. Yet, according to the minister's own words, if the province has not already listed certain townships they will not be able to get the bonus for those areas.
I will show the minister how absurd these regulations have become. The only way whereby a province can make absolutely sure that its farmers will get the bonus if they have a low crop is to submit a list of all the townships in that province. Then they will be safe. They will have made sure that none is excluded. But how much help would that be to the minister? Yet the minister says that any townships may be excluded if they are not included in the list submitted on August 15.
I wrote a letter to the Minister of Agriculture regarding the confusion which seemed to exist in Alberta with regard to the payment of the bonus, and this is the reply I got:
I can quite understand that there have been complaints from the province of Alberta with regard to the administration of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
And he goes on to say:
We set the date last August fifteenth as the last date upon which application could be made by a provincial government to bring any township under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
Then he continues:
On August fifteenth we had no applications. ...


James Garfield Gardiner: From Alberta.


Victor Quelch: From Alberta. Well, the minister knows whose fault that was. It was entirely due to the slackness of the federal administration. That was not the reason the minister gave in the letter. The reason given in the letter is this:
It was afterwards found that this was due to the fact that a letter sent to Edmonton was addressed to the department of municipal affairs instead of being addressed to the department of agriculture, and the letter was not transmitted from the department of municipal affairs to the department of agriculture.
That was not the reason at all. The reason was that the forms of application were not mailed from Regina to Alberta until August 14. Yet they had to be filled in by the fifteenth- an absolute impossibility. They were actually in the mail. Yet the minister attempts to blame the confusion on the fact that the forms were not returned. I know that they were not mailed from Regina until August 14, because I have before me a copy of a letter written by Mr. A. R. Mackie saying that they were mailed on that date. Yet according to the minister's own word, unless the regulations are complied with, no bonus will be paid.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Of what forms is my hon. friend speaking?


Victor Quelch: The forms I am referring to are those upon which the townships had to be listed. I will refer to the correspondence.
On August 5 the province of Alberta wrote to Mr. Mackie, superintendent of the prairie farm assistance branch, Regina:
In compliance with the regulations under the above act, I have been instructed and hereby make application for the inclusion of the province of Alberta under sections 3 and 4 of the above-named act, and would respectfully request that the awards be extended to farmers within this province.
iy02
Prairie Farm Assistance

The Alberta commissioner received this reply, dated August 9:
I have your letter of August 5 in which you make application for the inclusion of the province of Alberta under sections 3 and 4 of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
I would ask you, however, to note that the regulations under this act specified that such application by a province should be supported by a list of the townships considered to be eligible under the act, with all available information pertinent to such application. Forms for this purpose are in the process of preparation, and will be mailed to you as soon as they are ready.
I had hoped to be able to see you in Edmonton before this, but the deterioration of this crop has been so tremendous during the recent hot spell, that the appointment of fieldmen and giving them their work has taken all of my time.


James Lester Douglas: What is the date of that letter?


Victor Quelch: August 9. Then on
August 14 this letter was sent to Hon. D. B. Mullen, Minister of Agriculture for Alberta:
Enclosed please find a number of forms for your use in reporting such townships in Alberta as your information warrants you making application to this department for inclusion under either section 3 or section 4 of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, 1939.
The minister blames Alberta for not having sent the applications in so as to arrive at Regina on August 15, and yet this letter was not mailed from Regina until the fourteenth;


John Gordon Ross: When was the first letter?


Victor Quelch: The letter was on the fifth.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would take it, from what the hon. member has just read, that that was a letter written by the department of agriculture of Alberta to our office in Regina.


Victor Quelch: On August 5.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not the correspondence I was speaking of in my letter.


Victor Quelch: It does not make any
difference.


James Garfield Gardiner: It makes all the difference in the world with regard to what the hon. member is talking about.


Victor Quelch: I will just show the minister how much difference it makes. This is what the minister said:
On August fifteenth we had no applications, if I remember correctly. It was afterwards found that this was due to . . .
And so on.


John Gordon Ross: The departments in your own province were not * getting together.


Victor Quelch: Whether they were or not, I repeat that the information could not possibly have been received in Regina by the fifteenth.


James Garfield Gardiner: If the hon. gentleman will permit me just for a moment, what he is stating is that I was blaming the government of Alberta, but what I stated was that our branch wrote to the department of municipal affairs. My hon. friend knows why they wrote there. That, too, has been explained to him in the correspondence. They wrote there because our branch had previously been dealing with the municipal branch on relief matters; the same two officials had been corresponding on that subject. Mr. Mackie thought he would communicate with the person with whom he had been corresponding before. That was not the proper person to get in touch with. Mr. Mackie thought he had fulfilled his part in writing to the department of municipal affairs. The letter, I understand, was not transferred from municipal affairs to agriculture; therefore agriculture did not know until they wrote on August 5 asking for information, and then it was realized by our office that the communication sent earlier had not reached its proper destination. The forms were then sent forward. I have not said that the Alberta government was responsible. I said that there was a misunderstanding, and because of that misunderstanding we did not hold Alberta to August 15 but permitted them to send in their applications right along and accepted them to March 31. There has been no hardship on the part of Alberta, however, although there has been some delay.


Victor Quelch: As regards the correspondence to which the minister refers, I got in contact with the department of municipal affairs of Alberta and they denied having received such correspondence from Ottawa. They say they received none.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will get the hon.
member the copy.


Victor Quelch: That, I believe, is why the hon. member for Macleod wanted to get the correspondence; but even if it were so, that does not alter the situation. The application was made on August 5, and if Regina had immediately mailed the forms back on August 7 it would have been possible to comply with the regulations. They were not

Prairie Farm Assistance
mailed until August 14 and that is why it was impossible to have them back by August 15.
May I refer to section 7, paragraph (e) of the regulations. In my opinion it absolutely destroys the principle of the act as found in section 3. It is provided that no award shall be made on the "following" farm lands owned or rented by the farmer who, as owner or tenant, also operates more than three hundred acres of cultivated land situated in townships not eligible for award under the act. The minister knows very well that this will cause a good deal of unjustifiable hardship. There may be a man with a section of land in a township with an average yield of four bushels to the acre on which the bonus will be paid, but he may have 300 acres of crop on light sandy land in another township where the greater part of the land is heavy and therefore the average yield is above twelve bushels. But although he may average only three or four bushels to the acre on all his land, he is debarred from the bonus on the ground that he has 300 acres in a township in which the average yield is more than twelve bushels to the acre. That is a situation which should be rectified.
There are one or two other matters to which I wish to refer regarding the delay that occurred in Alberta and certain complaints with respect to the method of inspection. I have here a copy of the statement I sent the minister. I have many more similar to this. This statement refers to township 35, range 17 west of fourth. The farmers in this township when they made application for the bonus in October last year were required to file affidavits, which showed an average yield of 11-3 bushels. By the first of July no bonus had been paid and no understanding reached. It seems strange that it was not possible to come to some decision after affidavits were signed in October last year. By the first of July we are still without any dceision as to whether the bonus will be paid, and there are many townships in which the matter is still pending. The department has not decided whether the bonus will be given, and the impression is being created in the constituency that the inspectors now being sent round are trying to find ways and means of evading the payment of the bonus.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think my hon. friend wishes to misrepresent the matter. The inspectors who are going round now are dealing not with last year's crop but with this year's crop.


Victor Quelch: Perhaps I should have said, the the inspectors sent round on June 21. I said "now" because I had prepared these
notes some time previously. I thought this question would be brought up earlier than it has been, and I suggest that it should have been brought up earlier. However, on June 21 the inspectors were going round and were creating a bad impression through their actions. I submit that the whole method of inspection has been bad. I have received complaints from many farmers that the inspectors have never even visited their farms. I do not doubt that the inspectors did visit these farms, but the fact is that they never got in touch with the farmer. They never went near the farmer and the farmer did not know that his land had been inspected. It would have been better for the inspectors to get in contact with the farmer and let him see exactly how the average yield was being arrived at. Had this been done, there would not have been the same hard feeling.
I have here a statement by a man from Oyen, which reads:
In the first place, I have to say that the farmers in this township are very dissatisfied with the method employed by Mr. So-and-so, the government appointee, in figuring out the yield of wheat, and at least two-thirds of them are prepared to sign statutory declarations that their farms were never visited by Mr. So-and-so, and so his estimate of the yield must be purely guesswork.


James Garfield Gardiner: How can these declarations be made if the inspectors did not visit the farmers themselves?


Victor Quelch: The farmers are prepared to make the declarations. I do not see how the inspectors can know if they did not visit the farmers, but at any rate they would not have created the impression they did if they had called on the farmers. Surely the inspector should have called on the farmer. When a farmer suffers loss from hail, under hail insurance, and the inspector comes to assess the damage, he gets in touch with the farmer first of all and the farmer takes him round. The inspector then explains the basis on which he makes his estimate, and in that way the farmer has some method of arriving at what the figure should be. But when the inspector goes to the farm, does not even get in contact with the farmer and afterwards declares that the estimated yield is so much, naturally there is going to be trouble if the figure arrived at is twelve bushels to the acre. And that is what occurred. The same man makes this statement:
The inspector further told my brother his instructions were to take nobody's word for anything and to trust no one.
That is a tactless way of going about this business. Why should the inspector say, "I have come to estimate your crop but I am not going to take your word for anything"?
Prairie Farm Assistance


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend has been arguing that this is not on an individual basis and that it ought to be. May I point out that they are not estimating that particular man's crop; they are estimating the crop in the township.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But his average would go into the total in the township.


Victor Quelch: The average depends on the total of the crops of the individuals.


John Gordon Ross: Does my hon. friend know how the average was reached?


Victor Quelch: In the final analysis it was arrived at largely by the threshing return, because the farmers had to swear to affidavits.


James Garfield Gardiner: The threshing returns were not taken except in a small fraction of cases. They were taken only in places where there was a protest and an appeal. There were 1,889 townships in which payment was made and there was not even a complaint except in a small fraction of the number.


Victor Quelch: Where there is no complaint there is no reason for investigation; but where there were complaints and affidavits were taken, the threshing return was used. No one will complain about a township in which there is satisfaction. If the bonus is paid, why should there be any complaint about the method?


James Garfield Gardiner: On the other hand, if it was satisfactory in 1,800 townships and there were some complaints in the other eighty-nine, the system is not too bad.


Victor Quelch: Where there is a complete crop failure, where the crop is so poor that anyone can see that the average yield is less than twelve bushels to the acre, it is naturally easy to determine. But we want ways and means of finding out the average yield where it is doubtful. That is where there will be complaint. There will not be any complaint in a township where it is quite obvious that there is a crop failure, but there will be complaints where there are yields of eleven, twelve and thirteen bushels to the acre, and therefore the government have to determine what the crop yield is, and they should try to do this in such a way that the farmers will not have grounds for complaint. By sending inspectors round to make investigations without first letting the farmers know will always make trouble.


John Gordon Ross: You would never
get the inspectors down.


Charles Edward Johnston: Let the member go round with the inspectors.


Victor Quelch: If the inspectors attempted to get in contact with the farmer it would help. They sometimes do not even, bother to let him know; they even keep away.


John Gordon Ross: There would have to be four times the present number of inspectors.


Victor Quelch: I agree; the present system is all wrong. Get down to an individual basis, and have every farmer make an affidavit.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would ask the hon. member how he is going to do that this year. The threshing returns, as he knows, are often made simply by dumping the wheat into a pile or bin; often there is not even a measure on the machine. This year we are going to have difficulty in getting wheat into elevators or anywhere where you can get a final return. Certainly it will be well into next summer, or even two years from now, before some would get their final return. I do not think they want to delay that long.


Victor Quelch: There are many ways to get over that. It is a simple thing to estimate the amount of wheat in a pile or bin.


James Garfield Gardiner: I thought the hon.
member was complaining that it was very difficult.


Victor Quelch: On the contrary I am complaining that this method has not been used. In most cases the basis apparently was going around and inspecting the fields without notifying the farmers. It could at least be helped by taking into consideration the actual amount of grain threshed. It is of course hard to estimate the acreage. The whole act is to some extent hard to administer therefore we have to try to get a basis which will be as fair as possible. As long as we are conducting it as we are at the present time we should at least require that the inspectors call on the farmer and give him a chance to see how his yield is being estimated. To go around in the tactless way they have been doing, telling farmers they are not going to take their word for anything, is not calculated to develop a spirit of trust.


John Gordon Ross: What is the use of having an inspector if he is going to take someone else's word?


Victor Quelch: Well, it is not necessary to go out of the way to antagonize the farmers by such tactless and foolish conduct. There is a great difference between inspectors; some can do their work without stirring up antagonism, while others feel it their duty to show that they are holding the big stick and that the farmer can go to hell.

Prairie Farm Assistance


An hon. MEMBER:: Order. It is too warm.


Victor Quelch: In case the minister may say I made a charge without any evidence to substantiate it, I want to refer to the somewhat partisan way this matter was dealt with. Letters were sent out by officials of the Department of Agriculture to farmers. I have one here, and I ask the minister whether he thinks this is a wise letter to be sent out just before an election. It is dated February 15, and it reads:
Dear Sir,-
We will make a survey of above townships in the very near future.
Doctor Day of Consort has been so insistent that we have decided to take action.
Doctor Day was the Liberal candidate. Does the minister think that is a wise statement to make just before an election, that the only reason the inspection was being made was that the Liberal candidate was so insistent? A number of letters like this were sent out. If that is not playing politics in the dirtiest form possible I should like to know what is. Affidavits were sent out just before the election, and a regular whispering campaign started-"Sign these affidavits; if Doctor Day gets in you will get the bonus, and if he does not, you will not." Judging from the results, that threat has been carried out, because many townships have been turned down which I think were warranted in expecting to get the bonus.


Frederick William Gershaw: There were hundreds turned down in Medicine Hat too.


An hon. MEMBER:: They should have been.


Victor Quelch: I am not charging that the hon. member for Medicine Hat played politics.


Mr. JAQUES:: He is one of the few good Liberals.


James Garfield Gardiner: Let us get on with the resolution.


Victor Quelch: Then stop the interruptions.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. The hon. gentle man's time is exhausted.


Mr. NEILL:: I want to make a suggestion to the minister. I am not personally interested in this bill, but I understand it is brought in at the request and for the benefit of western farmers. There has been so much opposition here this afternoon by members presumably representing farmers in western Canada that I suggest the minister withdraw the bill and let the hon. gentlemen who have delayed its progress go home and explain their action to their constituents as best they can.


Major James William Coldwell: That statement should not go unanswered by western members. The business of hon. members from the west is to endeavour to get the best possible legislation for the people they represent.


Mr. SLAGHT:: At the expense of Ontario and the east.


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. member for Parry Sound says, at the expense of Ontario.


Thomas Vien: Order. I do not believe that the discussion that is taking place is related to the matter under consideration.


Major James William Coldwell: I rise to a point of order.


Thomas Vien: There is nothing before the committee except a ruling, which can be appealed to the house.


Major James William Coldwell: I do not desire-


Thomas Vien: Does the hon. gentleman desire to speak to the resolution now before the committee?


Major James William Coldwell: I will speak to the resolution. This particular legislation, as other hon. members have said, is inadequate to the needs of western Canada. It has been pointed out this afternoon that the whole basis upon which this crop failure plan has been based has not worked out to the benefit of many of those who should have benefited, and we suggest to the minister that there are ways of improving the bill. A start has been made to give the western farmer a crop insurance plan. He needs it, because in past years the results of his labour have often fallen into the *coffers of gentlemen in eastern Canada. I would remind the hon. member for Parry Sound of that. We are grateful for what the act has done. To suggest that the bill should be withdrawn because we wish to improve it seems to me an insult to this committee and a reflection upon the intelligence of the hon. *member who made it. We are anxious to improve this legislation, just as some hon. members are anxious to improve conditions for people w'ho have fish traps on the Pacific coast. The minister would be well advised to consider improving the bill as suggested by various hon. gentlemen who have spoken this afternoon. Let me emphasize that we are glad that a step has been taken to bring in some form of crop failure benefits, but that we think the bill could be greatly improved in a number of particulars.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am quite satisfied that the committee should help in every way possible to improve the bill to be founded on the resolution. But I would point out that the bill is not yet before the house, and much of the discussion which has taken

Canadian Wheat Board

place in the last three-quarters of an hour might more properly have taken place on the bill, when we know what is in it. Many of the difficulties raised by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) we attempt to meet in the bill. The question may always be raised as to whether or not what we have done is adequate, but again that can be discussed intelligently only when the bill is before us. I suggest that all we have before us at the moment is the necessity of deciding whether we should do what we are attempting to do in the resolution. I think we are all agreed on that.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Gardiner thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 113, to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, 1939.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act to provide for exigencies arising from loss of overseas markets for wheat, from the large existing stocks of wheat in Canada, and from the problem of handling the 1940 wheat crop.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Major James William Coldwell: Did the minister ask
leave of the house?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: I was about to ask leave.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker was just about to leave the chair; that should not be overlooked. Leave has been given on a good many occasions this session, and I think at least the formality should be observed.


James Angus MacKinnon: This seeming disregard of formality arises through an incomplete understanding of procedure. However I did speak to the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Hanson), to the hon. member who has just spoken and to the leader of the Social Credit group in the house suggesting that I be alloweci to

make a statement to-day on the resolution. It was my understanding that they were agreeable to my doing so, and I must thank them for permission.


Vincent Dupuis: You are a formalist.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Vien in the chair.


James Angus MacKinnon: Mr. Chairman, I understand the bill is being printed and will be distributed to-morrow morning.
On several occasions during the present session members of the house have asked questions relating to the government's wheat policy. The matter which has apparently given greatest concern is in respect to the handling of the 1940 crop in light of a prospective lack of storage space. The matter has engaged the constant attention of the government and its advisers, the Canadian wheat board and the board of grain commissioners. The situation has been sufficiently clarified that I can now indicate some of the lines of action we propose to undertake to meet the situation we shall probably face in the next few months.
Briefly the situation will be this. As at the end of July there will be a total carry-over of between 290,000,000 and 295,000,000 bushels, of which 270,000,000 bushels are actually in Canada. The 1940 crop in the western provinces is currently estimated at from 350,000,000 to 400,000,000 bushels. Our present elevator storage capacity is 424,000,000 bushels, which gives a net capacity of 382,000,000 bushels after deducting a ten per cent allowance for working space. Temporary elevator annexes already available and to be built this year will provide additional storage space for probably 30,000,000 bushels. Approximately 20,000,000 bushels can, in addition, be stored in United States terminal lake elevators. This brings the total storage space, at the commencement of the new crop year, to approximately 432,000,000 bushels. With wheat and coarse grains, actually in elevators in Canada at July 31, amounting to about 275,000,000 bushels, the net available storage capacity will be 150,000,000 to 160,000,000 bushels.
During the autumn months considerable additional storage space will become available as wheat is exported or consumed, and finally, wheat can be stored in the holds of lake vessels for winter storage afloat. Despite these provisions, however, it remains apparent that a larger amount of wheat than usual will need to be held on farms beyond the customary early period of heavy marketings.
In dealing with this situation the government recommends that a plan be followed which is designed to permit the equitable use of

Canadian Wheat Board
available storage space by all the producers. The plan to be followed will require an amendment to the Canadian Wheat Board Act. This plan will enable every producer to deliver a portion of his crop at the outset. The amount to be delivered will be based on the total available supplies of wheat and the available storage space. As the season progresses, this quota will be advanced as exports and other outlets ease the storage situation. In brief, the plan is to use all storage space, country and terminal, east and west to the best advantage of all producers.
For that portion of the crop which cannot be accepted during the fall months the government recommends that an allowance be made to the producer to compensate him for the storing of wheat on his own farm. This allowance will vary in accordance with the length of time the grain is held, and will be in addition to the board's initial payment for wheat. The basis of the allowance will be announced very shortly-as soon as possible.
Regarding the initial payment to the producer basis No. 1 northern in store Fort William, Port ' Arthur and Vancouver, this price will remain at 70 cents as fixed by statute in the Canadian Wheat Board Act as amended last year.
On June 1 last, Mr. Chairman, I informed hon. members of the house that pending further developments the Winnipeg wheat futures market would remain open at least to the end of the crop year. At the present time the government has decided not to request closure of this market. This decision was made after consultation with the cereals import committee of the United Kingdom Ministry of Food who strongly recommend that the market be left open. The present cash wheat and futures pegged prices will be continued at or about the present levels.
Because of our recommendation that the grain futures market be left open at pegged levels, we also recommend the repeal of that portion of section 7(b) of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, which limits deliveries from any one producer to 5,000 bushels, as well as repeal of section 7(2), which deals with the penalties for the violation of the 5,000 bushel limitation. The removal of this limitation will enable every producer to deliver all of his wheat crop to the Canadian wheat board if he so desires.
The personnel of an advisory committee to assist the Canadian wheat board will be announced shortly. Provision is also being made to authorize an interim payment on producers' participation certificates, at a time when such payment cannot possibly result in a loss to the board.
The government also recommends that a processing levy be made against all wheat 85826-1201
utilized for the manufacture of wheat flour and other wheat products entering domestic human consumption. The levy will be effective as of midnight July 23, 1940, and will be at the rate of 15 cents a bushel on the wheat utilized in the manufacture of wheat products. The levy will be collected against delivery of the wheat product by the processor to the purchaser thereof. A clause in the amendment to the wheat board act will authorize the collection of the levy on all existing contracts for future delivery of flour and other wheat products. Millers offering flour through merchants on consignment will pay the levy on flour not actually delivered to the purchaser by July 23, 1940. The detailed provisions will enable the levy to be applied equitably as far as all purchasers of flour and other wheat products are concerned, and will avoid any hurried buying on the part of the latter by way of anticipating the levy. The levy will not apply to deliveries of flour and other wheat products for export.
The proceeds of the levy will be payable to the Canadian wheat board by the processors on a certain day of each month, at which time appropriate statements on the deliveries made by the processors during the preceding month will be filed. The Canadian wheat board will use the proceeds of the levy as part of its regular revenue from the sale of the crop. The equity of this levy on domestically consumed wheat will be apparent to all parties concerned. Because of existing circumstances, under which our wheat brings a low price on the export market, we do not feel that the same circumstances should govern the price paid for wheat by millers supplying our domestic flour requirements. Based on the experience of past relationships between the price of wheat and the retail prices of bread throughout Canada, the rate of levy we are recommending should not require any change in the retail price of break. Hon. members will recall that from January to May of this year Fort William wheat prices were around 90 cents per bushel; since May they have been in the neighbourhood of 70 cents. The effect of the processing levy will be partly to restore this Fort William price so far as the domestic human consumption of wheat is concerned. Some other necessary amendments to bring the act into line with present conditions will also be introduced.
May I add, Mr. Chairman, that the events of the last several months in Europe have had a serious effect on the market outlook for Canadian wheat. One by one the countries which were formerly outlets for our exports of wheat have been invaded and have disappeared temporarily as customers for our wheat. Denmark and Norway, ordinarily
Canadian Wheat Board

excellent markets for our wheat, were the first to go. These were followed by the low countries, Belgium and Holland, both substantial buyers under ordinary conditions. The entry of Italy into the war, the capitulation of France and the consequent inaccessibility of Switzerland have also removed present and prospective markets. The result has been that the only export markets now available are those of the United Kingdom and Eire; a limited market, chiefly for flour, in the islands of the West Indies and Newfoundland, and a very limited market in the orient and in South America. These factors are primarily responsible for the storage problem in this country. The value of Canada's wheat in the war effort can be known only in the light of future events. But it can be definitely said now that it is essential in the prosecution of this war that ample food supplies, particularly wheat, be available to Britain from the closest possible point, which is Canada. Therefore the government appeals to all the producers and other interests in this country to cooperate to the full extent of their ability in the plans being undertaken to meet this difficult situation. This cooperation can take practical form on the part of producers, who should start now to make the best provision within their means to provide for adequate grain bins or other storage facilities on their own farms.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I understood the resolution was to stand.


James Angus MacKinnon: If the hon. member wishes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is a very important statement and I think we should have an opportunity of studying it. I understood from the minister that he would introduce the resolution, make a statement and then allow it to stand so that hon. members might study it before it was advanced any further.


James Angus MacKinnon: I thought that I might be allowed to introduce the bill and let it stand.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is a very difficult problem for me. I have endeavoured to give it such study as I was capable of giving it during the week. I understood the arrangement was that after the statement was made the debate would end so that hon. members would have an opportunity to review the resolution in the light of the statement.


James Angus MacKinnon: That is quite satisfactory.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There
should be no objection to holding it over until

to-morrow. The minister states that the rate of levy being recommended should not require any change in the retail price of bread. What will be the increase in the cost of a barrel of flour of 196 pounds?


James Angus MacKinnon: It will be considerably less than $1 a barrel, but I would prefer to have the officers of my department available before giving a definite answer.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Sixty cents is all that it should be.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It will be between 60 cents and $1; we can leave it that way?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes.
Progress reported.



TRADE AGREEMENT


James Angus MacKinnon: That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve of the trade agreement between Canada and the Dominican republic, signed on March 8th, 1940, and that this house do approve of the same.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this resolution is to accord the approval of the houses of parliament of the trade agreement concluded with the government of the Dominican republic. Copies of the agreement have already been tabled for the information of members of the house. This trade agreement was signed at Ciudad Trujillo on March 8, 1940. Mr. A. S. Paterson, the British minister, signing on behalf of the government of Canada. Mr. C. S. Bissett, the Canadian trade commissioner at Havana, was associated with Mr. Paterson in the negotiations which led up to the conclusion of this trade agreement, having acted in the capacity of adviser.
The trade agreement is of the general mostfavoured-nation type, and the different articles correspond closely to the articles in the trade agreement which was concluded between Canada and Guatemala on September 28, 1937, and approved by parliament on May 25, 1938. The agreement has been concluded for a period of three years, but remains in force thereafter until after either party has given six months' notice of its desire to terminate the agreement. It was agreed that, pending ratification of the trade agreement, is provisions should be applied provisionally on the basis of reciprocity. Accordingly, an order in council, P.C. 1029, was passed on March 14, 1940, providing that under authority of sections 4

Canada-Dominican Republic Trade
and 11 of the customs tariff, products of the Dominican republic shall be entitled to mostfavoured-nation treatment on importation into Canada, as from March 15, 1940. Prior to the conclusion of the agreement the products of the Dominican republic had been subject to the rates of duty provided for under the general tariff of Canada on importation into the dominion.
This is the only change which the agreement provides in respect of the rates of duty applicable to the products of the Dominican republic imported into Canada. As regards the tariff treatment to be accorded Canadian products imported into the Dominican republic, the trade agreement provides that these products shall enjoy most-favoured-nation tariff treatment and also that fish, pickled in brine, dry salt hake, pollock and cusk, herrings and other smoked fish, and seed potatoes, the growth, produce or manufacture of Canada, shall be exempt, as from the date of signature of the agreement, from the internal revenue taxes which have been imposed on these products in accordance with the provisions of a law of the Dominican republic passed on March 13, 1935. It is also provided that henceforth seed potatoes shall be classified for tariff purposes as vegetable garden seeds and in this manner may be imported into the Dominican republic free of customs duty as well as being exempt from the internal revenue tax. Finally, the agreement provides for the continued exemption from internal revenue tax of Canadian wheat in grain, which has been free of both customs duty and internal revenue tax on importation into the Dominican republic.
Anticipating questions, Mr. Speaker, on this announcement, I have had prepared a statement, with a table, which I should like to be permitted to place on Hansard. It is as follows:
It may be of interest to the house if I were to give a short review of the -history of our trade relations with the Dominican republic and the circumstances which led up to the conclusion of this agreement.
Until the enactment of the law of March 13, 1935, imposing internal revenue taxes on certain Canadian products, there had been no serious obstacle to the development of trade between the two countries, although at no time had any trade agreement been in force regulating trade relations between Canada and the Dominican republic. That country provided an important outlet for certain kinds of fish products, such as dry salted cod, haddock, hake and pollock and smoked herrings. The Dominican republic provided one of the few export outlets for dry salted hake and pollock
produced in the bay of Fundy districts of the maritime provinces. The law of March 13, 1935, imposed an internal revenue tax of $15 per 100 kilogrammes, or 220 pounds, on dry salted fish and correspondingly high rates of tax on other Canadian fish products and potatoes. On November 19, 1935, the internal revenue tax on dry salted fish was reduced from S15 to $5 per 100 kilogrammes, but still proved to be an obstacle to the sale of Canadian fish products to the Dominican republic. A further step injurious to our trade in fish products with that country was taken on September 4, 1936, when a trade agreement was. concluded between France and the Dominican republic, exempting dry salted fish and fish in brine from the internal revenue taxes. This exemption from the taxes was extended to fish imported from the United States under the provisions of the most-favoured-nation agreement between that country and the Dominican republic, but fish imported from Canada and other countries having no trade agreements with the Dominican republic remained subject to the tax. This discrimination in duty in favour of fish imported from France, French possessions and the United States had an unfavourable effect on our exports, but was particularly serious for the producers and exporters of dry salted hake and pollock on account of the lack of alternative markets for these products.
I should like to place on Hansard a table showing our total imports from and exports to the Dominican republic during each of the ten years 1930-1939 inclusive.
Statement showing the total imports from and exports to the Dominican Republic during the calendar years 1930 to 1939
Calendar years	Imports	Canadian Foreign exports exports	1930	.. . $ 369,139	$233,464	$1331931	... 525,188	258,679	1932	... 147,690	202,600	1933	.. . 87,398	190.209	1934	... 1,414,797	230,762	1933	.. . 1,876	145,153	1936	166,205	3.5631937	... 32	137.138	1051938	... 341	296,232*	1201939	. .. 16.011	111,616	184
* Includes silver coin valued at $179,295 produced at the royal mint at Ottawa for the Dominican government.
This table indicates the decline in our exports to the Dominican republic following the imposition of the internal revenue taxes and the conclusion of the trade agreement between the Dominican republic and France. It also shows that in the year 1934 our total imports from the Dominican republic amounted to $1,414,797, due to heavy purchases of Dominican raw sugar by the Cana-

Canada-Dominican Republic Trade
dian refiners. In the following years there were no purchases of raw sugar from the Dominican republic and our imports from that country were negligible. We made efforts to enter into negotiation with the government of the Dominican republic in order to bring about more satisfactory trade relations with that country, but owing to the falling off of our purchases of Dominican products it was not possible to find a basis upon which a trade agreement could be negotiated.
Shortly after the outbreak of the war arrangements were made with the government of the United Kingdom, whereby supplies of raw sugar for Canadian requirements would be purchased through the United Kingdom sugar control. When the United Kingdom sugar controller arranged for the purchase from the Dominican republic of a certain quantity of sugar for Canadian requirements, advantage was taken of the opportunity thereby created to enter into negotiations for the conclusion of a trade agreement, which would bring about a more satisfactory arrangement for the regulation of trade between Canada and the Dominican republic and particularly to remove the possibility of tariff discrimination against Canadian fish products.
Under the provisions of article 2 of the trade agreement dry salted hake, pollock and cusk are now exempt from the internal revenue tax of $5 per 100 kilogrammes and are subject only to the ordinary customs duty of $2.25 per 100 kilogrammes. The trade agreement did not provide for the exemption of dry salted cod and haddock from the internal revenue taxes of the Dominican republic, but on March 16, a trade agreement was concluded between Newfoundland and the Dominican republic exempting codfish from the internal revenue tax, which exemption also applied to Canadian codfish under the most-favourednation provision of our agreement, and in giving effect to this exemption the government of the Dominican republic also removed the nternal revenue tax from dry salted haddock, jo that all kinds of dry salted fish are now exempt from internal revenue tax on importation into the Dominican republic from Canada. Under the most-favoured-nation agreements this exemption applies to dry salted fish imported from Newfoundland and from the United States, but no longer applies to dry salted fish imported from France or French possessions, because the operation of the trade agreement between France and the Dominican republic was suspended on December 15, 1939.
The trade agreement also provides for the exemption of herrings and other smoked fish 
from the Dominican internal revenue tax of $5 per 100 kilogrammes and these products are now subject only to the ordinary customs duty of $2.25 per 100 kilogrammes. This exemption applies to these products when imported from the United States and Newfoundland, but does not apply to these types of fish imported from Norway, which hitherto has been the chief competitor of Canada in the market of the Dominican republic.
Another fish product exempted from the Dominican internal revenue tax is fish, pickled in brine, on which there had been an internal revenue tax of $4 per 100 kilogrammes. This product is now subject only to the ordinary customs duty of $2 per 100 kilogrammes.
Potatoes are grown in fairly large quantities in the Dominican republic, particularly since the imposition of the internal revenue tax of S5 per 100 kilogrammes on March 13, 1935, which tax also applied to seed potatoes. The industry is based largely on the use of imported seed, supplied mostly from Canada. On account of the high cost of imported seed, to which the high duties contributed, the growers in the Dominican republic have been using their own product increasingly for seed in the second year. In other words, they have been importing seed only for every second crop instead of for every crop.
The importation of table potatoes is small and spasmodic, taking place only when internal transportation difficulties cause sudden shortages in the principal cities. Because of the advantages which they have enjoyed in respect of good shipping services and fast deliveries, the United States exporters have secured most of what little business has been possible in imported table potatoes in recent years.
Under the provisions of the trade agreement seed potatoes are now exempt from both the internal revenue tax of $5 per 100 kilogrammes and the ordinary customs duty of $1 per 100 kilogrammes, hitherto applicable to this product. While seed potatoes imported from the United States will receive the same treats ment, it is expected that Canadian seed potatoes-on account of their superior quality -will be the chief beneficiary from this concession, which should result in a considerable increase in Dominican imports of seed potatoes, firstly by checking the use of local first-growth potatoes for seed and, secondly, by lowering the cost of production of potatoes, and thereby stimulating a wider sale.
In the negotiations for the trade agreement the government of the Dominican republic adhered to the principle of granting specific concessions only on products of which Canada is predominantly the chief source of supply

Tariff Board
of imports into that country, so that it was not possible to secure concessions on other Canadian products, but generally speaking the agreement assures all Canadian products against tariff discrimination on importation into the Dominican republic and provides for specific concessions on those products for which that country has been a relatively important outlet for the sale of the products of certain groups of Canadian producers and exporters. In return, our commitments under the agreement are to extend to the products of the Dominican republic treatment not less favourable than that extended to similar products imported from any other foreign country. It is confidently expected that the agreement will bring about an expansion of Canadian trade and through safeguarding Canadian products against tariff discrimination will avert the recurrence of what for a number of years has been a source of irritation among an important group of exporters in the maritime provinces.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is obvious that while the treaty is not of very great importance it should be examined with care in the light of the statement which the minister has made and the figures which he has placed on Hansard. I have made a hasty, but certainly not an exhaustive examination of the agreement since it was tabled yesterday and I suggest to the minister that we should be given a little further time to examine it.


James Angus MacKinnon: Members of the house will have opportunity to discuss the trade agreement very fully, I anticipate, on the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But the
agreement will have been approved by that time. Could not the motion stand until tomorrow?


James Angus MacKinnon: Certainly.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then I
move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



TARIFF BOARD


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Tariff Hoard Act reducing the
salary of the chairman of the board, and making superannuation provision for any civil servant who may be appointed to be a member of the board.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of the resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not objecting at all to this
procedure, Mr. Speaker, because we all want to see the order paper cleared, but it is entirely at variance with the programme for to-day's business which the minister (Mr. Crerar) gave us last night. Not one single item of business as I recall it, has been taken up that was suggested last night. I am not objecting; I am simply calling attention to it.


Mr. CRERAR:: We shall take up the business that was indicated last night when we reach the orders of the day, but we have not reached them yet. It is the accepted practice to take these government motions without including them in the business announced.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Mr. Speaker, I am assuming that the house is giving consent to our going into committee on this resolution now instead of to-morrow. We cannot do it, of course, if there is any objection.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No more than this: The minister has recognized the rule, but his colleague is not always quite so careful.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Yien in the chair.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Chairman, I should give the committee a short explanation. As hon. members know, after the former chairman of the tariff board, Mr. Justice Sedgewick, died, there was a vacancy for some time, and finally Mr. Hector McKinnon, who was commissioner of tariffs, was appointed chairman of the board. The order in council under which he was appointed reduced the salary provided by statute from 115,000 to $12,000, and Mr. McKinnon has been and is being paid at that rate. There is no statutory authority for the reduction of the chairman's salary, and the government now seeks statutory authority for doing what it purported to do by order in council at the time of Mr. McKinnon's appointment. Mr. McKinnon agreed to accept the position at the salary of $12,000.
The second part of the bill makes provision for superannuation of civil servants who are appointed members of the board and would cover the case of Mr. McKinnon. The substance of that provision is that a civil servant appointed to the tariff board may elect to
Tariff Board

take the pension provisions provided by the Tariff Board Act or the pension provisions of the Civil Service Superannuation Act.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Whichever be the greater.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Whichever he may elect. But there is a provision in the bill that if he elects to take the provisions of the Civil Service Superannuation Act his salary for superannuation purposes is to be regarded as the salary which he received prior to his appointment to the tariff board and not the salary that he receives as a member of the tariff board.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If Mr. McKinnon elects to take the provisions of the Civil Service Superannuation Act, his superannuation will be based on his salary as commissioner of tariffs?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, it will be based on his old salary.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What was that?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It was $8,000. This is in some respects a less generous provision than has been made in connection with the appointment of civil servants to other boards, but there is this reason for doing it in this instance. In the other cases that I have examined of civil servants having been appointed to boards and provision having been made for continuation of their pension privileges under the Civil Service Superannuation Act, no pension privilege attached to the board to which they were appointed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have
no objection to the resolution or to the principles enunciated by the minister, nor have I any objection to the appointment of Mr. Hector McKinnon as chairman of the tariff board if the precedent of having as chairman a gentleman with judicial training, shall I say, is to be departed from. I remember very well that at the time of Mr. Justice Sedge-wick's appointment it was considered that experience in the actual trial of cases, the assimilation of facts, and such things as qualify a man to become a good judge of facts, should be a requisite qualification for the position. The government of the day, having decided upon that qualification, took considerable pains to induce Mr. Justice Sedge-wick of the high court of Ontario to accept the position, on the theory I have attempted to enunciate; and I had hoped that, in filling the vacancy caused by his death, the government would follow the precedent thus set. However, in the selection of Mr. McKinnon, having regard to his long connection with
TMr. Ilsley.]
tariff questions, probably the government went into the next best field. In fact he was more or less, shall I say, in a field by himself, there being no other competitors if the appointee was to be drawn from that area. It is, at least in my estimation, a very important position. It calls for exceptional qualifications. The appointment of Mr. Justice Sedgewick was an excellent one. Perhaps I was prejudiced in his favour; he was an old college friend of mine, and I had watched his career over a period of years.


Mr. FACTOR:: From the maritimes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yej, he was a maritimer, and in my estimation that did not hurt him a bit. I should like to make this observation, and the interjection of the hon. member for Spadina gives me the opportunity to do so-


Samuel Factor: He came from Toronto.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Having
regard to our numbers, we have contributed, not only to the public life of Canada-which is apparent when you look at the treasury benches -but to every human activity in Canada, the very best of our men. I am afraid we have exported too many of them to central Canada, and in days gone by, far too many to the United States. Somebody said to me not so long ago that only dullheads in the maritimes stayed at home. I should not like to give acquiescence to that point of view. We are proud of the contributions which we have made not only to the public life of Canada, but to the professional life, the educational life, the financial and banking life, and, in the case of a few-not many-to the judicial life of the country. In my view the appointment of Mr. Justice Sedgewick was a splendid one.
I have known Mr. McKinnon for a long time. He was in the press gallery when I first came here. If the precedent of the former government is to be departed from, I certainly can commend the appointment of Mr. McKinnon to this board.
May I inquire as to the present status of the board? As originally set up it consisted of Mr. Justice Sedgewick; a gentleman who formerly graced this chamber-another maritimer, may I say, but who came down to us from the west, Mr. Milton Campbell; and a very fine young Canadian of French-Canadian origin, Mr. Charles Hebert. I noticed in the press that Mr. Hebert had enlisted. Is he still a member of the board, or just what is the position in that regard?


James Lorimer Ilsley: He is a member of the board, on leave.

Tariff Board


Richard Burpee Hanson: So that when he returns from his military duties he will reassume his position?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: His place is being kept open. I thank the government for that. I think that is creditable to the administration. I have no objection to the resolution.


Mr. McCANN:: What will be the superannuation allowance of the chairman of the tariff board, based upon the salary he was getting prior to accepting the present position?


Richard Burpee Hanson: The final term of service.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It depends on when he
retires.


James Joseph McCann: Yes; at the retiring age
of sixty-five.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It would be a simple calculation.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I cannot give the information at the moment.


James Joseph McCann: I wondered if the government had taken into consideration the recommendation made a year ago by the committee of this house on superannuation. It was to the effect that the maximum superannuation of any civil servant should not be in excess of $4,000 a year.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


James Joseph McCann: That is the recommendation which is apropos of the question under discussion, and it is one which in my judgment should be given consideration by this house. I am very sorry that the recommendations of that committee appear to have been pigeonholed except to the extent of picking out one or two to be put into effect by statute. I would particularly recommend to the ministry the recommendation, made by a committee representative of all sections of this house, with reference to this particular matter and analogous cases, that no civil servant be given a superannuation allowance in excess of S4,000 per year. If the gentleman who is chairman of the tariff board retires at sixty-five, his expectation of life may be, biblically speaking, seventy; actuarially it may be eighty-five, depending upon his physical condition and the ease with which he lives the rest of his life. So that for twenty years this country would be paying an enormous bonus, a sum out of all proportion to the superannuation allowance which is paid to people in the lower salaried groups who have not 05826-121
during their period of service received salaries commensurate with the services they have rendered. I believe that this point should receive some consideration.


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I ask whether the report of that committee last year was unanimous?


James Joseph McCann: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If that is so, why has the government ignored the report of that committee? There must be a reason, and I think that we should be told what it is, now that the hon. member for Renfrew South has raised what is an important principle. I observe in the estimates that there is notice of the definite intention of the government to violate that principle with reference to another high official who has retired: not only are they going to pay him the superannuation based on the customary calculation, but they are going to give him a bonus over and above that. I warn the government now that they will have to do some tall explaining, at least to me, before that item goes through. It is, as far as I can see, as glaring a piece of discrimination as I have encountered during fifteen years in parliament.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I did have in mind that particular recommendation of the civil service superannuation committee, and I believe that the case of Mr. McKinnon comes within it. However, I shall have the figures to-morrow.
With regard to the general question of the carrying out of the report of the civil service superannuation committee, the leader of the opposition was not a member of the house at the time, and I may tell him that that report contained, if I remember correctly, twenty-eight recommendations.


Alan Webster Neill: Twenty-seven.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Twenty-seven or twenty-eight, and the cost to the treasury of carrying out those recommendations would be substantial from the point of view of the government.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not this one.


James Lorimer Ilsley: But most of them. The hon. gentleman asks why we did not carry out the report. It was a unanimous report, accepted by the whole house. The government must assume responsibility for choosing the time and deciding whether they are to come before this house and recommend heavy additional drains on the treasury for the purpose of carrying out reports of committees. The time

Tariff Board

may come when all the recommendations of that committee can be carried out, but certainly they cannot be carried out without costing millions a year. The capitalized cost was calculated roughly for me at the time, and my recollection is that it would require about $16,000,000 to carry out the report of the committee of last year. We are in a war now and we have been pressed by representatives of civil service organizations to carry out this, that and the other recommendation of the committee, but we have decided that the time is not opportune to do it this session. The time may not be opportune next session; I do not know about that. The question, however, is not as simple as one would think, listening to the leader of the opposition. It is a matter involving a substantial expenditure in favour of certain classes in the civil service.


Richard Burpee Hanson: At the moment I did not visualize the effect of all the recommendations of the committee, but I recalled after the minister had mentioned it, that very fact to which he has referred, and of course it is proper to remind me of the position. But this is in an entirely different category. It is perhaps the only provision in the report designed to protect the treasury against making overpayments of pension. This is something the government might well consider, unless it is fearful of repercussions with respect to those recommendations which would be a charge on the treasury. On the whole, I am glad that the hon. member for Renfrew South brought up the question, because it will serve to direct attention to it. The minister will be able to give us some information with regard to Mr. McKinnon's position, and then we shall know exactly what the situation is. But if it should happen that his pension is beyond $4,000 a year, then we ought to give consideration to that part of the report in this respect which was unanimously concurred in by the house, if it was concurred in.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It was concurred in.


Alan Webster Neill: When it went through the house, some one on behalf of the government introduced a restriction, saying that it would be accepted subject to his judgment.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I did that myself.


James Joseph McCann: I understand that this is not the time for a discussion of the superannuation committee's recommendation. My only object in bringing the matter to the attention of the minister was to point out that this is one particular case in which, if the recommendation had been implemented, money would have been saved. Another recommendation which would result in a saving of public fMr. Ilsley.]
money is the one with reference to an increase in rates. If these two recommendations were implemented, I should be convinced that that report was received in the spirit in which it was given.
With reference to the remarks of the leader of the opposition, I believe that was one thing which was instrumental in influencing the committee to come to the conclusion which it reached with reference to the auditor general. His superannuation is in the neighbourhood of $4,800 a year and it is proposed to give him a bonus of $1,500 a year. When one considers the inequalities, that is the part which hurts.


Thomas Vien: I am afraid this is out of order. There is a specific item in the estimates covering that question and it is out of order to discuss it on this resolution.


James Joseph McCann: I am not discussing an item of the estimates at all, but reference is made in a part of this bill to the superannuation of one particular individual, and if one is to discuss intelligently this part of the bill, surely one can do it by a comparison with other cases.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The government proposes to leave that particular item to the untrammelled discretion of the house, every member being free to vote as he likes upon the question. The auditor general is an officer of parliament and not of the government. His contention is that he has been legislated out of his position, having taken a position with the same tenure as that of a supreme court judge, and is entitled to the same treatment accorded supreme court judges by statute a few years ago. That is the basis for the item. The government simply proposes to place that item before the house, leaving it to every individual member to vote just as he or she desires. It is not put forward as a government measure, and the house will be given an opportunity to give effect to the auditor general's contention if it desires to do so.


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: I should like the minister to tell the committee that he does not expect other changes in the personnel of the tariff board as at present constituted. While on this question, I might make an observation with regard to Mr. McKinnon. Mr. Hector McKinnon is one of the bright minds of the civil service and he has done a great service to Canada. In the budgets of the last decade he has given the government of Canada more assistance perhaps than any other civil servant in correlating the different features of the annual financial statement. In that regard he has been to the Department of Finance what the research economist at

Excess Profits Tax Act
present is to the tariff board. With regard to the present research economist, I compliment the government upon having such an able person to look after the details of the references which are made to the tariff board and to gather information in such an orderly manner. The research economist is one of the brightest persons in that branch of the administration, and I hope she will be left there to do a good job on behalf of Canada. I hope Mr. McKinnon will feel that the recommendations which come from his board will not only be given consideration by the government but be put into effect by statute or otherwise.
Canada was fortunate in having the late Judge Sedgewick analyse references, many of them of great magnitude, and legislation was brought before the house implementing the findings in a number of instances. There is one about which the minister knows a great deal, which is at present before the board. Mr. McKinnon knows a good deal about that, and I hope it is left there until such time as it, too, comes before this house in the form of legislation carrying out the recommendations. I refer to application No. 99. I pay tribute to the members of the tariff board, who went across Canada from Halifax to Vancouver and analysed that particular application to the smallest details, even visiting practically all the plants in the dominion and examining the processing that had to do with that particular reference. The matter was thoroughly studied, and in my judgment the board's findings were sound and, I hope, will be reaffirmed and endorsed by the present board. I trust that, Mr. McKinnon being placed at the head of the board, the findings of the old board will not be thrown aside, that it will not be a case of starting applications all over again, but that the present applications and findings will still be considered as the findings of the board.
Will the minister answer my first question, whether there will be any change in the personnel of the board, other than the appointment of Mr. McKinnon?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is not contemplated. That is all I can say.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. member is speaking of the membership of the board ?


Joseph Henry Harris: And the personnel. The economist, the secretary and so on.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No consideration whatever has been given to that.


George Hugh Castleden: What is the date of the order in council altering this salary?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I speak subject to correction, but I am sure it was March 25, 1940.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Ilsley thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 114, to amend the Tariff Board Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PENITENTIARY ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (for the Minister of Justice) moved the third reading of Bill No. 30, to amend the Penitentiary Act and the Penitentiary Act, 1939.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, July 23, consideration in committee of Bill No. 104, the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940-Mr. Ilsley- Mr. Vien in the chair.
On section 16-Coming into force.
James Lorimer Ilsley: I am afraid that what I
have to say will not be pleasing to the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson). But I want to assure him that this question was thoroughly considered and at some length by council. The proposal deserved thorough consideration.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And was
reasonable.


James Lorimer Ilsley: And was a reasonable proposal. Nevertheless the arguments against doing what the hon. gentleman suggested seemed stronger to council and to me than the arguments in favour. I went to the length of having the officers of the department prepare an amendment, which is somewhat longer than was suggested by the leader of the opposition last night, because it had to provide for the splitting of fiscal periods in the last year during which the tax would be in effect if we put a termination date. The trouble with fixing a term, for example three years as was done in the last war, is that it may be too long and it may be too short. If too long, it is better from the point of view of business not to have it at all, because the tax would be morally certain to remain during the full period, and it may be possible to lift this tax before the expiration of three years. But I am sure that no one would want to make the period less than three years; it would be taken, I think, as a sort of estimate by the government of the probable duration of the war, which would be undesirable.
Excess Profits Tax Act

The alternative is that the measure terminate within a certain period after the termination of hostilities or some declaration of peace. All those phrases are extremely ambiguous, so that experience has taught that if an act is to expire it must be expressed as to expire at the date of an order in council or a proclamation which conclusively declares a certain state of affairs to exist. That has been provided in one or two acts, as the hon. gentleman knows, such as the act providing for the mobilization of services, and it is provided for in another act that I was looking at not long ago. But those are acts concerning which we all know the desirable termination date; there can be no dispute about it. As to this I would not know whether it should be a year after such a proclamation, if a proclamation were to be made, or six months or when it should be. I think that will have to be left to the judgment of the government or of parliament in the future.
Finally, there was this consideration:	I do
not think it would do for us to put a termination date on the Excess Profits Tax Act and not at the same time fix one for the National Defence Tax Act, which imposes a tax on people of small incomes, and this parliament would be in an indefensible position if we did one and not the other. I do not think it would be practicable to go through the provisions of our taxing statutes and pick out those which should have a termination date put on. It is expected that this measure will terminate after its purposes are served. It is a war measure, and I have little doubt that we shall have plenty of suggestions from parliament prompting its repeal. I do not think the hon. member's fear, namely, that it will not come up for discussion in the house, is well grounded.


James Joseph McCann: The taxes of the last war are still in operation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes; that is the trouble. I am afraid that these taxes, ajnd the national defence tax, are here to stay. If there is no limitation to sections in the measure, the chances are they will stay beyond our tenure of office in the house. I am no prophet, but just watch and see.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: "You can't take it with you."


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order, until Thursday, July 25, at eleven a.m.

Thursday, July 25, 1940