1940-06-26

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to lay on the table of the house a report of the civil service commission recommending the appointment of Miss Gladys Northcott as clerk, grade 4, in the law branch of the House of Commons.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the report of the civil service commission laid on the table of the house on the 26th instant, recommending the appointment of Miss Gladys Northcott as clerk, grade 4, law branch of the House of Commons, be approved.


Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to have some little explanation from the Prime Minister. In all the years I have been a member of this house I never heard of such p, motion before. It may be a new departure. I think the house ought to be informed of what is really going on, and why.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The house has to approve appointments of its clerks where recommended by the civil service commission. The civil service commission has recommended this particular appointment of Miss Northcott as clerk, grade 4, in the law branch of the house. In making the motion I am simply taking the necessary step to have the commission's recommendation approved by the house.

It is the usual formal way of proceeding with respect to appointments of officials of the house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I thought it was always done through the estimates.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, the house approves the recommendation of the civil service commission with respect to its own staffs. A day or two ago the civil service commission also recommended that three longterm temporary employees of the House of Commons be made permanent. In a moment I should like to make a similar motion regarding that particular recommendation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not opposing this at all, but with respect to the first case I would ask if ever this procedure was adopted before.
Hon. PIERRE F. CASGRAIN (Secretary of State): Yes, Mr. Speaker. It was done on many occasions in the last parliament, when, for instance, certain long-term temporaries on the staff of the House of Commons were recommended for permanency, a competition was held under the auspices of the commission and the commission recommended permanency. It is the custom to introduce a resolution in the house and have it adopted confirming the appointment recommended by the commission.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: That the recommendation from the civil service commission regarding the permanency of three long-term temporary employees of the House of Commons, namely, Miss L. A. Kearns, Miss I. A. Boyce and Mr. L. C. Hill, be approved.


Mr. GREEN:: May I ask the Prime Minister a question on this motion? Does making these officials permanent instead of temporary involve any reduction in salary?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not necessarily. I should think it would leave the salary scale about where it has always been.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 57, for the relief of Muriel Agnes Martin Beech.-Mr. Hazen.
Bill No. 58, for the relief of Alfred Reinhold Roller.-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 59, for the relief of Sarah Iverzner Spilberg.-Mr. Factor.
Bill No. 60, for the relief of Christina Smith Dunlop Andrique.-Mr. Edwards.
Bill No. 61, for the relief of Anna Shepherd. -Mr. Abbott.

Questions

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

Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	What is the salary of the governor of the Bank of Canada?
2.	What are the salaries of each of the other officials of the Bank of Canada at Ottawa, excepting secretarial and office staff?
3.	What are the salaries of each of the directors of the Bank of Canada, what other remunerations do they receive, and how much is allowed per day for travel and living expenses?
4.	How many times, and on what dates did the directorate of the Bank of Canada meet since January 1, 1936?
5.	Does any member of the dominion government sit on or with the directorate of the bank? If so, what powers does such member have?
6.	Are the minutes of the meetings of the directorate available to the members of the House of Commons?
7.	Is any or all correspondence exchanged between the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England available to the members of the House of Commons?


Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	Salary of the governor of the Bank of Canada, as fixed by order in council, is at the rate of $30,000 per annum.
2.	The salaries of the deputy governor and assistant deputy governor, as fixed by order in council, are at the rate of $20,000 per annum and $10,000 per annum respectively: no information concerning other officials and employees.
3.	Each director receives a fee of $150 for attendance at board meetings and an expense allowance of $20 per day for time spent in travelling to and from board meetings. The director who is a member of the executive committee receives a fee of $50 for attendance at committee meetings and the same travel allowance as above. No other remuneration is paid to directors. (The governor and deputy governor of the bank and the deputy minister of finance, who are members of the board and of the executive committee, do not receive any remuneration or expenses for attendance at board or committee meetings).
4.	The board of directors of the Bank of Canada met on the following dates subsequent to January 1, 1936: (1936) Jan. 22, Feb. 25, May 20, Oct. 7, Dec. 7. (1937) Jan. 22, Feb. 23, June 22, Aug. 10, Nov. 12. (1938) Jan. 21, Feb. 22, May 30, Sept. 12, Nov. 7. (1939) Feb. 6, April 24, June 26, Sept. 11, Nov. 20. (1940) Feb. 9, April 19 and June 14.
In addition, the executive committee of the bank has met at least once every week.
5.	No, but in accordance with the provisions of section 5, subsection 2 of the act, the deputy minister of finance is a member of the board, but has not the right to vote.
6.	No.
7.	No.


CAMP BORDEN AND TRENTON AIRPORTS-REPAIR FACILITIES
Mr. COCKERAM:: Are there sufficient repair facilities available at Camp Borden and Trenton airports to enable ground personnel to keep the maximum number of planes in operation?


Mr. POWER:: At the present time there are not sufficient repair facilities available at Camp Borden or Trenton to keep the maximum number of planes in operation. Existing facilities are being expanded as rapidly as possible and the Department of Munitions and Supply is organizing the industry to undertake overhauls and to do major repairs. The R.C.A.F. will undertake running maintenance repairs only.


PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION ACT-PERSONNEL OF CENERAL COMMITTEES EXPENDITURES
Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: 1.	What is the personnel of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act committees in (a) Manitoba, (b) Saskatchewan, (c) Alberta?
2.	What remuneration did they receive in the form of (a) salary; (b) expenses?
3.	What was the amount spent in each of the prairie provinces?
4.	By provinces, what was the amount (a) received for machinery sold, (b) spent in the purchasing or leasing of land?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	There are no provincial committees under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act but general committees are as follows:-
Advisory committee on water development: J. Vallanee, Regina, Sask., chairman; W. L. Jacobson, Regina, Sask., secretary; B. Russell, Regina, Sask., consulting engineer; L. C. Charlesworth, Edmonton, Alberta; C. J. McGavin, Regina, Sask.; B. B. Hogarth, Winnipeg, Man.
Advisory committee on land utilization: E. S. Archibald (Chairman), Ottawa, Ont., Dominion Department of Agriculture; John Vallanee, Regina, Sask., Dominion Department of Agriculture; W. L. Jacobson (secretary), Regina, Sask., Dominion Department of Agriculture; 0. S. Longman, Edmonton, Alta, Province of Alberta; J. Ellis, Winnipeg, Man., Province of Manitoba; F. H. Auld, Regina, Sask., Province of Saskatchewan; J. H. McCann, Admiral, Sask., Provincial Municipal
Questions

Association; Paul Farnals, Halkirk, Alta., Provincial Municipal Association; James Arthur Ross, Melita, Man., Provincial Municipal Association; A. W. Cameron, Regina, Sask., Provincial Municipal Association; J. D. Guild, Winnipeg, Man., Canadian National Railways; A. Newman, Calgary, Alta., Canadian Pacific Railways; F. J. Freer, Winnipeg, Man., Mortgage Loans Association; A. E. Joslyn, Winnipeg, Man., Hudson's Bay Company.
2.	(a) Nil.
(b) J. A. Ross, $47.30; A. Newman, $26.00; P. L. Farnals, $64.75; L. C. Charles-worth, $64.90 ; 0. 8. Longman, $73.12; A. E. Joslyn, $53.26; B. B. Hogarth, S46.40.
3.	Administration, general, $180,357.81; Manitoba. $204,594.10; Saskatchewan, $2,524,380.65; Alberta, $320,824.39; total, $3,230,156.95.
4.	(a) Nil.
(b) Manitoba, nil; Saskatchewan, $249,586.03; Alberta, $13,178.50.


TRANSPORTATION OF ALBERTA OIL TO ONTARIO
Mr. BLACKMORE:: Has the Minister of Transport and Supplies considered the advisability of using his newly acquired powers to require that the Canadian National Railways and Canadian Pacific Railway should transport Alberta oil to Ontario at such rate as would enable Ontario people to buy, economically, Canadian produced gasoline?


Mr. HOWE:: Consideration has been given to acquiring a better distribution of petroleum products, and a controller of petroleum products has been appointed with powers to deal with the matter, after a thorough investigation to that end.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If I may be allowed, I would call the minister's attention to the fact that he has not dealt with the
4.
Manitoba
Claims re settlements	
Other complaints	 j
Complaints	by	board	re	operation	of
elevators	
Saskatchewan
Claims re settlements	
Other complaints	
Complaints	by	board	re	operation	of
elevators	
Alberta
Claims re settlements	
Other complaints	
Complaints	by	board	re	operation	of
elevators	
(Mr. Gardiner.]
crux of this question, in that the hon. member is asking the minister to require the two railways to "transport Alberta oil to Ontario at such rate" et cetera. The minister did not deal with that aspect.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think the crux of it is in the words, "considered the advisability".


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, I
would not say so.


Mr. ROWE:: The minister is expected to do so, anyway.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That goes as a matter of course.


ASSISTANT GRAIN COMMISSIONERS IN PRAIRIE PROVINCES
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	How many assistant grain commissioners are there in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta?
2.	What are their names and addresses?
3.	What salaries did they receive during the years 1938 and 1939?
4.	What -was the total number and the total amount of the claims or complaints received by each during said years?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.	One assistant grain commissioner in each of the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
2.	Manitoba-T. J. Harrison, 206 Grain Exchange, Winnipeg; Saskatchewan-R. S. Dundas, 618 Federal Bldg., Saskatoon; Alberta -W. H. Blatchford, 625 Public Bldg., Calgary.
3.	During the years 1938 and 1939 each assistant grain commissioner received $7,500 per annum.
1938	1939
Complaints	Amount	Complaints	Amountreceived	of claims	received	of claims9	$1,759 15	15	$2,897 238	12	38	....	....4	507 72	5	204 538	12	85	31	3.604 17	15	2,008 3429	17	28	33	
Questions


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- W. A. KINGSLAND
Mr. WHITE:: 1.	Is Mr. W. A. Kingsland, former vicepresident and general manager of the Central division of the Canadian National Railways, now under superannuation, and, if so, what is the amount of his annual retiring allowance?
2.	Is this the same Mr. W. A. Kingsland who is or was vice-president of the Dufferin Shipbuilding Company?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
Note: Amount of Mr. Kingsland's retiring allowance is considered by the management of Canadian National Railways in the same light as official salaries, which are matters of domestic railway concern, not to be disclosed except as may be determined by the select standing committee on railways and shipping.
prairie airways limited


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Has the Prairie Airways Limited been given a contract at the airports in Regina and Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, or either of these, by the terms of which said company will train or provide training for pilots for service in the air force?
Province
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia.. .
Details of loans made under the National in the period October, 1935, to May 31, 1940,
Province
Prince Edward Island.
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia.. ..
(b) None.

2.	If so, what are the terms respecting remuneration or payment for such training?
3.	Have contracts of a similar kind or nature been entered into elsewhere?
4.	If so, with whom?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The answer as the question is framed is, no. It is my understanding that Prairie Airways Limited has been given a contract by the Department of National Defence to conduct an air training school at one of these airports. This question seems to refer to a contract for the construction of an airport.
national housing act-loans by provinces


Mr. COLD WELL:: What were the number of loans and amounts, by provinces, made to date under (a) part I of the National Housing Act; (b) part II of the National Housing Act?


Mr. RALSTON:: (a) The National Housing Act, 1938, which repealed and reenacted the Dominion Housing Act with important amendments, was passed on July 1, 1938, but lending operations under the new act did not begin until about August 1,
1938. Details	of loans under part I of the	
National Housing Act from		August, 1938, to
May 31, 1940,	are as follows:	
	Family	
No. of	housing units	
loans	provided	Amount8	8	8 43,800218	232	872,26278	96	354,290989	2,383	8,012,7694,753	6,140	18,847,527471	621	2,203,40143	114	276,7371,506	1,608	4,940,1888,066	11,202	$35,550,974
Housing Act, part I, and its predecessor act, are as follows:
Family
No. of	housing units	
loans	provided	Amount18	18	$ 97,834590	607	2,506,760170	194	771,1471,622	3,583	13,504,6916,192	8,692	28,917.951561	771	2,842.03545	116	2S4.9372,239	2,516	7,781,27411,437	16,497	$56,706,629
Questions


GRADE CROSSINGS-DISBURSEMENTS
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Wbat sum of money was spent on grade separation during the last year of record, (a) main estimates, (b) supplementary estimates, and on what level crossings, by provinces?
2.	What work is contemplated for 1910, or has been already allotted?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	During 1939: (a) $24,000.00, (b) $205,436.53. As follows:
(a)	Order 57453, dated May 15, 1939, approved of an overhead crossing over highway No. 17, in lot 12, concession 3, township of Dryden, district of Sudbury, Ontario. Estimated cost $60,000. Grant 40 per cent from railway grade crossing fund-$24,000.
(b) Nova	Scotia-Order 57804, dated Aug. 3, 1939. Diversion and overhead bridge over C.N.R. on Lake Shore road and overhead bridge at Egerton, NS. Estimated cost $50,000. Grant 70 per cent from vote 585, 1939-1940, $35,000-$35,000.
Quebec-Order 57220, dated March 31, 1939. Pedestrian subway under C.N.R. at Belzile St., town of Rimouski. Estimated cost $12,600. Grant 100 per cent from vote 630,
1938-	39, $12,600-$12,600.
Quebec-Order 57875, dated Aug. 23, 1939. Overheard bridge over CJ'.R. in St. Agathe. Estimated cost $67,100. Grant 40 per cent from vote 585, 1939-1940, $26,840-$26,840.
Ontario-Order 57803, dated Aug. 3, 1939. Overhead bridge over C.P.R., on lot 14, concession 4, township of Hagar. Estimated cost $91,550. Grant 40 per cent from vote 585,
1939-	40, $36,620-$36,620.
Ontario-Order 57817, dated Aug. 9, 1939. Overhead bridge over T.H.&B. Ry. on Dun-dern street, Hamilton. Estimated cost $104,823.62. Grant 70 per cent from vote 585, 1939-40-$73,376.53.
Alberta-Order 57748, dated July 19, 1939. Highway diversion and subway under C.N.R. on Edmonton-Jasper highway from northwest quarter of section 16, township 53, range 6, W. 5 M, to section 19, township 53, range 6, W. 5 M, a distance of 1-96 miles and to construct subway at mile 61 Wabamum subdivision. Estimated cost $30,000. Grant 70 per cent from vote 585, 1939-1940, $21,000- $21,000. Total, $205,436.53.
2.	One grade separation has been approved in 1940, as follows:
British	Columbia-Order	58864, dated
March 18, 1940. Subway under C.P.R. at mile 3-42 Shuswap subdivision, three miles west of Revelstoke. Estimated cost $86,000. Grant 70 per cent from vote 585, 1939-1940 -$60,200.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. SENN:: 1.	Has imported American bacon been used for military camps in Canada during the past three months?
2.	If so, in what amount?
3.	In what proportion to the total amount of bacon used at such military camps?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Return tabled.


KINGSTON, ONT.    GOVERNMENT UTILIZATION OF PRIVATE BUILDINGS
Mr. AYLESWORTH:: 1.	How many buildings not owned by the government are being used by the Department of National Defence in the city of Kingston?
2.	What are the names of the owners of these buildings?
3.	What was the cost of conditioning each building?
4.	What rent is being paid per month for each building?


Pierre-François Casgrain: Return tabled.


VEGETABLE SHORTENING-USE IN CANADIAN ARMY
Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: 1.	Is vegetable oil shortening being furnished to the Canadian army in place of lard and other animal fats?
2.	If so, in what total amount?
3.	To what percentage in relation to the amount of lard and other animal fats?
4.	By what authority are such requisitions made?


Pierre-François Casgrain: Return tabled.



AEROPLANE ENGINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, I desire to call the
attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the government to a press dispatch from Washington, under yesterday's date, in which it is indicated that negotiations between the United States government and Mr. Henry Ford for the mass production of aeroplane engines collapsed yesterday.
It has been announced by Mr. Knudsen, of the national defence commission, that Mr. Ford refuses to manufacture engines for Great Britain and has thus forced cancellation of plans for early mass production of Rolls Royce motors by the Ford motor company, and that the national defence advisory commission will seek cooperation in the production of this important military equipment elsewhere.

British Children
Having regard to the fact that the French fleet may be delivered to the German government and that therefore, as a result of this and other factors, western civilization on this hemisphere faces immediately a situation of dire peril, what action is this government taking to protect Britain's position?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will leave it to my hon.
friend the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) to reply to the part of my hon. friend's question which refers to the manufacture by the Ford company of aeroplane engines.
As to the latter part of the question, it involves the whole defence effort of the country and could not very well be replied to offhand.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The facts of the situation are,
I think, that the committee recently appointed by the President of the United States to obtain production of war materials in the United States were negotiating with the Ford company for an order on behalf of the United States government, combined with an order for the British government placed by the Anglo-French commission in New York. The situation appears to be that the transaction has collapsed.
As far as Canada is concerned, the Ford motor company, of course, is a public company with wide ownership and it has been doing splendid work in the production of war materials.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not speaking of the Ford Motor Company of Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, I assumed that the
Canadian interests of Mr. Henry Ford would be through the company in Canada in which he is a shareholder.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I had
entire reference to the United States company, which is not, as I understand it, publicly owned. I had no reference to the Ford Motor Company of Canada. I should like to have that made absolutely clear.



BRITISH CHILDREN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. DOUGLAS G. ROSS (St. Paul's): I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) of which I have given him notice. My question is based on an appeal over the radio by Mr. J. B. Priestley from England, some little time ago, to which I listened, in which he stated that his wish and the wish of people over there was to be able to evacuate about a million children from Great Britain. It is based also upon a telegram which I have received from Toronto. I crave the permission of the house to read the telegram in order to make my question clear:
Douglas G. Ross, M.P.,
Ottawa, Ont.
Undersigned deeply disappointed to learn from radio sources Great Britain that evacuees to be restricted to relatively small numbers. If this due lack of facilities Canada urge immediate reconsideration proposed bases of handling here in belief that mass evacuation imperative from military as well as humanitarian point of view. The five undersigned officers of this company personally offer immediately two houses one in Toronto, one in Ancaster and will undertake to equip and maintain in each house mother and help. Undersigned as responsible citizens undertake personal responsibility in securing proper and qualified persons to manage these houses. Facilities believed to be adequate for housing twenty-five children. Purpose this wire to emphasize that present emergency involves mass evacuation and that previously well prepared plans now inadequate. Undersigned only officers present at discussion others no doubt eager cooperate. Please wire reply care Manufacturers Life.
A. Mackenzie,
Assistant General Manager,
C.	L. Holmes, Actuary,
R.	E. Dowsett, Secretary,
S.	M. Thompson, Treasurer,
Manufacturers Life Insurance
Company
I should like to ask the minister:
1.	Whether the evacuees from Great Britain are to be restricted to a relatively small number, and, if so, what number?
2.	Is this due to lack of facilities in Canada?
3.	What arrangements are made for the payment of passage from Great Britain?
4.	What arrangements can be made with respect to those people in England who wish to pay for the support of their children while here?
5.	What restrictions, if any, are being placed on the permission given for these children to come to Canada, by the government of Canada?
Would the minister care to make a statement?
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources):: My hon. friend's question is based apparently upon a statement by Mr. Priestley in Great Britain some time ago in which he expressed the wish that one million children could be evacuated. I know nothing of this, but I assume it was merely a statement of Mr. Priestley's own views on the
British Children

matter. Not so long ago the British government expressed the opinion to us that they were doubtful whether many children would come to Canada except in gravest emergency, and in any event they made it quite clear that no children would be sent to this country without the approval of parents or guardians.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is fair enough.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is the information we have. As regards the expression of opinion in the body of the wire which my hon. friend read, to the effect that the gentlemen signing it wish to emphasize that the present emergency involves mass evacuation, that is a matter wholly for the British government to decide. I doubt the wisdom of accepting as fact statements that may be made on this matter by various individuals over the radio.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Are we
to take that as applying to all radio broadcasts, including those of the Prime Minister?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: May I make it clear to my hon. friend who leads the opposition that these statements over the radio emanated not from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation but from the British Broadcasting Corporation. Statements of this kind are often inaccurate. I hope to make a statement to-morrow outlining in some detail what has been done up to the present time. So far I have not been able to do so because of communications passing between ourselves and the British government.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the minister say that in addition to a statement with regard to what has been done up to the present time he will make a statement as to what may be done in the future? That is more important.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That, I hope, will be covered to the satisfaction of my hon. friend in the statement I shall make, as will the other questions which the hon. member has asked, based upon the telegram.



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Yesterday a question was directed to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) regarding Trans-Radio press services. Can he make a statement to-day on the matter?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The matter of news services employed by the

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and associated stations is one for the board of governors to determine; it is within their exclusive province. The board will be meeting in Ottawa to-morrow to discuss that very situation, and I have no doubt they will decide the matter wisely.



PASSPORTS AND VISAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: I desire to address to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) an interrogatory, of which I have sent him notice, on a matter of considerable public importance. The position with respect to passports for Canadian nationals entering the United States has been clarified by the announcement made over the week-end, but the position with respect to entry of United States and other nationals into Canada has so far not been clarified, and we are still in the dark as to what the real position is. When I referred to this matter on a previous occasion the Prime Minister intimated that it was hoped to arrange for a measure of reciprocity. So far nothing has been announced.
The matter is of considerable importance and, in my opinion, exceedingly urgent. We are now near the end of June. Our tourist season in Canada, at best, is of very short duration. If we are to have any tourist business this season the position should be clarified at once and a public announcement made. I would ask the Prime Minister to tell the house and the country what the present position is and when we may expect a final decision on the part of the government; and if it is possible to make an announcement now, I think it should be made.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend was kind enough to intimate that he would ask the question and I am prepared to make an immediate reply.
As previously announced, the government have for some time past been giving careful consideration to the question of border control. We recognize the necessity of special vigilance in view of war conditions. We also recognize the desirability of interfering as little as possible with legitimate access to Canada by visitors from the United States.
The United States authorities have recently instituted a system of passports and visa control on all borders of the United States, to become effective on July 1. I may add

Passports and Visas
that in order to avoid disruption in essential services arrangements have been made to postpone the visa regulation until July 15 for the operating personnel of railway trains, aircraft, vessels and buses.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
just for the crews?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is all. Under this system it will be necessary for a Canadian who intends to visit the United States to obtain a passport from the Canadian authorities and then to secure a visa or permit from one of the United States consuls stationed at different points in Canada.
We have taken steps to review and strengthen the existing system of border control, including stricter immigration inspection at the border and special provision in certain areas which have usually not required attention. The protection of vulnerable points is, of course, being continued and will be increased.
All circumstances considered, it has been deemed desirable to continue for the present the practice of not requiring passports from United States citizens. All that will be necessary is for the visitor to satisfy the Canadian immigration authorities that he is a United States citizen and that he is coming to Canada for a legitimate purpose. There will' be no unnecessary delays or hindrances placed in the way of tourists, who will continue to receive the cordial welcome that has been extended to them in the past.
United States visitors will see in Canada a country intensifying its war effort against nazi and fascist aggression and tyranny, but a country which at the same time is at peace with and in increasing accord and friendship with its great democratic neighbour. If at the end of the summer season it should be found necessary to establish a system of passport control and to set up the necessary Canadian consular service in the United States, ample notice of such intention will be given.


Mr. W. K. ESLING (Kootenay West):: I ask the Prime Minister to forgive me for not having given notice of this question, but I did not expect the matter to come up. It relates to the visa on a passport. The obtaining of a passport is a trifling matter, but people in southeastern British Columbia cannot get one visaed at an expense of less than three or four days of travel and at least $50 to $75 in money. I would ask the Prime Minister to make representations to the United States legation; for that of course is the only channel through which that representation can be made. The various boards of trade out there are passing resolutions and sending communications which are useless, because there is but the one channel through which anything can be done.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We have already been making representations with respect to the difficulties that are likely to arise. The United States regulation has been passed rather hurriedly, as my hon. friend knows, and he will find, I think, that there will be every disposition on the part of the United States authorities to meet us in the reciprocal spirit to which I have referred; when I spoke of reciprocity, I did not mean identical action, it was reciprocal as contrasted with anything of a retaliatory nature, reciprocal as being in the spirit of seeking to meet the mutual needs and embarrassments with which we are faced.


Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: Has any arrangement been made in regard to travel by boat? Has the regulation been waived in regard to travel on boats as well as on railways and aeroplanes?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The only information I have is what I have given the house, but I will look into the matter of my hon. friend's question.


George Black: The reason I ask the question is that we are faced with a strange situation in the Yukon. To come out of the Yukon to other parts of Canada it is necessary to pass through Alaska, and when that regulation goes into effect Canadians crossing Alaska will have to have a passport, and a visa from a United States consul. There is no United States consul in the Yukon, so that Canadians can neither go into nor come out of the Yukon. I have put it up to the United States consulate here to-day, but I should like to have the cooperation of Canada's government as well.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend will have that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We have the same situation in western New Brunswick.



NATIONAL DEFENCE TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ralston):	I have received a request
from three employers of labour for an explanation regarding the deduction of the national defence tax from the wages of employees.
National Defence Tax

They have only four more days, they say, in June to comply with this requirement. The provision in the budget in this regard is not clear. I quote:
That every employer be required to deduct the tax imposed in respect of earnings of the employee earned or accruing due during and after July, 1940.
That every employer remit the tax collected at the source on the 16th day of September, 1940, and on the 15th day of each month thereafter.
These employers say that they pay their men for June on July 1. Does this requirement mean that the tax will be deducted from the June wages of these men on July 1? The words are not clear. I would ask the minister to state what the words mean.


James Layton Ralston: In the resolution and the act itself the meaning will be made clear. I believe the intention is that wages from July 1 shall be subject to the deduction.


Thomas Langton Church: Then wages due for all June and paid on July 1 will not be deducted or included in the return, as the press in some cases has stated it must be?


James Layton Ralston: That will be dealt with in the bill. I think the intention is that wages earned from and including July 1 will be subject to the tax.



NATIONAL REGISTRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. S. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):: I wish to ask a question of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). Is it the intention of the government to carry out some scheme of registration under the mobilization act before the first class of men is called up for training under this act? If it is not, will the Prime Minister give the house information as to when the first men are likely to be called up?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government is proceeding with the preliminary plans for registration. Just what will take place either before or immediately thereafter, or how soon some of the classes to which my hon. friend refers may be called up is a matter which necessarily will have to be considered by the departments concerned. Information will be given to the house as soon as the matter is definitely decided. I regret that I cannot go any further than that in replying to the hon. member to-day.
[Mr. Church.J



BEAUHARNOIS POWER COMPANY


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to Bill No. 9, respecting the Beauhamois Light, Heat and Power Company.
He said: The bill in question has but one operative clause, which provides for the diversion of an additional 30,000 cubic second feet through the Beauhamois canal. It provides that this diversion shall take place "in such manner, upon such terms and conditions and with such limitations and reservations as may be prescribed by order of the governor in council." The amendment offered by the senate adds to that a certain direction to the governor in council in preparing the order in council. The added clause is:
1. Page 2, line 14.-After "council" insert "which order shall provide that Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company shall settle, pay and fully provide for the claims of riparians and other persons, including navigation companies, who may sustain any loss or damage by the exercise or in consequence of the exercise, in whole or in part, of the right by this act granted, including the execution of any remedial or control works incidental to such exercise of such right, erected by or for the said Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company."
I do not know that there is any objection to the amendment. Provision would in any case have been made in the order in council to protect any persons or corporations damaged by the diversion.
Richard Burpee Hanson: That is the proposed diversion?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does this not go a little further than that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, it seems to me it is a clause which would delight the heart of a lawyer anticipating litigation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: A lawyer drew it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: To me it seems vague. It says "who may sustain any loss or damage", that the company "shall settle, pay and fully provide for the claims of riparians and other persons". It seems to me it might at least say "lawful claims".


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, that is understood; they must be just claims.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Another vague part is the point which my hon. friend has raised. Does

Beauhamois Power-Mr. Church
it refer to the 30,000 cubic second feet granted by this bill? I take it it does, because it is an amendment to this bill.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it the government's interpretation that this amendment refers to damage claims arising by reason of the previous diversion of 40,000 cubic second feet?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I asked that question of our legal advisers, and I am advised that it refers entirely to claims arising out of the diversion of the 30,000 cubic second feet referred to in this bill-which opens up a very delightful avenue of speculation, it seems to me. However, after receiving the advice of our legal advisers I have no objection to the amendment.


Thomas Langton Church: Before this motion is adopted I want to point out two or three principles which have been overlooked by the house in connection with this application. This is purely a power bill; not by the widest stretch of the imagination can it be said to be a navigation work and a work for the general benefit of Canada, except in a very technical way. It is not in any sense a bill dealing writh navigation. Between lake St. Francis and lake St. Louis the only navigation consists of small pleasure boats, some of the Canada Steamships boats, the Rapids King, the Rapids Prince and that sort of thing; but really the power bill does not touch the question of navigation as a whole.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, we as a parliament have no power to part with these privileges. We should not give away the great water powers of this country in the haphazard manner in which we have granted this application. So far as I am concerned the government must take the responsibility for this bill, which has to do with the war effort only in small part. Principally it is a power bill, taking advantage of the present state of affairs to grab these water powers forever, in perpetuity, which are the property of the people of this country and which should not be parted with except under proper safeguards.
The purpose of this bill is known in ever}' chartered bank in this country and every banking office in New York. When this application first came before parliament, away back in 1927, I introduced a bill to forestall order in council P.C. 422. which was referred to during the debate on this bill in this house and also in the senate. I proposed to transfer to parliament the right of the governor general in council under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, under which the Minister of Public Works had power to grant applications
to develop power out of that river by means of order in council. I proposed a bill to give this parliament power to deal with such matters, and now in the senate amendment to -this bill I find that principle was part of the 1931 act, and will require parliament's sanction to a further 30,000 horse-power.
The Senate amendments are:
. . . Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company shall settle, pay and fully provide for the claims of riparians and other persons, including navigation companies, who may sustain any loss or damage by the exercise or in consequence of the exercise, in whole or in part, of the right by this act granted, including the execution of any remedial or control works incidental to such exercise of such right, erected by or for the said Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company.
I think before we adopt this amendment we should have a meeting with their honours concerning our war policy in regard to power and its control by a power controller. This whole problem goes back to 1922, at which time I also proposed that we should meet with their honours in regard to such a national policy. I believe we should have a joint committee of both houses to go into the question of a national hydro policy for this country in war time, by which the government of the day could generate and develop power on this international river as well as the interprovincial rivers of this country. I believe the government has power now, under the British North America Act and the War Measures Act, to adopt such a federal hydro policy, so that when navigable works are carried on, power may be developed, generated and distributed at cost to the two central industrial provinces, and monopoly may be avoided.
We should be very careful in parting with these water powers, which are the property of the people. Amendments similar to this were proposed a few years ago in connection with the Sifton bill, which sought all the water powers of the Georgian bay and Ottawa valley in Ontario, right up to the Nipigon, and new Ontario. At that time the department took the opposite stand with regard to the privileges and rights of the province of Ontario in the matter of navigation and water power. When this matter was up in 1922 and 1923, when Sir Adam Beck and the Ontario hydro wanted to develop power at the Morrisburg dam, this government took the opposite point of view and said it would effect the lowering of lake levels and the levels of the port of Montreal. According to the Canada Year Book we have a potential development of 42,000,000 horse-power in this country, of which only 7,000,000 horse-power,

Beauhamois Power-Mr. Church
or less than one-seventh, has been developed. In my opinion this canal is just a blind, a smoke screen behind which they hope to get the bill passed in order to get hold of these water powers during war time, and of course they will be retained in perpetuity, and without adequate safeguards, when peace comes.
Some of this power may be exported. We know there is a tax on the export of power, but once it is exported it is gone forever. Ten years ago the bill I introduced in the house, to give this house full power over permits, was voted down by 85-72; the minister said at that time that under the law, as my bill had failed, they had no power to refuse the first application which was made by this company. At that time they obtained by order in council 422, 53,000 cubic feet per second, and now they are after another 30,000 feet.


Georges Parent: I would direct the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that the only matter before the house at the present moment is the amendment adopted by the senate. The hon. gentleman is now referring to the merits of the bill, which have been discussed in this house already. I would ask the hon. member to confine himself to the amendment now under consideration.


Thomas Langton Church: That is quite right, Mr. Speaker, but my suggestion is that we should appoint a committee from this house to meet with a committee from the Senate and go into this question of a national war policy with regard to power. I believe the government should lay down such a policy to protect these water powers in the interests of the people in peace and war alike. During almost ten months of the year we in this country require coal, and now we are parting with our water powers. As the late Theodore Roosevelt said, the people of the continent are faced with a power monopoly. Who own all these power companies to which parliament is handing out privileges? They are owned mostly by Americans in New York. Just look at the returns in the financial annuals and you will see the truth of what I say as to the directors and financial set-up. Now we are handing over an additional 30,000 cubic feet per second, and nearly the full flow of the river, without proper safeguards in the interests of Canada. I can tell you this: If there were a proper power controller for Canada, as in the last war, with power to operate in the provinces where these companies are situated, we would have a proper regulation of power and a redistribution in Quebec. We know how this government at the time of the last war regulated the production of power

in Ontario. Under the bill now before us there is very little provision for the regulation of power companies or the protection of Canada by proper safeguards.
For these reasons I urge that instead of adopting the senate amendments we should meet their honours to see about a federal hydro national policy and the appointment of a proper federal power controller who would have jurisdiction over the output during the war years of these privately-owned monopolies who deal with the people's heritage. We remember that at the time of the last war Sir Henry Drayton regulated the activities of power companies. There ought to be some measure of regulation when in reality we are giving to these companies in perpetuity our magnificent heritage. In Quebec a power controller could adjust war matters there.
In conclusion may I point out I believe the time has come when the government will have to take national jurisdiction over the power and develop it at cost for the people. Under the British North America Act and the War Measures Act, we have jurisdiction in connection with the development and generation of power. That power should be distributed at cost to the industrial provinces which are now suffering.
Motion agreed to; amendment read the second time and concurred in.



AEROPLANE ENGINES-DECISION OF MR. FORD WITH RESPECT TO MANUFACTURE FOR BRITISH GOVERNMENT-STATEMENT OF MR. COLDWELL

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair I should like to draw further attention to a matter raised this afternoon by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson). It was my intention to bring this matter up on the motion to go into supply, because I believe it deserves much more consideration than was given to it merely by a question and an answer across the floor of the house before the orders of the day were called.
The newspaper reports regarding the refusal of the head of a corporation, which has a subsidiary in Canada-


Mr. MARTIN:: That is not true.


Major James William Coldwell: -controlled in all its policies from the other side of the boundary line, and refusing to assist the British com-

Aeroplane Engines-Mr. Coldwell
monwealth in its hour of need, deserve more than passing reference in this House of Commons. I am impelled to make this statement because throughout Europe in recent days treachery to the cause of democracy has not been wholly on the part of a few submerged elements within those countries. It has come frequently from very powerful individuals and from industrial and economic corporations. I am reminded that the gentleman who heads the Ford companies and makes the statement appearing in to-day's press is a gentleman who was decorated by the leader of the German reich, and whose long record is not one that inspires confidence in those of us who believe in democratic institutions.
Already in our country we have undertaken prosecutions of insignificant and to some extent unknown persons for stupidities committed here and there in beer parlours and elsewhere. True, we have got to stop that kind of thing; but on the other hand it seems to me we have got to take cognizance of the possibility of sabotage, treachery, or treason in high places. Last week we placed on the statute books of our dominion an act giving this country the right to take over any industry we needed for our war effort; and I submit to the government that here is an opportunity to show the people of Canada that we are going to mobilize not only manpower but industry as well.
I said we were prosecuting comparatively unknown people-and I am not complaining, when those prosecutions are justified. But what are we going to do when the controlling influence in a great organization such as the one Henry Ford controls throws down the gauntlet and says, "I will not make the badly needed engines for the British commonwealth, and particularly for Great Britain herself." To my mind the whole record of Henry Ford is the record of one of the type who is bringing upon us the very conditions we fear. He is the type of industrialist who has exploited the working man, who has regimented him; and then, when he has sucked the life-blood out of him, throws him into the gutter. That, I submit, has been the Ford method, throughout the years.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Has not Ford paid his working men a pretty good wage?


Major James William Coldwell: Ford has paid his men what was regarded as a good wage; but those of us who know the history of the Ford workers know this, that the mass production line of the Ford factory has destroyed those men long before the period of their usefulness should have ended. Everyone knows that who knows anything about industry-that it is one of the cruelest industries in the world.
And because Ford, fattening on human life, as he has done, has set the example, other industries, in order to compete with him, have had to follow.
I remember reading several years ago the papal encyclical, quadragesimo anno-I have not it before me, and the reference I make is from memory-and noting therein the condemnation of an industrialism of this type. It is that kind of industrialism which is causing revolutionary undercurrents all over the world. It is that kind of industrialism which has led to the organization of fascist states, regimented states, states where human personality is destroyed, as they have it in Italy and in Germany.
For him-Henry Ford-anything in the nature of collective bargaining has been an anathema. Workers who wished to bargain collectively have been dismissed. It is true that his personal fortune runs into billions of dollars, and that a great deal of that was made in the British commonwealth of nations.
I say that because some years ago-I have forgotten the date-Canadians agreed that Henry Ford, through his Canadian company, should have the sole right to manufacture under his patents not only to supply Canada but to supply the British empire. Under a friendly tariff policy in Canada we have allowed him to accumulate hundreds of millions of dollars in Canada. Yet-and I must point this out-when the depression came, and after all those millions, yes, billions of dollars, had been made, what happened to the Ford workers? They were immediately thrown upon the relief rolls of our cities, and our public purse had to maintain them.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the hon. member permit one question? Is he referring to the Ford Motor Company of Canada or to the Ford Motor Company of the United States? I was referring solely to the Ford Motor Company of the United States.


Major James William Coldwell: I am referring to the Ford motor company generally-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Of course there are two.


Major James William Coldwell: -because I believe the policies of subsidiaries to be found in other countries are controlled by Henry Ford. Thus the policy Ford lays down for the United States corporation is the policy carried out by the subsidiaries all across the world. When the depression came it is known that in Windsor, Walkerville, Ford-or wherever it is the factory is situated-the workers were thrown upon relief. When that happened and discontent arose we found the very kind of thing which has led to the rise of communism and fascism-the establishment of a sort of

Aeroplane Engines-Mr. Martin
service and espionage department presided over by those who were prepared to use strong-arm methods against the workers.
I recollect that the mayor of Detroit on one occasion said that in the employ of Mr. Ford could be found some of the worst thugs in the city of Detroit. On March 7, I think it was, of 1932, the civic authorities of Detroit gave the hungry working people of the Ford plant permission to make a peaceful parade in that city. When these working people got to the boundary of the city and crossed over into the Ford city of Dearborn, what were they met by? Tear gas bombs, vomit bombs and machine guns. Four men were killed and some fifty were taken to hospital, wounded. No wonder Hitler decorated Mr. Ford!
This is the partial history of a man who is to-day determined to prevent, so far as he is able, his great factory in the United States from helping the cause which we are assisting to the fullest extent. I ask what the government is going to do with this highly placed saboteur, with this man who controls the Ford industry which has a subsidiary in Canada, and controls the policy, let me repeat, of that great Canadian industry. There is no question about that because whatever happens in the United States happens in Canada. Whatever model is produced in the Ford factory in the United States is produced also in Canada. Every change and every condition is dictated by the one dictator in the company. As I said a short time ago, the Canadian Ford worker has no right to bargain collectively. Ford frowns upon it; there are no human rights in his plants. Now Ford says that the British people in their hour of need shall receive no assistance from the great factory which he controls in the United States.
I am asking the government this afternoon to use the powers that this parliament gave it a week ago, and, so far at least as the interest of Henry Ford goes in the industry in Canada, to do what we are doing with lesser fry, those little people who have among them perhaps some subversive elements, and whose halls have recently been placed under the control of the custodian of enemy property. Here is an opportunity for the government to take this industry out of the control of Henry Ford and, so far as his interest is concerned, place it, if you will, for the time being, until we decide what we are going to do with it, under the control of the custodian of enemy property, just as we have done with the property of far less influential people.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Coldwell) and other hon. members would expect me, as represent-

ing the constituency in which the Ford Motor Company of Canada happens to be situated, to make a comment on what the hon. gentleman has said.
What he has said about Mr. Henry Ford personally, and particularly with reference to what Mr. Ford has recently done, will be supported by every member of the house, by the vast majority of the citizens of this country, and by the vast majority I am sure of the citizens of the United States. But a distinction should be made, and that distinction was properly made at the outset by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) when he indicated that he was speaking of the Ford Motor Company of the United States, of which Mr. Henry Ford is the president.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The
founder.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Following that remark by the leader of the opposition, the member for Rosetown-Biggar said that his remarks were applicable in a general way to the Ford motor companies no matter where situated.


Major James William Coldwell: That is right.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Ford Motor Company of Canada is a separate legal entity. I do not rise to comment upon the attitude of the industry generally in reference to its treatment of labour, because that is a matter which can more properly be discussed at another time and in another way. But I did feel that it was my duty to rise and to say at once that the generalization which the hon. member has made is a very unfair one. It would apply to the president of the Canadian Ford company, a gentleman whose patriotism and whose citizenship in this country cannot be disputed. Mr. Wallace Campbell has served his country during the war as chairman of the war supply board in a way which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has said deserves the highest gratitude of this country. Moreover, Mrs. Campbell, the wife of the president of the Ford company, has been tremendously active in Red Cross work not only during the war but for many years now, and she is to be found even this day travelling far outside her own community in the service of this great organization.
Moreover, the Ford Motor Company of Canada is engaged in the making of war materials to crush Hitler and his gang; so that when the hon. member characterizes the Ford Motor Company of Canada in the way he has done because of the narrowness of Mr. Henry Ford himself, he does a great injustice. I rise to speak not only on behalf of men like Mr. Wallace Campbell and his obvious patriotism, and a good many of his

Aeroplane Engines-Mr. Howe
directors who are citizens of Windsor and citizens of Canada, but on behalf also of the vast majority of the workmen employed by the Ford Motor Company of Canada, who I am sure would walk out of that plant if they felt that the general characterization which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has made was justified. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member owes an apology or some explanation at least to his fellow citizens who happen to be of the Ford Motor company, either in the executive or in the working end. Surely they cannot be held responsible for the president of a separate legal entity which operates in another country, whose views I am sure are not at all shared in by them, indeed are just as repugnant to them as they are to the hon. gentleman himself.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, perhaps there is little I need say in this matter after what the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) has said. Mr. Henry Ford is a citizen of the United States, and the Ford Motor company is a family corporation owned in the United States by Mr. Ford and his immediate family. We believe that Mr. Henry Ford has taken an attitude that is distinctly unfriendly to the British empire and every part of it, and I think we can say that he has been dealt with by the United States government as perhaps the circumstances warranted. He refused to accept the British part of an order for aeroplane motors, and if newspaper reports are correct, that part of the order for United States account has been cancelled by the United States government.
But the Ford Motor Company of Canada is a corporation situated in the Dominion of Canada. It is not a family corporation. It is a corporation of shareholders, and while Mr. Henry Ford probably has a very considerable interest in it, nevertheless the Canadian company is a public corporation owned in considerable part by Canadian citizens. I believe that the government must judge the Ford Motor Company of Canada by its own conduct and not by the conduct of one who is only a shareholder in this company.
As the hon. member for Essex East has said, the president of the Canadian company has shown perhaps as keen a desire to assist in Canada's war effort as any other citizen of this dominion. His corporation since the outbreak of the war has done and is doing very important work for Canada's war effort, in the way of building motor transport and universal carriers. The company has placed itself entirely in the hands of the government as to the terms of the contract which it has had. A contract, providing for a fixed price
as low as we could find any basis for asking, was worked out; an overriding provision was inserted that the books of the company would be audited and if the stipulated price produced a profit more than a very low percentage indeed, that price would be scaled down accordingly. In other words, the work of the Ford Motor Company of Canada, its attitude toward the war, and its ability to assist in Canada's war effort, have been, so far as I have been able to observe, beyond criticism.
I may say this, and I say it not particularly about the Ford Motor Company of Canada but about any plant in Canada: if there is the slightest indication that any corporation capable of making war materials is not doing so energetically and in a way which will afford maximum assistance, the government will not hesitate to take over that plant and see that it is operated for government account. The powers which we have under the first munitions and supply bill provide definitely for that contingency. We have not used to this extent the powers conferred under the bill, although on a few occasions we have threatened to do so. I suppose it is obvious to all of us that the mere fact of our having those powers avoids to a large extent the necessity of using them.
I regard it as entirely unfair to judge one company by an action of its affiliate or a company with the same name located in another part of the continent. I could mention a motor car company which is doing good work for the allies in the United States, good work for us in Canada, good work for the British government in Great Britain, and also, I assume, for Hitler in a plant owned by the same company in Germany. I do not know how these situations can be avoided. I think that we, as the government of Canada, must look after residents in our own area and ensure that there is no lack of effort on their part so far as Canada's war contribution is concerned.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Can the minister tell us whether Mr. Ford controls fifty per cent or more of the stock in the Canadian company ?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am glad that the hon. member has acquitted me of any motive of this kind in starting this discussion. When I asked the question which I did ask, it was designed not to draw any special statement from the government at this time, but to call attention to what I considered an improper attitude on the part of a great industrialist in the United States, and to accentuate it-that, and that
1168	COMMONS
Aeroplane Engines-Mr, Hanson (York-Sunbury)
alone. Public opinion in Canada, and I believe in the United States at this time, will deal with Mr. Henry Ford. I think we can leave the matter there.
I was astonished that the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) deduced from my question that I had any reference to the Ford Motor Company of Canada. There was nothing in the question which would indicate that, and he must have misconceived the terms of the statement which I made. However, that is now quite clear. I should not like to have it sent out to the country that in asking the question I did, I had any reference whatever to the Ford Motor Company of Canada. I know Mr. Wallace Campbell, and I can say with very honest conviction that I believe he is one of Canada's best citizens-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Burpee Hanson: -and
further than that, he will aid and assist to the best of his ability the war effort of this country and he will not charge a dollar.
In passing may I say that I wondered why Mr. Campbell went back to his executive office in Windsor, and why he is not still doing a service for the government of Canada. Perhaps the minister will at some time enlighten us and give us the truth. I am not making any charges or any insinuations, but I did wonder why Canada had lost the services of so splendid an executive. It may be that he thought he could do better work for Canada in Windsor than he could in Ottawa.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is what he said.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That may be the reason, and I am not going to question it if, as the minister has suggested, that is what he said.
I believe that the hon. member who initiated this discussion on the motion to go into supply (Mr. Coldwell) has based his observations on an entirely erroneous conception of the facts. There is no doubt, as any hon. gentleman may discover for himself if he will investigate the matter, that Mr. Henry Ford and his son Edsel have not control of the Ford Motor Company of Canada; the control is in the shareholders of Canada. While those two gentlemen have an interest in the company, it is not, according to my information, a controlling interest. I believe there is a close business relationship between the Canadian and United States companies. That of course is to be expected. I suggest that on reflection, when the hon. member reads his remarks in cold print, he will regret some of the statements he has made in so far as they may be pertinent to the Canadian company. I am not defending in any degree the United States company.

Motion agreed to and the house went into committe of supply, Mr. Vien in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Experimental farms service.
l'i. Branch farms and stations, and illustration stations, $1,309,276.
Mr. LaCROIX (Quebec-Montmorency): I read in the House of Commons debates of yesterday, page 1148, the following declaration of the Minister of Agriculture:
Take the farm at St. Joachim. The expenditure there last year was $6,000. This year we are cutting that down to $5,125, with the intention of closing the farm. At the Cap Rouge farm we spent last year $27,851, and we are spending this year $10,564, with the intention of closing it.
I want to register a strong protest against the decision reached by the government to that effect. Is it due to war expenses?
Mr. GARDINER:: It is on account of the fact that we are trying to cut down expenses in the experimental farms branch in order to release money for the further prosecution of the war.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: In the estimates for 193(M0 under item 14 the amount is 31,406,427, and in the estimates before us the amount set out for 1039-40 is 31,494,706. What is the explanation?


James Garfield Gardiner: The amount for this year is $1,309,276. The amount the hon. member has given is the estimate for last year.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Yes, the estimate for this year is $1,309,276. In this year's estimates the sum of $1,494,706 is set out as the estimate for last year, but in last year's estimates the amount given is $1,406,427. Why the difference?


James Garfield Gardiner: Supplementaries were added later in the session.


Mr. PERLEY:: The item for travelling expenses, given on page 67 of the estimates, is reduced almost by half. How is it they can reduce travelling expenses to that extent in one year?


James Garfield Gardiner: Much of that expense is taken up by officials of the experimental farms branch attending fairs as judges and going to meetings from place to place. This year we are not sending these judges, owing partly to the fact that some of the fairs will not be operating and partly to pur decision not to give the service. They will have to find judges nearer.


Ernest Edward Perley: I understand the minister is going to start some experiments in the

Supply-Agriculture-Farms
production of sugar beets. Would that come under the supervision of some of the experimental farms? I refer particularly to the proposal to make such experiments in the Qu'Appelle valley.


James Garfield Gardiner: The only experiments
we are carrying on with sugar beets are those I mentioned last night. They are intended to determine the production and sugar content of beets in different sections of the country, and they are still going on. The suggestion has been made by the Saskatchewan department of agriculture that they intend to carry on experiments in connection with the growth of sugar beets in the Qu'Appelle valley, but that is not under this department.


Mr. HATFIELD:: What is the cost of operating the farm at Fredericton?


James Garfield Gardiner: A year ago it was
$52,325, and this year it is $49,545.


Heber Harold Hatfield: What is the revenue?


James Garfield Gardiner: About $9,000.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Can
the minister make a statement with regard to the forestry engineers and assistants? Some $12,000 odd has been spent in wages.


James Garfield Gardiner: These are forestry
engineers at Indian Head and Saskatoon respectively.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Should they not be under the forestry department? On page 118 of the estimates there is a list of forestry engineers, and under youth training there is an allotment of $448,000 for that work.


James Garfield Gardiner: The forestry work done under the Department of Mines and Resources is an entirely different type of work. It has to do with the protection of forests in areas where forests grow naturally. Forestry under the Department of Agriculture consists in the management of nurseries for the production of trees for distribution among farmers.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: In view of the
decision announced by the minister last evening, that the experimental farm at Rosthern will be closed down in spite of the strong opposition voiced not only by the city of Saskatoon but also by the Prince Albert agricultural society and board of trade, I think the committee should know how that experimental farm will be disposed of. Last evening the minister indicated that some plans were being considered, but he did not advise the committee of the nature of these tentative plans, nor did he say whether it is intended by the department to dispose of this farm to
private interests. A strong rumour is going round that such disposal is being contemplated. The amount of investment in the farm is something like $119,000, I am informed, and naturally those who will be directly affected by the closing down of the farm wish to be assured that it will not be disposed of to private interests. They wish to know what disposition will be made of it.
The minister says that the main reason why this and other farms are being closed down is to retain the money for war purposes, and with that there can be no disagreement. But it is difficult to understand why, at a time when economy is being practised for reasons of the war, it should have been necessary this year to increase the scientific staff of the central experimental farm at Ottawa to the extent of thirteen extra scientists with salaries of from $2,500 to $3,400 a year each. One would have thought that at a time like this, when money is needed for war purposes, if the experimental farm at Ottawa was able to carry on in the past year with the staff it had, it would not have been necessary to add so many scientists, particularly in view of the minister's statement that experimental station work will be considerably reduced during the present year and expenditures cut down accordingly. Will the minister say why these thirteen extra scientists are being appointed at this time, when reductions should be made, especially when no reason has been given for this increase?


James Garfield Gardiner: Last evening I gave the reason for the increases. They are found in the figure that was dealt with last evening; it showed a difference of some $39,000. That amount is simply taken out of one list and put in another. It is found in one set of figures under "wages"; it is found in another under "salaries": The difference between the two is the next figure; I do not have it before me at the moment. But the point raised with regard to the central experimental farm involves part of that reclassification. There are not eleven more persons employed-I think the figure is eleven, an increase from 91 to 102.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister refers to agricultural scientists?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am speaking here of the whole classification at the central experimental farm. The numbers are not increased, but there is a reclassification right through the service resulting in that number more, who were employed previously on wages, being placed in the civil service.
The other point relates to the experimental farm at Rosthern. The present intention is to close that farm, as I indicated last night.

Supply-Agriculture-Farms

There is a sufficient amount in the estimates to carry it through the present season. Before this decision was finally reached, crops had been seeded and activities for this summer started. These activities will be carried on to the end of the season, and the farm will then be closed out as far as its operation as an experimental farm is concerned. I am not in a position at the moment to state what will be done with the farm. The only thing to do is to move the stock from there to other farms as far as it is required at other farms, and to sell at auction what is not required. The natural thing to do with the land would be to sell it by auction. To suggest that there is a value of $119,000 involved merely means that we have built roads here and there throughout the farm in order to enable the public to get over the farm and see the work being carried on. Buildings have been built for experimental purposes, and expenditures have been made in planting the farm in a manner to make it presentable to the visiting public. Many of those expenditures have not produced anything valuable to persons who merely want to buy a section of land to operate as a farm, and therefore we could not expect to obtain from any purchaser anything like the amount of money so expended. But that is not what I had in mind last night when I mentioned that some inquiries have been made. The inquiries made were not by any private person or by any organization of private individuals. As a matter of fact, it was an inquiry from the government of Saskatchewan, and I do not wish at present to comment further on it because it is only in the nature of an inquiry.


Mr. BROOKS:: In connection with the
encouragement of the production of sugar from sugar beets, is the minister taking into consideration what effect it might have on the trade of the maritime provinces? I refer for instance to the sale of potatoes and fish in Cuba and the West Indies. As the minister knows, in days gone by Cuba was one of our best markets for the sale of potatoes from the maritimes, and the West Indies for the sale of fish. Since we have not been taking so much sugar from Cuba and the West Indies, our trade in potatoes and fish has fallen off very considerably. It seems to me that encouraging the production of sugar from the sugar beet in Canada would have a further detrimental effect upon trade which we might have with that section of the hemisphere. I understand that the West Indies trade treaty comes up for revision some time soon, and it seems to me that this matter should have careful consideration, keeping in mind conditions prevailing in the maritime provinces.


John Horne Blackmore: So long as the investigation is conducted with sufficient care, we shall be completely satisfied. The hon. member will discover that the development of the beet sugar industry in Canada has absolutely no serious effect on his fish or potato trade.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Well, it has not developed yet; it is the future to which I refer.


Mr. LEADER:: I rise to support the minister in his attempt to cut down the cost of experimental farms in Canada. Last night he declared that he takes full responsibility for this action. I want him to know that I am giving him my whole-hearted support. Since I have been a member of this house I have taken the stand that if money means anything, and we are to retrench, we could very well curtail the expenditures being made on the experimental farms. Therefore in speaking this afternoon I am just being consistent with the attitude I adopted in former years. Have hon. members taken the trouble to look at the expenditures made yearly on our experimental farms? No doubt many have. It is a fair statement that there is an annual deficit in the neighbourhood of $2,000,000 on our experimental farm operations. For last year the auditor general's report shows that the total expenditure was $2,117,002, and the revenue was only $220,303, leaving a deficit of approximately $2,000,000.
Cutting down expenditures by governments is not popular. We heard the hon. member for Rosthem (Mr. Tucker), and the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix), objecting to any curtailment of expenditure in their constituencies on experimental farms. This indicates what I mean when I say it is hard to practise retrenchment. Some hon. member may ask, "Are there any experimental farms in your constituency?" I shall have to say no, but there are many splendid farms. But it is not because there are no experimental farms in my constituency that I support the minister at this time. I believe that I am speaking not only for myself but for my constituents in what I say. They know, as I know, as we all know, that the experimental farms have done much useful work in the past. In pioneer days these experimental farms did useful work in the more or less isolated districts. But I claim that they are not so necessary now, especially when we have so many, some twenty-six or twenty-seven, I believe, throughout the dominion, five or six of them in Saskatchewan. As the minister stated last night, much of the work of these experimental farms overlaps. Therefore I think it is an absolutely sound policy to close up some of them. I believe that one

Supply-Agriculture-Farms
farm in each province, or perhaps two in the larger provinces, would be sufficient, so I think the minister has a long way to go to tackle the problem as I would tackle it if I had the opportunity.
Last night mention was made of the work done by Seager Wheeler of Saskatchewan. We all know that this work has been recognized as being of supreme importance, not only in Canada but in the United States as well. I believe the minister also stated last night that the government at one time had entered into an agreement with Seager Wheeler under which they paid him $1,500 per annum to carry on this work. I think it was money well spent. We have a good many Seager Wheelers in Canada, and I remember on a former occasion pointing out that the government might take a little of this money and encourage men of this type to undertake work of this kind. We could cut down our expenditure by hundreds of thousands of dollars if we would adopt this method, and I believe it would have a better effect. I do not know of anything that gives a real farmer more inspiration than to see the work done by another good farmer in his own neighbourhood. This should be encouraged, and it would not cost anything like the amount we are now spending on experimental farms. '
It has been said that these farms are of assistance to the live stock industry of this country. I am not going to say they have not had a good effect, but I do not believe the experimental farms have had a wide influence in the development of better live stock in Canada. I do not say they have not had some influence, but I do not think it has amounted to a great deal. There are other agencies of far greater importance that would have a great deal more influence in developing our live stock than the experimental farms, and they would not cost one dollar where we spend perhaps a hundred dollars now.
I am not going to say anything more, but I want to take this opportunity to say that I am in whole-hearted support of the minister's policy of retrenchment in regard to this project.


Mr. BERTRAND (Prescott):: A moment ago the minister said the farm at Rosthern would be operated this year. Will the other farms that it is intended to close be operated also?


James Garfield Gardiner: All the farms will be operated this year on a basis similar to that on which the Rosthern farm will be operated. That is, a much smaller amount will be spent, with the idea that at the end of the season 95826-744
we will close out the work. It will not be experimental work that will be carried on; it will be simply the work of taking care of the crops and the live stock already there, and disposing of those crops and live stock at the end of the season.
Before taking my seat I should like to answer a question asked with regard to Nappan. Last year the expenditure at Nappan was $49,116, and for this year it will be $46,685.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: And what is
the revenue?


James Garfield Gardiner: The revenue will be in the neighbourhood of $8,000.


William Earl Rowe: Is the government still operating a farm at Kapuskasing?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Heber Harold Hatfield: What is the number of branch experimental farms in each province.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are farms at Charlottetown and Summerside, Prince Edward Island; at Nappan and Kentville, Nova Scotia; at Fredericton, New Brunswick. There will be four in Quebec after we have closed up the three we propose to close this year. There are two in Ontario, in addition to the central experimental farm which is operated for the benefit of all Canada. In Manitoba there are two; in Saskatchewan there will be four; in Alberta there will be three and in British Columbia, four.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Will there be four in
Saskatchewan after the one is closed?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.
Mr. HATFIELD- There are now five in
Saskatchewan?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are now five, and there will be four after the one is closed.


William Earl Rowe: I do not want to delay the item, but I should like to know what is spent at the Kapuskasing farm?


James Garfield Gardiner: Last year we spent
$47,225, and for this year the amount estimated is $46,231.


William Earl Rowe: About the same?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Mr. MARSHALL:: I believe the minister said that one of the experimental farms in Alberta was to be closed. I did not catch the name of that farm.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is the illustration
station operated at Tranquille along with the Manyberries farm. That illustration station has to do with grasses.
Supply-Agriculture-Farms


James Alexander Marshall: It does not affect the Manyberries station?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, except that part of the work was carried on at the other station.


James Alexander Marshall: How much is usually spent at that farm?


James Garfield Gardiner: Last year we spent
$33,000. We estimate that this year we will spend $24,783. The difference between those two amounts is largely represented by the closing of that illustration station.


Ernest Edward Perley: On June 6 the minister
answered a question asked by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) with respect to the dismissal of one James Duffin, formerly employed as head herdsman at Melfort experimental farm. Following the appearance of that answer in Hansard, I received a letter from that vicinity stating that it was considered that this man had been unfairly dealt with because, among other things, he had been dismissed with only a few days' notice. It is felt that the answer in Hansard, stating that his services were unsatisfactory, was not a fair one, and more information is desired as to why he was dismissed and also why others were dismissed shortly after, by his successor. I should like to ask the minister who succeeded James Duffin.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand there has been no replacement. I have no personal knowledge of the matter at all; I only know what was stated in the answer at the time it was presented to the house. I understand, however, that this man's services were not satisfactory and that he was offered employment as a labourer. There has been no one appointed to replace him.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not want to
labour the point, but would the minister give the committee an assurance that if the experimental farm at Rosthern is sold it will be not by private sale but by public auction or tender?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know that I should give that assurance. If the government undertake to sell the farm I believe they will try to do so to the best advantage. It is just possible that some individual may be prepared to make a private offer which would, be better than we could get otherwise. I do not know. That is a matter we would have to consider at the time. I may say we have not any intention at this time of selling it to any particular person or group of individuals. However, I should not like to bind the department to any particular method of sales.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Would the minister place on record the reduction in the estimate respecting the Swift Current experimental farm?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no decrease
in respect of that farm. It was $45,254 last year, and in the present year we estimate $47,952, an increase of $2,698.


Mr. EVANS:: Would the minister indicate how many demonstration and illustration stations it is contemplated will be closed?


James Garfield Gardiner: To secure that information, I would have to go through a list of 117 items. There are nineteen closing, and they will be spread right across Canada.


Charles Robert Evans: Could the minister give the ones for Saskatchewan?


James Garfield Gardiner: We closed out five in Saskatchewan a year ago, and we are closing out one this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Production service.
IS. Production service administration, $35,785.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: Does this item refer to the advertising of farm products?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; that comes under marketing.


Mr. SENN:: Before the item passes, I should like to make a passing reference to a gentleman who was the director of this service from the time it was instituted two or three years ago. Mr. Rothwell, who passed away last fall, was a gentleman highly regarded. He was a capable, efficient and painstaking civil servant. I am sure the country generally and the department in particular have suffered because of his death. When does the minister intend to fill the vacancy? I understand that at the present time a gentleman is occupying the position in an unofficial capacity. However, it has always occurred to me that anyone who is to do his best work, and particularly a civil servant, should have all possible authority connected with his position, and should not be forced to be only an acting official.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I add my own words of commendation to those uttered by the hon. member for Haldimand regarding the work performed during many years by Mr. Rothwell? I am not in a position at the moment to say when an appointment will be made to fill the position. As a matter of fact, the work is being efficiently performed by the gentleman who before Mr. Rothwell's death acted as his assistant, a gentleman, who, by the way, is seated at the table in front of me at this moment. The appointment will, however, be given consideration at an early date.

Supply-A gricul ture-Produc tion


Mark Cecil Senn: Probably this would be the appropriate occasion to bring to the attention of the minister something akin to the matter 1 mentioned the other day. I refer to information being given out. A short time ago I placed this question on the order paper:
1.	Has imported American bacon been used for military camps in Canada during the past three months?
2.	If so, in what amount?
3.	In what proportion to the total amount of bacon used at such military camps?
The answer to the first question was, yes. The answer to the second was more or less by way of an explanation or, perhaps, an apology. And then this followed:
Until late in May there was not sufficient Canadian pork to supply the export demand of pork and bacon to Great Britain. Therefore large quantities of United States bacon were allowed to enter the country to supplement our domestic requirements, and to relieve the situation in Great Britain.
Then it goes on to say it was felt that it would be unwise under these circumstances to discriminate against the United States product.
I have in my hand a copy of the Bacon Board Bulletin, No. 4, from which I should like to read one or two extracts. Table 3 on page 3 of the report shows the storage of export bacon in Canada at different periods, and it is indicated that on April 5 the total was something more than 32,000,000 pounds. Even if we shipped the total amount of bacon possible to Great Britain, and manufactured none whatever, we would still have had a considerable amount in storage. Therefore I cannot understand why the answer was given in the words I have indicated. I cannot think that United States bacon is being used in our military camps because we had not sufficient bacon in Canada to ship across the seas.
There is a further statement in this same bulletin showing that in the month of April there was a 60 per cent increase in the marketing of hogs in Canada, and I am told that at the present time and for some time past at least 10,000 hogs are being and have been marketed each week in excess of our domestic and foreign requirements. What is the explanation for the evident discrepancy in the two sets of information accorded me?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not just certain
which department would supply the answer to which the hon. member referred.


Mark Cecil Senn: It came from the Department of Munitions and Supply.


James Garfield Gardiner: I presume that is the
department from which it would come, because the purchases of supplies for the army are made through it. Usually those purchases are made on bids called for by the Department of National Defence.
In the light of the information available at the time I believe the answer is a correct one. I am not sure whether sales were still being made in April or May to supply the army, but if they were, they were being made on bids asked for by those responsible for army supplies.
The main reason for the answer in the form appearing in the return would be this:	In
December of last year we made an agreement with the British government under which we were to export to the British market something more than 5,600,000 pounds of bacon a week. At the time the agreement was signed we were exporting more than that amount a week to Great Britain. Great Britain continued to take more than the
5.600.000	pounds. For one or two weeks they took as much as 10,000,000 pounds, and I believe in one week the amount reached about 11,000,000 pounds. It was not known whether or not Great Britain would continue to take that quantity over a longer period of time. We were under the obligation, through the agreement, to deliver to Great Britain
5.600.000	pounds a week right through the summer. During the latter part of December, and in January, February and March we stored bacon in Canada to the extent of about
33,000,000 pounds, with the intention of having that bacon available to supply the British market in the months of June, July and August. The deliveries of hogs by farmers this spring have been much higher than was anticipated. Those deliveries have made it possible up to date to supply the 5,600,000 pounds per week without taking out of storage all the sides which were put in during the winter months. It is known now that we could have stored considerably less during that time, and had we done so it is just possible that more Canadian and less American pork and bacon might have been supplied to the army than was supplied to it during that time.


Mark Cecil Senn: I do not deny the statements made by the minister, but they will hardly satisfy the hog producers that it was necessary to import American bacon, particularly to feed our soldiers.


James Garfield Gardiner: Looking back on the
picture I would say that that is absolutely correct. It is not a satisfactory explanation looking back, but from the other end it looked to be satisfactory.


Mark Cecil Senn: I should like to continue with that, if I am not out of order, Mr. Chairman. I mentioned the amount in storage on April 5. Here is the next paragraph in the bacon board's report:
The board fully realize that these stocks were assuming dangerous proportions.

Supply-Agriculture-Production
This was at the very time that the bacon was being supplied to the Canadian army.
However, w'ith rumours of a March offensive in Europe and a probable change in United Kingdom requirements, a courageous view was justified and the board continued to support the price level of hogs by continuing storage.
That was done, I understand, by deducting 72 cents from every long hundred pounds of bacon sent to Great Britain, and paying the storage which has since been paid by the packers themselves.
Finally March passed with no change in the European situation. New advices from the British ministry and from Canadian representatives overseas were to the effect that we could not expect to ship any quantity over the minimum of 50,000 long hundredweight per week during the life of the contract. Our total storage position was then 27,273,502 pounds.
The next thing that happened, according to this, was that the board immediately stopped paying storage charges on bacon that was being stored in Canada, with the result that prices dropped very materially for Canadian hogs sent out by the farmers and marketed either alive or dressed. It seems to me that a serious mistake was made. The board should have continued paying storage charges and supported prices to the Canadian farmer, or we should have been using some of that Canadian pork to feed our soldiers. The final sentence in the board's statement is this:
On April 10-
That was about a month before the board said "Until late in May there was not sufficient Canadian pork":
On April 10, the board instructed packers to resume storage to their account.
So that storage has been going on again since that time. The board continues:
Hog prices closed on April 11 in close conformity with previous export levels. [DOT]


James Garfield Gardiner: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the hon. member to be good enough to postpone this discussion until we come to the marketing item, when Mr. Shaw will be here. All this information comes more properly under marketing than under production. There are explanations that can be given in reply to most of what is now being said, and I would not mind giving the explanations now but for the fact that probably some other members will be raising the same questions on the marketing item and the discussion will then be had all over again.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Is this the branch of the department which supervises the production of agricultural commodities required particularly for war purposes? Is it the branch which

gives directions that there should be increased production in bacon, oats, and other commodities?


James Garfield Gardiner: Any attempts that are made to increase agricultural production will come under the direction of the war-time agricultural supply board, made up of the assistant deputy and the directors of the different branches. The director of production is a member of the board, and we can deal more properly with that question when Mr. Shaw, who is chairman of the board, is here. I think it would be better if we discussed under marketing all matters having to do with bacon, and the handling of apples, cheese and other products.


Mr. TUSTIN:: An agreement was entered into with the United Kingdom for the production of cheese, and according to the press the United Kingdom has indicated that it is open for a larger quantity than contracted for. If that is so, may I ask what is being done to stimulate the increased production of cheese in Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is another question which I think could more properly be discussed under the other item, because it comes under the supply board of which Mr. Shaw is chairman. At the moment I would say that Great Britain has made inquiries within the last ten days *whether we can supply her with more cheese than was called for by the agreement, and we have notified her that we are in a position to do so. More cheese is being supplied this month than the agreement calls for. The only direct assistance which has been given to encourage the greater production of cheese was that given last year under the Cheese and Cheese Factories Act, which provided for the payment of a bonus of one cent, on the higher grades of cheese.


George James Tustin: I shall be very glad to postpone further remarks until we reach the marketing item.


Mark Cecil Senn: Marketing and production are very closely related; successful marketing, generally speaking, has an immediate effect in increasing production. If we are to postpone our discussion until we reach the marketing item I think we should have some assurance from the minister that he will not at that time restrict the discussion of production generally.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think that might very well be allowed, Mr. Chairman. We are concerned not merely with production in peace-time but also with efforts to step up production because of the war, in order to supply the British market and others who are

Supply-Agriculture-Production
associated with us in the war. That will be done under the direction of the supply board, of which Mr. Shaw is chairman. But the work will actually be done by these staffs, and if you will permit it, Mr. Chairman, I should like the committee to be free to discuss along with the question of marketing the whole question of the necessity for greater production because of the war, because marketing has a special meaning now with reference to making arrangements with the British government for supplying our products.


Mark Cecil Senn: That is what I had in mind. The committee should be enlightened on a number of questions having to do with the organization of the department for war production, the policies contemplated or in effect, the information that is being given to the public to stimulate greater production in certain lines. With the minister's assurance that we can discuss all these matters under marketing, I am perfectly satisfied.


William Earl Rowe: I agree with the minister's
suggestion that much of this discussion on production might be postponed until we reach the marketing item. Nothing is more calculated to discourage necessary production in this country, especially of bacon, than what has happened in the way of importation of United States bacon. However, I will leave that subject until we reach the item of marketing service.
This production service is closely allied with the subject of experimental farms and the educational advantages to be derived from departmental services in general. I agree that the government is justified in reducing expenditures wherever it can, and particularly those relating to fairs and exhibitions. But there is now a greater necessity than ever for the intelligent application of science in the production of agricultural commodities. Hardly anything is more vital to our war effort. We face a shortage of labour, and probably, increased costs of gasoline and all that it takes to produce foodstuffs for the war. While I agree with the reduction of expenditures on many items, I would recommend that this branch of the department be careful about reducing expenditures having to do with scientific methods of production.
The department might be wise to give consideration to a broadcasting service to the farmers of this country for fifteen minutes or half an hour daily. The cost should not be excessive. From time to time we receive pamphlets and blue-books containing excellent articles written by the efficient technical officers of the department. But, I regret to say, too often these publications are not read, and
in my opinion such valuable information as they contain could be more effectively distributed through daily or twice-weekly talks, which would have a far-reaching effect in assisting farmers to achieve a high quality of product and economies in production. The talks might deal with such matters as the handling of live stock at certain seasons of the year, namely the late fall, early winter, early spring, late spring, and early summer; the handling of dairy cattle in the fly season, of sheep and lambs in the early spring, and of lambs in the early fall or at the weaning period. We have from time to time an accession of new farmers and their families who have had no agricultural background and who would benefit considerably by a service of this kind.
In the early part of the season many farmers are endeavouring to produce fruit, vegetables, butter, poultry and eggs. A programme of seasonal education by radio broadcasting could be inaugurated with great advantage to the industry generally and at a reasonable cost, which could be financed through some of the reductions which are being made, I may say wisely, in other directions. No doubt there are expenditures which are quite justified in normal times and might be renewed after the war, but which even the minister would not attempt to justify in these difficult days. A service having to do with the science of more economical production of commodities so essential to our war effort should not be reduced; on the contrary it should be supplemented by a broadcasting system of the type I have mentioned. Almost every farmer has a radio, and at a fixed time of day, say the noon hour or at any other period which seems appropriate, daily talks by the heads of the various branches of this department would have far-reaching advantages in encouraging more intelligent methods of production.


James Garfield Gardiner: As to the suggestion which has just been made, we have had a radio service since the early part of 1939. This radio effort is centred principally on a half-hour farm broadcast given daily. It was started as a result of arrangements between the department and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The first broadcasts were in Ontario; the service has since been extended to the maritime provinces, the prairie provinces, and throughout Ontario and Quebec- three different sections. It has proved of great value in supplementing press publicity. The latest marketing quotations for different farm products are given, together with talks prepared by the press and publicity section from information supplied by the different branches of the department. Particular stress is laid
il76

Supply-Agriculture-Production
on the seasonal aspects and timeliness of the information given. I have not had the privilege of reading or hearing all of this information-I know about some of it-but I believe it is along the line which the hon. member has mentioned, namely that when certain things are happening on the farm in a particular season, that is what is talked about on the radio, with the idea of giving assistance to persons who are farming in the different sections.


William Earl Rowe: I have listened to a number of these broadcasts, as no doubt the minister has also; but they have to do chiefly with marketing and market reports. I believe an extension of this service would be well justified by what has been done in this regard, and when other reductions of expenditure are made, it could be carried on economically- more so than by the provision of much of the literature which is being sent out. I suggest that it be encouraged.


John Horne Blackmore: Inasmuch as we are dealing with the increase of production, which I consider a vital matter at the present time, I would urge upon the minister the advisability of looking to the increase of our supply of sugar. No one would have imagined a year ago that we would be in anything like the desperate condition in which we feel ourselves to be to-day; most people, looking back, would say, "Who would have thought it?" It is just as possible that we shall be in an unpredictably serious position a year from now. One of the respects in which I think we ought to be looking into the future is the matter of preparing for our sugar supply.
Canada to-day is, relatively speaking, in a precarious position as regards sugar. If I understand the situation aright, we are dependent in large measure for our sugar upon supplies which come across the water. If for any reason we should lose control of the seas for a time we should be in a grave position in the matter of sugar. That danger is altogether avoidable owing to the fact that we in Canada are capable of developing to the point where we can provide our own sugar needs. Consequently, if we should find ourselves suffering a sugar shortage, there would be no small amount of condemnation coming to those individuals who had neglected to look into the future and guard against such mishap. In 1938 Canada consumed 1,050,135,014 pounds of sugar. Of that 907,121,167 pounds were cane and only 143,013,847 were beet. Every single pound of that sugar consumed could have been beet sugar. Consider the advantage that would have meant to the whole of our Canadian economy.
fMr. Gardiner.]
May I discuss something that has troubled nearly all hon. members. The exchange value of our money depends upon our balance of trade; the more goods we buy from outside the more danger there is of our dollar being at adverse exchange. Since that is so, obviously if we consume cane sugar obtained from outside instead of beet sugar produced within, we are endangering our exchange position, and that at a time when there are many things which perforce we must buy from outside, mainly munitions of one kind or another. And our needs are likely to increase rather than to decrease in that respect as the days go by.
Of course, we could not modify our ways soon enough to bring about the desirable change in a short time, but when we remember that we are probably in for a long war, we can see it certainly would be the part of wisdom to prepare for such a protracted struggle. One of the matters we need to look to is sugar.
But there is something else we hear a great deal about in this house. Inflation has been written on every square inch of the walls of this building as a result of the industrious efforts of past ministers of finance, and our newspapers have simply blazoned it from one end of the country to the other. I wonder how many of those who talk about inflation realize that we can have inflation through scarcity of goods.


The CHAIRMAN:: I regret having to
interrupt the hon. member, but his line of thought and discussion is not strictly relevant to the item under consideration.


John Horne Blackmore: Do I understand that we are discussing the question of an increase in production in Canada?


Thomas Vien: But inflation is so remote from production, except along the theories of the hon. gentleman, that I fear I am obliged to ask him to keep a little closer to the item before us.


John Horne Blackmore: Thank you, Mr. Chairman; I shall find that easy, because I have just finished talking about inflation. I mentioned inflation merely to point out that it can be caused through a shortage of production. If anything happened to Canada's sugar supply there would be a rise in the price of sugar in Canada and that would start an inflationary movement. The danger is particularly grave inasmuch as we are experiencing a falling off in our foreign markets. Whole countries that have been good customers of ours are being destroyed, and there must be alarm in the hearts of all those who have to do with our trade. Up to the

Supply-Agriculture-Production
present time we have been depending upon selling certain commodities and buying sugar with the exchange obtained. Obviously, if we lose the ability to sell those commodities, then our ability to purchase sugar will be greatly impaired.
There is another difficulty. There is the danger that we might become a burden to Great Britain in the matter of sugar. If there is one thing that Canada should above all else guard against, it is that she should not become a burden on Great Britain. Great Britain has enough troubles of her own to take care of now. In fact, I do not see why we should not equip ourselves to help the mother country so far as sugar is concerned.
All we need to do to make ourselves selfsufficient in regard to sugar is to establish seventeen more sugar factories of 1,200 tons slicing capacity per day. Alberta alone could support seven such factories in addition to the two which are now operated in the province. It takes about 20,000 acres of irrigated land to support a sugar factory of 1,200 tons slicing capacity. Alberta has 200,000 acres under irrigation. Moreover, there is land which could be made available by the application of water, which would support three more factories. This means that Alberta, roughly, could produce one-half of the sugar which the Canadian people as a whole consume. While we may not consider that important to-day, if we should fall into difficulties in the next nine months I think we would wish that those factories were operating in Alberta.
Ontario is able to produce a great deal of sugar. The county of Lambton alone can support four factories of 1,200 tons slicing capacity, and Essex, Middlesex, Huron, Kent and other counties are all excellent for sugar production. In addition to that, there are great possibilities in Manitoba, which are now beginning to be drawn upon. There are also possibilities in Quebec and in the Okanagan valley in British Columbia, as I understand.
In the light of these facts, surely there is not a member of this house who would not be ashamed of himself, and rightly so, if he discovered that his country had got into the position where it was suffering from a sugar famine and realized that by a slight change in policy all this might have been avoided.
It is not only the matter of sugar supply that is important in this connection. I have already pointed out on several occasions that there is hardly any kind of industry which can be developed that would supply more employment than the beet sugar industry. It may not be generally known that one sugar factory of 1,200 tons slicing capacity will 95826-75
provide work for 10,000 people. Why it is that the government of Canada, realizing the need for employment and the possibilities with regard to employment to be found in the beet sugar industry, have not availed themselves of this outlet, I cannot begin to conceive. It looks like nonsense to me. When we remember that to produce one hundred pounds of beet sugar requires twenty times as much Canadian labour as to produce one hundred pounds of cane sugar, the inadvisability of using cane sugar in preference to beet sugar is patent to all.
How far-reaching this possibility of increased employment is, may be judged by reference to the following figures, which I have from a source which I consider quite authentic. In 1933, production of 45 million pounds of sugar from beets, being about 4-2 per cent of Canadian consumption, required supplies to the following values:
Coal	 $ 55,000
Sugar bags	 100,000
Lime rock	 20,000
Coke	 9,000
Soda ash, boxes and other supplies	  105,000
Freight	 330,000
While the factory payroll would be $175,000 and the beet growers themselves would receive $940,000. When we bear in mind that every single item of that is completely produced and spent in Canada, the absurdity of neglecting such a source of employment is obvious.
In addition to these matters, the possibility of developing live stock production on the farms is great. In my own constituency in the year 1937-38 there were 40,000 sheep and
10,000	head of cattle fed on the pulp, beet tops and betalasses, and the hay resulting from the rotation of crops practised in the beet sugar industry. How great is the value of having the beet tops may be judged from this simple fact, that at topping time the beet tops from a yield of twelve tons to the acre are estimated to be equal in value to two tons of alfalfa hay or 1-3 tons of barley. This is the finding from experiments conducted at the agricultural college at Bozeman, Montana.
This is not a matter to be lightly ^regarded. It all helps to show how valuable to the Canadian economy is the beet sugar industry, quite apart from the question of the supply of sugar. The railroads derive a great benefit from the beet sugar industry. They gain at least twice as much revenue from beet sugar as from cane sugar. The railroads are called upon to haul the beets to the factory, the coal to the factory, the limestone, coke and other supplies to the factory, the beet pulp out of the factory to the feeders, the beet molasses out of the factory and the cattle to market.

Supply-Agriculture-Production
tion, and that that undertaking was given by international agreement. An undertaking of that kind, one so manifestly unjustifiable, certainly should not bind Canada in these times. Therefore, notwithstanding that commitment of Canada, I urge the minister to go forward and to develop the beet sugar industry in Canada while yet there is time.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I have been deeply interested in the observations of the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Black-more). In view of the minister's statement to the effect that Canada produces about fifteen per cent of her sugar consumption, I believe the suggestions of the hon. member for Lethbridge might well be considered. One of my constituents living near Hudson Bay Junction lived for a number of years in a section of France where large quantities of sugar beets are grown, and while in western Canada he has carried on a series of experiments with seed imported from various countries of Europe. It is his considered opinion that the soil and climatic conditions in northern Saskatchewan would be conducive to the successful production of sugar beets. In view of the changes now being made in our national economy it seems to me the minister might find it worth his while to consider the increased production of this crop.
Could the minister give the committee any information respecting the cost of installing the necessary equipment for the refining of sugar beets? It was said last night that the sugar beet industry is carried on successfully in areas where favourable freight rates could be -obtained.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not in a position to give exact figures, but from the point of view of capital expenditure the cost is enormous.


Richard Burpee Hanson: A million dollars.


James Garfield Gardiner: The Manitoba government voted 8600,000 to encourage the production of sugar but that was by way of a guarantee and was not the total cost. I should imagine an expenditure of a million dollars would be required to install a plant of the type mentioned.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Plus working capital.


John Horne Blackmore: Between a million and a million and a quarter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, June 27, 1940