1940-07-25

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

Mr. BRUCE:: Does the government propose to take any steps to ban the Saturday Evening Post from public sale and circulation through the mails in this country?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Since shortly after the outbreak of war last September, all incoming publications from American and other sources have been subjected to careful examination by the postal censorship and the examiner of publications, under the direction of the press censors for Canada. All publications containing subversive material have been drawn to the attention of the press censors, and steps have been taken to exclude all of those publications which appeared to contravene the defence of Canada regulations. Publications in all leading European languages have been examined in this search for subversive material. Altogether, since the beginning of the war about 180 periodicals and a quantity of other material, books, pamphlets, circulars, etc., have been denied entry into this country. No less than 17 periodicals published in the United States had been banned in the period September 1, 1939, to June 20, 1940. Eight or ten others are now in process of being excluded.
2.	The Chicago Tribune and the Saturday Evening Post and all other leading weekly and daily publications entering Canada from the United States are being examined regularly by the examiner of publications for the press censors. Each publication is dealt with on its merits and on the basis of its record. To date the press censors for Canada have not recommended the exclusion of the Chicago Tribune or the Saturday Evening Post because they were not satisfied that the nature and quantity of such subversive material as these publications may have contained warranted excluding them from this country, in the light of other considerations which were involved in such drastic action. The recent policy of both the Chicago Tribune and the Saturday Evening Post has been more favourable to the British cause, but every

Oil Control
issue of these publications is being carefully examined and the policy adopted is based on the current contents.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. ROY:: 1.	Did the government execute any works, during the months of October, November and December, 1939, in the settlement of Yal d'Espoir, townships of Rameau, Perce and Malbaie, Gaspe county?
2.	If so, by what department, and from what appropriation have the works been executed?
3.	What amount has been expended for that purpose in the county of Gaspe and the Magdalen islands?


GOVERNMENT PURCHASES OF VESSELS
Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	How many vessels, if any, of 1,000 tons or less, has the government purchased from private individuals or companies since September last?
2.	Who were the vendors of these vessels?
3.	What was the purchase price in each case?
4.	What was the nature of each of these vessels?
5.	How many of them were yachts or pleasure boats?



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the Canadian National Railway Company to issue securities not exceeding $15,104,000 in principal amount to provide the moneys necessary to meet capital expenditures made or to be made during the calendar year 1940, and to make provision for the retirement of capital indebtedness during the said calendar year and to issue substituted securities for refunding purposes; to authorize the governor in council to guarantee the principal, interest and sinking funds of such securities; and to authorize the making of temporary loans to the said company secured by such securities and not exceeding $15,104,000 in principal amount to enable the said company to meet such expenditures and indebtedness.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe). On Monday last, at page 1811 of Hansard, the minister indicated that*he would inquire of the oil controller what the position was regarding supplies of oil to the Regina Consumers' Cooperative Refinery, and see what steps could be taken to meet their crude oil requirements from the Alberta field. Is the minister prepared to give us the result of his inquiry?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: I have received a letter from the oil controller on this point. It says:
The nominations by all of the refineries aggregated 31,136 barrels. The Consumers requested a nomination of 1,500 barrels per day, approximately a 200 per cent increase over their last summer's requirements, June to October inclusive. In June to October last year they were supplied, according to my information, approximately 496 barrels per day. Other refineries increased their nominations, as compared with the same period, by about 23 per cent.
Had all of the refiners increased their nominations equally to that of the Consumers, the Turner Valley field would have to operate at the rate of approximately 75,000 barrels per day, and the most we seem to get out of it is 26,000 barrels per day.
I think that sets out the problem. The controller is attempting to prorate the production of the Turner Valley field as equitably as possible. I do not know whether this information wholly answers my hon. friend, but I shall see that the company in question and the other small refiners are treated as well as possible having regard to the limited production from that field.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: Is that yield of 26,000 barrels per day under the pro rata arrangement?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The oil controller asked the Alberta government for a production of 30,000 barrels per day out of what that government claimed to be a production capacity of 35,000 barrels per day. I understand that the government, which has charge of proration, is delivering from that field the maximum amount possible, which to-day amounts to between 26,000 and 27,000 barrels per day.


Major James William Coldwell: Does not the difficulty arise from the fact that the two major companies own the wells and are not relinquishing any of the oil from their own wells? Could not this government do something about that under the mobilization act?
Royal Canadian Air Force


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is my understanding that the field, including the wells owned by the large companies, is being regulated by the provincial government, and that the provincial government is instructing the companies as to the amount of oil they must produce. My understanding is that every well is producing all that it can, having in mind a reasonable use of the wells for the reasonable life of the field.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. C. SENN (Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question either to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) or to the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Gardiner). A number of young men in this country who have their private pilot's licence or have had some training in the air have made application to join the Royal Canadian Air Force, and their applications have been acted upon to the extent that they have been called up for medical examination, have been accepted and are now awaiting call to service. Is it the intention of the Department of National Defence to have these young men called up in any of the drafts that may be made, or will they be considered as volunteers?


Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of National Defence for Air):: Perhaps I might answer
that question, Mr. Speaker. The question has been receiving consideration. As I have already stated in the house we have no particular tie on these men who have made application to join the Royal Canadian Air Force and whose application forms have been completed and recorded. There is nothing to prevent them from joining any of the other armed forces. My own view at the moment, subject to consideration, would be that if they are of the age classes to be called up, they should be called up; thirty days' drill will not do them any harm. The fact that they are called up under the mobilization act will not prevent them from realizing their ambition to join the Royal Canadian Air Force should they be qualified to do so.



BUSINESS OF PARLIAMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day':
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister 
a question. I asked the same question last year in this house on March 2, 1939. Will the government in the recess of parliament give consideration to the appointment of a joint committee of this house and their honours to consider a redivision of the work of the two houses with a view to increasing the efficiency of parliament and making it more practical to meet modern conditions and those brought about by the war? The other house sometimes adjourns for several days because they have no business before them. We might well follow the practice in the old country' where the two houses appoint a joint committee to divide the work of parliament.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think the
suggestion made by my hon. friend is a good one and I shall be glad to give it careful consideration. He has referred to the advisability of having a joint committee of the two houses review the arrangements as between them as regards their respective business. It may be that such a conference would help to facilitate the business of parliament. At any rate, it could do no harm and it might do some good.
I would say to my hon. friend, however, with reference to the business of this particular session, I know there has been a feeling that some of the measures might have originated in the other house rather than here, but having regard to their character it was almost inevitable that the war measures brought down this year should be introduced first of all in this house. With respect to the unemployment insurance bill, I rather think that the right place to begin it was this house, having regard to the explanations that had to be given in advance, and so forth. But the suggestion of my hon. friend that the business of the two houses be reviewed with a view to seeing if it cannot be subdivided in a way that will facilitate the business of parliament generally is a very good one, and the government will be glad to consider it between now and next session.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) to look into conditions outside the Toronto armouries, where several hundred men are lined up in the heat awaiting the opportunity to enlist. The regiments have been recruited almost up to full strength, yet

Treachery Act
they are going out into the country to get men. I asked the minister the other day to look into this situation, which has been brought to the attention of some of the members from Toronto.


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: I shall be very glad to do so at once.



TREACHERY ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (for the Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 73, respecting treachery.
Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: Is there to be no explanation of this bill, Mr. Speaker? It is one of the most important bills we have had before parliament. It deals with the liberties and life of the subject, and surely someone on the government benches will make some statement with regard to this measure on the motion for second reading.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Mr. Speaker, although this bill stands in the name of the Minister of Justice perhaps it is appropriate that I should say a few words, since I was chairman of the committee which recommended this bill to the consideration of the house. Hon. gentlemen may remember that the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght), speaking in the debate on the proposal to set up a committee to review the defence of Canada regulations, advocated the establishment of the death penalty for treachery. Perhaps the word "treachery" was not used at that time, but the hon. member for Parry Sound brought very forcibly to the attention of the house what all of us knew and had considered to a greater or lesser extent, namely that in this particular war there is danger of immense damage being done by the activities of saboteurs, and what are called "fifth columnists", and traitors in every sense of the word. Damage of that kind was done in the small and neutral countries of Europe which were invaded by Germany; the way was thus paved for the rapid conquest of those countries; and it was felt that the committee which had been set up by parliament should give special and immediate attention to the question whether our own law was adequate to meet situations of the kind.
Therefore the first duty to which the committee addressed itself was the consideration of that question. We found that Great Britain had considered the same question, that the parliament of the United Kingdom had passed an act called the Treachery act, in
which there was an accurate and precise definition of the offences which should, in the opinion of that parliament, be regarded as so serious as to deserve the punishment of death. The committee gave its attention to the existing provisions of the law. The provisions which relate to acts of this sort are those of the criminal code relating to treasonable offences, those of the criminal code relating to mischief, the provisions of the Official Secrets Act, and the provisions of the defence of Canada regulations themselves. If hon. members have read the second report of the committee set up to consider and review the defence of Canada regulations they will find concisely-


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbuiy):: Is that the one dated June 20?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, July 2: they will find concisely there a statement or a reference to the previously-existing law, a brief analysis of the situation generally, and a brief statement of the reasons which led the committee to make the recommendations which they did.
The defence of Canada regulations are passed under the provisions of the War Measures Act, and the maximum punishment which can be inflicted under the War Measures Act is five years' imprisonment. Five years' imprisonment is not adequate to meet offences of the kind under consideration.
The provisions of the criminal code relating to treason are not sufficient to cover what we have in .mind. To begin with, a person cannot be convicted of treason unless he owes allegiance to the crown. That does not mean that necessarily he must be a British subject, but he must have accepted or adopted in some way the protection of the crown so that he owes allegiance to the crown.
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury). It must be either natural or local, according to Brougham.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It was the opinion of the committee, and I think it is the opinion of the legal profession, that persons who came here temporarily, clandestinely, with the idea of being here a short time-perhaps coming here from the United States, if such a thing might occur, with a view of doing damage by way of sabotage or otherwise and then returning to that country-could not be convicted of treason, because they would not come within the purview of the present sections of the criminal code. Besides, treason is not clearly defined in the code. It permits of a great deal of argument as to what is and what is not treason. Further, there is a
Treachery Act

curious option with regard to punishment for treason. The best legal advice that the committee could get on that point was this, that the judge has the option of imposing death as the penalty or of letting the accused go altogether; he has no discretion to do anything between those two extremes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is an astonishing statement.


James Lorimer Ilsley: lIt surprises my hon. friend? Well, it surprised every member of the committee with a possible exception of one, who, to his great credit, raised the point. The provisions of the section relating to treason are that the person who is convicted of treason shall be liable to suffer death. It is different from the provision relating to murder, where he must suffer death if he is convicted of murder. The provision of the code which gives the judge a discretion to reduce the penalty provided by the section does not extend, it would seem, to the section relating to treason; it extends only to the sections relating to imprisonment. If the penalty is life imprisonment, the judge imposing the sentence can make it anything less than life, but in the case of treason he apparently has an option, either to send the accused away with a warning or otherwise, or to sentence him to be hanged. That is not a satisfactory condition in so far as punishment is concerned. I do not think that this is the position in England, either. I believe that in England, treason, if established, must result in capital punishment.
These are some of the defects in the existing law both as regards proof and as regards punishment. The "mischief" sections are not appropriate to the conditions which may arise. They are not complete; they were not designed with a war err apprehended war or anything of the kind in view; they are what might be called peace-time criminal sections.
The Official Secrets Act, while dealing with spying, wrongful communication of information, unauthorized use of information, and other things of the character under consider-tion, is not complete for the purpose in mind. It does not authorize imprisonment for more than seven years, a maximum which the committee deemed inadequate in some circumstances. After due consideration we decided that there should be enacted in this country a provision such as the United Kingdom enacted with regard to certain serious offences. The offences I have in mind can be very shortly stated.
The offence which it is thought proper to punish with death is that if, with intent to

help the enemy, any person does or attempts or conspires with any other person to do any act which is designed or likely to give assistance to the naval, military or air operations of the enemy, to impede like operations of his majesty's forces, or to endanger life, he shall be guilty of an indictable offence and shall on conviction suffer death. There is another provision of the act; it relates to somewhat less serious offences.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is not a new offence created by that provision?


James Lorimer Ilsley: This other provision of the act is not found in the treachery act of the United Kingdom. It is found in the defence regulations of the United Kingdom.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But it is a new offence in Canada.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. It may be included among certain existing offences or many acts which would be offences under this other provision to which I have referred. But in this form it is not in the law of Canada at the present time. In that sense it is new in this act. It is taken from the defence regulations of the United Kingdom. Defence regulation number 2A reads:
If, with intent to assist an enemy, any person does any act which is likely to assist an enemy or prejudice the public safety, the defence of the realm or the efficient prosecution of war, then, without prejudice to the law relating to treason, he shall be guilty of an offence against this regulation and shall, on conviction or indictment, be liable to penal servitude for life.
With the proper change in terminology necessary by reason of our practice here we have adopted that section exactly as it is. These are the two main sections of the Treachery Act. That is the substance of the act. It may be thought that the capital offence section is pretty severe. The committee fully considered the desirability of providing a discretionary power in the judge to make the punishment either death or life imprisonment, and after very full consideration it was their opinion that no discretionary power of that kind should be vested in the judge, although it is fair to say that the committee were not unanimous. One member and perhaps others felt that there should be that option on the part of the judge. It is fair, however, to add that these members do not feel too strongly on that point, knowing that it is a debatable matter. The large majority of the committee were of the opinion that, these offences being extremely serious-because they must be done with intent to help the enemy-once the intent and the act are proved, there should be no option but that the person convicted should suffer death.

Treachery Act
The usual safeguards are thrown around the accused. There should be some control in the institution of a prosecution of this kind. It cannot be begun without consent of the Attorney General of Canada. In the second place, the accused has the usual protection of the grand jury in those provinces in which there are grand juries. First, there is the preliminary inquiry before the magistrate and later he has the protection of the jury, if one can call it protection; at any rate, he has the right to go before a jury. And then there are provisions for appeal. I should add, however, that appeals are expedited. There is a section designed to expedite the hearing of appeals so that cases will not drag on for any length of time. Finally, there is the power of the governor in council to commute a sentence if it is felt in exceptional cases that this should be done, just as in the case of murder. There are some subordinate provisions of the act, notably those relating to courts martial and their jurisdiction. They are given concurrent jurisdiction over persons subject to the military law and over alien enemies in cases where alien enemies are sent to them for trial or it is deemed advisable that they be tried by court martial. The punishment in case of conviction by court martial is not by hanging but by shooting, and that is probably the universal rule in most countries with which we are acquainted.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why is the court martial provision there? My understanding is that military men prefer the method of shooting to hanging. I do not know that it makes much difference in the final result, but I suppose it is a matter of military etiquette, shall I say.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I prefer to have such questions answered in committee, and I shall have to rely on my colleagues in the committee, some of whom are experts on these questions of courts martial, military law and so on. I do not pretend to be an expert at all. There are some less important provisions with regard to procedure, all of which are necessary and which can be explained as the bill is discussed in committee. The bill has been drafted with as much care as the committee has been able to exercise and I am convinced that it deserves to be passed by the house.


Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: Speaking on behalf of the official opposition, may I say that we approve the principle of this bill. It must seem strange to all of us that here in Canada we should have a
bill of this type before our national parliament, but it is one of the consequences following from what has happened in Europe in the last three months. Three months ago, I dare say, not one member of this house would have been in favour of a bill of this kind, but in that time we have seen Norway, Holland, Belgium and France go down, and in each instance these nations have fallen, in a marked degree, because of traitorous activities within their boundaries. Great Britain has realized that situation, and in May of this year, for the first time in its history, the British parliament enacted a similar law for the motherland.
The measure which is being discussed to-day is modelled on the British act. The British passed that act as one of the precautions they have taken to preserve the safety of the state, and I suggest to the house that for just that reason this bill should be accepted unanimously by the Canadian house. The Prime Minister of Great Britain, the Right Hon. Winston Churchill, very nicely summed up the situation with regard to traitors in Great Britain in his speech which was reported in the Canadian press on July 14, in which he said:
Behind these soldiers of the regular army, as a means of destruction for parachutists, air borne invaders-
And I stress the following words:
-or any traitors that may be found in our midst, and I do not believe there are many- woe betide them, they will get short shrift-
I suggest that these are words that might very well be repeated in Canada. No law-abiding Canadian citizen, no matter what his origin, no matter what his descent, need fear this act, because it is for his protection. It is not to hurt him. This bill is meant for traitors, and for traitors only.
In Canada, as the special committee reported on July 2-the report may be found in Votes and Proceedings of that date-there is no adequate measure at the moment for dealing with traitors to our country. We have the treason provisions of the criminal code, as pointed out by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley). But those provisions do not cover the enemy agent who comes over from south of the boundary and commits or attempts to commit acts such as those covered by this new bill. They do not cover men landing say on the Pacific coast from a freighter from across the Pacific ocean and proceeding to do acts covered by this bill. These are acts of the type meant to be covered by this bill. The penalty for treason which has stood in our criminal code for decades is just the same
Treachery Act

as the penalty under section 3 of this bill. It is found in section 74 subsection 2 of the criminal code:
Everyone who commits treason is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to suffer death.
Surely treachery at this time, in this crisis in the life of this nation, is just as great an offence as treason in peace time, and the penalty for treachery, for traitorous acts at this time, should be just as severe.
Other offences not adequately covered at the moment in Canada are spying and sabotage. In Great Britain, as the Minister of Finance pointed out, there is provision for life imprisonment for spying. In Canada the maximum penalty is seven years. That is under the official secrets act passed last year, or the year before. For sabotage in Great Britain there can be imprisonment for life; in Canada we can only imprison for five years because the offence of sabotage is covered only by the defence of Canada regulations. The maximum penalty allowed under the War Measures Act is five years, and of course the defence of Canada regulations are based on the War Measures Aot.
Then in connection with this new bill I would point out that in order to convict an accused of the more serious offences, contained in section 3 of the bill, the prosecution must prove not only intent to help the enemy but also doing, attempting or conspiring to do any act which is designed or likely (a) to give assistance to the naval, military or air operations of the enemy, or (b) to impede like operations of His Majesty's forces, or (c) to endanger life. Generally speaking there must be a civil trial, and there must be a jury. Probably an accused would be charged under both sections 3 and 4, section 4 dealing with the lesser offences, and the punishment under it being life imprisonment. There is little doubt that if two charges were laid against an accused the jury would convict on the lesser offence unless they were convinced that the man was an out-and-out traitor to Canada. Then there is the right to exercise clemency, resting in the governor in council. There is a great protection to the accused. Further, this legislation is only for the duration of the war. It has not been made a part of the criminal code for that veiy reason. Section 11 provides that:
This act shall expire on the issue of the second of the two proclamations specified in section 2 of the War Measures Aot.
I would ask hon. members of the house to support the bill. One of our great mistakes hitherto has been that we have not faced realities. There has been too much wishful
fMr. Green. 1
thinking, too much telling our people the best side of the story. We would have rendered far better service to them if we had let them know the actual facts, good or bad. We can depend on the judgment of our people to do the right thing if they know the facts. We have had enough of wishful thinking in Canada in the present crisis. We in this house and the Canadian people as a whole must realize the alternatives that we face: Are we to continue as a free nation or are we to be slaves? There are those two alternatives, and we might as well face them. This bill in my opinion faces those two alternatives, and I would ask hon. members of the house to give it their support.


Mr. A. G. SLAGHT (Parry Sound):: This legislation in my view is timely, and this is the day and hour for parliament to pass it. We in Canada have been singularly and fortunately free from sabotage. That is largely due to the very efficient secret service which we have in the personnel of the mounted police, and the fact that they did not wait until war was upon us, but for the past two years have been devoting a considerable part of the time of that great staff, formerly only 2,500 men, now increased to some 3,000, to anticipating war and the necessity for interning dangerous people in Canada. We cannot pay too high a tribute to Commissioner S. T. Wood and the secret service force of Canada in that regard.
When war broke with Germany last September plans were ready in advance, over-night raids were made clear across Canada, and in forty-eight hours the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had landed in the net several hundred of the ringleaders and the most dangerous potential saboteurs of German origin. Similarly when Italy declared war on June 10, some weeks ago only, lightning raids were made and a much larger number of dangerous men of Italian racial origin were apprehended. These raids were not reckless haphazard movements; they were the result of patient, relentless, skilled secret service work covering not merely weeks or months but years of concentrated investigation.
Supplementing this great force, good work has been done by provincial and municipal police forces in every province. And besides this our loyal citizenship has to some extent been alive to the dangers from within and has cooperated with the official police and military agencies to counteract the campaign of espionage, sabotage and treachery against which eternal vigilance is necessary.
For my own part I have devoted some special attention to this subject. On May 13, 1939, some fourteen months ago, I gave

Treachery Act
the house details that I had collected as to sabotage in the last war, establishing that Germany had sent to New York $150,000,000 to be used for this purpose alone. These activities were carried out under von Bemstorff, von Papen and other German diplomats in the United States, and the activities which centred in New York at that time covered Canada. My purpose was not to be an alarmist, nor is what I say now intended to cause alarm. Rather I am speaking in the interests of realism, in order that we may recognize the very grave danger facing this country. Our great neighbour to the south has at the present time a full appreciation of this danger from subversive elements, foreign agents and spies. Let me quote the official figures as given by Mr. J. Edgar Hoover, director of the federal bureau of investigation, in his last annual report to Hon. Frank Murphy, United States attorney general. According to this report, during the five years prior to 1938 the bureau had an average of only 35 spy cases annually. In 1938 they had 250 spy cases, but in the fiscal year ending June 30, 1939, no less than 1,651 new spy cases were investigated by that bureau. This was all before there was any war in Europe, while Germany was still proclaiming her peaceful intentions towards the rest of the world and Russia was still wearing the cloak of the peaceful friend of the working man instead of its true robes as the butcher of Poland and Finland.
By passing this law Canada serves notice on all criminally-minded enemies within, or who may contemplate coming to Canada for evil deeds, that they will pay the price for their crimes by being hanged by the neck on the gallows, with the further assurance contained in this new law, as has been explained, that their trial, conviction and execution will be speeded by our courts even beyond our ordinary procedure, which already is regarded as very rapid justice. I think in that regard Canada stands out in the eyes of the nations of the world. I suggest that we should not be misled by the seeming calm at present. The records of the last war disclosed that no real outbreak of this kind occurred until six months after war had begun. To-day as never before the mother country needs what Canada and the United States can furnish. We know the situation, with twelve hundred miles of coast line from the Arctic ocean to the south of France in enemy hands and entirely cut off as a source of supply. The artery between our ports and New York and Great Britain must be kept open to transmit the lifeblood, both in food and munitions, that the mother country must
have if it is to survive, just as the arteries leading to our hearts must be kept open. If we crush subversive elements in connection with our war activities, power, manufacturing and matters of that kind, we shall be doing a great service not only to our own country but to the mother country as well.
Let me quote to the house an extract from Herman Rauschning's book "Hitler Speaks". Rauschning was formerly president of the state of Danzig, as hon. members will recall, and for some years was an associate of Hitler. A few days ago the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) read some extracts from that book, but I think these are particularly pertinent to the topic in hand this morning. Hitler is quoted as saying:
Nothing will be easier than to produce a bloody revolution in North America. North America is a medley of races. The ferment goes on under a cover of democracy.
Rauschning's comment was:
The conversation dealt with the importance of internal unrest as a weapon.
I quote again from page 81 of the book:
The scramble for fodder and distorted ambition-these were the unfailing means to a revolutionary weapon by which the enemy was struck from the rear.
And again:
And as for money for this purpose, there would always be money. It was true that these conspiracy methods grew costlier as one moved further westward. But that was the only difference. They would succeed everywhere. Hitler guaranteed that.
Hon. members will recall that on June 11 the leader of the opposition read some further quotations from that book on fifth column activities, which will be found on page 664 of Hansard and are well worth the study of any hon. member who doubts the need for a measure of this kind. The story of the past three months, as the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) put it, of Norway, Belgium, Holland and even France, makes it clear that the quotations I have given were no idle boasts, because they have been translated into stark, grim reality in these countries. Norway, Belgium and Holland were attacked and invaded; there were no negotiations with regard to any differences, great or small, this ruthless man attacked these peaceful countries overnight, and after that they had no chance to intern alien enemies. Until he made war upon them without warning they had no alien enemies within, because they had no enemies in the declared, official sense of the word. Thus they found themselves in a pitiful plight. This enemy was not merely at the door; the German hordes swept over their borders, and then there was no opportunity to intern those
Treachery Act

within their countries concerned with fifth column activities. We are in a more fortunate position because, as I have said, we have anticipated this sort of thing and taken action to prevent it, and a good job has been done.
Let me indicate a situation which may not be quite apropos to the passing of this bill but which someone should bring to the attention of parliament and the people of Canada. In this country of about eleven million people we have some 140,000 people of Italian origin and some 728,000 of German origin, a total of some 868,000 people having their racial origin in these two enemy countries. These figures probably are conservative; they were given the other day by the leader of the opposition, and I have taken them from him. The great majority of these people are loyal, law-abiding folk; I do not think we should forget that. In their hearts the great majority have nothing but distrust, fear and hatred for the two dictators, Mussolini and Hitler. They know living conditions in Europe; they know the truth as to the iron heel. In Canada they have tasted the joy of freedom and of life under conditions quite unknown in the Italy and Germany of to-day. Their children are being reared and educated to enjoy all our blessings, blessings which have disappeared in Europe. Only a small element among these people have any evil intent. I suggest that in respect of the great majority of them we should show tolerance and even kindliness and sympathy for the position in which they find themselves to-day. They are unhappy in the knowledge of the slaughter and cruelty that is occurring in Europe, and they are sensitive to the glances and the treatment which have been accorded them by some since the war broke out. To all such loyal people of these two racial origins we should show unmistakably our friendship and sympathy in their difficult situation. I suggest that the teachers in the public schools and the parents of our scholars should see to it that our Anglo-Saxon boys and girls do not taunt or ostracize these boys and girls of foreign origin. We all know the mischievous inclination of youngsters to that sort of thing, but it usually disappears with maturity. I suggest that we should do everything to prevent that type of conduct being shown toward these people, and to the same end let the grown-ups have a care in their churches, in their sports and in their social activities. By so doing we will warm these people to the land of their adoption and to the people of the land of their adoption; if we adopt the opposite course we tend to drive them into a sullen or sulky feeling in the belief that they are being unfairly discriminated against.

I am sure that parliament will acquit me of any undue or mushy or sentimental tolerance toward saboteurs and treachery, but I do stress the importance of the plea I have just made. At the same time I reaffirm my belief in the necessity of swift and ruthless treatment of wrongdoers. I should like to close by again quoting from the remarks of Mr. Churchill a short time ago, when he expressed our present-day attitude so splendidly by saying, "I see great reason for concern and vigilance, but none whatever for despair."


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I intend to discuss this bill quite briefly. At the outset let me say that while I consider its provisions quite severe, there is one feature of the measure which commends itself to me. There is a change from the method used under the defence of Canada regulations, in that this bill provides for all the usual facilities of court procedure. My main criticism of the defence of Canada regulations has been and is that the rule of law has been set aside. With this bill the rule of law with all its safeguards still prevails. Having said that, however, let me add that in my opinion the penalties are severe. As a member of the committee which reported this bill to parliament I dissented from the mandatory provision that the death penalty must be imposed by the judge. I have never been satisfied that the death penalty is a real deterrent to crime. A person may be such a menace to society that the death penalty is warranted as a means of getting rid of him permanently, but I believe that after all punishment is meant to reform; consequently I prefer imprisonment to the imposition of the death penalty.
The provisions of the criminal code which relate to treasonable offences are inadequate to meet present day conditions. Among other things, they do not cover those who do not owe allegiance to the crown, such as enemies who without acquiring residence here may come to the country in a clandestine way for hostile purposes and by acts of sabotage endeavour to undermine our system of national defence. I think all members of the committee agreed that that was the fact and that because of the conditions which prevail and the experience of other countries during the past several months a bill to deal with treachery was a necessity. But as I say, I should like to see an alternative penalty provided in the form of a prison sentence. I realize of course that when the alternative penalty is provided a lesser sentence than life imprisonment may be imposed. As has been pointed out, the section provides that intent to do certain things shall be proved. I shall

Treachery Act
not attempt to discuss the section now, beyond saying that I do not like the words "or likely to give assistance to the enemy." I am of the opinion that when a penalty of this sort is to be imposed there should be an obligation upon the court to see that that which has been done was done with the most malicious intent.
We have heard that there has been considerable fifth column activity in certain countries, but it seems to me that in this country we have been looking for subversive activities in the wrong places. We have looked among the poor, among the depressed and among people of alien origin when as a matter of fact the most effective subversive activities in European countries were all hidden from view and were carried on by those in the highest places. We had Quisling in Norway and we had the men in France who were connected with the fascist organizations and who supported Hitler and Mussolini in their first attempt to destroy democracy in Europe by effectively supporting Franco's rebel government in Spain. We must beware lest we overlook people who may be in prominent positions, but who nevertheless are a greater danger to the state than those of humble origin or even those of enemy origin. If the provisions of this bill are to be carried out we should endeavour to find out those persons and associations who have carried on similar activities of a subversive character in our own Dominion of Canada.
I hope that in the enforcement of this legislation great care will be exercised. I should like again to pay a tribute to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). I believe that as long as he is Minister of Justice great care will be exercised and I have no hesitation in placing in his hands the right to make the decisions which have to be made under the bill. But I have some hesitation in connection with other sections of the bill which grant to the provincial attorneys general the right to lay charges. If I may mention one of them-because I think we should be explicit when dealing with nine attorneys general- I have particular reference to the attorney general of the province of Ontario, who for some time it seems to me, has been suffering from a bad dose of war hysteria. I am afraid that much of the criticism of the defence of Canada regulations has arisen just from the kind of enforcement which that gentleman has encouraged in Ontario. It spreads all through the community from the top down. Hysteria is contagious. A small town council in the province of Ontario within the past two weeks instituted proceedings against three men connected with a labour organization for distributing among the workers in New Toronto a pamphlet which virtually summarizes the order in council which the government of Canada placed before this house several weeks ago. That, it seems to me, tends to promote rather than diminish unrest, because our working people feel that they are being deprived of their elementary rights. I know perfectly well that if the New Toronto by-law under which these proceedings were taken were challenged in the courts it would be promptly set aside. Nevertheless we must be vigilant to see that legislation of this kind is not used to encourage some forms of war hysteria, which in turn will promote the very thing we wish to avoid. If large bodies of our people feel that they are prevented from exercising their democratic rights they will become restless, unrest will spread throughout the country, and they will become a prey to insidious fifth column activities.
I should like to see clause 3 of this bill modified. As a member of this house and of the committee, as one who is anxious to preserve our democratic rights in this war period, I recognize that an act of this kind, no matter how severe its penalties may be, is infinitely to be preferred to regulations under which action may be taken because it does give the individual the right of trial in the courts of the land. When we get into committee I shall endeavour to amend the bill, but I realize the necessity of an act of this kind in view of the experience of recent months in Europe. I hope also that the sole power to lay charges against individuals under the act will be under the control of this parliament through its Minister of Justice, and that an alternative may be provided for the death penalty.


Mr. VINCENT DUPUIS (Chambly-Rou-ville):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the
committee which considered the defence of Canada regulations I think it my duty to make a few remarks concerning the attitude of my own group, if I may use that term, towards this legislation. I shall not attempt to make my remarks in the English language lest I be misunderstood by learned statesmen in this sanctuary of knowledge and eloquence-


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Go ahead;
you are doing pretty well.


Vincent Dupuis: With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I shall make my remarks in my mother tongue.


Mr. MacNICOL:: The hon. member will
be well understood in English the way he is going now.
Treachery Act


Vincent Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, as I just said in English, I am a member of the committee which was appointed to consider legislation connected with the war and which, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) has so well explained, brought in a bill respecting treachery, which it called "The Treachery Act," in order to distinguish it from the chapter of the Criminal Code respecting treason.
I intend when the bill is considered in committee to suggest to hon. members the advisability of amending the short title by adding thereto "1940," as in the British act which is entitled "The Treachery Act, 1940."
What is the object of this bill? What led the members of the committee to draft it? The general public, and many lawyers as well, may7 wonder why it is necessary to enact a law respecting treachery when there already is one in the Criminal Code. The answer is that the legislation respecting treason found in the Criminal Code applies only to British subjects. Under its provisions, any British subject who commits any crime therein defined against his majesty, against the person of the king, the queen or a member of the royal family, or against the king's property, is liable to be convicted of treason. But what action could the courts take in the case of a person who is not a British subject and who came to Canada solely to commit acts of sabotage? There is a deficiency there, and it is in order to make u.p for this deficiency in the law that we have recommended the bill now before the house-the Treachery Act, 1940, intended to meet the case of the enemy alien who commits a crime covered by sections 3 and 4.
Section 3 reads as follows:
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other act, regulation or law, if, with intent to help the enemy, any person does, or attempts or conspires with any other person to do, any act which is designed or likely to give assistance to the naval, military or air operations of the enemy, to impede like operations of His Majesty's forces, or to endanger life, he shall be guilty of an indictable offence and shall on conviction suffer death.
As previous speakers have pointed out in English, the committee discussed at length the question of whether the words used should be "shall be liable to suffer death" or, as in the British act, "shall suffer death." We chose the harsher method.
Section 4 reads as follows:
If with intent to assist the enemy any person does any act which is likely to assist the enemy or to prejudice the public safety, the defence of Canada, or the efficient prosecution of the war, then, without prejudice to the law relating, to treason or the provisions of section three of

this act, he shall be guilty of an indictable offence and shall on conviction be liable to imprisonment for life.
Those two sections, as I have just pointed out, will apply to enemy aliens. Should a German or an Italian residing in the United States, clandestinely cross into Canada at some point of the immense boundary line left unprotected because of the bonds of friendship which unite us to our southern neighbour, and commit an act of sabotage in Canada, he would in the event of being apprehended by Canadian justice suffer one of the two penalties provided by sections 3 and 4.
The bill before us authorizes recourse to rigorous measures. For instance, a man arrested in Halifax may be tried in Vancouver. It is well to understand why the committee recommends such a thing. The general rule under the Criminal Code is that the trial should take place in the district where the alleged crime was committed. Changes of venue are granted only when the interests of justice demand them. We have, however, decided by subsection 3 of section 7 that the trial can take place anywhere in Canada.
Supposing-which God forbid-that Canada were invaded. A person having committed in Halifax a crime covered by this bill and having been arrested by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police could not be tried in Halifax if eastern Canada were under enemy occupation. We would then have the right, under this subsection, to hold the trial at any point in Canada not occupied by the enemy.
I come now to section 8 which prohibits bail. I am one of the majority of the committee who favoured this provision. Having observed the subversive methods used by the enemy since the outbreak of the war, his violation of his pledged word and the things he did in Europe, I feel that we in Canada should take all means necessary to prevent acts of sabotage likely .to hinder the successful conduct of the war and that there should be no indulgence for those who commit such acts.


Mr. GAUTHIER:: Hear, hear.


Vincent Dupuis: We have decided, therefore, that no application for bail would be allowed in such a case.
Section 9, which we have adopted, provides a further drastic measure. It empowers the police to enter and search any premises. In peace time, I cherish, as do all other freedom loving citizens, this liberty for the sake of which we are presently at war; for, as everyone knows, we are fighting for an ideal, for a principle. The present war is one of conflicting principles, .principles which, on the

Treachery Act
one hand, ensure us, who reside in democratic countries and have been brought up in an atmosphere of liberty, the right to speak and to act as we wish, and to own the property we desire, as against an ideology which places all power in the hands of one man, the dictator. Thus would we never permit, in normal times, that such a measure be placed on our statute book, nor allow anyone to enter a peaceful and quiet home without first producing a warrant issued by a duly authorized tribunal. However, we are now at war, and, in view of the type of individual we have to guard against. I supported the adoption of this section 9, authorizing the mounted police to enter, without a warrant, any premises where there is good reason to believe or reasonable ground to suspect that the enemy is in possession of information or documents, or perhaps has hidden firearms.
In order that all may fully understand this section, I would like to describe the procedure followed by the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). Before doing so, however, may I take this occasion to thank the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) for his kind remarks concerning the Minister of Justice. Upon being informed, for instance, by a citizen of Joliette county, that there resides in a certain house, in this or that village, a person who appears to be a member of the fifth column, or an enemy alien or a traitor,-


Mr. FERLAND:: There will never be
any in Joliette.


Vincent Dupuis: the Minister of Justice
does not, as one might 'believe, immediately order the mounted police to arrest this man. The minister orders instead that an investigation be conducted among the neighbours, relatives and friends of the suspect. Once this investigation is completed, the investigators submit a report to the minister who passes on this document to the mounted police. The latter then proceed to conduct a second investigation according to their admirable method, which is perhaps the surest, as applied by the most distinguished police body in the world. Members of the intelligence bureau are called upon to take charge of the investigation, and, once it is completed, the minister authorizes the mounted police to enter the premises, arrest all suspects and seize all documents, literature and firearms found therein. These were the measures taken after Canada had declared war on Germany, and, subsequently, when Italy declared war on Britain. As we have seen, these raids were not fruitless. In fact, the mounted police were thus able to find and
confiscate an enormous quantity of documents and firearms as well as useful information.
I have no desire, at present, to speak at great length on this matter, since the bill is bound to be discussed again in committee of the whole, at w'hich time I may take the opportunity of making further remarks concerning it. I would like nevertheless to say, Mr. Speaker, that, at the moment, no other measure could be more timely, and none more necessary, and that we should thank the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) as well as the other members of the committee for their serious consideration of this matter and the very appropriate suggestions they have made. When adopted by the House, this bill will be our safeguard against traitors, it will serve as a warning to those who might intend to take action against His Majesty the King or any Crown property in Canada, and may perhaps prove the best means of preventing sabotage in this country.
In conclusion, may I draw the attention of all members of the house to the fact that this measure respecting treachery is being enacted solely for the purposes of the present war, and that its provisions will lapse immediately upon the cessation of hostilities.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, the battle of the traitor within the gates is only beginning and in this as in other matters we are too late. We should have started long ago. I was glad to hear the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Dupuis), a representative of that glorious nation France, who finds herself in her present *plight because of the activities of the fifth column. I congratulate the chairman of the committee; the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght), and all the other members of the committee, including one of our representatives on this side, the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), on the work they have done. I am not surprised that at last those who have preached pacifism in this house and outside for many years and who have argued that we could depend on peace agreements and protocols and peace pacts should have changed their minds. It is something to be thankful for. It is the best thing that has happened yet to see them face to face with facts. I am glad to see that my friends to my left have come around to the proper view of the whole question, after believing for so many years in shows as the league, pan-Americanism, and the doctrine of collective security. The prophet Jeremiah warned us in chapter 37, verse 19, of what would take place. He made a prophecy with
Treachery Act


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Albemi):: I
should like to make a suggestion to the minister in charge of this bill. I know he will not pay attention to it, but it will take only a couple of minutes and I shall have discharged my responsibility. Section 3 says, leaving out the non-pertinent parts: Anyone who with intent to help the enemy does certain things shall on conviction suffer death. It is in law what I think mathematicians call a postulate that if two or three or four men set out to commit a crime, which may be entirely trivial in character, perhaps petty theft, and on their way in the carrying out of that design, which is illegal of course, they meet a constable and one pulls a gun and kills him, they do not hang only the man who fired the shot, but hang the whole four, on

the ground that they were all of a common party, even though three of them had no gun and no intention of doing anything of the kind.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They are
particeps criminis.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, I know of two cases of my own knowledge; one was particularly pitiful. In the case I am putting three or four men gather together to go out and blow up a bridge. Hang them by all means, because if they succeed they may cause the death of hundreds of innocent people by wrecking a train. But I envision this: the men gather at the home of one of the party before starting out; perhaps the woman of the house gives them coffee, or when they return she dries their clothes-an ignorant woman who may have only a very vague idea of the illegal act in which her husband is engaged. Nevertheless, applying this rule of common law, that woman would be hanged along with the rest.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not likely.


Alan Webster Neill: Not likely, but that is the law. I suggest that the last line might be amended to read that such persons would be liable to death or such lesser penalty as the judge or jury might prescribe; I do not know the correct legal way to express it. I think we should so amend this section that a person who may be not entirely innocent but so nearly innocent as to relieve him of any real responsibility, would not be sentenced to hang under the rule of law I have quoted.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Mr. Speaker, although the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) expressed the approval of the official opposition in regard to this bill, in which I concur, I should like to say a word or two in view of the fact that on several occasions I drew the attention of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) to the danger from subversive elements. In the very excellent presentation made by the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) a few moments ago, he made no reference to the speech I delivered in this house on May 28 last from which I should like to be permitted to read a few words. I was referring to subversive elements, and during the course of my remarks said:
What I ask this government and the Minister of Justice especially is, whether they are so blind in view of what has been revealed as to suppose that Canada is immune.
I meant from the danger of sabotage, and so on.
Those of us who know anything at all about this country know the contrary. We also know that the more expeditiously Canada goes about

Treachery Act
the business of a more intensified war effort, which we were told by the ministers here during the past few days they intend to do, the greater the danger from within. . . .
Perhaps because of the peculiar audacity of the communist agitators working under cover, with orders from Moscow, we have paid too little attention to fascist and nazi activities in our midst. A fact which stares us in the face to-day is that ever since last August the communist, nazi and fascist elements in Canada have made common cause with each other. Their sole objective is to destroy the British empire by whatever means lie at their hands. We are living in a fool's paradise if we assume that Canada, the premier dominion, a dominion with enormous potentialities for assisting tile allies to win the war, is to be excluded from this objective.
A short time ago the hon. member for Parry Sound said he was not an alarmist but a realist. On May 22 I expressed the same view in these words


Vincent Dupuis: Before the hon. gentleman proceeds to read, or reread, his speech, I should like to remind him that according to the rules of this house he has no right to read speeches he made during the same session. I do not want to prevent him from making his speech-


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I was going to read only a short extract. On the occasion referred to, I ventured, to ask the Minister of Justice whether, in view of what had happened recently, he would take a realistic view of the situation. My remarks, however, met with a rather unfriendly reception on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite. During that address, the hon. member for Parry Sound asked me several questions, to which I replied on July 4, as reported at page 1332 of Hansard.
I am very glad indeed that the committee has had its meetings and has come to such a satisfactory conclusion resulting in this eminently satisfactory bill. There is just one other matter to which I should like to refer; that is, to that part of the remarks of the. hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), in which he referred to the attorney general of Ontario as suffering from hysteria. As a medical man that does not seem to me a very nice term to apply to a man occupying a distinguished position.


Major James William Coldwell: What is the medical
term?


Herbert Alexander Bruce: It means an uncontrolled
condition of mind without any physical basis, or as applied in this case, without any facts to support the attitude taken on this particular issue. May I say that the attorney general of Ontario has under his authority the provincial police of Ontario. It is also his duty to appoint two members of the board of police
commissioners of the city of Toronto. Therefore he is in a unique position to obtain important information in regard to the activities of these subversive elements; and if anyone in the country is in a position to act on facts, in a realistic way, it is the attorney general of Ontario. I presume the attorneys general of other provinces would be in an equally fortunate position. Therefore on behalf of the attorney general of Ontario, whom I know to be a man of integrity, I say that if he was active in calling attention to the dangers from within, I am quite sure he had very good reason for the position he took.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has been speaking on behalf of the attorney general of Ontario. I should like to say just a word on behalf of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). If I understood him aright the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) said he had made certain suggestions with regard to subversive activities which had not been given a very kindly reception by hon. gentlemen opposite, meaning on this side of the chamber.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I did not mean by the Minister of Justice but by some members of the house opposite.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am glad my hon. friend has made that clear, because I am sure no hon. member of this house has been more deeply concerned about subversive activities and the necessary action to be taken in relation thereto than has the Minister of Justice. In his absence I should not like that statement to go unchallenged.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I should like to supplement what I said by stating that I have great respect and admiration for the Minister of Justice, who has treated me with courtesy and kindness.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.


Mr. J. A. MARSHALL (Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, with the possible exception of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well), every hon. member who has taken part in this debate so far is a member of the legal profession, and it may seem presumptuous for one who is not a member of that profession to speak at this time. I consider myself fortunate in having been appointed a member of the committee which was set up by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to discuss the defence of
Treachery Act

Canada regulations and make such recommendations as were deemed necessary. In my opinion this committee is the most important committee ever set up by the House of Commons.
Many Canadians hold the view that there are few laws on our statute books through which a clever lawyer could not drive a horse and buggy. But in my opinion this bill is fool-proof. How could it be otherwise when eleven or twelve of the fifteen members of the committee, members of the legal profession, standing very high in the opinion of the courts of this country, placed their seal of approval upon the bill? I am one of the two or three who are not members of that profession and I realize my short-jomings so far as legal training is concerned. It was difficult at times to follow the arguments of some of my associates, but I believe we have a bill which will prove of vast importance to the people of Canada.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to dwell for a moment or two upon the deliberations of the committee. As all hon. members are aware, the sittings of this committee were held in camera. Such a procedure has its advantages and disadvantages. The main disadvantage was the fact that no written record was kept of the proceedings. I found it difficult to bring the salient facts of this bill to the attention of other members of my group without the help of written evidence. But the advantages completely outweighed the disadvantages. The meetings were completely without restraint. The law officers of the crown drew aside the veil and permitted us to look behind the scenes and see how justice operates under present conditions. The government officials who assisted us in our deliberations did not hesitate for one moment to give us all the information we desired. I do not believe that that would have been possible in an open committee. The law officers and government officials would have been compelled to pull their punches, so to speak, and we would have been handicapped in the work of the past few weeks.
This committee was not a political committee in any sense of the term in spite of the fact that the majority of the members belonged to the Liberal party. There was close cooperation among the members and harmony prevailed at all times. We considered that the subjects under discussion were too vital to allow politics to sway our better judgment. War is a cruel business. The forces of totalitarianism will stop at nothing. Fifth column activities present grave and serious difficulties. There are quislings [Mr. Marshall.)
in high places and in key positions in industry. Treason and treachery are rampant in our land. As a committee we had to face these problems and consider how best to deal with the difficulties which confront the Canadian people at this time. We knew we must meet this new threat, this new system of warfare, which is foreign to our nature and to the nature of the British people as a race, with fairness, courage and resolution. We knew we must stamp out these fifth column activities with every force at our command if we were to survive as a nation. As one newspaper aptly put it not long ago when referring to the British government, we knew we must get tough. Speaking prior to the sitting of the committee the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) said that we must have an act with teeth in it. Of course the question naturally arises whether we should make those teeth sharp or blunt.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: Be sure they are not false teeth.


James Alexander Marshall: As I listened to his speech I must confess that I could not see eye to eye with him on that occasion. I could not bring myself to the point of sanctioning a bill which imposed the death penalty for any offence less than murder in the first degree. Yet to-day I find myself supporting the government on this measure, a measure which I hope has sharp teeth in it. I do not wish the house to think that I am vacillating between two opinions. That is not the case. This war has taught us many things, and the notions that we had yesterday are outworn and outmoded to-day. Changes are taking place very rapidly. Everything is at stake in this war. We are fighting not for possessions or power or prestige. We are fighting for independence. We are fighting for our liberty. We are fighting for our very existence.
This act is to be known as the Treachery Act. I know that it is severe. The British as a race are a kindly, humane, long-suffering and patient people. The British nation has been built up on the golden rule of good-will towards all men. Yet the British recently gave their approval to a measure, almost identical in terms with the bill before us, which passed the House of Commons at Westminster. This bill goes far beyond anything which heretofore has been deemed necessary for the effective control of subversive activities in this country. Section 3 of the bill seems to be the most objectionable of all because it imposes the death penalty for major offences, for treachery. I objected in the committee to the severity of this penalty. It was death, nothing more and

nothing less. I still have the feeling sometimes that I should like to see the penalty read ''liable to suffer death".
During the course of our discussions in committee we had the assistance of the law officers of the crown. We learned from them of the subversive activities of individuals and groups in this country and of the perils we may encounter so long as they remain at large, free to carry on their nefarious practices. Let me assure hon. members that there were times in that committee when I felt that hanging or shooting would be too good for some of these human perverts. Just cast your minds back over the march of recent events in Europe. I think of the British statesman who purposely refrained from telling the British people in 1934 that Germany was re-arming and that the British should embark upon an intensive programme of re-armament because he knew that if he told the truth to Britain the government in power might lose the election. When I think of the fate which befell Norway and the treacherous acts of Quisling, and of how France was humbled in the dust because orders to blow up certain bridges went unheeded and because of treachery in high places; when I think that Canada, as I am informed, is full of Quislings and that perhaps our turn may come next in the drama where treason and treachery have played the leading parts, I think this bill is not too severe in imposing the death penalty provided by section 3.
In conclusion I must say that I am not speaking for all the members of this group. I have suggested to them that they support the measure generally, and I believe they will do so, but I have asked them to reserve their judgment on section 3 until they have heard the arguments which I hope will be carefully presented to the house during the next few hours, and then to use their own judgment. I would ask the chairman of the committee, who has done an excellent job thus far, to go into section 3 most thoroughly for the benefit of that small section of the house who are not members of the legal profession and who would like to have a detailed explanation of this important provision of the bill.


Mr. A. J. BROOKS (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I also was a member of the committee which has been studying the defence of Canada regulations and I assisted in preparing this treachery bill. I have sat on some very important committees in the five years that I have been a member of the house and I consider that I have sat on no committee which had more important work to do than the one whose report we are now considering.
I want to pay the same tribute to the members of the committee that was expressed
Treachery Act
by the hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Marshall), who has just taken his seat. The chairman of the committee worked hard and assiduously, as indeed did all the members of the committee, but I am sure that the chairman, in addition to his duties on the committee had many other important tasks to perform between our sittings.
I am sorry that I was not in the house this morning when the bill was being discussed by the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) and the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), both of whom have taken a great deal of interest in the work of the committee and have given valuable service.
As I listened to the statements of people who came here from outside the house to express their views before the committee I was impressed by the sincerity with which they presented their case. I noticed that many of them who came here more or less adverse to some of the ideas of the committee, as expressed, went away in complete agreement with the views taken by members of the committee. The committee was virtually unanimous in its view, and this bill represents their practically unanimous decision. As has been stated by hon. members who have previously spoken, it is a measure much out of the ordinary, but one realizes that we are living in extraordinary times. Otherwise it might seem strange that we Canadians, noted as a peace-loving people, should have such a drastic measure presented to us at the present time. Our history for the past hundred years has been much more one of peace than of war, and under these circumstances I do not believe that as a people we are fully conscious of what mischief could be done through traitorous acts either within our country or outside it.
Opposed to the ideals which we regard as Canadian are the ideals of our enemies the German nazis and the Italian fascists. Their mentality is wholly different from ours. Their hopes and aspirations are entirely opposed to the hopes and aspirations of the Canadian people and the peoples of our great empire. Our. enemies are relentless and implacable. They believe that the end justifies the means. We know from their history during the last number of years that they have not scrupled to try to debauch the peoples of many other countries, particularly those they wished to conquer. They have tried and have proved successful in their efforts to defeat these states, not only by utilizing force from without, but more particularly, I think, through force applied from within. Countries have been mentioned to-day in which these efforts have been eminently successful. We know as regards Norway that when Germany entered that country it was found that traitorous and fifth
Treachery Act

column activities had left it an easy prey to the invader. The same tactics were successfully employed in Holland, in Belgium, in France, and in practically every other country which the German armies have entered during the past ten months. It was these considerations which led your committee, with whom I am sure this house will agree, to the conclusion that a measure of this kind is necessary for the safety of our people.
The committee held most of its meetings in camera, and the reports which were given to us were not open to other hon. members. But may I say that the reports we received from representatives of the Department of Justice and of the Boyal Canadian Mounted Police would persuade, I am sure, the most doubtful member of this house that the action which is being taken is more than necessary. In speaking of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Mr. Speaker, I wish to pay tribute to the members of this force and to say that it is difficult to overestimate the gratitude we owe them for the work they are doing for Canada to-day.
Section 3, providing for the death penalty, is the most important clause of the bill. It has already been discussed by hon. members who have spoken in this debate. In the report which was made not long ago to the house by our chairman, the necessity of this step was pointed out. In my opinion the law is fair and just as regards those who wish to preserve the liberties and safety of our country, and I do not believe anyone can assert that it is the least unfair in its application to those who would work for the destruction of our very existence.
A short time ago Mr. Churchill made some allusion to this subject. May I pause for a moment to pay tribute to one whom I believe to be the greatest man in the world to-day. It would seem to me, as it must seem to many other hon. members and other people in Canada, in the empire, and all over the civilized world, that this man has been given us by divine providence to guide us through these most troublous times. Mr. Churchill said a few weeks ago:
This is no war of chieftains or of princes, dynasties or national ambitions. It is a war of peoples and of causes. There are vast numbers, not only in this island but in every land, who will render us faithful service in this war but whose names will never be known, whose deeds will never be recorded.
Those words, I know, could appropriately be used of many members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police force who are working day and night for the preservation of our country and whose deeds will never be recorded. Mr. Churchill continued:

This is a war of the unknown warrior, but let all strive without failing in faith or in duty, and the dark curse of Hitler will be lifted from our age.
Mr. Cordell Hull, speaking along the same line in the United States a short time afterwards, pointed out that-
Nation after nation has been crushed into surrender, overrun and enslaved by the exercise of brute force combined with fraud and guile.
Fraud and guile are the enemies which we are trying to combat by measures such as this.
Other sections of the bill which were more or less criticized in committee by people who came to present their case are sections 8 and 10. Section 8 has reference to bail. This no doubt will be discussed thoroughly when the bill is considered clause by clause. Section 10 relates to arrest without warrant. To some these sections may seem severe, but I am sure that, in the light of present conditions, they did not seem severe to the committee.
I feel that this bill should commend itself to the judgment of every hon. member of this house.


Mr. BROOKE CLAXTON (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, as a new member I regard it as a very great privilege to have been a member of the committee on the defence of Canada regulations which has been meeting since the middle of June and which brought in the report upon which is founded the bill now under consideration by this house.
I do not want to traverse the ground covered so far to-day by members of the committee who have already spoken. I should like, however, to say a word or two to some of the people in Canada who are greatly concerned lest our civil liberties be unduly endangered by this special legislation or by the creation of special courts.
It is not just an academic expression of opinion to say that freedom is the lifeblood of our institutions. Every member of the committee believed that. Every member of this house believes that. In this war we are faced with the difficulty of reconciling the difference between security in the state and personal liberty. In this bill there is no invasion of personal liberty except for slight ones which I will mention in a minute or two. This bill contains the rule of law, which, with respect for liberty, forms the two principles on which our whole civilization is based; for they represent the essential difference between ourselves and the nazi enemy we are fighting. The differences in respect to which the strict rule of law is not main-

Treachery Act
tained in this bill are contained in section 5, dealing with trials by court martial; section 6, dealing with the expedition of trials; section 7, providing for change of venue; and section 8, prohibiting bail after conviction. It is the view of the committee that in these respects departure from the ordinary rule of law is justified, and in fact the rule of law is proclaimed by putting into this act express provisions to which recourse will have to be had.
This measure has been explained in the speeches already given, but I should like to call the attention of the house to one paragraph in the report to be found at 166 of the Votes and Proceedings for this year. In paragraph 13 of the interim report of the committee which presented the bill, there appears the following:
Attention is drawn to the fact that the draft bill deals only with offences of a major character where intent to assist the enemy is proven and that the defence of Canada regulations still apply to less serious offences.
Earlier in the debate the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) suggested that this bill had been introduced too late and that now it was introduced it should be put into force right across Canada. Well, it has not been introduced too late because so far no offence has been reported which might conceivably come under the provisions of the bill. So far no offence has come to the attention of the police or of the committee which might conceivably be prosecuted under its provisions, and it is declared in the report of the committee, and it is quite clear, from sections 3 and 4 of the bill, that it is aimed only at serious offences involving aid to the enemy of a military or other like.
I do not think reference has been made to the fact that the Treachery Act, from which section 3 and several other provisions of this bill have been drawn, was discussed in the British house on May 22 of this year, a discussion that covered the ground which will be traversed this afternoon. Several members of the British house expressed the fear that the provisions of that act might be used for the purpose of prosecuting people who voiced views which were contrary to what was considered in the interests of the state-in other words against propaganda. The Attorney General of Britain met these criticisms by saying:
I can give a complete and categorical assurance that this bill is not directed against propaganda.
A similar view is expressed in paragraph 13
of the report.
It may never be necessary to use the provisions of this bill; we hope it will never be. If the need arises, however, we shall
have the law ready to be used, and within the four corners of the law we shall have machinery that we can put into operation so as to preserve the security of the state. But loyal citizens of Canada, whether of enemy origin or not, have nothing to fear from the provisions of the bill. It does not strike at civil liberties. It maintains the rule of law. It is in accord with British institutions, with the institutions which have been preached and practised in this parliament. For these reasons, with other members of the committee, I will support the bill.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: I desire to make only one or two observations and I do so in the light of several things that have already been said in this debate on the second reading. The hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) this morning spoke with reference to that section of our population who have suffered to some extent, through no fault of their own, because perhaps they may be of German origin going back several generations. The nation as a whole should regard with a good deal of satisfaction the remarks of the hon. member and try as far as possible to carry out the suggestions he made. I know that in small communities there are opinions which, like gossip, somehow or other spread and grow and the result is the infliction of a good deal of suffering on a certain section of the population who are in fact loyal citizens. One incident in my own constituency was drawn to my attention. A gentleman had a motion picture camera. There is nothing wrong with that, but his name was of Dutch origin, and some people who did not know better thought it was of German origin. The result was that he was labelled in that community and it was a matter of considerable concern to him. Such things are entirely unnecessary. I do believe that Canadians throughout the length and breadth of the country should recognize in this act no infringement upon the liberty of all Canadian citizens.
I might refer to an equally good speech which was delivered by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). He pointed out that fifth column activities were to be found not only among the poorer classes of the people; from experience we have learned that these activities are to be found among, shall I say, the intelligentsia of the nation. In this connection I wonder if I might read a short extract from to-day's Citizen. The hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Jaques) has just handed it to me. On the editorial page there is a reprint of a letter sent to the Manchester Guardian signed H. G. Nicholas. I do not know who the gentleman is, but his address is given as Exeter College, Oxford.
Treachery Act

The letter is interesting and bears upon the subject under discussion. To the editor of the Manchester Guardian he writes:
Sir,-
There are certain things about the French collapse which need saying and which have not yet been said nearly clearly or loudly enough, nor should one's profound sympathy for the plight of France deter one from saying them; for upon their realization depends not only our own safety but also France's ultimate recovery.
In the first place one does not need to be a marxist to recognize in the engineering of the French debacle a clear case of triumph of the interests of a class over the welfare of the nation. Once again, as in Germany during his struggle for power, Hitler has been able to count on the support of that group which prefers property to democracy. The point for us to notice is that France was betrayed not by the forces of the left but by the leaders of the right. The fifth column was not found, where we had so often been told to look for it, among the refugees to whom France gave shelter and whom her government now shamefully surrenders; it was not found in .the working class suburbs or among the socialist, leaders; it was not even found among the communists, who will now have in France's disillusionment such a full harvest for their reaping. It was found, where Franco properly first attributed it, among the financiers, _ the industrialists, the appeasers and the clericals.
Their success was facilitated by two factors which especially concern us. One was the decline of parliamentary morale and integrity for which Daladier must bear so much responsibility, the other the censorship of press and public opinion which cast the country into a mist of conjecture and ignorance and buried the government in a Maginot line of wishful thinking. These factors alone rendered worthless the heroic sacrifices of the French soldiers and workers.
The moral of all this for us is obvious: Not to look for Quislings under the wrong bed- they sleep on beautyrest mattresses-to tolerate no infringement of parliament's powers, and also, since the present parliament is five years removed from the electorate it represents, to insist that no official and no politician is free from responsibility or above criticism. There are weapons of freedom which no nazi armoury can ever possess. Properly used they can bring us victory and France freedom.
After reading that letter I am wondering whether such fifth column activities may not be found, not so much in relationship to personalities but in relationship to powers, to-shall I say-principalities, or to systems. Of course we recognize that no principality, no power operates without human personality; nothing is exercised without the medium of human beings. Somebody is responsible. I am not going into a discussion of just where finance has played its part in what we recognize .might be, if not altogether, at least adjacent to fifth column activities. But I do believe that opportunity should be afforded for open discussion of the whole question, in order that we may put our finger upon the
[Mr. Hansell.l
real reason for France's defeat, which might ultimately mean our own defeat.
Such an open discussion may not be as profitable or as desirable as some of us would like it to be. There seems to be a dark mystery about some of these things. Nobody knows. Sometimes we think we know, and sometimes people express themselves when they do not know what they are talking about. I suppose none of us .is entirely free from that. The other day I placed on the order paper a question asking how many loans had been given to Germany over the past number of years from the Bank of England or through the banking system of Great Britain. The answer I got was, "no information". You see, you cannot get the information. Some time ago I asked for information about the activities of the directorate of the Bank of Canada. We were told that it was not in the public interest to give the information.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not going into this; I am simply arriving at a conclusion. There is 'something hidden underneath these things which nobody can discover but which governments should know. I am asking, not necessarily in connection with this particular bill but in connection with the whole subject related to it, that the Prime Minister give us further assurance-I do not think he gave us assurance enough when the leader of the opposition asked him the other day-that we shall have a secret session. Perhaps it need not last more than half a day or a day, but a secret session at which we shall have no fear of embarrassing the government and where the government would not be embarrassed; at which all parties can get together and ask questions about these things which seem to be so mysterious. As public servants duly elected by our several constituencies we have a right to know some of these things. If the Prime Minister does not care to give us a secret session it may be a temptation to some to discuss these matters openly-yes, as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar says, we shall have to. It might be on the estimates of the Department of External Affairs, for instance. But we do not want to have to do it openly. It would be a source of satisfaction to all parties in the house if the Prime Minister were to give us the opportunity of a secret session at which these matters can be really discussed. I do not know what the fate of Great Britain will be; we are beginning to shake in our shoes a little at the present time-


An hon. MEMBER:: Never.


Ernest George Hansell: Indications are that Germany may soon begin her operations against

Treachery Act
Great Britain. We fear it. I do not know what her fate may be, but let us remember this, that Canada has also declared war on Germany, and we cannot escape responsibility, whatever may be the outcome of nazi operations. I say that, Mr. Speaker, because I still have it in mind that we can get no information as to financial assistance given Germany before the outbreak of war, for example. We are fighting Germany, and we have a right to that information. Your Honour seems to be getting a little restless for fear I may not be strictly within the scope of this bill.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I am afraid I must say
that the hon. gentleman is not staying with the bill. He may not discuss the causes which led to the outbreak of war.


Ernest George Hansell: I	thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thought I noticed you hesitating a little, and I tried to be as careful as possible in this matter. I do wish, however, that the Prime Minister would give us an assurance that before the session closes we shall have an opportunity to discuss these matters.
I should like to develop another line of thought in connection with this bill. I do trust that the people of Canada will not assume that this measure will take away any of their God-given rights in regard to their liberty. I believe all parties in this house are anxious to retain the liberty of our people; but there is always the possibility of misunderstanding, and I am afraid a great many of our people may assume that they have not the liberties they once had. I have in mind religious liberty, for example. Not long ago orders in council were passed declaring that certain organizations in Canada should be regarded henceforth as illegal organizations. I refer to Technocracy Incorporated and Jehovah's Witnesses, otherwise known as the International Bible Students. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) asked for some information as to why these organizations had been declared illegal, and the Prime Minister, answering for the Minister of Justice, said:
However, the literature of Technocracy Incorporated discloses, in effect, that one of its objects is to overthrow the government and constitution of this country by the use of force.
If that is so I have no criticism whatever to offer in regard to the decision of the government. Then the Prime Minister went on:
The literature of Jehovah's Witnesses discloses, in effect, that man-made authority or law should not be recognized if it conflicts with the Jehovah's Witnesses' interpretation of the bible; that they refuse to salute the flag of any nation or to hail any man; and, that they oppose war.
The general effect of this literature is, amongst other things, to undermine the ordinary responsibilities of citizens, particularly in time of war.
I have no criticism to offer in that regard either. I believe the government acted fairly, as I think they always will; but the effect upon the public conscience, particularly in religious circles, may be that certain men will feel that they are not at liberty to teach and preach the bible. I know that is not what the minister had in mind. I had no desire to throw out bouquets unnecessarily, but we do have confidence in the Minister of Justice and we do think he really believes in religious tolerance and religious freedom. Nevertheless in our country there may be people who will feel that they are tied down in their religious views because of this order in council; and further, in ignorance of the facts, they may assume that if they teach the bible in some way or other that might be indirectly interpreted as casting some reflection upon our war effort, they will suffer death. We here know that is not so, and we believe the public should know it is not so. I believe it would help if we had a word from the minister that this measure in no way interferes with the public conscience, with public worship and the teaching of the holy scriptures as men may believe them.
May I interject here that I am not an adherent of nor do I favour Jehovah's Witnesses. I think they are all haywire; I believe they are all wrong. I have studied some of their literature, and I believe they are as far from the truth as any religious sect could be. Nevertheless there is a principle involved, that of religious liberty. If this sect have published anything to the effect that manmade authority or law should not be recognized if it conflicts with their interpretation of the bible, all I would say to them is that the bible itself is very specific in its teaching regarding the responsibilities of a citizen towards the government that is in power. I should like to read part of the 13th chapter of Romans:
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God.
There the writer is referring to the power of magistrates in those days, or the power of governments in their official capacity. I continue:
Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

Treachery Act

For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
For for this cause pay ye tribute also-
That is simply saying you pay taxes in order to be governed, which is proper.


Vincent Dupuis: Do they say anything about the $25 a month?


Georges Parent: Order.


Ernest George Hansell: I am not talking about that. I am reading from the bible, and I think it ill behooves anyone to make a remark of that kind at this time. Any time the hon. gentleman wants to go to the mat with any of us on the Christian principles of the new economics we will go with him any old day he wishes.


Vincent Dupuis: Could the hon. gentleman indicate the section of the bible which justifies the Doukhobors in going naked?


Georges Parent: Order.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not think that question requires any comment. It is not only irrelevant; its impudence is best unnoticed. Now I should like to conclude this Scripture reference:
For for this cause pay ye tribute also; for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
Render therefore to all their dues; tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
No religious body has anything to fear from this legislation. So long as its members are loyal citizens and live according to the laws of the country, they will have nothing to worry about. I do not want to repeat myself, but I wish the minister in charge of the bill would convey to the Prime Minister, who is not in his seat at the moment, what I believe is the desire of the members of this group and perhaps the members of other groups on the opposition side. We ask that opportunity be given to discuss some of these things, which are extremely important in connection with this whole matter, without any fear of embarrassing the government.


Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to participate in this debate, but certain matters have come up which I think make it necessary for me to say a few words.
May I say at the outset that throughout its deliberations the committee on the defence of Canada regulations operated on a purely non-political basis. It was actuated by a desire

to contribute something worth while at this tiying time in our history. I should like to pay a tribute to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) who acted as chairman and whose tact and industry and kindly consideration of the viewpoints of the members contributed much to the progress of the committee's work.
The last speaker (Mr. Hansell) made the suggestion that defeat might come to the empire. When I heard that the realization came to me that at this juncture in our history each of us should have faith, each of us should have a high standard of morale, each of us should be prepared to contribute something to assure victory. To those who say that defeat may come, let me, a Canadian of four generations, say that at this dark hour, when there are those who preach blue ruin, these words of Shakespeare come back to me to give me hope and solace:
This England never did, nor never shall,
Lie at the proud foot of a conqueror,
But when it first did help to wound itself, Now these her princes are come home again, Come the three corners of the world in arms, And we shall shock them. Nought shall make us rue,
If England to itself do rest but true.
Such is the spirit which should actuate us to-day.
The defence of Canada regulations, to which the committee has been giving consideration during recent weeks, contain certain provisions aimed at the activities of calamity-howlers and rumour-mongers. The legislation now before the house k designed to prevent those who would destroy from carrying out their intentions, and it eliminates a defence which heretofore might -have been made by those who had come into the country without owing allegiance to His Majesty the King. In nis eloquent address this morning the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) referred to certain fifth column activities. He pointed out that we have been fortunate in that there has been no sabotage in this country. He paid a well deserved tribute -to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Without divulging in any way the evidence given before the committee, I may say that the hon. member was not at all extravagant in his praise of the mounted police. I refer particularly to their prompt action on September 3 last, and again on June 10, after Italy entered the war.
This legislation is designed to render impotent the quislings and those of like mind for the period of the war. To those who say that they do not believe the death penalty should be imposed, let me point out that the law to-day is that the death penalty shall be imposed upon one who commits

Treachery Act
treason. Treason may be committed in any number of ways. Section 74, paragraph (i) of the criminal code, reads:
(i) Treason is assisting any public enemy at war with his majesty in such war by any means whatsoever.
This section is almost identical with the purport of section 3 of the present bill. This section eliminates a defence which would be available to those who come from foreign countries. There are fifth column activities in North America. According to a recent dispatch published in the Winnipeg Tribune of June 14, fifth column activities in Mexico at the present moment are more open and evident than they were in Holland just before Hitler moved into that country. The dispatch reads:
More evidence of nazi boring from within comes to the correspondent in Mexico than was available concerning nazi activities in Holland a few months before that country was invaded by the Germans. There are striking similarities in the material obtainable, but here there is less tendency to pooh-pooh than there was in smug, self-contained Holland.
Internal politics is the field of operation for the nazi gestapo and their propaganda brethen.
It goes on to point out that a vast organization has been built up in Mexico designed to destroy that country from within. The same is being done in Uruguay, where nazi officers, who migrated to that country after the last war, are busily at work.
This legislation is designed to protect the nation; it is a safety measure to be applied for the continuation of the war only. Those who say that a jury might be fearful of bringing in a verdict of guilty in borderline cases because the death penalty would have to be imposed should remember that an alternative verdict is open to the jury under section 4, -which provides for a penalty of imprisonment for life.
I should like to offer one suggestion. Under our law, corroboration is necessary before treason can be proved. The reason for that is that in time of war it might well be that a man who has some feeling against another might secure the conviction of that man by the evidence he might give. That is why in treason and certain other offences it becomes necessary for the crown to bring forward, in addition to the evidence of one witness, corroborative evidence in a material particular. I suggest for the consideration of the minister when this bill gets into committee the addition of a paragraph providing that section 1002 of the criminal code shall apply to prosecutions under this act.
Section 7, subsection 3, which deals with the trial of persons charged with offences against the act, provides in part:
95826-122J
A person charged with an offence against this act who is in Canada may, whether or not the offence was committed in Canada, or in any British ship or aircraft registered in Canada, be taken in custody to any county or place in Canada, and, subject to the order of any superior court judge who is hereby authorized to make such order, may be proceeded against, indicted, tried and punished in any county or place in Canada, as if the offence had been committed in that county or place, and for all purposes incidental to or consequential on the trial or punishment of the offence it shall be deemed to have been committed in that county or place:
The provisions of the code to-day are that the accused shall be tried where the offence was cojnmitted. The reason for that is obvious. The jury will have a general knowledge of the local circumstances, an appreciation of local sentiment, and in general a knowledge of the accused. My suggestion to the Minister of Finance is that provision might be made to permit of a change of venue, as is provided for to-day in the criminal code, but that in general the trial of all accused persons shall take place where the offence was committed. Otherwise there might be criticism that the crown, in its desire to get a conviction, found it necessary to change the venue to a district where public sentiment had been so aroused that the accused might not receive a fair trial.
There is one thing about this legislation which I like. Some reference has been made to the fact that we are destroying liberty in our midst. Well, Mr. Speaker, there are many things which we have found it necessary to abrogate in the interest of the safety of the state. Britain found it necessary so to do, and, as the house has already been reminded, the British parliament in May last, in a matter of two hours and a half, placed in pawn, as security for victoiy, rights that had been gained and enjoyed for a thousand years. We do not by this legislation take away from any accused, whoever he may be, except an alien enemy under certain circumstances, the right to have his case tried by a jury of his peers.
This proposed legislation will strike terror and fear into the hearts of those who would destroy this nation. Such persons fear the death penalty. The death penalty is accepted in the case of murder because murder consists in destroying with intent the life of another human being. This legislation applies where by conspiracy the lives not of one but of many within the state may be destroyed by those who have taken refuge within the state.
The committee throughout its deliberations and in presenting this bill to the house was unanimous, as has been stated by the Minister of Finance, except on the question of the sentence of death being obligatory, to which
Treachery Act

the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) took exception. I think the fear that some have in that regard might be removed by a provision that no conviction shall be registered on the uncorroborated evidence of either an accomplice or of others.
That this legislation is necessary is admitted in all parts of the house. As the last speaker has said, no one who has not a guilty mind, no one who will not work against the safety of the state has anything to fear. This is a precautionary measure. Our parliamentary institutions would be destroyed by treacherous persons operating from within if they were given the opportunity, believing as they do in the regimentation of mind and soul and body for the state. That doctrine, Mr. Speaker, is one which is foreign to us in this nation, and I for one intend to support this bill in the house as I did in committee, believing as I do that such persons will suffer the consequences of their treachery.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Yien in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I understand that the primary reason for this bill is twofold. First, the present law against treason does not go quite far enough because of the lack of jurisdiction over persons who may not be domiciled in Canada. Second, the penalty under the statute, if I understood the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) correctly, is not considered sufficient. I am surprised at that last observation, because section 74(2) of the criminal code provides:
Everyone who commits treason is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to suffer death.
It would appear to me that if a person is found guilty of treason as defined in section 74 of the criminal code, there is no alternative but death. If a person is not convicted of treason, there is, of course, no penalty at all. I must confess that I do not quite grasp the point of the observation made by the minister. None of us, I think, has ever had a case of treason-I have not-but I have always been taught at law school that the statute provides for the death penalty on conviction for treason.
Some time ago I started to make a brief on this bill. I did not get very far, but for the information of hon. members I should like to make these statements as the result of a little research.
According to the common law the duty of allegiance is based upon the relation which subsists between him who owes it and the crown, and upon the privileges derived by

the former from that relation. Allegiance is either natural or local. Natural allegiance is that which a natural-born subject owes at all times and in all places to the crown as head of that society of which he is a member. Local allegiance is founded upon the protection which a foreigner enjoys for his person, his family and effects during his residence here -and I assume that that means domicile, while he is domiciled here, although there is a distinction between residence and domicile. If such foreigner during such residence here commits an offence which in the case of the natural-born subject would be treason, he is dealt with as a traitor, and this is so whether the sovereign be at peace or at war.
That, I believe, is the common law of England, and of course it is the common law of Canada. Unless the extension of the principle is to cover those who are not resident or domiciled here, the law would appear to me to be sufficient as at present. I am not controverting the bill; I am going to support it, but I should like to have it made clear that this is the reason for the extension of the principle.
It may be of some interest at this juncture if I refer to a case in the King's Bench in England, ex parte Liebmann reported at (1916) 1 Kings Bench, 268. In that case it was held that a German national who has obtained his discharge from German nationality but who has not become a naturalized British subject is under the provisions of German law in a privileged position, does not become entirely divested of the rights of a natural-born German, and therefore may be considered as an alien enemy. This is a matter of law which, I think, might usefully have been brought to the attention of the committee. I did not do so, I do so now.
I wish the minister would make some reference to two points which I have raised. One is the necessity of domicile under the present law and the absence of necessity of domicile, if I may put it in that way, under the proposed act. The other point was on the question of punishment. It is not clear to me that under the present law the death penalty in the case of conviction for treason is not imperative. I hope I have made my points clear.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There are, I think, three
reasons rather than two for enacting this capital offence section instead of relying on the section of the criminal code relating to treason.
In the first place the definition of treason in the criminal code is not very precise. I do not know that there is much of a definition in the code; I think that "treason" is left

Treachery Act
to the common law definition and that one has to go to the cases to find out what is and what is not treason. I may be wrong, but that is my recollection. At any rate, the definition in section 3 of this bill is much more precise and certain than the definition in the code.
Second, with regard to the matter of allegiance, I have not understood that domicile is the test. I thought that residence was the test. There are authorities to the effect that a person residing here and adopting or accepting the protection of our laws and our institutions is said to owe allegiance to his majesty in such a way that he may be guilty of treason under the section of the code relating to treason. But I should be surprised to learn that his residence has to be domicile as well.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think the hon. gentleman is right.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Perhaps the matter is not of great importance. At any rate persons coming into this country for a short time and going out again, perhaps entering it clandestinely, and doing so for the purpose of committing swift acts of sabotage, are not residents in such a way as to make it possible to say that they owe allegiance to his majesty, and thereby come within the provisions of the section of the code relating to treason. Now the provisions of this bill apply to those persons, and that, I think, is the second and the best reason for enacting this clause.
Finally, on the question of punishment, I may say that of the fifteen members of the special committee which dealt with the defence of Canada regulations, eleven were lawyers, and with the exception of one of these lawyer members all, I think, assumed that under the wording of the treason section relating to punishment-that is, that the accused if convicted shall be liable to suffer death-the judge had a discretion. The wording of the section is different from the wording of the section relating to murder. I have always thought, and I have never had a vestige of doubt about it, that there was in the criminal code only one offence mentioned for which the judge was obliged to sentence a person to death, and that was murder. I know I have heard that time after time, and I did not have any doubt about it. When the authorities were consulted it was found that the wording of the section relating to punishment for treason is different from the words used in England. Treason is treated in England the same as murder; at any rate that is my recollection-I will not be too definite about it. We were advised that it was by no means certain that an accused,
upon being convicted of treason, must be sentenced to death by the presiding judge. The words are not words of obligation. The words are not, "shall suffer death" but "shall be liable to suffer death." The judge may sentence that person to death or may not, just as he wishes. He has no discretion to reduce the penalty to another form of punishment; therefore his option is to sentence the prisoner to death or to let him off altogether.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Of course that would be a travesty of justice. I will tell the hon. gentleman that my authority for assuming all through these years that there was a liability to death and to nothing else is Doctor Richard Chapman Weldon, of Guelph, who was the dean of the Dalhousie law school which I attended and who was a member of the committee of this house who drew up the original criminal code. I can remember distinctly that forty years ago he told us that in the course of lectures on crime. I have no objection to the change, though I was surprised at the minister's statement in that regard. The language of the code is as the minister stated; the provisions for the punishment of murder are more mandatory. The only construction that could be taken out of subsection 2 of section 74 is that on conviction the accused must suffer death. However, it is purely an academic question; I will not pursue it further.


Vincent Dupuis: In the committee we were unable to come to a decision on the point I am about to raise. I suggest that we should find a term that could be translated into French so that we could differentiate between the chapter in the criminal code which deals with treason and this Treachery Act. There is no difficulty in the English language. In the criminal code the chapter is headed "Treason". This bill is called "the Treachery Act". When you come to translate that into French, however, "treachery" has not the same meaning. The translator, in the copy of the bill before us, calls it "La loi concernant la trahison", and in section 1 it is called "loi sur la trahison". Consequently there may be a misunderstanding among lawyers in places where the matter is dealt with in the French language. I was trying to devise some means of facilitating the translation, and if I may be allowed, I suggest that we follow the English statute in this respect. The English statute is called The Treachery Act, 1940. In French it would be "La loi de trahison, 1940". That would be an advantage so far as the French translation is concerned.


Mr. CARDIN:: I suggest to my hon. friend that there is a French equivalent of the word treachery-"traitrise".
Treachery Act


Richard Burpee Hanson: If my hon. friends are agreed, I am satisfied.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The actual translation in the French copy of the bill is: "Loi sur la trahison".


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Death penalty for treachery.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It has been represented to me by the officers of the Department of Justice that in the law clerk's office the word "like" in line sixteen has been changed to the word "such". This would be in accordance with the English act. I therefore ask my colleague to move that this section be amended accordingly.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I move that the word "such" be substituted for the word "like" in line 16.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I have not examined the English act, but I suppose it carries the phrase "with intent to help the enemy"; that is, you have to prove guilty intent before you can convict?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is that ever omitted from any of these statutes? That is the difficulty in getting a conviction, as any man knows who has prosecuted under any statute that lays upon the prosecution the onus of proving intent. I would be willing to leave that out if it would strengthen the act and if it were considered necessary.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is too dangerous.


Mr. COLD WELL:: I had hoped that some phraseology would be found, without conveying any idea that we did not desire to punish treachery to the utmost limit, to give the court an alternative to the death penalty. Under war conditions and in the excitement which is involved in a war, it is altogether likely that evidence may be taken which, upon maturer consideration, might not result in the laying of the major charge; because sections 3 and 4 are very much alike except to the degree, in the one instance, of actually assisting the armed forces of the enemy and, in the other, of interfering with the safety of the country and thereby assisting the enemy.
As members of the committee may remember, we thought that the words "liable to suffer death" instead of the words "shall suffer death" would meet the situation. I could not hear all the discussion that took place just now between the leader of the opposition and the Minister of Finance, but they were
rMr. Cardin.)
probably discussing that point. We were told, however, that the words "liable to suffer death" would have the same effect as the words "shall suffer death" and therefore the bill has been drafted in that way, because a large majority of the committee felt that the crime was sufficiently grave to warrant the imposition of the death penalty. I can conceive of instances in which that penalty might be justified. On the other hand I can conceive of many instances in which there might be an element of doubt. If a man has been executed there is no way of bringing him back to life, whereas if we kept him in prison for the rest of his days, after the war, on maturer consideration, we might find that there was some doubt and he might be permitted to live and even to resume his ordinary status in the country provided he was able subsequently to prove his innocence. I am not going to prolong the discussion; this has been the subject of a long inquiry by a committee and a longer debate in the house than was, I think, anticipated. I content myself with moving that the clause be amended by adding thereto the words: "or shall be liable to imprisonment for life."
I am quite aware of the fact that imprisonment for life does not mean altogether what it says, that a lesser sentence than life imprisonment may be imposed. But I believe that the alternative should at least be provided.


James Lorimer Ilsley: This is the same question, as the hon. gentleman knows, that was discussed at length by the committee. I do not think my colleague the Minister of Justice would be prepared to accept that amendment. Certainly the overwhelming majority of the members of the committee would never forgive us if we did.


Major James William Coldwell: I said that.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Before the amendment is put, may I have a word? The committee will recognize that by section 7 the bill provides that the crown officer whose duty it is to draw a bill of indictment against any given prisoner is given full power to charge in the same indictment under three or even more separate counts: first, a charge under section 3, punishable only by death; next he may charge under another count an offence against section 4, punishable by up to life imprisonment, but under the provision of the code that may be graded down to even three months or three days. In addition to that, another count may be included charging an offence against the provisions of the defence of Canada regulations, -which are not before us to-day but which hon. members

Treachery Act
will know are offences of a much less serious nature than those outlined in either section 3 or section 4. Therefore, in a case where conduct is bad but the crown officer or the Minister of Justice or the attorney general of a province thinks that if a charge were laid only under the death penalty section, any jury would, on humane grounds, be inclined to convict, the other type of charge may be included.
Bearing that in mind, let me point out the safeguards which a man has before he could be hanged if charged under section 3 alone and found guilty. In the first place, the Attorney General of Canada, the Minister of Justice, must consent to his being indicted on such a charge. Next, he must or can be charged before a magistrate on a preliminary inquiry, just as in any ordinary trial, and the magistrate has power to refuse to commit him for trial. If the magistrate commits him for trial, the crown officer has then to draw up a bill of indictment and place it before the grand jury. If the grand jury feel that the facts do not warrant the charge, out it goes on that occasion. If it passes the grand jury, the accused is tried before a petit jury, in the ordinary course, and there he takes his chance of conviction or acquittal. If convicted, he has the right of appeal to the court of appeal of the province in which he resides, and that court of appeal, if an error has occurred, may reverse the verdict of guilty. If the provincial court of appeal confirms the verdict but there is a dissenting judgment by one judge, the accused may appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada to set aside the conviction, and after all that, if the conviction is still sustained, he has the right of approaching the crown for the exercise of the prerogative of clemency by the governor in council, and may present a petition for commutation of the death penalty to life sentence or a lesser penalty.
It seems to me that when the offence is of this nature and when conviction of guilt is dependent upon the crown proving intent of that kind, we have provided ample safeguards against miscarriage of justice.
Amendment (Mr. Coldwell) negatived on division.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
On section 5-Prosecution, trial and punishment of offences.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why is it that the consent of the Attorney General of Canada only is required? I refer to subsection 2, which reads:
No prosecution in respect of any offence against section 3 of this act shall be instituted
. . . except by, or with the consent of, the Attorney General of Canada. . . .
Why should the attorney general of the province not be one of the parties who could give consent? I think that is important, for this reason: What is the institution of the prosecution? It is the laying of information, the basis of the whole jurisdiction. Anyone who has had anything to do with criminal law will agree with that primary principle, that unless the information is there, there is no basis of jurisdiction. If the matter has to go to the Attorney General of Canada, in a country as far-flung as this, there is the possibility of grave delay in instituting the prosecution. I see no harm at all in leaving it to the consent of the attorney general of any province. After all, while this is an offence against the state, under the theory of the administration of our criminal law the provinces are charged primarily with that administration. We make the law; they administer it. I am not going to offer any amendment if the ministers in charge desire that this power shall be limited to the consent of the Attorney General of Canada, but I point out that in a country of the size of Canada with the possibilities of delay in communications, with no prosecution being instituted without his consent there might be delays in instituting prosecution in a proper case. An attack, with which I disagree, was made here to-day on one of the attorneys general of the provinces. But I think the minister should give some explanation why this power is limited to the Attorney General of Canada.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is a very important offence, connected with the war; a capital offence.


Richard Burpee Hanson: So is
murder.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Murder is not always connected with the war. This is in the nature of a political offence, and it was felt by the committee, I think rightly, that in regard to these capital offences under section 3 the Attorney General of Canada should be the one authority having the power to give consent to the institution of the prosecution.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Of course, if Canada were a small country geographically, like England, I could understand that; but I point out that there is a distinction because of our geographical situation. However, I shall not press the matter. I think I have done my duty when I direct attention to what I consider a weakness in the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 6 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
On section 10-Arrest without warrant.
Tariff Board
Richard Burpee Hanson: This is an extension of the principle of the right of arrest without warrant, is it not? Does this principle appear anywhere in the criminal code; that is, whereby a peace officer may arrest without warrant, on reasonable grounds for suspecting? I tried to look it up hurriedly, but I did not have a chance to do so. I do not think there is any such provision, and it seems to me that this is quite an extension of the principle.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is a similar provision in the defence of Canada regulations, but this does go a little further than corresponding provisions of the criminal code.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I feel sure that there never was authority in the criminal code for arresting a man without warrant, on mere suspicion.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 11 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
On the title:
Arthur Graeme Slaght: I should like to dissociate myself from the attack upon the attorney general of Ontario, lest that attack be understood as including generally the members of the committee.


Major James William Coldwell: I had no intention of suggesting that I was doing other than expressing simply my own opinion.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed. FARMERS' CREDITORS

Georges Parent: I have the honour to
inform the house that a message has been received from the senate acquainting this house that the senate doth insist on its amendments made to Bill No. 25, to amend the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, 1934.



TARIFF BOARD


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 114, to amend the Tariff Board Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Vien in the chair.

On section 1-Pensions.
James Lorimer Ilsley: I promised the leader of
the opposition (Mr. Hanson) or the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. McCann), or both, that I would give them some information when this bill was in committee. I was asked what Mr. McKinnon's pension would be if he elected to continue under the Civil Sendee Superannuation Act. I find that his pension, if he retires at the end of his term, will be $3,466.66 per annum. If he should continue beyond the end of the term, by reentering the civil service or continuing as a member of the board by reappointment until the age of sixty-five, his pension at that age would be $4,385.66.
With regard to the point made by the hon. member for Renfrew South that a committee had recommended that no pensions in excess of $4,000 be paid under the Civil Service Superannuation Act, I find that the recommendation was to relate only to new contributors. Mr. McKinnon has been contributing to the fund for something over ten years. Even if that recommendation were accepted, it would not apply to him, because he is not a new contributor.
Mr.	HANSON	(York-Sunbury):	In	any
event his superannuation would not be more than $4,000?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Not if he retired at the end of his ten-year term.
Mr.	HANSON	(York-Sunbury):	But if
he went beyond that, he might go over $4,000?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is correct.
Mr.	HANSON	(York-Sunbury):	In	anyevent, as I understand it, he would not come within	the recommendation made	by	the
committee?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is correct.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It might be appropriate at this time for me to make a statement with respect to the civil service. On Tuesday, July 16, during the course of the discussion in this house on unemployment insurance I made the following statement, which I quote from Hansard of that date at page 1655:
I have always marvelled at the mentality of a man who wanted a government job, and I have advised many a young man to forget about it, to get out on his own, to solve the problems of existence for himself, and enjoy the happy state of security as the result of his own efforts. . . . That, to my mind, is the advice we ought to give the young men of this country who want a government job: Go on your own.
I have been amazed and, I may add, seriously disturbed, by the false interpretation placed upon these remarks by a large number of people, some of them in the civil service. In

Canadian Wheat Board
some quarters my remarks have been, construed as an attack upon members of the civil service. No thought was further from my mind. It may be that my form of expression was unhappy or misleading, but what I was endeavouring to do-I realize fully that I was undertaking a notoriously thankless and dangerous task-was to offer from my own experience and years a word of advice to the young people of this country. It has seemed to me that in recent years, due largely to unfortunate and deplorable conditions of unemployment, our young people have more and more come to lean upon other than their own efforts in achieving success in their life work. I was attempting-it may have been a clumsy attempt-to stir up that initiative, that go-ahead spirit and that independence which I know is only latent and by no means dead in the youth of Canada. In other words, if I may say so, I was giving a warning against an attitude of regarding government positions as a sort of refuge of the afflicted. There was no thought in my mind of those whose honourable and successful careers have been in the civil service.
May I be permitted to add that never, throughout what public service I have given, have I attacked in any way members of the civil service. It will perhaps be recalled that when I had the honour to preside over the Department of Trade and Commerce I made no changes in the staff of that department, nor was it necessary for me to do so. I was served faithfully and well, and I think I can say without fear of contradiction that I endeavoured always to accord fair and just treatment to the staff who served me. As a matter of fact. I did not bring in my own secretary, which I was entitled to do under the law and which practice many ministers follow. I was content to' take a man from the department. I would not have it go'out that I was making an attack upon anyone, but neither have I any apology to make for anything I said.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed. CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, July 24, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. MacKinnon (Edmonton West)-Mr. Vien in the chair:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act to provide for exigencies arising from loss of over-95826-123
seas markets for wheat, from the large existing stocks of wheat in Canada, and from the problem of handling the 1940 wheat crop.
James Lester Douglas: Mr. Chairman,
I propose to leave the bulk of my remarks until the bill is before the house and we are in possession of all the details regarding the government's policy in this matter. I want, however, to say a word or two with reference to the statement made yesterday by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon). First of all, I want to protest against the lateness of the hour at which this matter is being submitted to the Canadian parliament. One of the Ottawa papers carried a news item yesterday to the effect that wheat had been delivered last Tuesday to some Alberta elevator. Here it is July 25; we have wheat coming into our elevators and we are only getting an inkling of what the government's policy is with reference to the marketing of the 1940 crop.
I want to protest against the fact that the government have not seen fit to carry out the promise which they made to the Canadian people last winter to appoint an advisory committee to the wheat board. In his statement yesterday the minister said that the personnel of the advisory committee to assist the Canadian wheat board would be announced shortly. Apparently it is to be announced after the policy has been formulated, after the members of the wheat board have been in Ottawa for some days or perhaps a week in conference with the government. When the personnel of this committee is announced they will have nothing left about which to advise. There was no reason why this committee could not have been appointed immediately after the election. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and other members of the government announced last February and March that, if elected, the government would appoint an advisory committee to the wheat board with producer representation. They did not say that this committee would be appointed after the wheat policy had been formulated and after the wheat crop had begun to move into the elevators. I consider this failure to keep faith with the Canadian people a definite betrayal of the trust which was reposed in the government.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Is it the understanding of the hon. gentleman that this advisory council or committee was to advise on amendments to the act? Was it not to advise on the policy to be followed with regard to selling or not selling wheat from time to time?


James Lester Douglas: I understand the Canadian Wheat Board Act to state that the purpose of the advisory committee is to

Canadian Wheat Board

help in formulating a policy with respect to the marketing of wheat. The legislation now being brought down has to do with the marketing of that wheat. Once this legislation has been brought down, the wheat policy is more or less fixed for the crop year 1940. If the producers were to have any part in formulating this policy they should have been acting in an advisory capacity to the wheat board for the past six weeks or two months.
I want to express my regret that the government have not seen fit to comply with the requests repeatedly made by opposition groups in this house that the Winnipeg grain exchange be closed for the duration of the war. The minister said yesterday:
At the present time the government has decided not to request closure of this market. This decision was made after consultation with the cereals _ import committee of the United Kingdom Ministry of Food who strongly recommend that the market be left open.
I suggest that responsibility in this matter cannot be passed on to anyone else. The Canadian government must decide whether or not men are to be allowed to speculate in connection with a product so vital to a great part of western Canada. This responsibility cannot be passed on to the cereals import committee or anyone else.
While I am speaking of the grain exchange may I remind the committee that last year this house, on the eve of a general election, passed an act for the supervision of the Winnipeg grain exchange, and a supervisor was to be appointed. Why has that legislation never been implemented? Why has that supervisor never been appointed? Was it merely a grand flourish on the eve of an election, or did the government really intend to implement that legislation? If they did, why have they not done so? Surely we should have some light thrown on that when the government bring down their bill.
I notice that the minister yesterday made a statement with reference to the 1939 wheat crop interim payment which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) had recommended to the government for consideration. The minister's statement, which is interesting, is as follows:
Provision is also being made to authorize an interim payment on producers' participation certificates, at a time when such payment cannot possibly result in a loss to the board.
Of course that is not the proviso which was added to the statement that was made last year during the last election campaign. The impression that went out then, certainly in Saskatchewan, was to the effect that there would be an interim payment on the 1939 participation certificates.


Mr. CRERAR:: Does my hon. friend favour providing for an interim payment where it might result in a loss to the treasury?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am not
going to take seriously a question like that from the minister.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Read the statement that the Minister of Agriculture made.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The Minister of Mines and Resources knows perfectly well that no person in his right senses is going to suggest that such a payment should be made when it will result in a loss. The minister also knows that the act provides that no payment can be made until all the crop has been disposed of, all the wheat sold and ail the money received for it. But the impression that went out during the election campaign, and not just to the people who were listening to the Minister of Agriculture but to the newspapers, was that provision would be made for an interim payment before all the wheat had been sold, before the government had a guarantee that there would be no loss. The Minister of Mines and Resources need not shake his head. I have quoted before the statement which the Minister of Agriculture made and I quote it again. This is from the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of Thursday, March, 21:
Wilkie, March 21-Definite promise of amending legislation to provide for a 10 or 12 cent interim payment on the current year's wheat crop was made here Wednesday afternoon by Hon. J. G. Gardiner. The Minister of Agriculture declared that if the King administration was returned to power the present bill would be changed so that a payment might be made as soon as possible.


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: I think the Minister of Agriculture has denied that statement.	<


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I was just going to say that. He said that what he said was that he would recommend it, but not that he would recommend that a payment be made when it was absolutely certain there would be no loss. In that event there would be no need to change the act in that respect at all because it provides now that payment shall be made when all the wheat is sold and it is known there is not going to be any loss.
I think the minister is to be commended for removing the 5,000 bushel limitation. That was a difficult clause to enforce, and I have felt increasingly that it was an unfair feature.
The price is to remain the same, 70 cents, No. I northern, basis Fort William. I know the government have a problem and a very definite one in trying to dispose of this wheat;

Canadian Wheat Board
yet the fact remains, and we must face it, that farmers cannot grow wheat under present economic conditions for 70 cents a bushel, basis Fort William.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is not right.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister says, that is not the fact, but the Dominion Bureau of Statistics shows what price the farmers have received for their wheat over a period of years. From 1930 to 1938, a period which includes the depression years, the farmer received 56 cents a bushel. The year before last, 1938-39, the farmer received 59 cents a bushel, and last year, 49 cents, the lowest yet, for average grade at point of production. The bureau of statistics shows that the 30-year average wheat price has been 93i cents a bushel at the point of production. With costs on the upward trend the western farmer is facing a financial loss with wheat at 49 cents a bushel.


Mr. McNEVIN:: Is it not true that the 30-year average price includes the high-price war years?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, and the 1930-38 average price includes the worst depression years, the average price in that period being 56 cents. Here we are with prices rising on almost everything the farmer has to buy, and a 10 per cent duty now placed on goods coming in from the United States, and the farmer is expected to produce at 49 cents a bushel, average grade at point of production. I say it cannot be done. It can be done perhaps by a small select group of farmers who have large mechanized units, a man with a two-section farm highly mechanized, but according to Professor Hope that group comprises only about one per cent of the farmers in Saskatchewan. The large farmers can perhaps produce economically at that figure; but for the small farmer, the man who makes a home of his farm and is running not a wheat factory but a small farm of a quarter or half section, farming with horses and partly with tractors, it is going to be increasingly impossible to produce at 49 cents a bushel, and someone near me suggests it is going to be even worse for the mixed farmer.
The government ought to give consideration to the possibility of fixing a price commensurate with the cost of production for the first 1,000 or 2,000 bushels, and then tapering off the price as larger quantities are delivered. Otherwise the great mass of farmers who operate small farms are not going to be able to farm economically at this price.
There are one or two matters upon which I hope the minister will enlighten the committee, 95826-123i
either on the resolution or when we come to the bill. In his statement yesterday, speaking of the delivery of wheat to the wheat board, he said:
This plan rvill enable every producer to deliver a portion of his crop at the outset. The amount to be delivered will be based on the total available supplies of wheat and the available storage space. As the season progresses this quota will be advanced as exports and other outlets ease the storage situation. In brief, the plan is to use all storage space, country and terminal, east and west to the best advantage of all producers.
For that portion of the crop which cannot be accepted during the fall months the government recommends that an allowance be made to the producer to compensate him for the storing of wheat on his own farm.
I think that is an excellent suggestion, but we need to know one or two things. We ought to know first of all what the farmer will receive for that portion of his wheat which he does not deliver to the wheat board in the fall. The minister said that the farmer will be compensated for storage. But will the government give him an advance on that wheat? Will they buy it outright and the farmer store it on his farm for the board? Most of these farmers, unless the initial amount of wheat they are allowed to sell to the board is fairly large, will not have sufficient cash to carry on their operations. I ask the minister to tell us now or later how the financing will be done. Will the farmer who keeps his wheat on his farm get an advance on it, or will he be paid outright for it and receive a storage allowance?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Would my hon. friend
recommend that that be done?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Recommend that what be done?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Would my hon. friend recommend that the government buy the grain outright and store it on the farm?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No, but what the government could do is pay a substantial advance.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am asking what my hon. friend would recommend.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am recommending to the minister that a substantial advance be made to the farmer, sufficient to enable him to finance. That is, if he is going to be allowed to sell only a certain amount of wheat in the fall, and he has to carry the rest, he can carry it only if there is a sufficient cash advancement to enable him to carry on his fall operations, be ready for his spring operations, and provide for his family in the winter. Is the Minister of
Canadian Wheat Board

Mines and Resources opposed to that? The minister is better at posing questions than answering them.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I think, if you ask me, the suggestion is moonshine.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Then it ought to be incorporated in the government policy. I can assure the minister that it will be quite at home there.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The hon. member must be Irish.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The next
problem which arises in this connection is the question of storage facilities on the farm. As hon. members, particularly those from the west, know very well, the average farmer has not many storage facilities. His habit increasingly has been to draw wheat straight to the elevator. Some farmers, if they have much crop, will have to provide storage facilities by building granaries. That means buying lumber. That means getting credit. Has the government in mind any means by which credit could be extended, by which arrangements could be made with financial institutions or with municipalities to enable the farmers to build granaries on their farms? The average farmer is not in a position to lay out a large sum of money in a capital expenditure to build granaries to store this wheat on his farm.
That raises another question. If the farmer is not going to be allowed to deliver all his wheat to the wheat board and sell it outright, but has himself to carry part of the load, some arrangement will have to be made by which he can deal with his creditors. What arrangement will or can be made with the various debt adjustment bodies, or through the banks by extending credit, to see to it that when the farmer's creditors come around they cannot seize his machinery, or to ensure that interest charges will not be piling up? We must provide that the wheat which he is storing for the government and for the convenience of this country shall be sufficient credit to warrant steps being taken so that his creditors will not be allowed to harass him unduly.
I should like to put to the minister one other, question, upon which he might give us some information either now or when the bill is introduced, namely, what provision is to be made with reference to coarse grain? In the west there are areas where the people depend largely on coarse grains. These are to be found particularly in the north, where a great deal of wheat is not grown. Are the inoperative clauses in the Canadian Wheat Board Act to be brought into operation so as

to allow the board to take delivery of coarse grains? What is to be done about the storage of coarse grain? Is the valuable space in the terminals and the large elevators to be used for this purpose or is this grain to be kept on the farms too, and, if so, under what plan? One of the tragedies of the coarse grain situation is that in the fall the price is scandalously low. It always increases from 60 to 80 per cent in the spring when the farms are being seeded. In my own constituency the price of oats rose 20 cents a bushel from last fall to this spring. The price of barley rose almost as atrociously. Does the government propose to use the facilities of the wheat board in order that farmers may not be selling barley, rye and oats this fall at scandalously low prices and then other farmers be compelled to pay fairly high prices next spring when they go to buy seed? I wish the government would give us some information about what they propose to do. I urge upon the minister and the government that it will not do to leave this matter in abeyance. The situation in western Canada is growing steadily worse. Prices are rising almost daily, but prices of farm commodities in some instances are dropping, in other instances are more or less stationary. These people are living off capital or reducing their standard of living-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Or going
into debt.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -or going further into debt. This situation cannot continue.
I sympathize with the minister. I know this is one of the most serious and difficult problems that faces any public man in Canada. We are not indulging in merely carping criticism about it. We suggest that the government must take courageous action in this matter. The farmer will have to be helped from two sides. On the one side, it will be necessary to take steps to ensure that the price he gets is as fair as it is possible to make it, to see to it that other people are not gambling in his product and making profit out of his loss; on the other side, he must be helped to reduce his costs of production, by keeping at a fair level the prices of the commodities he has to buy, and by seeing to it that-, during this period when he is helping to carry the load for Canada, his creditors are not allowed unduly to harass and take advantage of him.
As I said earlier in the session, the wheat growers are storing up in Canada one of the greatest natural assets in the world, something which will go far towards feeding millions of people who within the next few months or years may be facing starvation.

Canadian Wheat Board
No country could have a better potential asset than these stores of wheat. But in the meantime we may have to go through a difficult period, and we should not ask the farmer to carry the whole load. He is willing to do his share. In days gone by, he has done more than his share, by taking the greater part of the burden of the depression. He should not be required to accept all the burden of the economic dislocation contingent upon the war.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Mr. Chairman, like the previous speaker I am disappointed that we have had to wait until this late date for a statement by the government on a matter of such importance as that of wheat in this country. In the minister's statement yesterday he pointed out that there is now estimated to be in sight a crop of over 400,000,000 bushels, which will be harvested off a seeded acreage of some 28,000,000 acres. If that be so, which I rather doubt-I believe that estimate will be greatly reduced, due to certain climatic conditions at present taking place throughout the west-most certainly it will create a difficult marketing problem. As was well pointed out by the minister, we have at present available storage space for about 150,000,000 to 160,000,000 bushels of wheat.
It may not be generally realized that there are on the prairies 290,000 farmers. Their crop must be harvested, and a quota must be set up for marketing this crop. On these
290,000	farms it would be approximately 500 bushels per farm. The minister stated that the producer will be paid 70 cents a bushel, basis No. 1 Fort William. That will net the farmer approximately 52 cents a bushel. By ready calculation hon. members will see that the farmer will receive the sum of $260, out of which must be paid his harvesting expenses, and he must also maintain his family through the winter and pay his taxes out of that meagre sum. As the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) pointed out, the first charge must be the expenses of the family in producing the crop, because they must get their livelihood. That is the prior claim, and there will be considerable difficulty between the farmer and his creditors during the coming season.
A large percentage of the farmers on the prairies to-day are tenant farmers. I might give a few statistics with regard to my own province, Manitoba, given by Premier Bracken. There are in that province 57,000 farmers of whom one-third work mortgaged land. The land mortgages in the province total $60,000,000, and the average price of wheat in the last ten years, with the exception of two, has been about one-half of what it was ten years ago.
The income of the Manitoba farmers, he said, had been reduced by about $250,000,000. It used to be that a bin full of wheat was considered money in the bank for the farmers of western Canada; it was as good as gold. That is not so to-day. The farmers wheat dollar, according to reports published by the Searle Grain Company, is worth only 57 cents to-day. I have here a short article issued on July 18 of this year with reference to the farmer's wheat dollar. Let me quote:
The Searle Index of the price of "Things farmers buy" (147 items), now stands at 134, 1913-14 equals 100, which means that these things cost farmers in the west at the present time 34 per cent more than they did in 1914 before the great war. The price of wheat- No. 1 northern-as of June 18, basis the open market price, is now 23 per cent lower than it was in 1913-14. This means therefore that a bushel of wheat in western Canada now has a purchasing power in relation to "The things farmers buy" of 57 per cent in comparison with the purchasing power of 100 that it had before the war.
As to the seriousness of the situation which has been pointed out by members from Saskatchewan, there was held in that province during the past month a conference of pool representatives to discuss the marketing of grain, and as a result of this conference they are urging upon the government of Saskatchewan the passing of a moratorium. The resolution reads:
Whereas the necessity for a full contribution by western agriculture to the Canadian effort toward successful prosecution of the war should be fully realized and whereas this effort will be seriously hampered unless the producers are permitted to retain some adequate returns from *their labours;
Be it resolved that we request our provincial government to declare a moratorium for the duration of the war or until farm products reach a parity price with other commodities.
Those attending the conference included A. D. Sproule, first vice-president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, who reviewed problems facing agriculture in the west and said their solution would mean the solution of problems of the entire Canadian agricultural community of 5,000,000 persons.
The minister yesterday said that there would be a processing tax of 15 cents a bushel for domestic consumption to take effect in Canada immediately. He said that this should not alter the price of bread to the consumer on that basis. I know there will be some argument as to whether that will be the actual effect, but if it does alter the price I am satisfied that it will not change the price beyond one-quarter of a cent per pound of bread at the outside. This matter was thoroughly discussed at a meeting which was held in Winnipeg to consider the marketing
Canadian Wheat Board

of farm products during the month of December, 1938, and this very item was discussed at some length at that time. Mr. G. E. Morris, vice-president of the Ogilvie Milling company, pointed out that the baker got 270 pounds of bread out of a 196-pound barrel of flour. Therefore, if the pound loaf of bread is reduced by one cent, and if that reduction is borne by the flour, flour must come down of 82.70 a barrel and wheat must come down approximately 60 cents a bushel, which would accordingly be one cent a pound on bread. Other people who have made a study of this question in Ottawa are pointing out that if wheat were increased 60 cents a bushel, it would increase the pound loaf of bread by only one cent, and these arguments are well founded.
The late Mr. James Richardson, at this same discussion in Winnipeg, pointed out that the price of wheat made little difference in the price of the pound loaf of bread for the reason that there were many other factors, such as lard, butter, milk, yeast, shortening and so on, which had to be taken into consideration; and to-day the much discussed vegetable oils will enter into the question. It was also pointed out by Mr. Gourlay, of Dauphin, that on December 16 of the same year, in the town of Dauphin, the market price was 64 cents a bushel at the elevator, while on March 22, 1935, the market price was $1.34 a bushel at the same elevator, and that on both occasions over the counter local bread sold at 7 cents per pound loaf.
During the past week officials representing the western union of municipalities have been in Ottawa to interview the wheat committee concerning this problem. The officials representing that western union are: Paul Famells president of the Alberta union; J. G. Knox, president of the Saskatchewan union, and m3-self as president of the Manitoba union. We had a most courteous hearing from the Minister of Trade and Commerce and from other members of the committee, but I regret to say that we are not over hopeful of getting a satisfactory solution of our wheat problems at this time. I am satisfied that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is very much concerned about this matter, and if we did not obtain more favourable results the fault is not his. I have no doubt about that.
Many people may wonder why the officials of the western municipal union should be so concerned about the marketing of wheat at this time. I would point out that the municipal governments are closest to the people of the country and therefore they are exercised over the problem. They have to consider the general welfare of the people and

the prospects for their livelihood. They are also responsible to a great extent for the financing of education and the hospitalization facilities in their particular areas, and that is a matter of great importance. These services must be paid for out of municipal taxation. In this connection, I do not know whether we shall collect taxes with the marketing problem as I see it at the present time.
The success of any nation certainly depends upon the health and education of its people and therefore these municipal officials are vitally concerned at this moment. In the brief which they presented to the committee they asked first of all that the Canadian wheat board should handle the entire marketing of the 1940 crop, and also that the initial payment be at least 70 cents a bushel, the right being reserved to press for a fair and equitable price on a parity basis at a later date. As to parity prices, I put forward an argument in which I gave many statistics, which appeared in the Hansard report of the speech I made on the budget on June 27 wherein I discussed matters pertaining to this question, to show what the price ought to be.
Moreover, while speaking of a parity price I might point out that Mr. R. M. Evans, who is associated with the soil conservation board of the United States, attending this marketing conference in Winnipeg in December, 1938, stated that it was recognized by authorities in the United States that a parity price in the United States at that time was $1.11, and I am satisfied that it has increased since then. They also asked for the establishment of an advisory committee to this wheat board, with adequate producer representation; also that a fair and reasonable rate be paid for farm storage, comparable with the cost of carrying such wheat in public storage or in the elevator. It may be that the price which will be paid for storage in elevators will be reduced in comparison to what we have paid in the past, and if a farmer is paid on that basis it should be satisfactory. They also asked for a policy for the establishment of a minimum price for wheat sold for home consumption in Canada at $1 a bushel.
Hon. members will realize that the 15 cents a bushel processing tax announced by the minister yesterday would probably mean a price of 85 cents a bushel for consumption. I think that at the outside we could not count on more than 45 million bushels, which would be approximately ten per cent of the anticipated crop this year, being handled in that manner. On a parity price basis, we think that processing tax, instead of being 15 cents, would require to be from 35 to 55 cents, which might increase the cost of bread three-quarters of a cent a pound. We also

Canadian Wheat Board
suggest a quota basis of delivery to elevators be provided, in order that farmers might have an opportunity of immediately marketing some of their crop as it is harvested. We also pointed out that if it were necessary there are already set up the municipal units, and the secretary-treasurers might be utilized in the matter of issuing certificates and regulating that quota delivery. They have all the necessary information at their disposal and are in a much better position than anyone else to make a quick check on the acreage and handle matters of that kind on behalf of the farmers.
The problem of financing the coming crop is of major importance, especially if we harvest the anticipated four hundred million bushels. In the past the producer was required to deliver his crop in public storage before realizing upon it by way of sale or advance on the purchase price. That will not be possible this fall if, as I have said, we harvest this anticipated crop. Therefore we have recommended that an advance be made against this crop in storage on the farm. I know it has been pointed out by the Minister of Mines and Resources, who, however, I think is away out, that it is all moonshine and so on; but if what we recommend is not done, and we harvest this anticipated crop, we shall have all sorts of difficulties, just as bad as moonshine probably, throughout the west this fall in providing the necessaries of life for these people and maintaining the standard of education and hospitalization which is essential. Therefore the committee advocated a system of loans or advances to these people provided it is not found feasible to market a fairly large percentage of their crop at once.
It was further suggested that consideration is required with respect to coarse grain, in order, as has already been pointed out, to relieve the western situation and provide eastern and Pacific coast farmers with cheaper feed than the grain hitherto imported from other countries. Greater use should be made of oats and barley grown in the prairie provinces and this should be facilitated by reduced freight rates. Our provincial departments of agriculture might do a great deal to help. I was astounded on hearing the hon. member for Royal the other evening speaking of the cost of these products produced by us in the west to the dairy farmers in his province. This is chiefly due to freight rates, and in that respect a great deal could be done which would be of mutual benefit.
One question gives me great concern at this time. When a business man figures that he cannot make a profit, it is customary for him to quit business. The farmers of the west have been operating on that basis for
many years. I ask hon. members this; If the farmers in general, who are operating at an immense loss, decided to quit operating, would they be termed anything but traitors to Canada during this war? I realize that we have difficulties in legislating for a country so large as Canada. In my opinion it shoulc be the duty of all hon. members to travel throughout this country from coast to coast in order to become acquainted with each other's problems and be in a position to view those problems from a national point of view. In war time the stability and solidarity of the home front is of no less importance than the war front, and it is something which we should consider at this time even if doing so involves some departure from the orthodox financial beliefs of the past. I trust this wheat committee, when their bill is brought down, will be able to go a little further perhaps than has been anticipated up to the present time in order to cope with what appears to be a very serious situation now facing us.
Progress reported.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
Second report of the special committee on Bill No. 98, respecting unemployment insurance-Mr. McLarty.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. MacKinnon (Edmonton West)-Mr. Fournier (Hull) in the chair:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act to provide for exigencies arising from loss of overseas markets for wheat, from the large existing stocks of wheat in Canada, and from the problem of handling the 1940 wheat crop.
Mr. PERLEY:: At the outset, Mr. Chairman, I desire to express my disappointment because of the fact that this house has been in session for over two months and this measure is brought in only now. I suppose we shall be expected to pass it in a day or two, since I believe an effort is being made to
Canadian Wheat Board

prorogue by the first of next week. On the other hand, I take great satisfaction from the fact that the minister has accepted and embodied in the bill to be -based on the resolution four or five policies or suggestions that I have advocated on the floor of this house, not only during this session but in other sessions, going back as far as 1934 and 1935.
I am glad to see the principle adopted of paying the farmer for storing his grain on the farm. The minister's statement would indicate that this storage will be paid on the basis of the .period the wheat is held and, I assume, at so much a bushel. As hon. members will recall, on various occasions I have suggested that the rate should be one cent per bushel per month, which could be added to the fixed price.
The government has also adopted the principle of establishing a domestic price for grain in Canada. That has been done by the imposition of a processing tax of 15 cents a bushel on all grain going into domestic consumption. On many occasions I have suggested that we should have a fixed price of at least SI .25 a bushel on grain consumed in Canada.
I also understand from the minister's statement that we are to put into effect the principle of a quota system in connection with deliveries to the market. Perhaps I may refer to that more particularly a little later, but I have been offering this suggestion since 1935. I would refer hon. members to Hansard for that year, at pages 375 and 376, where I took about a page and a half to outline in detail a system of controlling deliveries to the market under permits.
Then we were told that an advisory committee is to be appointed, which I was very glad to hear, and that there is to be provision for an interim payment to be made when the board sees fit.
I must say that I am not satisfied with regard to some features of this legislation. In the first place I maintain that the 70 cent fixed price is not large enough. It should be at least 75 cents, and I think the government could have gone to 80 cents under present conditions. Neither am I satisfied with the storage paid the elevators. I think the minister should have stated definitely what arrangement or agreement will be made in that regard. My suggestion would be that this storage should be cut to at least a half cent. Perhaps I may refer to that also a little later. We are told that the grain exchange is not to be closed. I have advocated the closing of the grain exchange during this period, and later in my remarks I shall present

what I think is a good argument in favour of that step being taken. I also believe the board could have been given more powers, and I shall deal with that in more detail in a moment.
We have not seen the bill as yet, but from the minister's statement we have a pretty good idea what will be in it. The minister did not give us very much new information; we already knew practically everything ha said in his announcement. Certainly no information has been given in respect of manj important matters. That is the only state* ment we have had this session, but I would ask the minister and hon. members whether, from that statement, anyone learned anything about the operations of the wheat board. Who knows the present financial position of the board; how much grain they are holding, either on option or as cash grain; in what position that grain may be; what the board paid for the grain; what they have paid with respect to storage; to whom it has been paid, and so on? Who knows anything about it? There is nothing in the statement that would give us any information. Certainly we do nc5 know who directs the whole selling policy of the board. Members of the board have been in Ottawa for practically three weeks, I think, and there have been some hoie-in-the-corner meetings, to which I object. I know they have been meeting western Liberal members. I know they have met Liberal members in their private rooms.


James Angus MacKinnon: And they met the hon. member.


Ernest Edward Perley: They have not met with me at all.


James Angus MacKinnon: Oh, yes, they have.


Ernest Edward Perley: I met them once. I was invited to a general meeting with the wheat board and the board of grain commissioners, which meeting was attended by all the western members and a great many of the eastern members as well. What information could we get at such a meeting in an hour, with fifty men ready to ask questions? We all know what a farce it was. I have asked questions on the floor of this house in an endeavour to get information. I have placed questions on the order paper, and I must say that the answers I have received have been a joke. Certainly they displayed ignorance of the situation or a deliberate attempt to evade the question.
In his statement yesterday the minister gave various estimates as of July 31, 1940. He stated there would be a carryover of about
290,000,000 bushels, of which about 270,000,000

Canadian Wheat Board
bushels would be in Canada. The crop is estimated at from 350,000,000 to 400,000,000 bushels. Our total storage capacity is
425,000,000 bushels, and our net storage, after allowing for a 10 per cent operating capacity, is about 382,000,000 bushels, with some possibility of storing another 20,000,000 bushels in the United States. That leaves storage available in Canada for approximately 160,000,000 bushels. That can be improved a little by allowing about 100,000,000 bushels for the domestic consumption of the coming crop. A certain portion of the crop never reaches market; it is used for seed and other purposes. That will relieve the situation a little.
In my opinion the present situation is similar to the one we had in 1935, when on December 1 we had practically 365,000,000 bushels of wheat on hand. There were 155,-G00,000 bushels of the 1935 crop and 205,000,000 bushels which had been taken over from Wheat Producers Limited. There was still the remainder of the 1935 crop to come. So I ask, why all this excitement, why all this delay in bringing down this measure? Why make so much ado about the situation in western Canada? I well remember in 1934 and 1935 when we had a considerable quantity of wheat accumulate. I remember the howl that went up from this house, particularly from the hon. member for WTood Mountain (Mr. Donnelly) and the former members, Mr. Yallance and Mr. McIntosh. I recall that when the 1935 wheat board bill was being discussed, the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) moved an amendment that the bill be not operative after August 16, 1936. I recall the criticism which was offered because we had not sold wheat, and all that sort of thing.
I would say that we have been quite generous to the present minister in not pressing for more information. I sympathize with him because he has a real job on his hands and he is new to the department. Had he been more experienced he certainly would have been asked to furnish more material. We should have had a complete report of the operations of the board up to date, similar to what was furnished in 1936. I have in my desk copies of the reports of the Canadian wheat board. The first was issued in 19351936. It sets out the amount of wheat received, the amount carried over from the 1935 crop, the amount taken over from Mr. McFarland, the prices at which all grades were sold, and all that sort of thing; it was quite a detailed report. We have not had such a report since 1936, and I think it is due to this parliament. The minister could have
made an interim report, so to speak, because he gets a report every Friday night from the board.
The war is not the cause of Canada's wheat debacle; it is the policy of the wheat board and the failure of the government to carry on businesslike sales operations. They did not exert the pressure they should have last fall in negotiating the deal with the British government. It is the government's responsibility, and I think we should note that they have not been aggressive enough in their selling policy.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: Does the hon. member not admit that the market is much curtailed?


Ernest Edward Perley: We know that, but we
know also, from the figures I shall give in a few minutes, that they could have sold even more this year. In order to substantiate what I have said, I should like to quote from a statement made by Mr. Sanford Evans, who has been writing reports on the grain situation for some time. He made a statement in 1938 and another one in 1939, which I believe I quoted on the floor of this house. He said that there was not a single act of the present wheat board which could be interpreted as an act to resist a price decline. Yes, the minister may look up; they are up there in the gallery and I see them. In twenty minutes I could name fifty men who have been associated with the grain business in western Canada and who could do a better job. As I said, the war is not the cause, and to blame the war is only a feeble alibi. In the season 193S-39 the board exported only 166,000,000 bushels of wheat at the low average price of 60 cents.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: May I ask the hon. member who is up there?


Ernest Edward Perley: The hon. member ought to know. I see them. I did not say who was up there. The minister looked up and smiled at someone in the gallery.


The CHAIRMAN:: The hon. member is experienced enough as a parliamentarian to know that he should not make any reference to the galleries.


Ernest Edward Perley: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, and I hope the hon. member will refrain from pressing me to say who happens to be in the gallery. It is a feeble alibi to say that the war is the cause of our trouble. The board sold 166,000,000 bushels in 1938-39 at the low average price of 60 cents. By August 31 of 1939 there was a carryover of 102,000,000 bushels. The war has not lessened Canada's exports. Prior to July 15 of
Canadian Wheat Board

this year we exported 190,000,000 bushels of wheat and wheat flour, which was 25,000,000 bushels more than the 1938-39 exports. The government and those in charge of Canada's wheat marketing are doing all they can at the present time to make the farmers and the public believe that the present critical situation is caused by the war. That is not the fact.
Western Canada wants a proper board, with an advisory committee upon which the producers are represented. The original act provides for a board of seven, with four producers. Before this legislation passes, I think the minister should indicate who the members of this committee are going to be and how soon they will be on the job. If we are in a critical position we should certainly have the benefit of the advice of the best men available. In his statement the minister said that the cereals import committee recommended that the exchange remain open. Did they demand or ask for that last September when they first came over? I am informed that they demanded that it be closed. I understand that there was an arrangement made by the western representatives of the grain trade with the wheat committee of the cabinet that the grain exchange would not be closed until wheat went to around SI .25 a bushel, which it was expected to do at that time.
What service does the exchange render that the board could not render, except possibly the physical handling of the grain in the elevators? The exchange is not functioning now, and I understand it has asked the government to provide some means to facilitate the hedging of grain. I would refer to the report of the Turgeon commission in which the chairman stated that only a board could function in an emergency. Surely we are in an emergency at the present time. Even with the many inquiries which we have had into the grain business it has never been proved conclusively that an open market is necessary. It is certainly not necessary in an emergency.
We were in difficulty in 1935 with respect to the handling of wheat. We were in difficulty before this government came into power. I recall when Mr. McFarland used to come down here to consult with us. I happened to be called in on an occasion or two, and at that time the wheat board act of 1935, *which we are amending to-night, was introduced. May I say that at that time I was pressing for a board similar to what we have now. I prepared a memorandum for my chief, Mr. Bennett, at that time, and I should like to refer briefly to one or two things I set out in that memorandum, which was 
prepared before the Canadian Wheat Board Act was thought of. We knew there was a demand for a change after the experience we had had from 1932 to 1935. We knew that we could not continue as we had been going on, and that something of the nature of the wheat board was wanted. I set out in the memorandum that the physical handling of the grain and the marketing of western Canada's wheat crop were principal factors in the economic life of the Canadian producer and of every Canadian citizen. I think we all are agreed on that.
Prior to the great war the problem was comparatively simple. There was no great difficulty in finding markets for our good western Canada wheat. Although prices were low at times, the cost of production was also low and prices of the products of industry were low. There were periods of low prices during which the farmers were more or less prosperous despite many handicaps. But the war of 1914-1918 ushered in a new era of production expansion, which became more marked following the war. Here may I remind the committee that the expansion in the production of grain in western Canada following the last war was undertaken as a patriotic effort. The farmers of the west were asked to increase production, and we have been in difficulties practically ever since.
Early in 1917 the open market system which was then in vogue became inadequate and government supervision became necessary. I am not going into details with respect to that; I refer to it just in passing. Then came the board of supervisors, and then the first Canadian wheat board. This board, which came into existence in 1919, was given large powers, and it functioned admirably. However, there was much dissatisfaction in the grain trade with the open market and the futures market, and in 1923 the pool system came into being. We know the history of that pretty well, so I shall not go into details. Then in 1930 we had a surplus production, and owing to currency fluctuations there was a violent downward drop in the world price far wheat, and both the open market and the pool system demonstrated their inadequacy. That is the statement I made in pressing my case before Mr. Bennett.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: On what date was the memorandum submitted to Mr. Bennett?


Ernest Edward Perley: Before the wheat board act was introduced or even thought of. It was about May 1, 1935.


An hon. MEMBER:: With an election coming on.

Canadian Wheat Board


Ernest Edward Perley: No; there was no election in sight, none as near as we thought there was last fall. I am referring to the period when the bottom dropped out of the market. It was in the days when Mr. Dunning, then finance minister, made the statement in the house that our markets for wheat were practically gone. The only market remaining, he said, was the market in Britain, and in that market alone we had lost our sale of wheat, he said, by 243,000,000 bushels in the last year.
Then the system of stabilization was adopted and Mr. McFarland was called in. I think it is agreed by all that the operations which he undertook to stabilize the market during that period were necessary. He continued to operate during 1933 and to 1935, and then in the session of 1935 the wheat board act was passed. In some respects it did not go as far as some of the submissions that I had made. I had suggested that the real solution was a national marketing board, with wide powers, even to control all food grains, manufactured or unmanufactured, and to control the handling of wheat during the whole operations from the producer to the market. Had that system of control been inaugurated then, it would have been in operation during four or five of the most terrible years western Canada has experienced and we would have been in a much better position than we are in to-day.
I have referred to some of the submissions that I made to Mr. Bennett, and I am pleased to say that I was instrumental in getting some of them embodied into law when parliament passed the wheat board act in 1935. But it was not an easy matter. I had suggested to Mr. Bennett a domestic price for wheat., but I could not get him to accept that. I also had made several suggestions with regard to carrying and storage charges, but pressure was brought to bear by some of the interests and we did not get as far as I should have liked, but I am pleased to note that the act which was passed then is still the act which the farmers of western Canada want, and it is the act we are amending now.
We cannot continue on 70 cent wheat; the fixed price must be greater. I have here a few figures showing the cost of production in western Canada. The cost per acre is in the neighbourhood of $8, and with a yield of twelve bushels a fanner would have to have a price of 67 cents a bushel or more, even to get back the cost of production. Our farmers cannot continue to produce at cost. Since these figures were compiled, the cost of production has risen.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Is the figure which the
hon. member has quoted the average cost?


Ernest Edward Perley: An average cost of about
67 cents a bushel to raise wheat in western Canada.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Is $8 an acre the average
cost?


Ernest Edward Perley: Yes. That includes principal on the land, cost of machinery, capital investment-


Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford City):: Give us the break-down.


Ernest Edward Perley: It includes cost of preparing and planting, $2.63; harvesting, $2.46; hauling, 50 cents; incidentals, including possibly fertilizer or cost of spreading grasshopper bait, 14 cents; seed, $1.19, on the average; these are average costs over a period of ten years. Then miscellaneous takes in several items; interest and so forth, $2.29; then, assuming the land is rented, land rent counts for $2.18, making a total of something over $8.


William Ross Macdonald: That comes to a good deal more than $8.


Ernest Edward Perley: It includes the cost of the land.


William Ross Macdonald: You cannot charge rent and capital at the same time.


Ernest Edward Perley: I am assuming that the
landowner is working some of the land himself, as a great many do. The break-down amounts to between $8 and $9. The university of Saskatchewan figure for the cost of production is over 70 cents a bushel, and I think we are all agreed it is more than that.
Following the last war, prices went up and there is every indication and we hope that they will go up following this war.
I said at the outset that I agreed with certain principles set out in the minister's statement. I agreed with the idea of paying the farmer to store his wheat on the farm. My suggestion is to pay him one cent a bushel. I suggested that last year, and I remember the Minister of Mines and Resources asking me if I was speaking for myself. He said at that time that if I would guarantee that my leader would adopt the policy, they might underwrite it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Oh, no.


Ernest Edward Perley: Well, I have his statement here. "I am speaking for myself; I said so," was my answer.


Thomas Vien: Is the hon. member reading from Hansard?


Ernest Edward Perley: I am reading from Hansard, 1939.
Canadian Wheat Board


Thomas Vien: What date and what
page?


Ernest Edward Perley: Well, this is page 5 of the document I have before me. I might say that it is a speech which I made on the wheat marketing bill No. 82. I outlined this policy of one cent a bushel payment, and the present Minister of Mines and Resources said: "May I ask my hon. friend a question? Is he speaking for himself?" I stated that I was speaking for myself and I said, "I am offering a suggestion." Further down, I find that the minister said:
If my hon. friend will permit me, may I say that if he had undertaken that his leader and his followers would underwrite his suggestion, we might be ready to pay some attention to it.
Now may I say that I am pleased to note that he intends to vote for that principle. It may not go to the extent I suggested; I understand the amount will be half a cent or more.
I am also in agreement with the principle of a domestic price. I suggest that it should be SI .20 a bushel. That would mean a processing tax of 50 cents a bushel. In evidence submitted before a committee of this house-I believe it was the price spreads committee-certain bakers made the statement that there was no great difference in the price of bread, certainly not more than a cent a loaf, whether it was made from wheat bought at 70 cents or at SI .60 a bushel. I referred to that fact in 1935, as recorded in Hansard, when I outlined a quota or permit system, and I think it is a suggestion which is worthy of consideration. Indeed, I understand that a quota system in respect of deliveries this year is provided for in the bill which is about to be brought down.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Will my hon. friend give me the page of Hansard to which he referred a moment ago?


Ernest Edward Perley: Yes. I may say that I am quoting from a pamphlet which I issued. I will get the citation for the hon. gentleman. I do not know whether he thinks there is anything wrong with this document; it is a copy of a speech I made on the consideration of the wheat marketing bill No. 82.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: A copy of a speech which my hon. friend made in the house?


Ernest Edward Perley: At the moment I cannot give the date. The speech was made during the month of May.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Is my hon. friend reading from a speech which he made during the election?


Ernest Edward Perley: No. Since the hon. gentleman is so curious, I may say that I got out a pamphlet. I have been in the rooms of some hon. members, and I know that I am not half as bad a transgressor in this respect as a good many; no doubt the minister himself has been guilty more times than I have of getting out a speech in pamphlet form. To economize a little last year I grouped two or three of mine together. The speeches contained in this pamphlet were made in May, 1939; it states here in regard to what bills they were made. So far as the page of Hansard is concerned, I will get it and send it over to him as soon as I have finished or as soon as I get to the library. I hope he does not doubt my word. He can do so, of course, if he desires, but I will prove to him that I am quoting from Hansard of 1939.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I will check it up.


Ernest Edward Perley: After all these interruptions, Mr. Chairman, may I now suggest that the government could go a little further. I suggest that they should make a gift of
100,000,060 bushels of wheat to Great Britain. This would start a beneficial circle. What would it not mean in Canada if the money required to .purchase that wheat were distributed? It would start the wheels of industry turning and make jobs for many Canadians who need them.


Mr. GARDINER:: We have already purchased the wheat.


Ernest Edward Perley: You have purchased it, but you have not given it to Great Britain.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have purchased all the wheat delivered in Canada, up to date, at 70 cents a bushel.


Ernest Edward Perley: But you have not made a gift of any wheat to Great Britain.


James Garfield Gardiner: But it would not circulate any more money in Canada if we gave away wheat for which we had already paid.


Ernest Edward Perley: You could send the wheat over and so make room for the 1940 crop.


John Gordon Ross: The British
government have more than 50,000,000 bushels of wheat here that they themselves cannot ship.


Ernest Edward Perley: That is fine. I endeavoured the other day, when we were meeting with the wheat board and the grain commission, to get those figures. I asked in what position their wheat was, and they said that the information could not be given and that there could not be any distinction between the wheat carryovers of different years. I

Canadian Wheat Board
am glad that my hon. friend-I was going to
say "the minister", but he is not the minister yet-has information which some of us have not received.


John Gordon Ross: That would not be hard.


Ernest Edward Perley: I .protested against the deal which was made last fall by the board with the grain interests for the handling of the wheat. I protested against storage being paid on grain when it was in the elevators and while it was en route. I have here a copy of the agreement made with the elevator interests, and section 19 distinctly states that the board pay storage on class B wheat from the time it is delivered to the elevator and the daily report received in the head office in Winnipeg and for thirteen days after the date of the billing out of that wheat. I object to that because in my opinion it is not a fair charge and those people are not entitled to it.
I referred a moment ago to the question of a gift of wrheat. I would endorse the action of the government if they would spend $50,000,000 more in trying to make the farmer of western Canada more prosperous by investing the money in his wheat. I suppose that before parliament prorogues we shall vote the amount of the deficit of the Canadian National Railways. We have done it here for years. Almost in a minute, without giving it much consideration, $50,000,000 or $60,000,000 is voted for this purpose. Why not invest another $50,000.000 for the benefit of the farmer?
Coarse grains should be brought under the provisions of the act. The hon. member for Weyburn dealt at length this afternoon with this matter and made out a good -case for including coarse grains within the operations of the board.


William Ross Macdonald: One of the reasons for the deficits of the Canadian National Railways is that wheat is carried so cheaply.


Ernest Edward Perley: Well, if there had not been a wheat crop for them to carry they would have been pretty badly off, because most of what they do earn comes from the carriage of wheat from western Canada.
A noted parliamentarian once stated that an opposition should suggest nothing and oppose everything. That has not been my way of operating. I have offered from the floor of this house many constructive suggestions, and I am pleased to note that some of them at least, two in particular, have been adopted by the present minister and are embodied in the bill which will be founded on the resolution.
When the bill comes down we shall examine it carefully and inquire into a number of matters. I have suggested a reduction in freights and lake rates. We should be given some idea of how far it is intended to supervise the grain exchange if it is to remain open.
I am not afraid of the future so far as a great carryover of wheat is concerned. I hold in my hand a crop report, which I received to-day, dated July 20 and compiled by a crop reporter who works for a Minneapolis firm and incidentally, I believe, sends reports to the James Richardson company. This report would indicate that there will be nowhere near 400,000,000 bushels of wheat in western Canada this fall. It states, as regards Saskatchewan in particular, that 12,000,000 acres -are definitely below the average; 1,000,000 acres will possibly have an average crop, and
2,000,000 acres may yield five to seven bushels an acre. The reports I received are bad but Saskatchewan is a big province and western Canada is a big country. I do not believe that we shall have a 300,000,000 bushel crop, but I believe the situation can be met. I have also a report from the grain exchange on Friday last to the effect that on that date the Argentine sold 2,771,000 bushels of wheat to Britain at a price which, converted into Canadian money at the Canadian seaboard, would represent about 80 -cents a bushel for our wheat. I am not saying that this report is true. It came from the grain exchange on Friday morning last. If it is true, however, I would ask this question: If the Argentine can do this, why cannot the Canadian government sell wheat to the British government in greater quantities than it is doing at the present time?


James Garfield Gardiner: Is the usual premium included in making the estimate of the price at the seaboard?


Ernest Edward Perley: It is calculated that the price at the seaboard here would be practically 80 cents. When the bill comes down we shall see exactly what its provisions are and we shall have some questions to ask. There is a good deal of information which I should like to get and I hope the minister will be prepared to give it. With regard to the operations of the board, just where they stand; what they have been paying in service fees, storage fees, brokerage fees; what they hold in cash; the matter of options, and so on, are all questions with respect to which we shall have to have a complete report similar to that which was given in 1936. However, we shall wait and see what the bill contains, and then we shall review it in the light of a careful study of its provisions.
Canadian Wheat Board


Mr. DONNELLY:: I welcome this bill to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, because the wheat question is of great importance not only to western Canada and to the dominion at large but to the entire world, since it is quite conceivable that the nation which has a supply of wheat one or two years from now will be the deciding factor in the war. There is no doubt that the crop in Europe is not as good this year as it generally is. I noticed the other day in one of the reports that the Roumanian crop, which is usually somewhere about 5,000,000 metric tons, is this year expected to be 1,500,000 or 1,600.000 metric tons, or about one-third of the usual crop. What the people in Europe will do for wheat during the next year or two, in view of the poor crops there, may be one of the deciding factors as to which nation will win the war.
It is true that the quantity of wheat we have here at present is to us a great problem; it is hard to know what to do with it. We are practically the only country in the world with storage facilities for wheat. England has asked us, having storage facilities, to store this wheat at her back-door so that she may have it as she needs it, and we are trying to play our part by keeping the wheat at England's back-door, so to speak, to feed her people and her soldiers as the need arises. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle spoke about giving England something like 100,000,000 bushels of wheat. Well, England already has in Canada from fifty to seventy million bushels of wheat bought and lying here waiting to be taken overseas as it is required. England does not want it now because she has all her storage capacity taken up and She does not want a surplus over there. But she has purchased this wheat and it is lying here. I do not know how it would help us to provide more storage by giving another 50,000,000 or 100,000,000 bushels to England. That might be all right as a gesture to help her financially to win the war, but for the purpose of providing us with storage facilities it would not do a particle of good.
There are two or three recommendations which I wish to make to the government with regard to this bill, but first I wish to mention one or two criticisms that we have heard. One is with regard to an advisory committee, soime body to advise the wheat board as to how to market wheat, when to market it, and all that. The wheat board has been given so much advice by so many people that it hardly knows what to do. We have confusion worse confounded.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon.
member did not say that at election time.


James J. Donnelly: I hear the hon. member for Weyburn saying something. The other night he said that the advisory committee should be made up of organized farmers. Let me ask anyone in this committee to consider who the members of the wheat board are at the present time. Two of them are former wheat pool men; they belong to the organized farmers; and the other man was a member of the grain exchange, or his father was. The forgotten man, the man who is not there and who should be remembered, is the independent farmer who does not belong to any organization. If there must be an advisory committee, the government should go back to the farmer who does not belong to the wheat pool or to any organization and put him on the committee. Do not let us forget him. Many farmers in Canada do not belong to any farmer organizations and some of them are the best farmers we have. If we must have an advisory committee, let us not forget these men; let us put a few of them on it. But what the advisory committee would do I do not know; what miracles it would perform I should like to know. I suggest that one good man who would take all the responsibility would be far better than many advisers; one man who knows his business thoroughly would be better than many men who have nothing but a smattering of knowledge as to how wheat should be marketed.
Let me say a word or two with regard to the closing of the grain exchange, about which I hear many reports. I have been living in western Canada for a considerable number of years, farming on a more or less large scale. I have been growing wheat for thirty or thirty-four years and I know something about the marketing and the growing of this crop. Since I have been in the west I have been told what a great monster the grain exchange has been; how it has bedevilled everything; how it has robbed the farmer; how it has shaken all the (money out of him; how it has robbed the country and everyone else. But I have yet to hear anyone give me a concrete reason as to why the exchange should be closed. What is it doing that is so terrible? The other day in the committee Mr. Mclvor, who is at the head of the wheat board, admitted that by having the grain exchange open in the past year he was able to store wheat at the head of the lakes for one-forty-fifth of a cent a day instead of one-thirtieth, which is the maximum charge. And he is the man who is handling our wheat. He told us in the committee that because of the advantages of being able to hedge his wheat, to buy and sell futures and deal on the grain exchange, he was able to hold his wheat and handle it by that method at the head

Canadian Wheat Board
of the lakes in the terminal elevators for one-forty-fifth of a cent a bushel a day, whereas the charge made by our board of grain commissioners is one-thirtieth of a cent; that is the usual charge.
One question more I would ask: If we close the grain exchange, what are we going to do with our coarse grains, our oats, barley, flax, rye? Do we want the board to take them over too and set a price? If we do, there might be some way of handling these coarse grains, but if we do not do that, we must have the grain exchange open in order to handle them. At the present time, the price of wheat being below seventy cents, if we can get storage facilities at our terminal elevators at the head of the lakes at a reasonable price the grain exchange may be of little use. But the grain exchange has been playing a very important part, whether we like it or not. Without the grain exchange it would have been impossible to sell our wheat to advantage in past years. Every elevator company would have had to gamble in futures and carry the gamble themselves, and the spread between the spot price and the street price would be much greater than it is to-day.
One other question brought up is with regard to an interim payment. It is all right to pass legislation providing for an interim payment if and when the money is available, but at the present price it does not look as if there will be any money available. It will be a good gesture, that is all; it will not be of any value to anyone. It does not look as if there will be any interim payment unless we get a better price than we are getting now.
I come next to the important feature, the set price of 70 cents at Fort William. I do not believe in this 70 cents Fort William myself; I do not think it is high enough. I do not believe the price of wheat could be too high to suit me; I am a farmer and I want the price of wheat to be as high as possible. But it is unfair to have the price set at a certain figure at Fort William and Montreal. Because a man happens to live close to Fort William or Montreal he gets a better price than the man out in the country. If the government are going to act as Santa Claus and give the farmer 70 cents a bushel, which is more than he can get in the markets of the world, let them treat all the farmers alike. Why give the man who lives near Montreal 70 cents and the man down beside lake Erie 55 cents?


Mr. GOLDING:: And that is true of more than wheat.


James J. Donnelly: Yes, but I am referring
particularly to the price set by the government. Why not pool all the freight charges and pay every farmer across the country the same, whether it be 60 cents, 65 cents, whatever the government decides on? Let it be the same to every farmer.


William Ross Macdonald: Let the government take over the whole wheat crop and every other crop.


James J. Donnelly: I am living in Saskatchewan on the dividing line. We set the price at 70 cents in Vancouver or Fort William. But on account of the war all the wheat from Alberta has been going to Fort William; they have been hauling wheat from Calgary to Fort William at a lower price than from Saskatchewan. That is not fair play, that is not treating all alike. The people in Saskatchewan are penalized; they are paying the highest freight rate on wheat of any part of Canada.


Mr. REID:: Except British Columbia.


James J. Donnelly: No; British Columbia is near Vancouver, and they get the freight, rate to Vancouver or Fort William, whichever is cheaper. We in the western part of Saskatchewan are on the dividing line; we pay the highest freight of any part of Canada. Why should we be penalized in that way just because we happen to live there?


An hon. MEMBER:: Who sets the freight rate?


James J. Donnelly: That has nothing to do with the matter. The wheat has to be hauled to either Fort William or Vancouver, and on account of the war it is all sent to Fort William, but the man in Alberta only pays the rate to Vancouver.


Thomas Reid: The same rate for over twice the distance.


James J. Donnelly: I say the price should be the same at every initial point; every farmer should get the same, whatever price the government decides on. Pool the freight and pay all farmers the same, whether at Georgian bay in Ontario or down at lake Erie, or wherever it be. This is only reasonable and right. There is no reason why a man should be penalized and not get as much from the government because he lives several hundred miles from Fort William or Vancouver.
Another matter is the processing tax. Some nine or ten years ago I advocated in this house that the government put on a processing tax the same as was used in Australia at
Canadian Wheat Board


Mr. KINLEY:: To the pools.


James J. Donnelly: Yes, to the pools and others in the grain trade. I say this charge is ridiculous, and I 'believe it should at least be cut in half. I have been thinking and talking about this matter ever since this house opened. Under the old grain act the board of grain commissioners fixed the charges for storage, cleaning and handling, and these rates were subject to approval by the governor in council. That act was amended in 1930. The board of grain commissioners still sets the maximum rates, but those rates are not subject

Canadian Wheat Board
to approval by the governor in council. All the act says is that the board of grain commissioners shall fix the maximum rates that may be charged for the handling, cleaning and storage of grain. If that board does not cut this price to the bone-I say it should be cut in two-then we should amend the Canada Grain Act in that respect, because I do not consider these prices either reasonable or right. I say that the cost of handling our wheat was $50,000,000, not only on the authority of the statements I have mentioned but because of other statements I have heard to the effect that the grain people received in the neighbourhood of 13 or 14 cents a bushel on all the wheat they handled. I can give the committee those figures if necessary, because I know what they are.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Does that include freight?


James J. Donnelly: No, that does not
include freight at all. That is something else which the farmer has to pay. This is just for elevation, storage, cleaning, loading into cars, service charges, diversion charges and matters of that kind.


John Gordon Ross: The gross earnings of the elevator companies.


James J. Donnelly: Yes. Some one raised the question of what the farmer will do when he cannot get his wheat into an elevator. That is one of the serious matters with which we have to contend this year. It will be necessary for the farmer to get credit in some way or another. If a big farmer has ten, fifteen, twenty or thirty thousand bushels of grain and can market only two thousand bushels, he must get credit somewhere. We shall have to do one of three things. We shall have to provide credit through the banks or through the elevator companies or through the government itself. I believe provision could be made by the banks or the elevator companies to give the farmers credit at reasonable rates of interest.
These are some of the questions that are bothering our people back home to-day. We hope a sane and sensible solution can be found for all these problems which are occupying our attention. I ask the government to consider not only fixing the same price at all elevators across the country, but also to consider this matter of cutting the rates charged for the handling of our wheat.


Mr. FAIR:: I have only a few words to
say this evening, Mr. Chairman, but because I have been held back for so long, and because I rushed back here after a sumptuous meal, I find it just a little difficult to talk. The fact that the hon. member for Wood
Mountain (Mr. Donnelly) has spoken provides me with a reason for saying a few more words than otherwise I would have said. With some of the suggestions he made I am in accord. I agree that there should be an equalization of freight rates and a reduction in handling and storage charges. We can walk hand in hand in connection with those two items. But with some of the other statements he made I am afraid I cannot agree. He told us that the British government had from 50,000,000 to 75,000,000 bushels of wheat in this country. A short time before that the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) told us that the British government had 150,000,000 bushels of wheat here. There is not much disparity there!


John Gordon Ross: I made no such statement at all.


Robert Fair: Read Hansard to-morrow morning.


John Gordon Ross: I said something over 50,000,000 bushels.


Robert Fair: Read Hansard, if it has not
been changed, and you will find out.


John Gordon Ross: I made no such statement, and the hon. member must withdraw.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member must accept the statement of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross).


Robert Fair: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Wood Mountain referred also to the advisory committee. All along, the genuine farmers of western Canada have advocated the setting up of an advisory committee to work with the wheat board. Such a committee was provided for by the act of 1935. but we were deprived of the benefits of that committee, I believe late in 1935. I have no idea where our producer representation is to-day. The fact that certain men mentioned by the hon. member for Wood Mountain are on the board does not guarantee that they are producer representatives. The fact that they worked for the wheat pools is no guarantee that they are producer representatives. At that time they were taking their orders from the pools; to-day they are taking them from the government or perhaps indirectly from the grain exchange.
The hon. member also offered a plea for the independent farmer and asked that he should have representation on the wheat board. I contend that if there are any independent farmers who are not organized they do not deserve representation. I believe the fact
Canadian Wheat Board

that we are not organized is one reason why we are contributing millions of dollars every year through lower .prices for our wheat. There are certainly plenty of organizations throughout the country to take care of these strays.
The hon. member for Wood Mountain also told us that he is a farmer. There are many of us who were bom in hospitals, but that does not make us doctors. The fact that the hon. member has some land of his own does not make him a farmer. Perhaps he is one of these gentlemen farmers to whom I referred not long ago, who raise nothing but their hats.
In connection with freight rates, let me tell the hon. member that we in Alberta pay our just share. As far as I can learn, we pay even more than the farmers in Saskatchewan. When I ship wheat of the very best grade that can be grown I receive 70 cents, but nineteen cents of that is taken for freight and handling. This means that for the best wheat that can be grown I receive only 51 cents a bushel. I want this to be noted so that people in central and eastern Canada will not be led astray by references to this 70 cent price. It should be understood that this price is basis No. 1 northern, Fort William. Between now and the time my grain is in the bin, several things may occur to force the price down to as low as 40 cents a bushel.
Yesterday afternoon the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) made a statement in connection with wheat. We were thankful to get this statement even at this late date because we have been asking for such a statement for the past ten weeks. After I heard the statement I wondered why we had had to wait so long to get so little. The minister told us that this matter has engaged the constant attention of the government and its advisers, the wheat board and the board of grain commissioners. I wonder what happened to the representation and advice of the producers? As I have pointed out on other occasions, it would seem funny to other industries if their products were sold by a board which had no particular interest in that particular product. Even though our farmers are in the position they are in to-day they should not be taken advantage of because they are under this act.
I am in favour of the announcement made by the minister that farmers will be paid for storing wheat in bins on their farms. There is nothing new in this because, if I remember correctly, this was done by the wheat pools some years ago. I do not agree that the grain exchange should be left open. A few

months ago we were told that the grain exchange in England had been closed. If it was good business to close it over there, why should it not be good business to close it here? The minister told us also that the
5,000	bushel limit was being removed. I always thought that was an injustice and it should never have been placed in the act. I am glad to learn that the government is rectifying that particular wrong.
The government is rectifying another wrong by setting up an advisory committee. Rather than having some straggling farmers appointed to that committee, I should like to see representatives nominated by organized agriculture. In that way the government would have the views of organized agriculture instead of those of some individual who perhaps had not been able to make good at his own business.
Reference was also made to the question of interim payments, but I believe it is too late to get interim payments this year. A great deal of pressure was brought to bear to have interim payments made this year. I think the government realizes that in the spring the farmer needs money for seed, for repairs and to meet other requirements.
The levy of 15 cents a bushel on wheat is all right as far as I am concerned, although I should like to see it higher. I hope that the price of bread is kept down and that the war-time prices board does not get any of that moonshine about which the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) told us this afternoon. It is hoped that this board will keep awake to see that no undue rise in prices is put into effect. This board should also keep a watchful eye on the price of lumber and other materials needed for the building of bins, because this work will be carried on in western Canada to a considerable extent this year. If the crop reports are correct, the grain elevators will not be able to handle all the wheat.
Some reasons why we should have a good price for wheat might be given. Several reasons have been given before, but I am going to mention one or two now. It is realized, I think by everybody, that when we have a good price for wheat, all lines of industry in Canada are better off than when we have a poor price for wheat. Agriculture is one of the best markets that Canada has, and if we do not get a fair price for what we produce we are not able to buy the goods which we require and which we would buy if we had good crops and good prices.
In 1928, for example, when wheat was $1.05 a bushel, the western provinces purchased from the east $387,000,000 worth of goods at point of origin prices. Five years later, in

Canadian Wheat Board
1933, when wheat was 68 cents a bushel, the west was able to buy only 880,000,000 worth of goods from the east, or approximately 20 per cent of what it bought when wheat was $1.05 a bushel. That decrease in the purchases of the west would account for a great deal of the unemployment we had which necessitated the payment of large sums in relief. It meant that many railroad crews were idle and that Canada was compelled to pay deficits on the Canadian National Railways and other enterprises.
Again, in 1928, when wheat was selling at $1.05 a bushel, purchases of farm machinery in western Canada amounted to $89,306,000. In 1933, when wheat was 68 cents a bushel, those purchases dropped to $8,196,000. Here again one will see reflected in industry generally the effects of a poor price for our wheat, and those effects are felt throughout the whole of industry right across Canada.
We are told that the farm implement manufacturers of Canada find most of their markets in eastern Canada, but the report of the special committee which investigated farm implement prices shows that the sales of the International Harvester company in western Canada amounted to 77-6 per cent, while its sales in eastern Canada were only 22-4 per cent. The Massey-Harris company had 66-69 per cent of its sales in western Canada and 33-31 per cent in eastern Canada. The John Deere company had practically all of its sales in western Canada. These figures I think show quite plainly where the markets for farm implements are to be found.
Approximately only 40 per cent of the farmers of Canada live in the prairie provinces, and that 40 per cent has been paying a very heavy toll to the central provinces. In tariff costs alone the west has paid approximately $54,000,000 a year. That is in duties alone, and if we were to include the extra amount that we are charged for our machinery, I am sure that figure of $54,000,000 would be considerably increased.
Some people say that the western farmers are getting all the cream but I submit that other parts of Canada are getting quite a little bit as well. This is an article from one of the western newspapers:
A total of 93-6 of all Canadian wheat is grown -west of Winnipeg, only around 20 million bushels being grown in a normal year in the other provinces. With respect to other grains the percentage has a wider variation: only 64 per cent of oats, 79 per cent of barley, 87 per cent of rye and 95 per cent of flax is grown west of Winnipeg. On the other hand,
54	per cent of all Canadian cattle are raised in eastern Canada, 62 per cent of all hogs,
55	per cent of all sheep, 58 per cent of all eggs,
64 per cent of all butter, 95 per cent of all cheese and 72 per cent of all milk is raised in or produced in the eastern parts of Canada.
These figures were quoted recently by Hon. James G. Gardiner, Minister of Agriculture for Canada, in a speech he made in Winnipeg. It is evident that while western Canada specializes in grain growing, eastern Canada specializes in mixed farming. The Minister of Agriculture resorted to the quotation of statistics to disprove the contention that western agriculture has benefited more by contributions from the federal treasury than had eastern agriculture. He showed that wheat and other grains had for the most part carried themselves over the trying years in spite of drought and marketing problems.
I should like the committee to note that. The article continues:
In the past ten years in the neighbourhood of $36,800,000 had been spent to maintain and assist the live stock industry and of this sum over $27,500,000 went to eastern Canada. . . .
Even should the federal government have a loss on its wheat board transactions this year to the extent that the pessimistic critics forecast, it would not swell the ten-year federal expenditures for maintenance of the wheat industry to a figure approaching the amount spent on the live stock industry over the same period.
Quite frequently the west has been advised by armchair critics to abandon grain growing and go into mixed farming.
I would ask the hon. members to pay particular attention to what follows:
In a normal year approximately 66 per cent of the grain grown in Canada is exported and 66 per cent of the cheese produced is exported. There are only four other agricultural products of which the export volume exceeds ten per cent of the production.
If it were possible for the west to switch from grain specializing to mixed farming, the mixed farming industry would require even greater federal assistance than has already been given. A 50 per cent increase in mixed farming production in the west would put the eastern mixed farmer out of business, or at least cause him to clamour for even greater protection than is already afforded the mixed farming industry. In order that the mixed farmer may secure a higher price for his butter, his milk, cream cheese and other products he is protected by a high ratio of duty against the importation of these commodities. Increase in the domestic supply with a limited export market would have a serious effect upon the mixed farmer, though the purchasing public might be able to huy at lower cost.
It is a poor time for the eastern Canadian farmer to start to complain about the assistance given western agriculture, for the eastern agriculturist is in a vastly different position; not only has he a protected domestic market in which to sell his products, but he has been receiving generous assistance from the government in all his farming activities. On the other hand, the services with respect to grading -and inspection of wheat and other grains are paid for by the farmers through fees charged for the services.
Those people who started the shouting and complaining because the western grain growers
Canadian Wheat Board

are given a set price for wheat on the basis of delivery at Fort William, which means less freight rate at the farm, should first of all have taken the trouble to inquire into the situation with respect to their own farmers.
We have been told that we cannot get along without the Winnipeg grain exchange. I submit that we could get along very well without it because we have one of the greatest groups of parasites in Canada connected with that organization, and now that we are starting to unload, we might as well unload there as well as in some other places nearer home.
Coarse grains during the last number of years have been very low in price. They have been in the same position as wheat. We find that we are losing money on the coarse grains we grow. The market for coarse grains seems to have disappeared almost entirely. The fact that the farmers have been compelled to give up horses and produce with tractors at a lower cost is another reason for the reduction in the coarse grains market.
What is going to happen to the hog market? We may have an opportunity to discuss this a little later, but the way the hog market has been going for some time and the prospects as they appear to-day do not guarantee anything very hopeful in that line.
I believe that the wheat 'board act as it was passed in 1935 should be put into full effect and, as I have suggested time after time, the grain exchange closed and put out of business.
Some may argue that we are not entitled to the just price, or the cost of production plus a reasonable profit. To those who argue along that line I would say, are the firms which are manufacturing war goods entitled to a cost-plus price? If they are-and I am not complaining about it provided the profits are not excessive-then the farmers, who after all are the back-bone of Canada, should receive similar treatment.
I do not intend to say much more, but I should like to make a suggestion to the Winnipeg Free Press. That newspaper, I believe, is a supporter of the government which is now in office. On June 27 I with some other members had occasion to speak on the wheat question, and on July 3 or 4 the Free Press published an editorial in which it named two hon. members as well as myself. The other hon. members are well able to speak for themselves. I maintain that the Free Press misrepresented the remarks I made here. If they have somebody reporting for them here to-night, I would ask them to give the truth or keep quiet.
I hope that the government will not make any more mistakes in connection with the wheat board. I believe that the mistakes

which they have already made in this connection have cost the farmers of Canada millions of dollars. Perhaps the profits went to privileged friends, but there are others who are entitled to a profit who will have to bear the brunt of taxation in this country, and who are deprived of the money which justly belongs to them.


Mr. LEADER:: I certainly had not planned to say anything at the present time, but, listening to the debate as it progressed this afternoon and this evening, and representing a western constituency where the growing of wheat and other grains is veritably our bread and butter, I feel that my constituents would expect me to say something on a subject which affects them so vitally.
I want to pay my respects to our new Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon). I believe that his work has been commendable in some regards, if not in all. It is a sound policy to make provision under present conditions for more Storage. Although I supported the 5,000 bushel limit last year, I agree that it has been a wise move to delete that provision as conditions are at present.
There is no question that we are in difficulties with regard to the marketing of our wheat, and it will need all the resourcefulness which our new minister possesses to get us out from under the burden which now affiicts us. Had I time, I might go back and give my impressions as to why we have been unable to sell our grain in foreign markets, but suffice it to say that one reason for our present difficulties in the marketing of grain and other products is the iniquitous tariff policies of not only this government but the one which preceded it. The old country has been Canada's best customer, and how had we treated her? It may be said that there is a British preference and that we allow many commodities to come into this country free of duty. But think of the manufactured goods which we might consume here, which are made-and well made-in the United Kingdom, but the importation of which is barred or hampered by the tariff walls that we have erected. It is all right to talk about patronizing home industry. We certainly owe the best that is in us to the people of this country. But there is no doubt, Mr. Chairman, that we have protected manufacturers in Canada to the extent of sacrificing our basic industry, agriculture.
Last year, in a speech which I made in this house, I pointed out that we still maintain a tariff barrier of 30 per cent against many of the manufactured goods coming from the old

Canadian Wheat Board
country. This is scandalous, iniquitous, unworthy of the Canadian people when one thinks of the great market we have for our goods over there.
If I say' anything which is not complimentary to the government-


Mrs. NIELSEN:: You will lose your seat.


Harry Leader: May I say to the hon. member that I do not believe that I shall lose my seat; it would take more than that to make me lose it. But if I say anything of that kind, it is not because I want to do it. I would rather support the government any time.


Charles Edward Johnston: If they bring down good legislation.


Harry Leader: If I offer any criticism, it is constructive and it comes from a friend.


Charles Edward Johnston: They will not believe it, though.


Harry Leader: I hope that anything I say will be regarded in the light of constructive criticism even though it may appear derogatory to the government of which I am a supporter.
I have never been impressed with the government's wheat policy. I think it is recognized by the people of this country that the present government are not friendly to a wheat board. I make that statement without fear of contradiction. I believe they will say, when we get back to normal times we will drop all these obstacles to the sale of wheat and return to the old system of selling our grain. I believe that most members of the government will admit that is a correct statement of their views, but in order to prove the statement I have made I shall run over one or two of the actions of this government since they came into power in 1935.
We-and I now put myself in a class with the government-inherited a wheat board- originally it was a grain board-with provision for an initial payment of 87i cents basis No. 1 northern Fort William, and also participation certificates to the producers. In our first year of office-I say this, not egotistically, but as being in the same boat as my hon. friends on this side-by order in council the government put in that notorious 90 cent restriction, which did not allow the wheat board to function until the price of wheat fell to 90 cents a bushel or lower. The result, of course, was that the wheat board did not function that year because the price of wheat was above that figure. I do not understand why the government took that action. I think it was an unfriendly act towards the wheat board.
In 1937 there was no amendment and the same conditions prevailed. In 1938 the initial
payment was cut from 87i cents to 80 cents a bushel. Under the conditions that prevailed at that time, perhaps that could not be construed as an unfriendly act to the wheat board because the price of wheat was very much lower. Then in 1939 the initial payment was again lowered to 60 cents a bushel, the price that appeared in the original bill, but by action in the house it was raised to 70 cents a bushel. Hon. members, however, may remember that last year I supported the 80 cent price, and I found it was my duty as I saw the light to vote against the government because they did not maintain that price. Then they removed the so-called advisory committee who were supposed to confer with the officers of the wheat board in all their deliberations. The hon. member for Weyburn referred to that in the speech he made in the house a few days ago, and I can concur in the remarks he made at that time. I look upon the action of the government in about the same light as does my hon. friend, and 90 per cent of the people of western Canada regard it in the same light. But I will give the committee a better authority than myself or the hon. member for Weyburn. I will give unimpeachable authority from no less a person than the Hon. Mr. Motherwell. Speaking in this house last year he said, as reported at page 3768 of Hansard:
So we had these two serious blunders, neither of which was friendly towards the wheat board; in fact, they were positively unfriendly. I think, from what we have seen and heard, there can be no doubt that a large section of the cabinet is opposed to the wheat board.
I wonder if Mr. Motherwell was right. If he was right, then I want to tell the minister that he has his work cut out for him if his advisers in the government are unfriendly to the wheat board.


James Arthur Ross: Absolutely right.


Harry Leader: I shall not quote more than that; that is by the way. I khall, however, refer to some matters that have been brought up by some hon. members to-night. Several hon. members have referred to the grain exchange and the hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Donnelly) defended it. I will not take it upon myself either to defend or to criticize the grain exchange. I believe that the exchange in the past performed a necessary service, but in my opinion it has outlived its usefulness. I will make the bald statement that under present conditions the government should close the grain exchange, and I believe the great majority of the people for whom I speak would agree with me. That may possibly be offered as a criticism of the government now that they are going to continue the exchange and allow it to function.
Canadian Wheat Board

At this time of low prices for our wheat, every endeavour should be made to save every half cent or cent a bushel. One of the functions of the grain exchange and of the grain trade in general, including the pool elevators, is to charge producers one cent commission for handling their grain; I believe there is a regulation in the wheat board which compels them to purchase through some agency, and that agency would of necessity be some of the elevator companies which are members of the grain exchange.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not compelled.


Harry Leader: I thought they were. At any rate the act should be amended. I believe we could save that one cent a bushel if the farmers were allowed to bill and ship their grain to the order of the wheat board. That would be a handsome saving of ten dollars on every 1,000 bushels of wheat, and by the closing of the grain exchange and billing the wheat to the wheat board, we could save that money. It is the duty of the government to supply this advantage to the producer.
I want now to say something about coarse grains. My district of Portage la Prairie is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, barley growing districts in western Canada. I have heard it said that for every bushel of wheat grown on the Portage plains we grow three bushels of barley; and if a farmer hauled that barley to Portage la Prairie to-night he would get approximately 20 cents a bushel for it- away below cost of production. I suggest that we can save at least one-quarter of a cent a bushel on that commission which is now being asked for selling our barley. I brought this matter up last year. I was negotiating with some people in Winnipeg before coming down here for the session. Some of the men agreed that we should cut the commission to three-quarters of a cent instead of the one cent a bushel now being charged, but that was a matter which would have to be settled by the grain exchange. It was taken up with the grain exchange, and I received a letter stating that the charge of one cent a bushel was reasonable and that therefore they would not lower it.
I say it is the function of the government to step in here; if the grain exchange will not play ball with us when our back is to the wall and we cannot see where our meal is coming from next winter, then we ought to get rid of the institution, and I ask the government to take prompt action. If the grain exchange were closed and we were allowed to consign our grain to the wheat board without paying that cent a bushel for selling it, we could by another method save this commission which we are

now charged. I am a pool man. I have been a pool man ever since the pool was mooted in Canada as a farmers movement to help ourselves. I have always supported it and I [DOT] am supporting it to-day. I have to pay my commission because that regulation in the act stipulates that the grain must go through the regular channels of trade, and I suggest that if we were allowed to ship the grain to the board we would not have to pay the one cent commission because there would be no broker in between. We have no right to pay it. We should get that money back. Some hon. members who are not conversant with the trade may wonder how we can get it back. I will tell them. The wheat pools of western Canada, at any rate in my province, remit back to the men who have shipped their grain to them-that is, platform shipments- approximately one cent a bushel; these are terminal earnings. That is the way in which the producers can get that cent back-shipping grain not through the regular channels of trade, through the grain exchange, but through their own farmers organizations. If you intend to get anywhere you must help yourself.
I want to say a word or two with regard to my occupation, the business of agriculture. It is the only business about which I know anything. I was bom on the Portage plains; I live on the farm where I was bom, and I have followed agriculture all my life. If I cannot convince hon. members that I know what I am talking about, there is something wrong. But I contend that I do know what I am talking about, and I know that our business is in a terrible condition. I believe that all hon. members would like to help us out; I am satisfied of that. But they do not understand the conditions. Hon. members have been told to-day what we received for our wheat on an average over a number of years, but the best indication of the income of the farmer is how much he gets per acre, because the amount harvested per acre varies. It was said that over a thirty-year period, from 1908 to 1938, I believe, the average price of wheat was 90f cents and the average earnings per acre $13.80. For the last ten-year period the average price was about 56 cents, and the earnings per acre, a little over $6.


Major James William Coldwell: The figure was $6.81.


Mr. LECLERC:: How many acres of land does a farmer farm?


Harry Leader: It yaries from 160 to
several thousand, depending upon how ambitious he is. So hon. members will see that the income has been more than cut in half in the last ten years as compared with the thirty years preceding. It has been computed

Canadian Wheat Board
that when our grain of last year's crop is all sold, it will net the farmer 49 cents a bushel at his local elevator. Now I have told this before to this committee, that the farmer's dollar as represented in wheat, barley et cetera is worth only about 43 cents when he comes to buy farming machinery. People will argue about what percentage of the farmer's dollar goes into machinery. It depends how one looks at it. It amounts to this:	If one
is buying an average farm of 160 acres in western Canada, he would pay just about as much for the machinery to work it as for the farm. But they spread it over a term of years, say it .will last twenty years, and arrive at an annual figure on that basis. Considering that our dollar has shrunk from a value of 100 cents in 1914, normal times, to less than fifty cents, there is no need to look any further in order to find out why agriculture is in its present condition. One can talk about parity of prices or anything one likes, but unless that is rectified, agriculture will never be on a good foundation in western Canada.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: Apparently we have arrived at the dawn of a new age. We have too much wheat, with no place to put it. The other day we heard that we have too much coal, too many clothes, too much lumber, too much fish, too much bacon. I suggest that what is wrong with the world may be that there is too much capital, too many grain exchanges, too much interest, too much control. There are other things m Canada of which we have too much. There is too much malnutrition, too many undernourished people. I believe that if statistics were complete they would show at least a million people undernourished in Canada to-day, or perhaps it would be closer to three million. After a short trip through the maritimes I believe there are many fishermen's and other families who are suffering for lack of the necessaries of life. If this government can get some of the great surplus of bread in this country into the stomachs of some of those hungry people, this government might partly justify its existence. If that cannot be done, I suggest that we get out of here and pass the job over to half a dozen rural school ma'ams from Saskatchewan.


Mr. WRIGHT:: Coming from a western district in which we grow a great deal of coarse grains, I wish to bring certain matters to the attention of the minister. I listened with much interest to the hon. member for Portage la Prairie when he referred to the proportion of barley grown in his constituency. In the northern part of Saskatchewan we all grow a large quantity of coarse grains.
The government has been advising us to do it, to get out of wheat production and grow coarse grains to a greater extent. I would point out the position this fall of the farmer who has taken the advice of the government and changed over to coarse grain production. This year the average farmer on a section of land in the district from which I come will probably have from 160 to 200 acres in wheat, 100 to 130 acres in barley and 50 to 80 acres in oats. When he threshes he will have in the neighbourhood of 4,000 bushels of wheat, 4,000 bushels of barley and 4,000 bushels of oats. To pay his threshing bill on that amount of grain will take S640.
I think one hon. member speaking this afternoon stated that if he is allowed to deliver the average amount of grain under a quota, it will be in the neighbourhood of 500 bushels, but I am raising that to 1,500 bushels if he grows 4,000 bushels of wheat this year. If under the first quota he is allowed to deliver 1,500 bushels, he will receive, at the average freight rate point, which is in the constituency I represent, $750. In other words, he will have $110 left to pay all his other expenses, buy his twine, pay his taxes, pay for his seed, keep his family and pay his store bill. I do not know how he is going to do it. I would certainly like some explanation from the government as to how the average man in those sections of the west is going to be able to meet his bills. The Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) stated that it was moonshine to think of making an advance to the farmer on grain which he might store on his farm. It was done in the United States, and it should and must be done in western Canada this fall; otherwise there will be widespread bankruptcy. The farmer will not be able to pay his store bill; he will not be able to pay his blacksmith; he will not be able to meet any of his obligations. It is not only the farmer who will suffer but everyone in the west who depends on the farmer; that is, ninety per cent of the people of the west are going to be close to bankruptcy unless some provision is made for an extension of credit.
What is the position of the average farmer to-day, after the minister has made this statement that we are to get 70 cents a bushel for our wheat and that we can deliver only a certain quota? The farmer must get money to carry on his farming and harvesting operations; he must get a line of credit. I ask any minister whether, if he were a banker, he would advance any money to a farmer to carry on his operations, knowing quite well that it is going to be impossible for him to meet that obligation when it comes due two
Canadian Wheat Board

months from now. I do not think it is fair to ask the banking people to do it, but that is what the government are doing by the statement they issued to-day. I believe the statement made by the minister indicates a move in the right direction, but I would not call it a step; it is a mere gesture. I believe the processing tax of 15 cents a bushel should have been at least 50 cents and that the initial payment of 70 cents a bushel should have been greatly increased. I would ask the government seriously to consider providing some line of credit for. the farmers on the grain they will not be able to deliver this fall. The farmers of the west do not want to make a cent out of this war. All they ask is a chance to break even, do their share and contribute what they can to the effort we must all make at this time. So I think it is the duty of the government to give the farmers more consideration than they have been given up to the present.
We have a board that is supposed to control prices, and I should like to tell the committee something with regard to comparative prices to-day, citing an instance 'that happened on our own farm. The other day they had to buy an oil filter for the tractor. That filter consists of twenty pieces of felt cut in the shape of a doughnut, one on top of another. Those pieces of felt cost twenty-five cents each, or a total of $5 for the filter. The man brought the pieces of felt home and weighed them; they weighed a half pound. In other words, we paid 85 for a half pound of mixed cotton and wool. Last spring I sold the wool that went into those pieces of felt for twenty-two cents a pound. In other words, I received eleven cents for the material which I bought back for 15. The same day the price of oats at the local point was 14 cents a bushel. In other words, it took 1,200 pounds of oats to buy back a half pound of wool that we sold for eleven cents. Surely no one in this house believes agriculture can carry on under such conditions. We have a price control board. Why do they not do something?
To-day prices for repairs to a binder are from 192 per cent to 226 per cent higher than the cost of the binder itself. That represents too much of a spread. Probably more repairs are required for binders and mowers than for any other implements; yet the mark up on these repairs is higher than on those for any other farm machinery. I think the government should do something about the matter. Action can be taken in two ways, by raising the price the farmer gets for his products and by seeing that he is not overcharged for the commodities he has to buy. After all,

it does not matter whether we get 70 cents or $1.25 or $2 for wheat; it is what the bushel will obtain for us that counts. I believe that the government should give some consideration to these matters before bringing down this bill.


Joseph-Hermas Leclerc: As an easterner I realize that the western farmers have reason to complain that the cost of farm implements is out of all proportion to the price of wheat. But may I ask how it happens that in travelling through the west we see millions of dollars worth of equipment lying out in the fields without any shelter? Surely a farmer could buy a thousand feet of lumber and build a shelter for these expensive implements.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. MacKinnon (Edmonton West) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 118, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Acting Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 112, to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Vien in the chair.
On section 1-Arrangements with local governments or municipalities for the use of the force.
Mr. STIRLING:: Does this mean that
agreements can be entered into with municipalities in those provinces in which the Royal Canadian Mounted Police do not operate at present?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The amendment is to empower the minister to make such arrangements with municipalities in those provinces in which the mounted police operate at the present time.


John Ritchie MacNicol: May I ask in what provinces the mounted police now operate?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Alberta, Saskatchewan,
Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island are the provinces in which we have the mounted police operating.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police


Howard Charles Green: I wonder if the minister
could explain the situation with regard to checking up on fifth column activities in the various provinces. I believe three provinces, Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia, have their own provincial police forces. In those provinces, of course, there is not so large a proportion of mounted police as in the other provinces. I believe there is some question as to whether or not there are sufficient mounted policemen in those three provinces to check up properly on these activities. Would it not be possible for the dominion government to make some arrangement with the police forces of those three provinces in order to help out with this work of checking subversive activities? I suppose it will resolve itself into the question of who is to pay the cost of having this work done. It seems to me that this could quite properly be paid for by the dominion. As the situation exists to-day, I do not believe the mounted police are in a position to do all the work that should be done in those three provinces. This is a matter where action should be taken by the government without delay.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The mounted police operate all over Canada under the defence of Canada regulations. It may be that in certain provinces we have not as many mounted police officers as in others, but I am informed that the cooperation which exists between the mounted police and the provincial police authorities is satisfactory.


Howard Charles Green: It is quite true that there is cooperation, but these inquiries have to be made by someone qualified to go into the facts, and I believe all reports must go through the mounted police; in other words, the reports do not come direct from the provincial police to the mounted police headquarters at Ottawa. Some arrangement should be made to use the provincial police of those three provinces to a far greater degree than they are used at the present time in checking these subversive activities.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: As I said, the local police are cooperating with the mounted police, but they do not necessarily report through the mounted police. As my hon. friend knows, when the local police discover that something is going on, they have the right to take action through the attorney general of the province.


Howard Charles Green: I realize that the minister is handicapped because he is only acting Minister of Justice, but the fact is that if these people carrying on subversive activities are to be detained, action must be taken by the mounted police, if they are enemy aliens, 95826-124
or by the Minister of Justice, if they are not enemy aliens. The provincial police have no power to intern, so the minister is quite wrong in the statement he just made that the local police can act through the provincial authorities.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: My information is that in cases of that kind, they proceed by giving information to the mounted police. The local police may obtain certain information, which would be passed on to the mounted police for federal action.


Howard Charles Green: If the minister will look into this situation a little further I think he will find .that something should be done. There was reported in the British Columbia press a complaint of the attorney general of the province, who, after all, belongs to a government which is friendly to this government. I think the situation should be checked up by the minister.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I will do that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Exceptions as to age of new personnel.
Grote Stirling: Does not the underlined phrase at the end of this section grant rather wide power to the minister?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I admit it is pretty wide, but it was thought necessary to include it.


Grote Stirling: Is the minister in a position to give the reason why that wide wording was selected?
.Mr. CARDIN: Frankly, I cannot. The bill was prepared before I was placed in charge of the department. There was a strong recommendation from the commissioner of the mounted police that such power would be necessary.


Howard Charles Green: Very early in the session the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) stated that the mounted police force was to be increased. Can the minister give us any information in that regard?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The force has been increased by about 1,500 men.


Howard Charles Green: In what time?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Since the war began.


Howard Charles Green: What is the total strength now?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The regular force was 2,500 men, and it has been increased by 1,500.


Howard Charles Green: Is the total strength now 4,000?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.



Royal Canadian Mounted Police


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: Can the minister state the justification for withdrawing the mounted police officer from Pugwash in my constituency, a very important seaport? An officer has been stationed there ever since the agreement was entered into with Nova Scotia. The Minister of Justice assured us some time ago that the force was being increased, but the officer has been withdrawn from this point. The community for twenty miles around is rather uneasy. There are a number of settlers from Denmark, many of whom are splendid citizens, but some have not been naturalized. There are a number from Holland and from Germany also. This is one of the largest shipping ports in northern Nova Scotia. Twenty, thirty or forty large steamers, many with foreign crews, come there every year, and in the past the people of this community have relied upon the mounted police to give them protection. Instead of the force being increased, the officer has been withdrawn, and I think we should have an explanation from the minister. What steps will be taken to see that the necessary protection is given to this port.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have not before me the particulars of the special case referred to by my hon. friend, so I cannot at the moment give an answer which would satisfy him. That is a kind of information which can be more conveniently given when the estimates are before the committee of supply. At the moment I am advised that it may be the result of a rearrangement of the different districts by the commissioner, and such arrangements, I am told, are always made with the consent of the attorney general of the province.


Percy Chapman Black: If I understand the explanation given by the minister, the withdrawal of this officer was due to representations either made by the federal authorities or approved by the federal authorities. Which?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: By the commissioner of the mounted police himself in rearranging his districts, as he very often does.


Percy Chapman Black: Has that
change been reviewed by the department at Ottawa and has it received the commissioner's approval?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes; it could not have been done without his approval.


Percy Chapman Black: I protest
against that change. The people of this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific have been assured that they were being given greater protection, that this force had been

increased by 40 per cent, and that announcement met with general approval. But in the application of this change in policy to the community to which I have reference, Pugwash, Nova Scotia, instead of the community being given greater protection, the officer whom the force had there for years has been withdrawn.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I repeat that this has been done with the consent of the attorney general of Nova Scotia. At all events the hon. gentleman's representations are now on record, and when the estimates are before the committee of supply I am sure that more complete information can be given to him.


James Arthur Ross: Do I understand from the minister's answer that in Manitoba, for example, where we have an arrangement between the provincial government and the police, if an officer is transferred or a station closed, the matter must first of all receive the approval of the attorney general of Manitoba?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is done in every instance.


Howard Charles Green: I have now before me the statement of the Minister of Justice about the strength of the police force, and I find that earlier this session he said that the force was to be increased by 500, the present strength being 2,450. Does the minister say to-night that the force has been increased in the last six weeks from 2,450 to over 4,000?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that an
order in council was passed to increase the number of uniformed men by 500. The 1,500 that I mentioned a moment ago are specials.


Howard Charles Green: The minister means the men on the roads who wear just their ordinary clothes, with a band round their arm?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: I was referring to the police force itself.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am told that they are now getting the 500 into uniform.


Howard Charles Green: That is, the force is to be increased from 2,450 to 2,950?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Percy Chapman Black: May I ask
how many of that increased number have been stationed in Nova Scotia? What has been the addition to the force in that province within the last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I regret very much that I have not that information at hand at the moment.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police


Percy Chapman Black: I shall not
press the minister to furnish the information now, but I should like to have his assurance that we shall get the information. I should like to know how many uniformed officers of this force have been stationed in Nova Scotia within the last six months or since the declaration of war?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Very good.


James Arthur Ross: Are the 1,500 additional officers in addition to those recruited for overseas service? At the Regina barracks they have a company of young men who have been taken on the force and are training for overseas duty, but they will be members of the force when they return. Are they included in that additional 1,500?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am told they are on leave only.


James Arthur Ross: That is hardly an
answer. I have in mind specifically young men who have joined the force with the intention of going overseas, who have been called to Regina for training in a specific company of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for service overseas, and who will be members of the force when they return, and I was asking if they are part of the 1,500 additional officers or separate from that number.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: They are not part of the 1,500 additional officers.


James Arthur Ross: They are over and above that number?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: How many mounted police are stationed in British Columbia?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have not the exact figures but I am told that the number is about 150.


Howard Charles Green: The attorney general said there were forty.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The information I have at the moment is that the number is about 150.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
On section 5-Fines, forfeitures, gifts, et cetera, paid to the minister.
Mr. MacNICOL. As I understand this section, it means that any gift or present made to an officer by some individual in appreciation of some service rendered must be turned in to the minister.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes; that is the point. There were some doubts as to gifts made to the mounted police. This section authorizes
the minister to collect such gifts and bequests and to transfer them to the fund for the benefit of the mounted police.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-Compensation for injury.
Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain this section?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: What will be done under this new section 21A has been done hertofore by order in council, but the commissioner of the mounted police thought it would be better to have statutory authority than authority to act by order in council.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section, 7-Expense payable out of consolidated revenue fund.
Howard Charles Green: Is there power under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act to pay subsidies to a provincial police force? I bring up this matter in order to find out whether there is power to make financial arrangements with the provinces to get their police force to help in fifth column activity work.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am told there is no such power.


Howard Charles Green: Does the minister not think it would be wise under the circumstances to have such power included in the act?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It might be.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister take that into consideration?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes; I will bring it to the attention of the commissioner and the officers of the department.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-Pension gratuity, et cetera, to be granted with the approval of the governor in council.
Percy Chapman Black: What provision is made for retiring allowance for members of the force by way of pension?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We shall come to that on page 7 of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 9 and 10 agreed to.
On section 11-Desertion, absence without leave, refusal to do duty.
Howard Charles Green: What is the idea of changing the section?

Royal Canadian Mounted Police


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The section as it reads at present is as follows:
Every member of the force who, having deserted, absented himself from his duties *without leave, or refused to do duty therein, is found in any part of Canada other than the provinces of Saskatchewan or Alberta, or the Northwest Territories or the Yukon Territory. . . .
The proposed section will have no restriction at all. We are taking out the words:
other than the provinces of Saskatchewan or Alberta.
Meaning that it applies to the whole of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 12-Using name, etc., without authority. Proviso.
Howard Charles Green: This section apparently provides for a new subsection dealing with the use of "Royal Canadian Mounted Police" as a trademark, and so forth. What is the present arrangement by which firms are able to make carvings of a mounted policeman and sell them, and so on? Representations of the mounted police seem to be used a great deal more, in the form of advertisements and otherwise, than they were a few years ago Under what arrangement is this done?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This new subsection is to prevent the very thing of which my hon. friend is complaining. Previously we had not the authority which is being obtained under this section, and decidedly we want it, to prevent that very thing.


Howard Charles Green: For instance, in magazines one sees advertisements featuring a fine-looking mounted policeman. Do the people who insert those advertisements need to get the consent of any department of the government, or do they just appropriate illustrations of the mounted police?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Advertisers are not required at the present time to obtain permission. If this subsection is passed they will have to ask the consent and approval of the commissioner of the mounted police.


Howard Charles Green: Is it the idea that a fee will be charged for the representation of the police in such advertisements?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No. The mounted police want to discourage entirely that kind of
advertising.


Howard Charles Green: Then there are these models which one sees in all the shops for purchase by tourists. Under what authority are they sold?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is no authority. At the present time we have not the power to prevent them from using these representations of the force. But if the section is passed and the bill becomes law we shall be in a position to prevent that kind of advertising.


Mr. HAZEN:: The intention is to prevent entirely the use of such models and so on?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Surely.


Grote Stirling: But for advertising purposes only, I understand.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, for advertising purposes.


Douglas King Hazen: Is it merely for advertising purposes? What harm would there be in selling these small wooden models which are carved by different people throughout the country?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That section relates to
trade-marks, business identifications and business advertisements.


Howard Charles Green: There seems to be some misunderstanding. Is it the intention to prevent the sale of these models of mounted policemen?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, not that.


Howard Charles Green: Anyone is to be allowed to
make them and sell them?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes. What we want to
prevent is the use of these names and representations for commercial purposes-trademarks, for example.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 13-Constable after ten years may be pensioned if infirm; after twenty years entitled to pension, etc.
John Ritchie MacNicol: I might say a word under this section. As a Canadian I take a humble pride in our Royal Canadian Mounted Police force and the respect in which they are held wherever they go. I noticed at the New York World's Fair that they attracted a great deal of attention, and rightly so, because the commissioners, in selecting recruits for this force, have apparently picked good-looking young men, strong and healthy young men, and better still, highly educated young men, so that wherever they go they splendidly justify their training. I notice under this section that the pension commences after ten years' service. That is a commendable provision, because there should be an inducement to these men to remain in the service. As I understand section 66A, if a young man is in the force a matter of ten years, and then is compelled

Prairie Farm Assistance
to retire as a result, perhaps, of an accident, or sickness, or the inclement weather to which frequently the police are exposed, he would get $4S for each year of service, or $480 a year. While that may be a small pension after ten years' service, from another and more general point of view it might be regarded as very good. I wish that all employees, whether in industry or elsewhere, could be assured of as much by way of pension if they were compelled to retire after ten years of service.
I do not want the minister to think I am not in accord with this provision. I am. I heartily endorse this pension rate.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The amount depends on
the rank.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I was taking the lowest
rank.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That refers to the case of a constable who has completed ten years' service.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I should have said, although I forgot to say it, that if the constable's salary and allowances are, say, equivalent to $2,400 a year, the constable who is drawing that amount in allowance and salary would receive one-fiftieth of that amount, which is 48, multiplied by the number of years of service. If the number of years were ten, the amount would be $480.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes; that is right.


John Ritchie MacNicol: How many men now in
the service were pensioned but have come back?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am told there are only
about fifty who came back since the war.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 14-Pension of reengaged pensioner to be temporarily discontinued.
Percy Chapman Black: What is the
usual retiring age for these officers?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am told that is covered
by order in council, but the age is fifty-five.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Thomas Vien: Shall the title carry?


Alan Webster Neill: Would the minister not consider reenacting the bill instead of putting so many changes in it? It is a considerable bill and makes a great many important changes, some of them quite long. Would it not be more practical and convenient to repeal the old act and make a new one?


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is carried now, anyway.


Alan Webster Neill: No, it is not carried.


Thomas Vien: Shall the title carry?


Mr NEILL:: No.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The bill is quite a big one, containing four parts.


Alan Webster Neill: There will be an office consolidation?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


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


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of Bill No. 113, to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, 1939.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) gave no intimation last night that this bill would be discussed. It is not in the list of items enumerated to be taken up and we did not get the bill until one o'clock.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Has the hon. gentleman
any objection to going ahead with it?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes; it is a complicated bill. I came down this morning at twelve o'clock and could not get copies; it was not printed. There are other matters on the order paper that could be taken up.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I see no reason why the
bill could not go into committee. We are not likely to finish with it to-night, but we wish to facilitate the business of the house as much as possible. There was one other measure mentioned which the leader of the opposition asked to have stand over.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We are quite willing to facilitate the business of the house, and as a matter of fact we allowed all the preliminary stages to pass. But we have here a bill that was printed only to-day, and if it goes into committee we shall have to discuss it clause by clause without having had any opportunity to study the principle of it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Nothing in the amendments really affects the principle of the original act. The bill could be permitted to go into committee. I had not intended to discuss it further on the second reading than I did on the resolution. I am prepared to leave it in committee and not proceed further with it to-night.

Prairie Farm Assistance


James Lester Douglas: I do not wish to hold the matter up, but I would ask the minister to stop at the first section and give us a chance to discuss the general policy under that section.


James Garfield Gardiner: Do I understand it is
the desire of the house to let the first section stand and go on with some of the others or to let the whole bill stand?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Let the
whole bill stand after we have got into committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Yien in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Grote Stirling: Could the minister take
the opportunity here to give us some information with regard to the composition of the board?


James Garfield Gardiner: During the last season
a committee of three dealt with the same matters with which a board would be required to deal. One of the reasons why we did not put in a board last year was that we did not think this was the type of legislation that should be put under a board operating throughout the year. The board is only required at the time that the check is being made on the crop and only in such years as the check should be made on the crop. It was not the type of legislation that should be turned over to a permanent board which would be operating throughout the year and from year to year. It will become necessary, however, under the bill to set up a board each year. We had intended that the board would include, if there are three members, two officials of the department; one of them might be chosen from the staff of the Department of Agriculture, and another member might be selected from some of the other departments.


Grote Stirling: It will sit in Ottawa?


James Garfield Gardiner: Last year the committee sat part of the time in Regina and part of the time in Ottawa. The third man on the committee last year was the soils man at the university of Saskatchewan. These three men from time to time checked on what was being done by the inspectors and others, and we thought it advisable this year to put on a board at the beginning of the season in order to speed up the work in connection with payments throughout the season.


Ernest Edward Perley: They would be located in
Regina?


James Garfield Gardiner: Not necessarily. It is
a matter of satisfying the officials that the payments ought to be made. Sometimes sittings are required in Regina and sometimes here-more likely here than in Regina.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If I may interrupt the
proceedings, Mr. Chairman, I find, on looking at Hansard that according to the announcement made last night of the business for to-day, the hon. member for Weybum (Mr. Douglas) is in error. Last night I said:
To-morrow we should get along with second readings of various bills on the order paper.
The leader of the opposition asked what they were and I said:
There is the bill based on the resolution respecting the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
That is the measure which we have under consideration now.


Grote Stirling: But the bill was not printed and it did not reach us. I think I am right in saying that the bill was not printed and had not been distributed, and I do not think it had reached my office by the time the sitting of the house began at eleven o'clock this morning.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is not the point. The fact is that it stands on the order paper for second reading to-day and it was announced last night.


Grote Stirling: But surely we are not expected to discuss bills that have not reached us.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not know when it was distributed.


Ernest Edward Perley: About one o'clock.


Grote Stirling: That meets the minister's objection.


Percy Chapman Black: What disbursements were made under this act in the last calendar year?


James Garfield Gardiner: I gave an undertaking a few minutes ago that I would not proceed with this bill to-night if anyone had any objection. If there is no objection, I might answer a few questions to-night.


Ernest Edward Perley: It is understood that on section 2 to-morrow we shall have the opportunity of a general discussion.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is on the first section.
The payments made last year under this bill were:
In the	$1.00	category	
$4,132,206	07In the	$1,50	category	
2,617,830	95In the	$2.00	category	
173,971	81In the	$2.50	category	
2,839,197	38
Prairie Farm Assistance


Percy Chapman Black: What are the different categories?


James Garfield Gardiner: The $1 per acre payment is made in the areas that have an average yield of from eight to not more than twelve bushels to the acre. The $1.50 payment is made in areas having from four to not more than eight bushels; the $2 payment in areas having from four bushels down, and the $2.50 payment in townships in a province where a crop failure area has been declared. The only province last year that had a crop failure area declared in it was Saskatchewan, where there were 260 townships that had five bushels to the acre or less. There was $2.50 an acre paid in those townships.


Major James William Coldwell: There is one class of loss that is not covered, and it is difficult to see how it can be covered, namely, damage by flood. It seems surprising to speak of damage by flood in an area that has been afflicted by drought. It does not happen to be in my constituency; it is just over the border; the run-off is largely from my constituency. Several farmers there had hundreds of acres flooded. The district itself had an excellent crop, but these people were faced with a dead loss. The minister knows all about the situation. I do not know if anything can be done in this bill to meet that situation, but since that happens periodically in that district-it happened in 1916, in another year that I have forgotten, and last year-possibly some other action can be taken under the Prairie Farm Relief Act. I bring the matter to the attention of the minister because I said I would.


James Garfield Gardiner: The only way in which that particular loss could be covered by this bill would be if the section happened to be in a township which had under twelve bushels to the acre; then they would get assistance like anyone else. In some areas in the west they do have these conditions from time to time; it might happen in a dry season just as well as in another, when a rush of water destroys certain crops. If that were to happen in an area which came under this bill, those farmers would be paid like any others.


Major James William Coldwell: I understand that, but it was in an area where the crops in the surrounding country were good because of the rains, but these people lost their crop through flood.


Ernest Edward Perley: Are there any outstanding claims?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; there are some all the way through the area, an occasional person who has not been able to prove his right to payment. I do not know whether I
should call those outstanding claims, or claims that have not yet been settled. There may not be any payments made on them. Then there is another type of claim that may have to be met. There were some townships which were not able to satisfy the officials that they were entitled to payment. Some are still making claims. In one township I remember, the yield was 12-04 bushels according to the record; that is just four one-hundredths of a bushel over. There has been a good deal of controversy as to whether it is over or under. We have been maintaining that it is over, and they have been trying to prove that it is slightly under. If they prove that, we will eventually make that payment. There are instances like that where payment has not been made. Then there are some townships, mostly in Alberta, from which claims from certain sections were late in getting in and we were not able to check acreages successfully during the winter. Some were checked this summer; some of these payments have not been made, but the great majority have.


Charles Edward Johnston: Will those payments be made now?


James Garfield Gardiner: They will if it is proved that the claimants are entitled to them. Payments to date have been made in 1,889 townships to 57,874 farmers.
Mr. GERSHAW; How much is collected through the one per cent tax?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not the exact figure here; in fact it would be impossible to give the exact figure because it is one per cent on all the grain that is delivered this year, and we have not yet reached the end of the grain year. But the collection is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $2,000,000.


Thomas Vien: Shall section 1 carry?


James Lester Douglas: The understanding was that we would allow section 1 to stand.


Thomas Vien: I would point out that section 1 is concerned only with the short title, and under standing order 58, paragraph 2, the discussion in committee must be strictly limited to the subject matter of the section under examination. I have allowed a great deal of latitude to hon. members because of the lateness of the hour and the few minutes at our disposal, but I would remind hon. members of the rule.


James Garfield Gardiner: Just to clear the matter up, I do not think it will make any difference, because I think hon. members will find that everything they want to ask questions about has been amended somewhere in this bill. All the matters we have had discussion about
Prairie Farm. Assistance

we have attempted to deal with in some way in this bill. We may not have dealt with them to the satisfaction of every hon. member, but they will have opportunity to discuss them under the particular sections.


Ernest Edward Perley: That was not the arrangement as I understood it. About a quarter of an hour ago I understood that we would be permitted to make a general statement.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am speaking of the ruling of the Chairman.


Ernest Edward Perley: Well, I ask the Chairman to amend his ruling, so to speak, so that we may make a general statement to-morrow.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think hon. members will need any more latitude than the bill gives. The bill covers the whole subject in some place or another, and I think
if hon. members will try to make their questions conform to these different sections they can ask everything they want to ask.


Thomas Vien: My experience has
been that when we do not strictly adhere to rule 58, subsection 2, there is a great deal of duplication of questions, arguments and reasoning, and we lose a good deal of time. That rule has been introduced as the result of much experience, and I believe its wisdom has been amply demonstrated.


James Lester Douglas: I want to say, and I think I am in order-


Thomas Vien: Order. Mr. Gardiner
moves that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Crerar the house adjourned at 11.03 p.m.



END OF VOLUME II


[Stage Direction]
House of Commons debates
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 24, 1940

Third report of special committee on the defence of Canada regulations-Mr. Ilsley.