1941-03-31

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. NICHOLSON (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker. I had intended to ask a question of the Minister of Labour, but in his absence perhaps the Minister of Agriculture might answer.
In view of the fact that dominion contributions for relief to the provinces are being discontinued on March 31, what responsibility will the federal government take for supplying food to the northern settlers in Saskatchewan who are being reestablished under a joint dominion-provincial arrangement, in the event that the province cannot care for these settlers? What announcement, if any, has been made by the Saskatchewan government in connection with supplying relief after March 31?


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: In the absence of the Minister of Labour I have been asked by him to reply as follows:-
It has always been the responsibility of the provincial or local authorities, acting under provincial regulation, to determine to whom, to what extent and under what conditions assistance is granted. The dominion responsibility was largely that of assisting the provinces financially. It is assumed that the provincial authorities will arrange to take care of those in need after March 31 without dominion assistance. I have no information as to the intention of the Saskatchewan government.



DECENNIAL CENSUS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yesterday the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) suggested that I lay on the table of the house the letter
Decennial Census

to which I referred as having been received from him in connection with taking the census, and I do so now.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Read it.


James Angus MacKinnon: It reads:
522 University Avenue,
Toronto, January 24, 1941.
The Hon. James A. MacKinnon,
Minister of Trade and Commerce,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Mr. MacKinnon,

I am informed that you have appointed Mr. Travers, my opponent in the last election, as chief census officer for Parkdale.
When the national registration was taken you will recollect that the members were asked to nominate the registrar for their ridings and after I nominated the president of my association, Mr. Wm. McKeown, I asked him to appoint Mr. Travers as assistant registrar and also to give Mr. Travers the opportunity of naming fifty per cent of those to be employed on this work.
Would it not be fair, therefore, to ask Mr. Travers, the chief census officer, to appoint Mr. McKeown as his assistant and to allow the latter to designate fifty per cent of those who will be engaged in this work?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, ohl


Mr. MacNICOL:: That is fair.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: There is nothing wrong with that; it is reciprocity.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Vien in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
422. Special. To provide for payments on reductions in wheat acreages, under conditions prescribed by the governor in council, for administration expenses in connection therewith, and for temporary appointments that may be required notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act, $35,000,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Chairman, I made a few remarks yesterday concerning the matter of procedure with respect to this item. I do not propose to repeat anything I said then. In my remarks to-day I shall review the criticisms of the government's proposals, and I hope to make a few constructive suggestions.
The wheat problem is not of recent origin; indeed it goes back to the years succeeding the last war, when the wheat-importing nations of Europe adopted the policy of attempting to become self-supporting communities.
If you will examine the record you will find that beginning with the year 1922, and in succeeding years down to at least 1934, the importing European countries, such as Germany and France, began by a succession of
rMr. J. A. MacKinnon.!
tariff increases, quota systems and other limitations, to cut down their imports of wheat until finally some of them, notably France, actually became exporters of wheat.
What was the reason for this? Frankly I think it was that they were afraid of war. They were afraid of the difficulties of transportation in time of war, but over and above all these reasons they were afraid of the price they had to pay for wheat during the great war. They determined that never again would they pay ransom to America for their bread.
Upon whom did this policy fall most heavily? Without doubt upon Canada, the United States and the Argentine, and upon Canada most of all. What did Canada do? Did she take cognizance of the growth of economic nationalism in Europe with respect to wheat? She did not-most emphatically she did not. During the time the right hon. gentleman and his party were in power and in control of government policy, this country increased its wheat acreage from 18 million acres in 1921 to over 25 million acres in 1930. Production in terms of bushels grew from 300 million bushels in 1921 to 479 million bushels in 1927, to 566 million bushels in 1929 and to 420 million bushels in 1930. In terms of dollars and cents the value of exports of wheat and wheat flour for the crop year 1925-26-the first year for which the figures have been made available to me-was $475 million, but in 1930-31 this had fallen to $188 million.
May I pause here to say that the problem first became acute at about this time, early in 1930. I really have never been able to make up my mind whether the then government, the then minister of agriculture, the then minister of finance, were aware of the situation rapidly coming to a head. But the evidence is that the government of my right hon. friend had not at the beginning of 1930 the slightest appreciation or understanding of the wheat problem then rapidly approaching. On February 20, 1930, the right hon. gentleman put these words into the mouth of his excellency in the speech from the throne:
The dominion is already recovering from the seasonal slackness evident at the end of the year and it is not to be forgotten that the bulk of the 1929 "wheat crop still remains in Canadian hands for final disposition.
Mr. Chairman, mark well that sentence! We, in common with the rest of the world, were then in the fourth month of the greatest economic depression the world had ever seen, and the right hon. gentleman called it a "seasonal slackness"! What vision! How characteristic of him! Trying the old game of lulling the Canadian people into a sense of false security. And then how naive the

Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages
statement that "the bulk of the 1929 wheat crop still remains in Canadian hands for final disposition"!
That was the position with respect to wheat which the Bennett government inherited in 1930. The crop of 1929 still remained unsold in the hands of the farmers. The problem continued down through the years to 1935, and then the Bennett government had to take over the whole burden and establish a new policy.
In the meantime marketing prices went from bad to worse. Wheat went down in price in 1933 on the world's markets to the lowest price in 400 years. The selling agency of the pools had called in John I. McFarland in 1930 to take over the problem. The government in the course of time had to put the credit of the country behind the agency, and it did so. This action carried the situation through to 1935, and no matter what the criticism was, the fact is that the operations of John I. McFarland never cost Canada one cent. On the contrary in the final accounting the McFarland operations resulted in a substantial profit to the treasury, and it should have been far more than it was.
I want to pause here to pay a tribute to Mr. McFarland. He was not employed by the government. He was employed by the pools, and he undertook, without salary, to serve Canada, and particularly western Canada, to the best of his ability-an ability, I believe, without a peer in that particular field. He gave himself so unremittingly to the task that I believe his health was permanently impaired. But what 'he did, he did for Canada, and I am sure the farmers of western Canada, irrespective of party politics, respect him and look upon him to-day as one of the greatest friends western agriculture ever had.
Then in the session of 1935 the government took, in the face of the sternest opposition from gentlemen opposite and from the trade, the only possible constructive position that was open to it. It decided on the establishment of the wheat board.
Hon. gentlemen who aTe interested in the position at that time may read with a good deal of profit Mr. Bennett's speech on the second reading of the bill on June 12, 1935, in which he traced the history of the production and sale of wheat in the whole world and its relation to Canada, and in which he made a most reasoned argument in support of the measure.
The terms of the 1935 bill were simple. It provided for the marketing of Canada's wheat crop through a government board, not through private enterprise. Why? In the
circumstances private enterprise had failed, and it has failed ever since. That was the fundamental reason. Nobody wanted to put the government into the wheat business, but because there was no other method, no other agency that would function, the wheat board was established. Another reason was that a wheat board would ensure against the destruction of that measure of economic stability which had been built up in the most trying years of the history of wheat production in Canada. The bill was offered on the further theory that Canada had an obligation not only to herself, as the chief exporter and the third greatest producer of wheat, but also to the other wheat exporting countries, to give such help and assistance as we were able, to prevent wheat from being sold at prices ruinous to the producers. Generally speaking, these were the principles upon which that legislation was based.	.
The advent of another great world war has accentuated the position. It has not changed, except in degree, the underlying position.
May I pause here now to examine the position of hon. gentlemen opposite, who were then sitting on this side. I well remember it. They were hostile to the principle. Who was their spokesman? He was the same gentleman who is now Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston). At page 3581 of Hansard of 1935 he made this statement:
I do not believe that the people of the Dominion of Canada are favourable to a compulsory wheat board-
Well, we have it; we have it to-day.
-to a board the constitution of which will mean that every wheat grower, every elevator man and everybody engaged in the business must deal with the government agency and no one else.
That was the attitude of my hon. friend in 1935. But while he gave expression to that view, he did not venture to challenge the measure. He was afraid to strike. Discretion was the better part of valour with him and his colleagues. He left us with the impression that while he would like to kill the bill he dared not do so. No wonder that at the conclusion of his speech one hon. gentleman asked him if he was for or against the bill. No one knew.
The board was set up in 1935. The election came. The Bennett government was defeated. The members of the board were dismissed and new men were appointed in their place. Was the personnel improved? That is a question which I leave to the people of Canada to answer. The essential point is that the principle of government control of the wheat business was maintained, and for definite and good reasons.
1956	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture

Wheat Acreages
I shall not follow the operations of the board from 1935 down to 1938, but I do assert that the marketing of the 1938 crop gave the Canadian Wheat Board Act its first real chance to function. Canada faced the crop year 1938-39 with empty granaries. The world carryover was 40 per cent below the previous five-year average. Early in that crop year, in August, 1938, cash wheat was around 85 cents at Winnipeg and October futures, 75 cents. That year the world acreage sown to wheat was exceptionally large and a heavy crop resulted.
The exporting countries had available for export around 1,200,000,000 bushels, including the small carryover, and we in Canada had available for export approximately 50 per cent of the needs of the importing countries, including Britain. This was not an inviting marketing condition; on the contrary, it was a most uninviting condition.
The initial price of No. 1 northern was fixed at 80 cents by the federal cabinet under the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, and this formed the basis for fixed prices for other grades of wheat. This minimum price was accepted by the cabinet upon the recommendation of the wheat board. The price was announced by the Prime Minister on the evening of August 4, 1938, and on that occasion he made the following general statement:
The policy of the Canadian wheat board will not be to hoard wheat, nor to speculate upon it, nor to seek to establish a monopoly. Canadian wheat will be moved promptly to market.
The announcement went on to state that the minimum price had been accepted by the cabinet upon the recommendation of the Canadian wheat board, and therefore both the cabinet and the wheat board were responsible for the position.
It was evident from the Prime Minister's remarks that the fixing of the 80-cent price was a form of compensating adjustment for the western farmer, who had suffered greatly in recent years because of drought and crop failures. At the same time, the Prime Minister released an announcement from the Hon. W. D. Euler, then Minister of Trade and Commerce, to the effect that Canadian wheat would be competing in world markets; and the milling and grain trades of the world were advised that, notwithstanding the internal initial price of 80 cents a bushel, the Canadian wheat board would continue its work of encouraging the use of Canadian wheat-and now, Mr. Chairman, mark these words-"which will at all times be competitive on the world's markets."

Then things began to happen. There were immediate reactions to the statement of the Prime Minister and the announcement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In the United States it was announced that 100 million bushels would be dumped on the world's markets. The Argentine gave its president discretionary powers to fix a margin between domestic and export prices. Australia and other exporting countries acted in response; and all the importing countries except Britain tightened up restrictions, some to the point of exclusion.
Now mark this! In less than one month after Canada's official announcement of the price was made and after the announcement attributed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that, notwithstanding the initial price of 80 cents a bushel, Canadian wheat would be competing in world markets and that the wheat board would continue its work of encouraging the use of Canadian wheat, which would at all times be competitive on the world markets, the cash prices and price of futures at Winnipeg went down to below 60 cents a bushel.
The government's announcement resulted in sev ere damage to Canadian wheat prices. There was an immediate cash loss of $52,000,000 to the treasury. That $52,000,000 was a contribution which had been advanced by the treasury to the wheat board. An ultimate total deficit of $61,282,329.55 on the wheat crop of 1938-39 resulted. There is no question about this ultimate loss. It is admitted in exhibit B attached to the Canadian wheat board report of the crop year 1939-40, dated January 11, 1941, which recently came into our hands.
These are the facts. These results are not to be dismissed as a mere error of judgment. They are the natural result flowing from the policy announced by the government that Canadian wheat would at all times be competitive on the world markets. The fixing of the minimum price at SO cents was government policy', not a mere leap in the dark; the fall in price in the world markets was a direct result of the announcement of the then Minister of Trade and Commerce. It meant that, while the price had been fixed at 80 cents, yet the wheat would be sold at world prices, to whatever level they' might fall. What a situation in a buyers' market!
This considered policy of the government is not to be regarded as a mere error of judgment, or ineptitude in the transaction of public business. The invitation was made to world buyers not to take the 80-cent price as a minimum; it was an invitation to world buyers, in a buyers' market, to hammer the

Supply-Agriculture[DOT]-Wheat Acreages
price downward, and this invitation was accepted with alacrity and with the results already noted.
As a result of the fall in prices invited by this government, the wheat board failed to sell the 1938-39 crop, and the failure to sell that crop was the primary cause of the debacle in the wheat situation in Canada-not the declaration of war in September, 1939.
It has been said by a cynic that, "as wheat marketers, governments and parliaments have more money than brains, and they are poor substitutes for private trading." Be that as it may, the government and the wheat board proceeded on the theory of a double market, that is to say, government regimentation on the one hand and competitive marketing on the other, at a time when the world wheat market was a buyers' market. That theory was a defiance of the law of supply and demand and of the principles of mathematics.
Notwithstanding the tremendous loss to the treasury of Canada which ensued from this policy, one lesson ought to have emerged, and that is-and I state this very plainly and succinctly-that the treasury of Canada cannot be placed behind unlimited production of wheat. To do so is to invite disaster for all concerned.
After this debacle of 1938-39 came the war. It served to intensify the problem.
Last year, 1940, we had not a policy but an improvisation-the quota system of deliveries -and the levy of the processing tax on domestic consumption. The quota system has probably worked out better than was anticipated, because the quota was enlarged. One thing, however, has emerged. It has transferred to the Canadian people the ownership of the greatest volume of wheat in the history of the country, involving an investment in unsaleable wheat of between $400 and S500 millions, at a time when the Canadian people are being asked to raise, by way of taxation and loan, a sum which will fall not far short of $3,000 million. What a staggering load for twelve million people!
Early in the present session of parliament, on November 14 last, to be exact, the Minister of Agriculture, following his return from Britain, made a speech in this house by way of a report on his visit, in which speech he dealt with wheat and during the course of which he did some prophesying-a very dangerous procedure. If his prophecy was correct, then there is no cause for agony or alarm on the part of either the producers or the taxpayers. If he was right, there is nothing to worry about.


James Garfield Gardiner: Five years is a long time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I know it is, but to prophesy is dangerous, especially with a world war on. The minister will pardon me and many others in this country, including many who know much more about the wheat business than I do, if we take his forecast with a large measure of reserve.
The minister in his statement, as reported at page 101 of Hansard, said, as to the demand side, based on a two-year blockade, that Canada expected to dispose of 160 million bushels annually to Britain and to raise consumption in Canada from 130 to 160 million bushels. So in two years we should dispose of 640 million bushels at home and to the United Kingdom.
Still on the demand side he prophesied that in addition, after the suggested two-year blockade, it would be possible to dispose of 160 million bushels to countries now blockaded, or 480 million bushels in three years to those countries.
Over the five-year period he predicted that we should dispose of the following amounts:
Million
bushels
1.	To the United Kingdom, 5 years
at 160 million	 800
2.	By internal consumption, 5 years
at 160 million	 800
3.	To countries now under blockade,
3 years at 160 million	 480
2,080
On the supply side, we in Canada will produce, he said or prophesied, an average of 380 million bushels, or a total, for the five years, of 1,900 million bushels. To this he added the carryover from 1940-41 and previous years of 280 million bushels, making a total of 2,180 million bushels to be disposed of in the five-year period, which would leave a carryover of only 100 million bushels.


Mr. SLAGHT:: Does the hon. gentleman say it cannot be done?


Richard Burpee Hanson: As I said before, I take it with great reserve.


James Garfield Gardiner: You will be prophesying too.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If everyone in Europe buys wheat it can be done, but are the Canadian people to be lulled to sleep by a theory like that with the world at war and this country not able to move wheat?


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Does the hon. gentleman
say it cannot be done?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not know, neither does the hon. member for Parry Sound.
1958	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Have a little faith.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Faith
without works is not much good. Not only that, but the minister visualized the sale of 30 million bushels yearly to those countries outside the blockaded areas, or a total of 150 million bushels; and presto changod with the celerity of a sleight-of-hand artist, our surpluses are gone and we are actually short of wheat. Houdini had nothing on our Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. TUCKER:: It may happen, notwithstanding.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It may, but who is to say? That is high-powered propaganda to sustain the Canadian people. It is not realistic.


James Garfield Gardiner: By this policy we are helping to make it realistic.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suggest that this is not the kind of stuff that the Canadian people should be fed with by a responsible minister of the crown. I do not think anyone will be deceived by it, least of all the producers. Certainly it will not deceive the taxpayers of Canada. It is on a par with the propaganda we heard all last summer and autumn with regard to Canada's war effort, which propaganda happily is to be abandoned, so at least says my hon. friend the Minister of Munitions and Supply. He said he was not going to make any more prophecies, which I think is wise.
The Minister of Agriculture even ventured into the field of finance. He told us his plan would mean that the government would require to foot a total of $620,000,000. I suggest to him-it is a matter of opinion-[DOT] that he is not very realistic. In less than a year we are involved to the tune of $400 million or more invested in wheat. We have not the amount that must be added in respect of bank loans and carrying charges, but we are being invited to go much further in the bonusing programme, in wheat storage, in subsidies under the two-year depreciation plan, and in the actual investment in wheat. If this goes on the Canadian people with respect to wheat may well visualize through treasury commitments, interest, carrying charges, loss of income taxation through the depreciation allowance and so on, a total of well up to a billion dollars. It may actually come to that. My guess is as good as the minister's.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not in two years.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I did not say so; at the end of the period. I did not limit it to two years.


Walter Adam Tucker: Do you suggest that this will be the loss?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, I do not say it will be all lost, but I suggest it is too much to ask the Canadian treasury to provide at a time when we are being asked to put up 3,000 million dollars to carry on our war effort.


Walter Adam Tucker: So you are against it?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am
against going the whole length. We must limit the amount of wheat we take. I have not tried to disguise that fact.
It may be of some interest to the Canadian people to know our cash position with respect to the operations of this government in wheat since 1930. I have a table here which I think will show accurately the net amount that has been paid out by the treasury on account of government wheat operations over the ten year period ending July 31, 1940, as follows: 1930 wheat crop equalization payments	 $ 6,521,175 89
Total payments under five-cent
bonus, 1931-32 crop	 12,719,900	73
Board of Grain Commissioners administrative expenses in connection with five-cent bonus.. .	186,509 82
Loss on Canadian Wheat Board
operations, 1935 crop	 11,858,104	18
Loss on Canadian Wheat Board
operations, 1936 crop	 49,574	88
Loss on Canadian Wheat Board operations, 1938 crop as at
July 31, 1940	
61,282,329	55Loss on Canadian Wheat Board operations, 1939 crop as at July 31, 1940	
6,119,656	78Total payments	
$98,737,251 83
The figure of $6,119,656.78 represents the loss which the wheat board would have sustained on July 31, 1940, had all the 1939 wheat crop then held been marketed on that day at the then prevailing market price. However, most of this wheat, that is, the 1939-40 wheat crop, is still held.
Against this in all fairness there should be set off, as I think the wheat board has done, the net profit as of July 31, 1938, on wheat taken over by the wheat board from Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited, as of December 2, 1935, amounting to $8,953,343.07. That figure should have been $15,000,000 if the wheat had not been dumped on the markets of the world.


James Garfield Gardiner: We still have most of the wheat.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not that wheat; it was all gone long ago.


James Garfield Gardiner: But it is all put into one.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, that is all right. The minister can wave his hands,

Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages
but the McFarland operations yielded this country a profit, and that profit should have been twice what it finally turned out to be.


James Garfield Gardiner: After Mr. Murray sold the wheat there was a profit.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, he had a fire sale.


James Garfield Gardiner: McFarland had a loss of $50,000,000 on the basis suggested by my hon. friend.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, it did not turn out that way, and the proof of the pudding is in the eating.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was called a fire sale afterwards.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister can make all the speeches he likes later on. At the moment I have the floor, and I would ask him not to intervene unless it is to ask questions. I know he has a habit of doing that when others are speaking, and I would ask him to be good enough to contain himself.


James Garfield Gardiner: If the hon. gentleman will not speak at me I will not answer him.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a
very disarming statement.


The CHAIRMAN:: It is a well known rule of the house that when an hon. gentleman has the floor no one can interrupt him without his leave; but this rule has been honoured more in the breach than in the observance, and a good deal of latitude has been given by the Chair even to the present speaker. I would point out, however, that this may once more exemplify the desirability of always observing the rule, and perhaps the leader of the opposition, who now has the floor and who has experienced what interruptions by other speakers mean, will give an example to the whole house. My task in the committee of the whole has been difficult. I have tried to apply the rules, but in a human way, allowing some latitude. I shall continue to do so, but I would observe to all hon. members that it is best to follow the rules at all times, because they are based upon experience and wisdom.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have no great objection to interruptions. What I really do object to is the chatter that of course is intended to throw one off one's train of thought. I do not think that is quite cricket. The minister says he cannot help interrupting me because I am looking at him. That is
the most natural thing in the world; he is directly in front of me, and in a measure I am really talking to him as well as to the government. However, this little interlude will do no harm to any of us.
Now I turn to another topic. The government's policy for the current year was announced on March 12 by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture, after many delays and much hesitation, and I think I am safe in saying that it does not please anyone. However, it is just another improvised policy, not intended to be permanent, for which I think most of us are grateful.
I rather compliment the Minister of Trade and Commerce on having made a factual statement comparatively free from propaganda and containing a good deal of information. He dealt with the quota system, the plan of payment for farm storage, deliveries, disposition of the carryover, the storage situation and allied questions.
With respect to the crop situation for 1941-42 he gave us an authoritative statement that the carryover will amount to 575 million bushels. Then he added a prophecy based on an average of say 425,000,000 bushels for the new crop, which would produce a total of 1,000 million bushels. I suggest that this is a supply never before reached in the history of Canada, or even contemplated. It is a situation calculated to make the bravest among us pause and reflect. It is a supply away beyond the storage capacity of this country.
In addition to this, hon. gentlemen must visualize a further difficulty, namely, the carryover of 400 million bushels in the United States. In the present world position that is a factor we cannot leave out of consideration. On the basis of expectation only, we are to consume in Canada for domestic and other purposes 127 million bushels, and we may export 180 million, or a total expected disappearance of 307 million bushels. I suggest that this outlook is optimistic; it is not likely to be reached, though it may be. Therefore we will have a carryover of more than
700,000,000 bushels, an all-time high.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce stressed lightly the financial position, though he admitted that it called for anxiety. A loss of $67,000,000 on 1938-39 and 1939-40 operations is a staggering sum, but as I pointed out before this figure does not include interest on bank balances on the 1938 crop, or carrying charges on the 1939 crop since July 31 last, both of which must be substantial and should have been included to get a correct appreciation of the position.
1960	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages
The government will own 575,000,000 bushels of wheat on July 31 next, with an investment of between 400 and 500 millions of dollars.
What are the minister's proposals?
1.	To take action to ensure that the visible supply shall not increase:
(a)	By limiting the amount for which deliveries will be taken and payment made to 230 million bushels, or an estimated two-thirds of a normal crop;
(b)	The quota system will be maintained, but based on 65 per cent of the 1940 acreage;
(c)	The price will be continued at 70 cents. I do not know why it is called an initial price, because, under present conditions, it is the only price. Theoretically it may be the initial price, but everyone realizes there will be no further distribution.
Then we have these further proposals:
(d)	Producers will be paid storage on the same basis as last year, but only on the undelivered portion of the 230 million bushels, and-
(e)	The processing tax remains unchanged.
Coupled with that is the statement of the
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner):	The
one is complementary to the other; the two, read together, constitute the policy.
What is his proposal? In brief it is that the wheat farmer is to be bonused-for the first time in Canadian history-not to produce. That is the outstanding feature of the minister's policy. The minister, through his staff of inspectors, and what not, is to have up to $35 million to play with-and probably more. I wonder if hon. members understand the implications of the minister's words yesterday when he talked about warrants. I have just looked up the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act. I can visualize that if this is not enough the minister is going back to council -to the treasury board first, and then to council-with a recommendation. This may go to $75 million, or more. In any event I suggest the whole proposition is objectionable. An army of inspectors will be appointed, and the whole position may degenerate into a racket.
Its immediate reaction on me is that it is a clumsy and belated effort to imitate one of the earlier policies of Mr. Henry A. Wallace as part of the new deal in the United States. The reaction to the entire proposal is disappointing, alike to the producers themselves, who will suffer from insufficient farm income, and to the taxpayers, who will have to foot the bills.

As to certain considerations and features which stand out prominently, we will all be in agreement:-
1.	It is known that the government cannot dispose of all the wheat grown, and therefore cannot be expected to buy it. I think we all agree on that.
2.	Since the government is in the wheat business, and since the quota system is recognized, I ask myself this question: Why should not the price be a fair price? That is to say, why should it not be a price comparable with that of cheese, bacon and other farm products?
3.	The wheat business is the most controlled business in Canada and the law of supply and demand is entirely suspended. Therefore why not pay a price at least equivalent to the cost of production?


James Garfield Gardiner: What would you make it?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not know; but I would have it investigated by those who do know. Why should I set myself up as an expert and say that 75 cents, 85 cents, 80 cents, or 90 cents, is the cost of production? It would be foolish for me to attempt to do that. But there are those who do know and, as a matter of fact, the cost of production can be established. I am contending for a principle, that is all. I suggest the price should not be above the levels of other farm products, but since its marketing and disposition is in the absolute control of the federal government there is no real reason why the price paid for the wheat taken should not be a fair one.
4.	I believe it would be a much better policy-at least it would be better for the producers themselves-if the government were to pay what it would consider fair for such wheat as it can take and dispose of, and leave to the farmer the task and responsibility of doing his own planning. Now he is regimented both going and coming, and, to make the dose more palatable, he is to be paid for non-producing.
Recently I read the opinion of the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. He said at Hamilton on March 15, as reported by the Canadian Press, that the federal government's wheat policy will work hardships on both western and eastern Canadian farmers. He described the policy as "one of those double-barrelled shot-gun affairs, which soaked the western farmer by leaving the minimum price for a limited quota at the

Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages
depression figure of 70 cents a bushel" and "soaked the eastern farmer by paying western farmers to intensify competition in the staple products of eastern agriculture." Mr. Hannam went on to say:
The new programme is a good example of the folly of trying to carry on without a national agricultural marketing and production programme.
He argued further-and consideration ought to be given by the government to this suggestion-that:
. . . the swing of nine million acres out of wheat into other products in one sudden swoop is something which should have been accomplished by a crop adjustment programme spread over at least a three-year period.
It should have been started a year ago. Any thoughtful person will, I suggest, agree with him. Finally he condemned the whole scheme and threw it out of the window by saying:
The lack of an adequate farm policy for the dominion means that agriculture becomes the victim of a series of ill-advised last-minute emergency measures which cannot be regarded in even our most generous moments as the product of competent leadership or good statesmanship.
That is an indictment. I believe it will be the considered opinion of all those who study this problem that the government's proposals are ill-advised last-minute emergency measures which are the product of incompetent leadership and lack of statesmanship.
Already the minister has heard mumblings of discontent. It will not be surprising if before this debate ends the whole scheme will be changed. I believe the minister has already given some indication that he has heard from both the east and. the west.
I had intended to examine what was asked by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture through its delegation which met the government as long ago as January 27, 1941. I shall not, however, take time to go into this matter in detail. They made a very patriotic declaration with respect to agriculture in Canada, stating that-
Canadian agriculture's first task and .paramount duty is to place its whole strength and unite its resources from sea to sea behind Canada's war effort.
I believe that is the attitude of our farmers; I have no doubt about it. They said further:
The war must be won, and the greatest possible degree of national unity is essential if our war effort is to reach maximum efficiency.
To state that is to state the truth.
Then they proceeded to declare that victory cannot be achieved without sacrifice-a point I have emphasized on many occasions. "All classes of our people," they say, "will 14873-124
be called upon to make sacrifices, and the agricultural industry is ready and willing to bear its full share of the heavy load which Canada has shouldered."
The federation went on to declare:
It is vital, from considerations of national unity, that no one class shall be called upon to carry an undue share of the burden, and that there should be equality of sacrifice by all classes.
I stand four-square behind that declaration. There must be equality of sacrifice. Who is making the greatest sacrifice in Canada to-day? The producer of primary products. I have always noted to my dismay that in time of depression the first prices to fall and the last to rise are the prices of primary products. This is a striking indictment of our present system, of the capitalist system, if you will. I have no panacea to offer at the moment, but I do say that this problem is a challenge to the best brains and the best statesmanship in the world, which ought to be brought to bear upon it to find, if at all possible, a solution.
The brief went on to declare the importance of the agricultural industry in terms of the numbers engaged in it, and then dealt with the question of the distribution of the national income. Everyone has read this. To me it is appalling that with the national income rising as rapidly as our friends say it is-I know it is rising very rapidly but I doubt whether it is rising as rapidly as it is said to be by the statisticians-the share of the national income accruing to the average primary producer should be so pitifully small.
The brief went on to speak of the whole agricultural picture. That I shall not repeat here. But I do want to refer to the brief's recommendations with respect to wheat, with some of which I agree and with some of which I disagree.
First of all it recommended that a compulsory restriction of the acreage seeded to wheat would be undesirable at the present time. I agree with that, provided the restriction was confined to Canada. An attempt was made in the last decade to limit world wheat acreage, and if that could have been undertaken as an international activity it would have been the very best thing that could have been done. But it failed. I am not going to place the responsibility on anyone, although we all know what happened in 1933. The attempt failed because you could not get international action. It is of no use to ask the Canadian agriculturist to reduce his acreage while extending an invitation to the Argentine and other wheat producing countries to increase their acreage. That is not the right way to go about it, nor could it be productive of any beneficial results.

1962	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages
But I do say this: upon giving the farmers fair notice that the government can take delivery of only so much wheat, you could have trusted the farmers themselves to do their own planning over a period of time and adjust their acreage sown to wheat. They would be likely to do it. The intelligent ones would do it, and the others would follow suit. If farmers know they are not likely to market their wheat they will not sow so much.
The second recommendation was that the wheat board should undertake to announce the total amount of wheat of which it is prepared to accept delivery.
That has been done, and I think it was the proper thing for the board to make that announcement. Certainly it could not accept the whole production of our Canadian wheat fields, because the public treasury, other things considered, could not stand it. I think therefore the government has been wise in announcing the total amount of wheat that it will take. Some people believe that the amount is not large enough, but I leave that question to those who are better informed than I am. The underlying principle is sound, and I commend the minister for that.
Another recommendation called for an increase in the initial payment for wheat delivered in the crop year 1941. That has been refused.
I draw attention to the next recommendation, and I face fairly and squarely the question raised thereby. They asked for a processing tax of not less than 50 cents a bushel. The recommendation reads:
That a processing tax of not less than 50 cents per bushel should be placed on all wheat milled for domestic consumption, the tax to be added to the aggregate price received for the wheat marketed and be available for the purpose of increasing the initial payment to the farmer.
That has been refused, in my judgment properly so; because to grant it would furnish an added incentive to farmers not to cut down the acreage sown to wheat but to go on and produce in the hope that through pressure the government would ultimately take the wheat, thereby adding to the burdens of the country. Notwithstanding what the member for Qu'Appelle has said about the price of bread, I have no doubt that a processing tax of 50 cents a bushel would add to the price of bread.


Mr. REID:: Why should it?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am sure it would.


Thomas Reid: There is no reason for it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not
going to work out the mathematics of it now,

but I believe that it would increase the price of bread just as surely as I believe that I am standing on my two feet.
The fifth recommendation related to grain storage facilities, and in this regard stress was laid on the need of a reserve for a constant supply of wheat to Great Britain in the event of possible crop failure during the war and for the needs of the people of Europe when the war was won. The specific recommendation was that the dominion government be asked to provide financial assistance to farmers for the construction of adequate farm storage facilities to enable the farmer to adjust his deliveries.
That recommendation was ignored. I believe that it is perfectly feasible, at least from the standpoint of legality. I know there is fear that you could not police this wheat on the farm, but that difficulty could be overcome. Personally I think, as the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) argued last night, that the farmer should be encouraged to establish and maintain on his farm adequate storage facilities so that he might reap the benefit of the charges that accrue from that class of storage. I ask the minister to reconsider that part of his proposals.


James Garfield Gardiner: I was the first to
suggest it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Perhaps
that is so, and if so I give the minister credit for it. I have never condemned the proposal. Last year I reverted to the problem and said that I understood the difficulty. It might be like Duncan Marshall's bulls-when they went to look for the bulls they were not there. That is an old story in the west. I ask the minister to reconsider this proposal, because I believe the difficulty could be overcome.


James Garfield Gardiner: If I might be permitted, I said in my speech yesterday that this was one of the questions that could not properly be determined until about July of this year.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I quite
appreciate that the minister said that, and if he is looking for a pat on the back he is getting it right now. My friend from the west behind me says that there may not be any wheat to be carried over. I hope he is right.


Walter Adam Tucker: I hope he is wrong. I hope we have a crop.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Perhaps
I did not understand the implication of his interjection. I certainly hope there will be a crop and that storage facilities will be provided so that not one kernel of wheat will be destroyed. It is all going to be needed some time, and the only problem is how to carry it in the meantime.

Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages
May I direct the attention of the house and the country to the manner in which the government has dealt with the question of providing new storage facilities.
This problem was discussed at great length at the last session, when the amendments to the wheat board act were before the house in late July and early August. At that time the government intimated that discussions were being carried on with the elevator companies with respect to increased storage. They were at that time I think opposed to the giving of financial aid to increase farm storage. We were unable to get any information at the close of the session.
After the house rose in August, arrangements were made with the elevator companies to provide for what is termed temporary storage at the elevators in the country. These new erections, being additions to country elevators, were built by these companies without any order in council having been passed, so far as I can ascertain, but, as I understand it, upon a ruling by the income tax branch that the costs could be written off in two years and absorbed in depreciation account. I tried to look into the legality of this position, and apparently it is based upon paragraph (n) of section 6 of the Income War Tax Act, which leaves the power to determine depreciation allowance in the uncontrolled discretion of the minister:
6.	In computing the amount of the profits or gains to be assessed, a deduction shall not be allowed in respect of
(n) depreciation, except such amount as the minister in his discretion may allow, including such extra depreciation as the minister in his discretion may allow in the case of plant and equipment built or acquired to fulfil orders for war purposes.
A ruling was given by the commissioner of income tax on August 6, 1940, covering the so-called balloon annexes, from which ruling I quote in part:
It has been determined that the capital expenditures to erect temporary or "balloon" annexes will be written off out of gross revenue in two years, namely, 1940 and 1941.
This would appear to me to have been a most liberal arrangement. I have been advised-this is hearsay evidence, not the best evidence by any means-that in many instances these structures will be good for from five to ten years. At all events they will be good for the probable duration of the war. The benefit of the allowance will enure entirely to the elevator companies who, notwithstanding the limited turnover and the slight reduction in storage charges, are enjoying capacity business and probably, in their capacity as warehousemen, making more money than at any time in their history.
14873-124i
In fact, it may be stated that our elevator companies are the only people who are benefiting by the present situation. A perusal of the balance sheets of those companies which publish balance sheets will indicate this. Why should the government not review this position? Is it not the consensus of opinion that under present circumstances the storage charges are too high, having regard to the capacity business being done?
Then on February 15, 1941, order in council P.C. 1225 was passed providing for assistance by way of depreciation allowance for income tax purposes to any elevator operating company which constructs temporary terminal storage at the head of the lakes. That is a most generous gesture to the elevator trade. No part of the benefit accruing to these companies by this assistance accrues to the producer or to the grain trade, unless it be that the grain trade and elevator companies are intermingled by ownership and that sort of thing. Recently the plight of the members of the grain trade was brought to my attention. The plight of those who are not interested in the elevator business is a sad one. The Winnipeg grain exchange was kept open by the government it is said at the request of the British authorities. I am informed, however, that the Liverpool exchange and the British market are closed to-day. I have not been able to verify this, but that is the information which comes to me from the grain trade. I ask the minister: why has the Winnipeg grain exchange been kept open? what useful function can it perform when there is only one buyer and only one seller?


James Garfield Gardiner: The reason was given to the house last year, namely, that the British cereals board asked us to keep it open.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is the government's stock answer.


Mr. PERLEY:: Who represents that board in Winnipeg?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know that anyone represents it in Winnipeg.


Mr. CRERAR:: I might offer another
reason. Wheat is the only article controlled by the wheat board under any legislation, but we have considerable quantities of other cereals such as rye, oats and barley, which are sold. It is necessary to have a market for them.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It may be that that is a satisfactory reason. At the moment I am viewing the matter only from the point of view of wheat.
Facilities good for a much longer period are to be paid for out of depreciation allowance in two years, and this for companies already
1964	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages
doing well financially out of the grain trade. The effect of this is a substantial bonus to the terminal elevator companies, and I have heard that they are taking advantage of this with great alacrity.
I wish to deal briefly with the bonus question. What of the policy of the bonus? Is this the minister's own policy? He told us last night that it was the joint policy of the government. We have all heard the principle of -cabinet solidarity, but I am just wondering whether if the minister were left on -his own resources, he would have brought in this bonus policy. I have the idea that it is the joint product of the government's brain trust. I should like to be informed if that is true, because it sma-cks of the new deal in the United States, a throw-back to the discarded policies of Mr. Wallace, a clumsy and belated imitation.
The whole wheat policy was received in the west with surprise and dismay, or so say the pools, and they claim to represent the producers. The producer knows his own land. He knows it is useless to produce if he cannot sell; that is, provided he has a level head upon his shoulders. He naturally will plan his own economy. The large producer will do his own planning, because he knows. But what of the small producer on a half-section or less? How will it -affect him? What hope has he unde-r this policy? The relatively small amount which each small farmer will be able to market, the increased cost of operation, production and living, and the fact that seventy cents is less -than to-day's production cost, make the proposed plan wholly inadequate.
Stated concisely in a nutshell, the western wheat farmer is being asked, because of limited deliveries, without any increase in price, to accept a sharp reduction in farm income from wheat. Deducting freight rates and handling charges the seventy cent basic price for No. 1 northern at Fort William is equivalent to less than fifty cents on the average prairie farm. I am told that it is equivalent to only forty-eight cents. The sale of 230 million bushels will net these farmers $115,000,000, the lowest income from this source since 1933. This is just about h-alf the value of wheat marketings during the present crop year. It will be really less than -that, because that price is the maximum that may be hoped for. How can the western wheat farmer live on an income which is less than two-thirds of last year's income. By this bonus of $36,000,000? Assuredly not.
What are the alternatives? They appear to me to be two:

1.	An increase in taxation passed along to the consumer by way of a processing or some allied tax.
2.	An increase in the basic price of wheat.
I have said before that in my opinion an
increase in the processing tax cannot be justified. At best, it was only a makeshift, designed to reduce the loss to the treasury. It was never designed to aid the farmer in the initial price he was to get. It was to reduce the deficit. To increase it to 50 cents would mean a tax on bread, and in the interests of the consumer that should be definitely barred. Its retention at 15 cents is an expedient, it is true, but refusal to increase it is a declaration of policy on the part of the government not to expand further this form of taxation. Definitely it is a tax which falls with unequal weight upon the lower income groups. It is in the -class of regressive taxation of a particularly undesirable kind. We should get rid of it just as quickly as possible. To raise it would increase the cost of living, upon which would be based a justifiable demand for higher wages, thus setting in motion all the inflationary forces so difficult to control in time of war-forces which, I fear, are already in operation.
What is the only other alternative? The only alternative I can see is this-and I offer this to the committee and the countiy for what it is worth. I hope that hon. gentlemen in discussing it will not deprecate the source from which it comes, because it is an honest expression of opinion based upon the best information I can get from my friends in the western country, who at least know something about wheat. The only alternative is to raise the basic price to the farmer to a point which would at least approach cost of production, and approach parity with prices of other farm products and prices which the farmer has to pay for the implements of production and maintenance of a decent standard of living.
Such a policy is justifiable if the farmer is to keep body and soul together and remain on the land. That is something that we -have all been trying to do down through the years of development of this country. In all parts of Canada we have sought at great cost to keep the farmer on the land. We are not abandoning that policy, I hope, and I advocate this even if such higher price involves some additional taxation; and if additional taxation is necessaiy for that purpose, there are more equitable ways of raising it -than by an increase in the processing tax.
The bonus in theory is a compensating measure which will fail in its objective. It is negative in all its attributes and will please

Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages
no one. The big farmer in existing circumstances will, I am told, summer-fallow anyway. He is to be paid now for doing that which his judgment tells him he should do under present circumstances. I have heard of a farmer in the west who had definitely decided to summer-fallow 750 acres of land this year which was in wheat last year. He will still do it and will be paid $3,000 for doing it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who was that?


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is my secret. The small farmer of a half-section or less-how can he exist on the theory of this bonus? Most of them will turn to coarse grain and a $2 bonus, and go into hogs. We heard about that last night from Ontario members, and we shall hear more about it before the item passes. Then with his cheaper feed, think of the competition of these people with the farmers of eastern Canada. The latter will have no bonus. In the maritimes we have a good many hog raisers, and we are finding it exceedingly difficult to compete with the Ontario farmer because of the high cost of mill feed. I am bound to say this, that the Minister of Agriculture offered to cooperate with the provincial governments of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, paying half the freight from Fort William, and he could not get his friends down there to accept his offer. I do not understand why, if they were giving consideration to the hog raisers of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, the minister's offer was not accepted. At least, it was a half-way measure. But they did not accept it and there the matter stands. So far as I know, they have never given publicly any reason why they refused that offer. I suppose the idea is that if they waited and pressed long enough, the dominion government would go the whole way. That is the theory in the minds of some people. They forget entirely that while there are nine or ten public treasuries in Canada, there is only one set of taxpayers.
There are just one or two other aspects upon which I should like to touch. I apologize for keeping the committee so long, but this is my contribution to this debate, and perhaps it may add something to the sum total of the knowledge of the house and of the country.
We are all exceedingly grateful for the lease-lend bill recently passed by the congress of the United States. It may well be that the aid and support to Britain given under that measure will be the turning point in the war. Indeed, I think it will be and I am extremely grateful for it. But I wonder whether-and I am not saying this in any attempt to throw any doubt on the validity of their desire to help-as a matter of economic
fact, the government and hon. gentlemen in this house have considered that the aid to be given and given freely by the United States is not to be confined to war material and to equipment. It may and undoubtedly will in time take the form of gifts of supplies -food supplies. Indeed, already they are planning to send wheat and wheat flour to unoccupied France. Undoubtedly they will be giving wheat and wheat flour to the mother country. Has the government visualized that? I wonder what our reaction will be to that. We cannot say nay. My immediate reaction is that it will just add to our troubles. I do not see any other way out of it. You cannot ask the British government to refuse it. The offer would indicate a very fine disposition on the part of the people of the United States.
May I recall to the minds of hon. gentlemen that on July 10 last I asked this government to give consideration to the idea of an outright gift of 100,000,000 bushels of wheat to the mother country. It would not help the price; it would not help the storage position much, but it would be a great gesture to the hard-pressed people of Britain. Any one who cares to look it up can see what I said. I am bound to say, however, that it brought not a ripple of response from this government and I have often wondered why. Is it that we are doing so much otherwise? We are. of course; but I have always thought that Canada, out of her great abundance, not as an expedient but as a gesture of good will and of admiration, could give to the people of the mother country some of our superabundance of wheat. The people of the United States are contributing to-day, as a trial shipment, a million dollars' worth of flour to the people ot unoccupied France. It is a trial shipment, and if it goes through and does not get into the hands of Germany, others will follow. Canada undoubtedly will in time be asked to make some contribution in food to the starving peoples of Europe. How much the more should we do that for the hard-pressed people of Britain who find it so hard to get Canadian dollars? I here and now renew my suggestion to the Canadian government and ask them out of the billion and a half dollars which they are asking the Canadian people to raise under *the war appropriation bill to give some of our abundance to our kith and kin across the ocean.
On Tuesday last, the Prime Minister took occasion to point with pride to the contribution of the Canadian people-not the government, he laid emphasis on that, but the Canadian people-to Britain's war effort in terms of our armed forces, equipment and,
1966	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages
above all, dollars and cents. I do not pause here to analyse his statement or his figures, but I suggest that he might very well have included a free gift of food to the beleaguered people of Britain.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: I do not intend to follow the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) through all his arguments both for and against himself on this question, but I shall touch on one or two things that he said.
In the first place he spoke of the amount of wheat Canada had on hand on account of the operations of John I. McFarland. We did have a great deal of wheat on hand when this government first came into office, and the main reason for that immense stock was that we would not sell. After Mr. Murray took over the chairmanship of the wheat board the policy put into effect was to sell wheat on the British market and other markets. At that time, when that policy was put into effect, the mix of Canadian wheat in the mills of Great Britain was only about seven per cent of the total. As a result of this policy Canadian wheat was sold, and that mix has gone up to seventy per cent in British flour, and that figure holds there to-day.
I agree with some of the things my hon. friend said. He did not make much reference to the last war, but wheat, and especially Canadian wheat, was a very important factor in the winning of that war. We in the west who were wheat farmers at that time were asked by the government of this country to extend greatly our acreage in order that Great Britain and our allies might have sufficient food. Wheat was badly needed before that war was over, it will be badly needed again before this war is over. Never in the world's history has there been a war in which foodstuffs, of which wheat is the most important, were not badly needed before the finish and immediately thereafter.
But, as my hon. friend has said, preparations for the present conflict began long before September, 1939, and it was because of this war economy that the world business of growing and selling wheat was disrupted. It was the war economy which was developing for years prior to September, 1939, that dislocated the whole wheat business of the world, and our people suffered on that account. In September, 1939, actual hostilities started, and thereafter wheat began to rise in price. Many people have asked me why the western farmer sowed more wheat acreage last spring when he knew the initial price of wheat was only seventy cents. Last spring when the

western farmer was sowing wheat the price was ninety cents a bushel and over. That was before the low countries were invaded and before France was overrun. Everyone who knew anything about wheat at that time knew that if France were able to stay as an ally of Great Britain and to keep her country largely intact, at least 100 million bushels of wheat would have to be forwarded to France immediately. Italy was not in the war when we were sowing wheat last year, and it was reasonable to expect last spring that the price would rise, not fall.
Some hon. members have said that wheat is not a casualty of the war. It is. The price did not fall until after the low countries were invaded, until after France was being overrun and Italy stabbed her in the back. No one knew exactly at that time what was going to happen. No one knows now exactly what will happen within the next year.
Many people say that we should reduce our wheat acreage in this country. I do not altogether agree with that. I believe all the wheat we can produce from now until the end of this war will be needed, and needed badly. Nobody knows what devastation there will be this coming summer, both in Great Britain and in Europe, when crops are about to be harvested. Does anyone seriously think that both Great Britain and Germany, who are trying to carry out against each other a blockade of all foodstuffs, are going to stand by and let crops be harvested this summer and fall? I do not believe it. I believe the greatest devastation will occur in Europe this year. Incendiaries will be dropped in the fields where they cannot be fired at by antiaircraft guns, and great areas of farm crops will be burnt in all the countries affected. Wheat may be very badly needed by Great Britain and by our other allies before very long.
When the war started, and even last year, we did not have the allies fighting with us that we have to-day. Greece has come in since, and it looks very much as if Turkey will also come in. Yugoslavia has made a move-and remember that they are Serbs; it is springtime in Europe and the bear comes out in the spring. I will not be surprised if "the bear that walks like a man" is an ally of ours before very long, and also badly in need of wheat. No one can tell just what the situation will be; no one can tell how much wheat we shall be able to sell, even within the next year.
At the present time we as western members are asked to vote for a policy which, on its face, on the basis of last year's crop and last year's return, would seem to mean that our

Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages
wheat growers may have to take a reduction of some thirty per cent in their gross return.
I have heard arguments in this house from all sides in regard to the small farmer and how this policy will affect him, and in regard to the large farmer and how it will affect him. No one can tell how this policy will affect anyone. It is not the gross return to the farmer that must be taken into consideration. He is the same as any business man; it is the net return that you have to consider. If there should be an abundant crop in western Canada next year then. I would say that under this policy the net return to the farmer would be smaller. But if there should be a small average yield in western Canada next year I believe the net return to the farmer, large or small, would be better than if this policy were not in effect.
This government very properly called in experts in regard to wheat and the growing of grain, in order to obtain their advice as to what should be done. Then, naturally, they took what they thought to be the best advice of those experts. Well, Mr. Chairman, it is a little more than thirty years ago since I started growing wheat on my own farm in western Canada. During that time I have followed the wheat market pretty closely. I have known a good many of the grain men and grain experts; and if those experts have told the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the wheat committee of the cabinet that a long range policy should be one under which the acreage of wheat would be reduced; if they have told the committee that in the long run we can sell only so much wheat, I would tell the government that of one thing I am sure, and that is that the experts are one hundred per cent wrong. In all my experience I have never seen them right when they unanimously agreed on anything.
I want to warn the government against another wheat expert, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle.


Ernest Edward Perley: You need not warn them.


John Gordon Ross: The hon. gentleman sets himself up as a wheat expert in this country. I know he has had a good deal of experience; probably he has lost as much money as anyone still in the wheat business. Then we have the hon. member for Weyburn, to whom I listened very carefully yesterday in what I thought was a very moderate speech. The hon. gentleman made some suggestions which I considered were not too well thought out. For instance, he suggested that a farmer should be allowed to deliver from 750 to 1,000 bushels, at an increased price, on each quarter section of land.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: On the first
quarter section, not each quarter section.


John Gordon Ross: All right. There are 290,000 farmers-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Not wheat
farmers. There are 250,000 wheat farmers.


John Gordon Ross: They would all
be wheat farmers if they could get a good price. If we allowed each of the 290,000 farmers in western Canada to deliver 1,000 bushels, that would mean an increased price on 290,000,000 bushels. On many occasions in this house I have listened with a good deal of interest to the hon. member speak about farming, -wheat growing, wheat policies and so on; and the more he talks the more I am convinced that the shepherd should stay with his flock.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The shepherd is trying to keep the wolves away from the flock.


John Gordon Ross: And you are
doing a pretty good job. I have heard hon. members of this chamber, the leader of the opposition and others, speak of the effect of this policy on the live stock industry of eastern Canada. They claim that by what they call bonusing, though I do not call it that, in connection with coarse grains in western Canada, the farmers of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta will go more largely into the feeding of live stock and the raising of hogs, and that for this purpose they will take advantage of the so-called bonus to grow more coarse grains. After hearing these statements made yesterday I took the trouble to obtain the figures from the bureau of statistics. I find that last year there was a decrease of some 360,000 acres, as compared with the year before, in an acreage sown to oats in western Canada, while the acreage devoted to barley remained at practically the 1939 level. During the same period, however, the production of hogs in western Canada increased tremendously. As a matter of fact these gentlemen who fear greater competition between western Canada and Quebec and Ontario have not been watching things very closely, because now the competition >is the other way. Next year we in the three western provinces will produce more hogs than will be produced in Ontario and Quebec, without any help that may come from this new policy.
I have here the figures with regard to the expected spring pig crop for 1941. Sows bred to farrow in both Ontario and Quebec for this spring number 321,700. Those bred in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta number
1968	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages
361,600. In other words 40,000 more sows were bred in the three western provinces than in Ontario and Quebec; and with an average litter of eight that will mean about 320,000 more hogs in the three western provinces this spring than in Ontario and Quebec. So why worry about this policy? That result has been brought about without any increase in the acreage devoted to oats and barley in the west. Of course our farmers fed a good deal of wheat.
Let me point to the figures with regard to daiiying. My hon. friends are afraid that we are going to take their place in that industry. Well, we are taking it already. The production of factory butter in the west during January and February of this year was as follows: Manitoba, 2,739,000 pounds; Saskatchewan, 2,843,000 pounds; Alberta, 3,071,000 pounds.
That gives a total of almost 9,000,000 pounds; and during the same two months the province of Ontario produced just 9,000,000 pounds. The increase in production over the same two months of 1940 is 20 per cent for Manitoba, 42 per cent for Saskatchewan, and 17 per cent for Alberta. These figures I place on record, because they are the figures which obtained before the policy went into effect. Do not try to blame the policy for any assistance it has given to the western farmers, or to hold it responsible for any increase in the production of dairy products and live stock. That has already taken place, and for this good reason: the price of wheat has been too low, and the farmer in western Canada has had to turn to something else.
For many years I have been told by people in this part of Canada that we farmers from the west have been wheat miners, that we did not want to work, that we would not milk cows, and that we would not feed hogs. Well, Mr. Chairman, we are doing it to-day. No matter why we did not do it before, the fact is that we have been forced to do it. I would add that we did not do it before because we felt that our business was more the growing of wheat than the production of dairy products and live stock. But it has not been the policy of a government which has brought about the change; it ha^ been an economic condition. We have had to produce these things.
My hon. friends have described this policy as that of bonusing. I say this is not a bonus. To-day we have many millions of bushels of wheat in storage in Canada. Does any one suggest seriously that it could not be sold? Of course it could be sold. A large amount of it could be sold-and to neutral countries. But the sale of that wheat would not work to the benefit of the democracies which are 
fighting the war. It would not be to the benefit of the British empire, or to the people of Canada or, to be more specific, to the people of western Canada. We cannot allow that grain, through any channel, to get to our enemies. Therefore to-day our government quite properly states that our wheat shall not be sold in those places, where it could be sold. Will anyone seriously say that because this action is for the benefit of the democracies throughout the world, for the benefit of the British empire and of Canada, the western farmers should carry the whole load? Of course that is not a reasonable proposition.
This is not a bonus; it is a compensating payment to farmers for two things: (1) for not piling up any greater surplus of wheat in the bins across our country, and (2) for preparing our land in such a way that when more wheat is needed we shall be able to produce it.


Mr. DUPUIS:: There are hundreds of
thousands of bags of potatoes we cannot dispose of to-day, too.


John Gordon Ross: And probably for the same reason. I would not for one moment say the government should not help the hon. member with those potatoes.


Vincent Dupuis: Good.


John Gordon Ross: We can store
wheat in Canada in more ways than one. As a practical farmer I believe I know that about which I speak. We summer-fallow in western Canada for three purposes: for the killing of weeds, for the storing of moisture, and for making available certain plant foods, through the break-down of the soil from the operation of the sun's rays, the wind and other weather conditions. If at this time we cannot handle a larger amount of wheat stored in bins, and if we feel that we will need more wheat in 1942 or 1943, the best policy we could follow would be that of having our land properly prepared. By giving the land an opportunity to store moisture and by making plant foods available for the crop, potentially we are storing wheat in the ground, because when the fallow land is put into crops it will give a higher yield. That should be the condition when it becomes necessary to ship grain to those who are now and who probably will continue to be our allies.


An hon. MEMBER:: Would it not be better to have it in the bin?


John Gordon Ross: No.


Mr. QUELCH:: It may be preparing a
dust storm.


John Gordon Ross: My hon. friends have been talking about bonuses. I will tell the committee about one bonus which to my

Supply

Agriculture-Wheat Acreages
knowledge has been paid for forty years, a bonus which has been paid to the people in Ontario from whom we have been forced to purchase the products we buy.


An hon. MEMBER:: Quite right.


John Gordon Ross: I am a farmer. Last fall my truck, which I had purchased nine years ago, secondhand, needed replacing, and I decided to buy a new one. The new track cost me 8500 more than it would have cost my competing neighbour across the boundary in the state of Montana. Was that a bonus to somebody? I'll say it was! It was a bonus of at least $500 to the province of Ontario, where that track was made.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Surely not,
under a free trade Liberal government!


John Gordon Ross: Under any government-and my hon. friend knows it.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: That still does not make it right.


John Gordon Ross: I agree, absolutely-and I started to talk about that long before you did.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: You did not get many results, though.


John Gordon Ross: Oh, some.


Charles Edward Johnston: You should change parties.


John Gordon Ross: That bonus has been paid for many years, and I suppose it will continue to be paid. But surely, after telling us, the western farmers, for so many years, that we must buy in this market, these gentlemen are not going to come to us and say, "Oh now, you must not go into the live stock business; you must not go into the dairy business, and you must not sell feed, because that is our business." Surely they will not say that.


Mr. FURNISS:: Does not the hon. member think that the Ontario farmer pays just as much through tariff protection as does the western farmer, per farmer?


Charles Edward Johnston: No, not nearly.


John Gordon Ross: Proportionately, probably, yes. And I am in favour of getting all the Ontario farmers to agree with me in what I am saying. Instead of farmers of Ontario fighting the farmers of the west, I would have them all get together and have something done about it.


Thomas Reid: That would not apply to British Columbia, because we pay more for our machinery there.


John Gordon Ross: Last night I
listened to some humorous observations from one of my colleagues, the hon. member for Wellington North. He is a farmer, a doctor and a politician.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: "And the
greatest of these is-"


John Gordon Ross: He may be a very good farmer, but he is much more agile than most of us. He can get out from under when the going is tough. He told us so last night. As a politician I would say that the local view obscured the national, with him. As a doctor, I believe he is one of the better general practitioners in Ontario. He is a good humorist, because I know he was speaking humorously last night.


Charles Edward Johnston: A lot of truth in it, though.


John Gordon Ross: Had he been
speaking seriously, and had he been a brilliant psychiatrist instead of a general practitioner, I would have said to him, "Physician, heal thyself."


John Ritchie MacNicol: Pretty good on the bible to-day, Gordon.


An hon. MEMBER:: "Go thou and do
likewise."


John Gordon Ross: The value of this policy cannot be gauged at this time because no one can tell just what the position of the farmer is going to be until we know what this year's crop is. His net returns under this policy may be greater than if he grew wheat on all his land, even at an increased price. Hon. gentlemen opposite talk about the cost of production of wheat, but in thirty years of farming I have never been able to figure it out. I can figure the cost per acre.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Is a price of 70 cents enough?


John Gordon Ross: I would not think so. In speaking of costs hon. gentlemen opposite say that a small farmer cannot make money with wheat at 70 cents, and many of them say he cannot make any money at 85 cents. If that is so

I do not say it is- then the farmer will be better off if he turns to doing something else which will bring him a net return.


Victor Quelch: His overhead is the same.


John Gordon Ross: His overhead may be the same, but that is only a small part of it.


Victor Quelch: A big part of it.

1970	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages


John Gordon Ross: The big farmer is in the same position. If he has a fair crop this policy may not fit him as well, but if he has a poor crop it will fit him better. I have not yet been able to find a man who can tell me what the crop in western Canada will be this fall-never in any year-and therefore I cannot say at this moment whether or not this policy will be good for western Canada. It may be. Time alone can tell. But I do know this, that it will put western Canada in a position to produce more wheat at a later date when wheat may be needed much more badly than it is now.
I will say this for the farmer, whether he be in eastern Canada or western Canada, that no matter what any government does he is still going to produce, whether it is wheat or something else, because he believes that that is his part in this war. He did it in the last war, and he will do it in this one.
If the present policy of this government will not properly look after the farmers of eastern or western Canada, then I say it is up to this government and this house and the people of this country to see that a policy is established that will look after both. The farmer has a right to expect that, just as much as any other industry in Canada, and, Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that the people of Canada are going to let the agriculturists down at this time.


Mr. MacKENZIE (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Chairman, I had not, until a short time ago, intended to speak in this debate, so I crave the indulgence of the committee. I speak in this charmber very little, and in my remarks to-day I shall endeavour to be brief.
The greatest task before the Canadian people and before this House of Commons is to-day the winning of the war. Everything else pales into insignificance in comparison with that, and we should make sure that this parliament gives a lead to the Canadian people in doing everything possible towards the winning of the war.
A few days ago we passed the war appropriation bill, and I must confess that it was disappointing to me that' such a vital war measure took so long to pass this House of Commons. Many of the questions that were asked when that bill was before the house and many of the addresses that were made upon it had little or nothing to do with furthering Canada's war effort, and sometimes I could not help thinking that if some of the dictators could have looked into this House of Commons while we were discussing this vital war measure, they would have said: "Surely there is nothing to fear from an organization like that".
This afternoon we have listened to great orations on the wheat problem, but really, Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that the people of Canada are very much concerned to-day with the question whether Mclvor or McFarland had the best wheat policy years ago. All that is water under the bridge. The question for us to consider to-day is, what are we going to do from now on? Where do we go from here? So I suggest to my hon. friends who insist on injecting politics and bickering into our discussions, why not lay your cudgels aside until you can fight it out on the hustings? You will have plenty of time to do that three or four years from now, and then you will be doing it on your own time, and probably will have a bigger audience that you have in this House of Commons.
The great questions that confront us to-day are naturally economic ones-war economy, economy among the Canadian people, agricultural economy, our farm problem. Agriculture is the very basis of our social and economic life, and we should make the farm so attractive that our rural youth and the older people who live on the farm will be glad to stay there and make their contribution toward the life of the community. Until we have a policy that will do that, we shall never have solved our economic problems or have a happy and prosperous Canadian people.
The Ontario farmer-and I speak of Ontario because I know it better than other parts of Canada-is far from prosperous. In November, 1938, if I recollect aright, 790,000 people in Canada were on relief, and of that number less than two per cent were from Ontario farms. In Ontario itself, 220,000 people were getting relief, and less than, four per cent of that number came from Ontario farms. Therefore, in spite of low returns and high operating costs, our farmers have been able to look the Canadian taxpayer in the eye and say: At least we have been no burden to you.
Let me say, too, that the farmers of Canada take second place to no one in their loyalty and devotion to the mother country. We are willing to contribute to the limit of our ability, to produce to help Great Britain in its all-out effort to win this war. For twelve years, yes, considerably longer, the farmers have been in a bad way. Nearly 40 per cent of the population of Canada lives on the farm, and during the last few years the farm population has been getting less than 10 per cent of the national income, and, in a great many instances, even less than that.
Conditions on the farm in Ontario do not differ very much from farm conditions in other parts of Canada. Everybody realizes that a prosperous farmer means a prosperous Canada, and our policy should be designed

Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages
to bring about a balanced economy, so that with parity prices for the products the Canadian farmer has to sell and the commodities he has to buy, he will be in a much better position than he is in to-day. It is admitted that to-day he is in as bad a position as he has been in for a long time. It is not that farm prices in some lines have not been better in recent months, but he has used up his reserves until he has nothing to fall back on. His present condition is very bad. The hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn) is not in his seat at the moment, but I would remind him that in 1930, 1931 and 1932 farm prices were much lower than they are to-day. Here is the peculiar part which politics play. When prices are low and conditions bad, they are blamed on the greatest depression we have ever known. If the other side is in power, the blame is placed upon their policies. They are blamed for conditions being as bad as they are.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is all water under the bridge.


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: That is what is going on. The Minister of Agriculture has a most difficult task on his hands. Last fall he paid a visit to Great Britain and, in order that a lead might be given to the Canadian people, attempted to get information as to what products that country required. I should like to quote briefly from page 346 of Hansard of November 22, 1940. The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) was speaking as follows:
I have twice been deeply shocked during this session. Last Thursday a minister of the crown, back after about four weeks in heroic Britain, rose in his place and boasted to this house that he had made millions for Canadians by his shrewd bargaining with the defenders of everything we hold dear. I could scarcely believe that the time could ever come when anyone would be triumphant over bargains arising out of the motherland's necessity in her hour of direst need. Surely if there ever was a time-*
Mr. Gardiner:	Mr. Speaker, on a question
of privilege. I did not boast that we made millions as a matter of bargaining with Great Britain. We accepted, with no bargaining, the prices that Great Britain offered us.
And I quote the hon. member for Parkdale again:
I refer to Hansard of November 14, which contains the report of the speech of the Minister of Agriculture. On page 115 is given a statement of the value of exports of certain Canadian agricultural products and fish to the United Kingdom for the years 1935 to 1940, with estimated figures for 1941. The value of those exports in 1935 was $34,133,394: the value for 1941 it is estimated will be $105,741,000. For nine months of this year the value was $63,343,411.
And again:
I was going to say that surely if there ever were a time when we should make a thank-14873-1251
offering, it is now. Let us open our bursting granaries to Britain and give her our wheat. Now is not the time to drive bargains or seek higher prices than are prevailing right at home.
I should like to quote from an article which appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail on May 25, 1940, as follows:
Honourable Doctor Bruce undoubtedly made articulate what is in the minds and hearts of the people when, in the House of Commons on Friday, he discussed Honourable James G. Gardiner's food sales to the mother country during his recent visit. Few, if any, but would say, "For God's sake, let us give freely of the bounty with which nature has supplied us so abundantly and of which the gallant defenders of our liberty are in need." There is no excuse for dickering over quotas and prices when we have so much to spare.
Doctor Bruce expressed the sound and human point of view in proposing that we make our land products available to the heroic Britishers without thought of profits but as an expression of our admiration and gratitude. Such an attitude on Canada's part would be an encouragement and inspiration, going far to help the people of the besieged little island.
I am quite in accord with that. I feel that in, the final analysis foodstuffs will play an important part in this war. At the moment, however, this is not Britain's dire need. What she needs more than anything else at this time is ships, bombs, planes, and munitions of war. So I say, let us give them to her. If Britain loses this war, if we lose this war, all will be lost. Munitions of war are supplied and manufactured on a profit basis, on a cost-plus basis. I say, let us give freely of all the things that we have.
All that agriculture asks is that it be placed on a parity with the munitions manufacturing industry. What a change took place. It will be remembered that shortly after that butter was pegged. It will be remembered that this same periodical accused the Minister of Agriculture of going over to Britain, bartering with them and selling us down the river. The Minister of Agriculture was being accused of being lax in his duties when he consented to such a bargain as that. As I say, the Minister of Agriculture has a most thankless job. I ask that agriculture be considered a national problem and dealt with as such.
I do not agree with the w'heat policy of the government as it has been announced and as it is to be carried on by the item we are now discussing. I have the highest regard for the Minister of Agriculture. I do not believe there is a man in Canada to-day who has a better knowledge of agricultural problems. I cannot, however, follow him in this policy which he is asking the people to accept. As the leader of the opposition has said, wheat is not a war casualty. It will be remembered that wheat was bonused away back in 1932 or 1933, under the Bennett regime.
1972	COMMONS
Supply

Agriculture-Wheat Acreages


Richard Burpee Hanson: A bonus of five cents a bushel was provided in 1931 when there was a short crop.


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: That was the start of wheat bonusing in western Canada. Apparently the old law of supply and demand worked no longer and it was necessary to bolster up wheat. In 1935 the wheat board act was passed just prior to the general election. That act gave authority to the government to set the price of wheat at Fort William. In 1935, 1936 and 1937 there were partial crop failures; in those years the west did not produce its usual good crops. If the west had continued to produce its usual crops, the wheat problem would be much greater to-day than it is.
In 1938 the wheat crop of western Canada was approximately 340,000,000 bushels, and in that year the price was pegged at eighty cents a bushel in an endeavour to market the wheat. It has been said that this cost the Canadian people S62,000,000. I thought it was nearer to
860,000,000, but when one is dealing with millions, one or two do not mean much. In 1939 the provisions of the wheat board act were enlarged to take in the eastern provinces, with which move I was in favour. This did not, however, work out so well from the point of view of Ontario. I object to the way in which the Ontario wheat crop has been handled through the wheat board. I think the main reason for this is the fact that this board is governed mainly by the Winnipeg board. Mr. Mclvor does not understand Ontario problems or Ontario wheat or marketing. I will admit that the Ontario crop is only a small item, running from 22,000,000 to 25,000,000 bushels. During August, 1939, they took delivery of wheat through the wheat board and paid 53J cents a bushel. They sold almost half of that wheat directly to the millers at a loss. If they had put it in storage, had storage been available, we would have had a much better price for Ontario wheat than we got. The same thing happenned in 1940. The wheat board act as it applies to Ontario is far from satisfactory.


James Garfield Gardiner: It has been the opinion of those who are most familiar with the wheat question that it is a mistake to have eastern Canadian wheat under the wheat board, but the government at the time was asked to include it in the hope that something good might come out of it. I should like to know if eastern agricultural members particularly are still of the opinion that Ontario wheat should be left under the act. '


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: I am speaking only for myself, but I say that if the eastern provinces are going to stay under

the wheat board act, they should have a wheat selling organization of their own and it should be directed from Ontario as an Ontario problem. It might be worked in conjunction with the wheat board act.


Mr. MARTIN:: Why not a separate board altogether?


Mr. MacKENZIE (LambtonrKent):: There should be a separate board altogether to handle wheat, because under the present system it has been badly handled. It is not satisfactory to the wheat grower.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What about taking it from under the wheat board altogether?


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: Either take it out altogether, or have a separate selling agency in conjunction with the wheat board. It should be operated as an Ontario problem. In 1939 the wheat crop was approximately 450,000,000 bushels, and the farmers in western Canada were then asked to reduce their wheat acreage. There was a wheat problem. There were evidently no sales for the product. Instead of reducing the wheat acreage, however, they increased it by approximately 2,000,000 acres. In 1940 we find that we had a crop of approximately
560.000.	000.bushels of wheat, so that in July of this year we shall have a carryover of approximately 580,000,000 bushels of wheat; and, according to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in the statement he gave, if we have a normal crop of wheat we shall have around 1,000,000,000 bushels of wheat to deal with from a Canadian point of view.
The great bulk of the wheat has been marketed this year to the wheat board. My good friend the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) remarked that the west had a good many other lines of industry besides wheat, and I quite agree with him. In the bulletins issued by the department, marketing division, a statement was given a short time ago with regard to the hogs that were delivered from January 1 to March 20. We find that from January to March, taking the dates stated, the number in Alberta was 317,000; in Saskatchewan 112,000, and in Manitoba,
267.000.	In other words, we had a total from western Canada of about 698,000; and in Ontario, Quebec and the maritime provinces,
607.000.	Therefore, at the moment the west is marketing almost 60 per cent of the hogs in the dominion.
In the cattle sections we find almost the same situation. During the same period, from January 1 to March 20, cattle marketed in Winnipeg. Calgary, Edmonton and Regina totalled 70,068, and from Toronto and Montreal there were marketed 70,029; so that in

Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages
the cattle division they certainly have a large income in the western provinces apart from what is derived from wheat.
According to the records we have, hogs and other live stock shipped direct to the plants were approximately in the same proportion as those sold in the open market, and the shipments in the fall were much higher. It is quite evident, therefore, that wheat is not the only source of income of the western provinces. According to the figures we have, they grew last year about 27,000,000 acres of wheat. If I am wrong I wish to be corrected, but I believe that is approximately right. Under the proposed reduction of wheat acreage it is the intention to take out of wheat approximately 9,000,000 acres, either by summer-fallow or seeding to grasses or to coarse grains. If 9,000,000 acres are put under summer-fallow, that will mean approximately $36,000,000; and if 3,000,000 acres go to coarse grains, that will mean that coarse grains will be bonused to the tune of $6,000,000. When, therefore, the hon. member for Moose Jaw says that this really does not mean anything at all, I say that if it does not mean anything to grow hogs and cattle, and to be in the dairy industry to the extent that he claims-and I have the figures-then they certainly do not need the subsidy to enable them to grow coarse grains.
They are already producing a good many hogs and, if they have a subsidy of $6,000,000 to help in connection with coarse grains, it will undoubtedly give them a greater advantage to that extent in the hog market. Last year, under the agreement with Great Britain, we sold 290,000,000 pounds of bacon. This year, according to the agreement, we have approximately 423,000,000 pounds of bacon to go to Britain. At the present rate there will be an increase of around 35 per cent in hog marketing over the same period last year, and if that continues throughout the year we shall have an exportable surplus of bacon of around 550,000,000 pounds.
The result is that we shall have on our hands a problem that will be greater than that which faces us in connection with wheat I am opposed to it on general principles. I do not think it is fair to the rest of Canada. I go further than some of my friends and say that I am opposed to summer-fallowing. I do not believe that the farmers should be bonused not to grow wheat, or to grow coarse grains. Personally I would consent to grass seeding because there is some virtue in that, and if more land went into grass, it would relieve the situation to a considerable extent. More than that, in my own province of Ontario, some of the very best land we have is seeded down to grass for the simple reason that it does not pay to cultivate it. I am
speaking for Ontario when I say that we have approximately about 200,000 farmers. According to the bureau of statistics, forty per cent of the farms in Ontario are mortgaged, the approximate value of each mortgage being $3,000.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: What is the percentage in Saskatchewan?


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: The
percentage in Saskatchewan, according to the bureau of statistics, is approximately the same, and the amount of mortgage on each farm is also about the same; it is very little more. The only difference is that a unit which in Ontario would be regarded as average would be 100 acres, whereas a unit in the west would be 320 acres, and on that basis the mortgages per unit are not much different. Saskatchewan might be a little higher.


Mr. EVANS:: Has the hon. member any
idea of the difference in farm value per acre between Ontario and Saskatchewan farms?


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: I do
not know about the difference in value, but taxes are higher per acre in Ontario than in the west.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Will the hon.
member compare taxes in British Columbia with those in Ontario?


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: I do not know about British Columbia. According to the set-up we have this year, the carrying charges set by the Minister of Trade and Commerce to carry in store the wheat that they have taken over, will amount to approximately $57,000,000. The amount of money under this vote would be approximately $36,000,000; it may be a great deal more. The amount spent the last two or three years, last year particularly, under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act is approximately $22,000,000. Therefore we have a grand total going into western Canada-I do not care whether you call it subsidy or what-of from $115,000,000 to $125,000,000. If you divide that by the 250,000 wheat farmers there are in the west- I do not think there are any more than that although, according to the 1936 census, there were 290,000, but I think it is fair to say 250,000-you have approximately $500 as a bonus for each farmer in western Canada.
Approximately fifty per cent of that tax is paid by Ontario. So how can I go back to my farmers in Ontario whom I represent and say to them, "You are carrying, forty per cent of you, a mortgage averaging $3,000 each, and you have to contribute to a bonus of $500 to each wheat farmer in western Canada." I cannot do that. I do not think it is fair.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw said this was just part of a national policy, that the
1974	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages
east owes it to the west as part of the price that we draw from the tariff. But the 200,000 farmers in Ontario are living under the very same tariff as western Canada; the only difference is the cost of freight.
It has been said many times that there are many war industries in Ontario which employ a great deal of labour, and this means much money in circulation. That is probably true. The hon. leader of the opposition suggested that they are not getting enough war industries in the maritimes. All I can say from the farmer's point of view is that he has his work planned out, his dairy routine, his crop rotation, and instead of an asset the war industry situation is a definite and positive handicap, because he has to compete with these high wages for labour and is finding it a very hard struggle.


Mr. FAIR:: Then where is his problem?


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: The
problem is this, and I am going to talk on this at some time in the near future. Let me tell our western friends that in Canada we produce approximately 210 million pounds of sugar, and of that at least half was produced in western Canada. They have the home market there due to the protection of the freight haul, and they get approximately $1 a ton more for beets than we in eastern Canada. We have many crops in Ontario that might be called specialized lines of farming; we have tobacco, corn, beans, sugar beets and many more. But they are only small, although in the aggregate they mean a great deal. If they are strictly speaking Ontario's concern, then by the same line of reasoning wheat must surely be a western concern. The west, however, has many problems. This matter should be looked upon as an agricultural problem as a whole and worked out as a whole.
I would not hazard even a guess as to what the future of wheat will be; nobody knows. Do not forget that, so far as wheat is concerned, continental Europe was selfsupporting prior to the war, and may be selfsupporting after the war, I believe we should maintain a big wheat supply and have it available, but we cannot continue to pile up wheat at the expense of the dominion government. The whole question of agriculture should be considered as a whole. Therefore I naturally oppose this item. I believe the whole problem should be submitted to the agriculture committee for further suggestions.


James Garfield Gardiner: This debate has been going on since some time yesterday, and a certain amount of information has been placed on the record. There is a little more which I should like to add to what I gave yester-

day, more in the way of completing figures given or correcting some in order that hon. members may have the information provided this estimate does not go through this afternoon.
In the first place I should like to place on the record the figures regarding the export of wheat and wheat flour from Canada over a period of years dating back to 1925-26. I will read a sufficient number of figures to indicate the argument involved, and the table can be placed on Hansard.
In the period from 1925-26 to 1930-31, six years, the average exports of wheat from Canada were 300 million bushels a year.
For the next five-year period, from 1931-32 to 1935-36 the average export was 217 million bushels.
For the past four years for which we have the record

that is, leaving out the year we are now in-the average export has been 166 million bushels.
I give these figures to indicate that there has been a marked change in the situation from 1925-26 to the present, and to strengthen the argument which I presented yesterday to the effect that the approach of the war, the preparation for it and the final coming of it had a definite effect on the export of wheat from Canada to other countries.
The complete figures are as follows:
Exports of Canadian Wheat Crop Years 1925-26 to 1939-40
Wheat and flour exports
Crop years	(thousand bushels)
1925-	26	
324,5921926-	27	
292,8811927-	28	
332,9631928-	29	
407,5641929-	30	
186.2671930-	31	
258,6941931-	32	
207,0301932-	33	
264,3041933-	34	
194,7801934-	35	
165,7511935-	36	
254,4251936-	37	
195,2241937-	38	
92,9571938-	39	
166,9591939-	40	
207,897
Average exports-
1925-26-1930-31, 300 million bushels.
1931-32-1935-36, 217 million bushels.
1937-38-1939-40, 166 million bushels.
Two points of view have been expressed in opposition to the vote proposed, one of them coming largely from western members-more by way of suggestion than of direct opposition 

and the other coming from members from the eastern part of Canada. The discussion which has taken place is only further proof of the fact that it is most difficult, in a country so far-flung as ours, to legislate with regard to an industry which is to be found in every

Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages
province and have that legislation entirely satisfactory to every province. It is almost impossible to deal with any phase of agriculture in Canada by legislation or by a vote of this house and make it apply to all the provinces and have them all satisfied.


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I interrupt to say that that shows how difficult it is to govern Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; it is one indication that Canada is difficult to govern. It is the reason, I think, why the only system under which Canada could remain a united country or under which the United States of America have been able to remain a united country is a federated system, that makes it possible in connection with certain matters to take slightly different action in one part of the country from what is done in another. For that reason quite a number of the problems which have been referred to during this discussion properly should be dealt with, in part at least, by the provincial governments. They have been giving assistance in certain directions in connection with agriculture; and what we do here alone1 cannot settle the problems which confront the people of Canada in relation to these different matters. It is difficult to do even those things we feel compelled to do, in a national way, in a manner that will give help to people in one section of the country without injuring those in other sections.
The western point of view, in so far as it has been critical, has been that this provision does not give the farmer of the west the same return he obtained last year, or even the year before, as a result of being able to sell his product, particularly wheat, even at the comparatively low advance the government found it possible to make. For example, the figures I have here indicate that in 1939 the return to the farmers of the three provinces particularly concerned with this legislation was approximately $336,000,000, while last year it was about $326,000,000, and over the last fifteen years it has been about $325,000,000 on the average. During quite a number of those years we were far below a return which made it possible for people to maintain themselves without receiving a great deal of relief.
Therefore, looking at the picture from that point of view, I do not think we are asking the committee or the people of Canada to do anjdhing unreasonable under this policy which, so far as it has been enunciated up to the present, makes possible a return to the western farmers of only $300,000,000. It is our hope that by having the policy varied in one way or another in the matter of administration, in connection with either the part under my
department or the part under the Department of Trade and Commerce, we may be able to bring that figure up to $325,000,000. At present, however, the figure is only $300,000,000, unless provision is made for an increase of $15,000,000 in farm produce other than wheat, which would be equal to the increase between 1939 and 1940 in connection with such produce. In other words, if this year there happens to be as great an increase in the returns from products other than wheat as there was last year, the total amount made available under the policy as it exists at present will be $315,000,000, leaving still another $10,000,000 to be found somewhere in order to bring the total return up to the average during the last fifteen years. That does not make any allowance for the fact that the cost of living is higher in western Canada, as in all Canada, than it was during the period of time for which that average is taken. Therefore I think it can be agreed that the amount of money which will be made available is not more than the house would be prepared to vote, by one method or another, in order to take care of that section of agriculture which has been injured by the position of the wheat market.
The objection from eastern Canada, as it has been expressed in this house up to the present, I think is to the effect that the greater production of coarse grains under the proposed policy will interfere with the sale of live stock and live stock products in eastern Canada; or, in other words, that, as a result of this policy, western farmers will come into competition with eastern farmers. A few moments ago the hon. member for Moose Jaw dealt with that situation and brought out the point that there had been a marked increase in the production of live stock and live stock products in western Canada before this policy was even discussed.
In that connection I have some figures which I think I should mention, particularly for the consideration of my hon. friends from Ontario. The number of hogs marketed in Saskatchewan in 1936 was 570,000; in 1940 it was 648,000. That represents an increase of only 13-7 per cent over our previous high year; and the only reason why the figures were lower in the interval was that one year we did not grow any grain, and we had to dispose of practically all our live stock. As a matter of fact, the Department of Agriculture went into Saskatchewan, bought the live stock, shipped it out and sold it. In the natural course of events that branch of agriculture had to come back; and if the number of hogs marketed last year was increased, that was not because of any policy put in force by this or any other government; it was because we grew grain in 1938
1976	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages
and 1939, and we did not grow grain in 1937. Our total increase would have been much greater than 13-7 per cent, even in the natural course of events, if it had not been for the crop failures which intervened.
When we come to Manitoba we find that their highest year previously was 1939, when they had 327,000 hogs delivered. In 1940 that number increased to 510,000. That represents an increase of 56 per cent. In Alberta the previous high year was 1936, when they marketed 1,039,000 hogs. Last year that increased to 1,485,000, or an increase of 42-9 per cent. When we come to Ontario we find
that the highest previous year was 1937, with 1,785,000 hogs delivered. In 1940 that number increased to 2,191,000, or an increase of 24'6 per cent. In the province of Quebec the previous high year also was 1937, when 342,000 hogs were delivered. Last year deliveries amounted to 524,000, representing an increase of 53 per cent. I could go right across the country and give the figures, but I think I have indicated the point I am trying to stress, which is that there was an increase before this policy was ever announced, when we were growing more wheat and less coarse grains. The figures are as follows:
Hog Marketings by Provinces (Number of head)
P.E.I. N.S.	N.B.	Que.	Ont.	Man.	Sask.	Alta.	B.C.	Canada1936	
38,195 2,501 1937	
44,292 5,991 1938	
46,520 8,356 1939	
48,389 6,524 1940	
53,982 5,974	14,269 22,459 26,035 27,402 29,658	251,490 342,912 283,067 336,525 524,498	1,613,162 1,758,351 1,631,473 1,666,991 2,191,456	267,856 255,646 250,055 327,212 510,789	570,013 569,723 217,152 312,188 648,938	1,039,466 986,206 782,857 979,898 1,485,382	6,i67	3,796,952 3,986,397 3,245,535 3,706,179 5,456,844Increase 1940 over previous high year- P.E.I. N.S. N.B. Que. [DOT] 5,593 -2,382 2,256 181,586	Ont. 433,105	Man. 183,577	Sask. 78,925	Alta. 445,916	B.C.	Canada 1,470,447Per cent increase- P.E.I. N.S. 11.6 -26.0	N.B. 8.2	Que. 53.0	Ont. 24.6	Man. 56.1	Sask. 13.7	Alta. 42.9	B.C.	Canada 36.9
Source: Annual Live Stock Market Review, Department of Agriculture.
The point as to whether you feed hogs coarse grain or wheat does not enter into the question. The grain is there; wheat is there; rye is there. There is a shortage of barley and of oats, but the hogs can be fed wheat and rye, as far as the market is concerned, just as effectively as they can be fed coarse grains, although whether or not the bacon is quite as good I would not care to say. In other words, the fact that the production of coarse grains in western Canada will be increased will not bring about an increase in the number of hogs, any more than the fact that wheat is being stored in the west to-day would increase that number.
There is, however, one point that has been entirely left out of consideration. The leader of the opposition made reference to the fact that the governments of the eastern provinces had asked the federal government to ship or assist in shipping grain from west to east. The request that was made was not for the shipment of coarse grains, but for the shipment of wheat. The double argument was used that the wheat would be useful in producing live stock in the east, and relieve the storage of wheat in western Canada. The proposal made by those governments was that the federal government should deliver that wheat at a cost of fifty cents a bushel, paying half the
fMr. Gardiner.]
freight, in addition to delivering it at fifty cents a bushel from Fort William into eastern Canada. That meant that the dominion government was asked to take twenty cents a bushel or, if you like, to bonus the shipment of wheat to eastern Canada at twenty cents a bushel.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Did it
mean that?-because that is the No. 1 price.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is what it averaged up to. I have all the figures, but at this time I do not wish to take the time to put them on record. That, however, was the request.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think that is quite correct.


James Garfield Gardiner: We substituted the suggestion that we were prepared to pay half the freight, provided the provincial governments would do likewise, on feed grains, whether it was on feed wheat or other grains.
As a matter of fact, in answer to what was said, there is very little feed wheat. That is the real reason why we could not have got
10,000,000 bushels. There is very little feed wheat to be found in the elevators at Fort William. That is the reason why it would be approximately twenty cents a bushel, when you figure it out on an average.

Supply-Agriculture-Wheat Acreages
But the coarse grains are there, and it was thought that with feed wheat, barley, rye and oats, there could be secured approximately
6.000.	000 bushels, and that by adding in some high-grade wheat it could be brought up to
8.000.	000 bushels, and be shipped to Ontario, the two governments paying half the freight. Only one province has taken that up.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Which one?


James Garfield Gardiner: Ontario. We are paying to Ontario now half the freight on the feed grain which is being shipped from Fort William to feed the live stock in Ontario. That amounts to almost exactly the same per bushel as we are proposing to pay on the amount of coarse grain which is taken out of wheat-presuming that a farmer grows fifty bushels to the acre-and sown into coarse grains.
A point I would suggest to hon. members is that this policy will not, so far as we can see at the present time, influence one way or the other the production of live stock in western Canada. The thing that surprises me is that members from eastern Canada have not opposed the grass more strenuously than the grain. In western Canada we do not produce milk to any extent from feeding grain. It is too cold at the time we feed grain. In western Canada we produce milk from feeding grass. One has to have a fairly complete knowledge of farming conditions right across Canada in order to be concerned about some of the things which may happen as a result of putting into effect a certain policy.
I would therefore suggest to hon. members that from the beginning of the war we have been approaching this question from this point of view: We have been watching the development in connection with different branches of agriculture and in different sections of Canada. Up to date I think it will be agreed that when a real problem confronted the apple people, we dealt with it. An hon. member has said that a real problem confronts the potato growers, and that we have not dealt with it. One of the reasons why we have not dealt with it is that it has not been demonstrated to us that the war has made any difference in connection with the potato marketing problem. If it can be demonstrated to us that it has made a difference, I am sure the government will meet that problem in just the same manner as it has dealt with the problem connected with the apple crop.
Only the other day we had a delegation from the bean people. They were able to show that about one-third of their production had been marketed in Great Britain, and that to-day they are not able to market that
one-third. All we ask in cases of that kind is that the individuals or areas concerned, large or small, will take the problem first-if it is all within one province-to the provincial government concerned, and lay the problem before that government, suggesting the methods by which they w'ould like to have the matter considered. In that way the provincial government would take the responsibility for passing on to this government suggestions as to what ought to be done. I do not believe this government ought to go into Ontario and develop the production of beans by increasing the prices. We should not do that, thereby leaving a problem on the doorstep of the Ontario government.
But I do say this, that if by carrying out this policy the fears of eastern members are realized, in that we have produced too much coarse grain in western Canada, we should see to it that at least an equal advantage is given to the eastern farmer to get the use of that coarse grain-just as we have been doing this fall. If we give him an equal advantage to get the use of it, and if, as it has been said, by bonusing the farmer at so much an acre to produce so many bushels of coarse grains per acre we have made that grain available, then the grain ought to be made available to eastern farmers at a price correspondingly favourable to that at which it is made available to western fanners. We agree to that.
All I ask hon. members to do is to take for granted that what we have done in other cases will be done in this instance. When the problem arises, it will be dealt with on its merits, and it will be dealt with in a manner which will be satisfactory to the farmers in the different sections of Canada.
Mr. MacKENZIE CLambton-Kent): If I understand the minister correctly, this arrangement of paying half the freight is only a temporary arrangement to take care of scarcity due to adverse conditions-conditions which, under normal circumstances, would not occur in Ontario.


James Garfield Gardiner: No; there is not a shortage of grain in Ontario, as compared with some other years. In Ontario there is grain which has developed growths half an inch long because it was wet last fall, and could not be shipped out of the area. Shipments being made at the present time indicate that there is no great shortage of grain in Ontario. The fact that no grain has gone down into other sections is also an indication that there is no great shortage of it.
But the fact of the matter is this, that, as indicated by the figures put on record, there has been a great increase in the amount of live
197S
Questions

stock not only in eastern Canada but in western Canada. The feeding of that live stock requires more coarse grains. If it is going to be properly fed next year, many farmers in Ontario will have to buy coarse grains, if they are going to increase their live stock production to the extent to which they indicate they are going to increase it. If we are going to be able to purchase coarse grains at prices which make possible the production of cheese, hogs, and so on, at a price which Great Britain and Canada combined can afford to pay for them -because the two governments will have to combine their financial ability to pay-we shall have to see to it that the feed is placed at the disposal of those who wish to consume it. For that reason we ought to assure ourselves that the feed is available. When we assure ourselves of that, let us see to it that the people who have live stock to feed, and have not the feed to feed them, get it at the lowest possible cost. This is what the policy has made possible.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Crerar the house adjourned at 6 o'clock.
Monday, March 31, 1941.

(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)



POLICY WITH RESPECT TO CONTROVERSIAL BROADCASTING

Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	What changes, if any, have been made in the policy of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation with respect to controversial broadcasting since the statement of policy issued by the board of governors on July 8, 1939?
2.	Has any further statement of policy been issued by the said board of governors since the aforesaid date?
3.	If so, when was said statement of policy issued and by what means wias it published?


Mr. HOWE:: The following information
furnished by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation:
1.	There has been one modification of the policy of the CBC with respect to controversial broadcasting since the statement of policy was issued by the board of governors on July 8, 1939. This modification, made at a meeting of the board on January 22, 1940, suspended paid political and controversial broadcasting on CBC stations and networks of CBC or private stations except during

elections, for the duration of the war. It should be noted, however, that time for paid political and controversial broadcasting could still be purchased on single privately owned stations.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	Political parties were informed of this change at meetings held in Ottawa during the month of January, 1940, and in Toronto during February, 1940, at which were present representatives of the Liberal, Conservative, C.C.F. and Social Credit parties together with representatives of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters and of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It was also communicated to all correspondents enquiring about the matter.



HAMPTON, ONT., POST OFFICE

Mr. MacKINNON (Kootenay East):: What was the annual revenue received from the post office at Hampton, Ontario, for the years 1935 to 1940, inclusive?


Mr. MULOCK:: Fiscal year
1934-	35	
1935-	36	
1936-	37	
1937-	38	
1938-	39	
1939-	40	
Revenue $548 51 608 46 585 93 632 01 649 96 617 75



CHEESE EXPORTS

Mr. SENN:: 1. What quantity of cheese was exported from Canada during the years, (a) 1937, (b) 1938, (c) 1939 and (d) 1940?
2.	What persons or what firms were exporters of cheese during each of said years?
3.	Was authority given to said persons or firms to export cheese during each of these years?
4.	Were applications made by any other individuals or firms for authority to export
cheese ?
5.	Were persons or firms refused the right to export cheese during said years?
6.	If so, what persons or firms, and for what reason?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	In 1937, 88,955.300 lbs.; 1938, 80,989,100 lbs.; 1939, 90,944,800 lbs.; 1940, 106,631,100 lbs.
2.	In 1937, not known; 1938, not known; 1939, not known; 1940, not known previous to July 12, 1940. Since that date as follows:
A. A. Ayer Company Limited, Montreal Quebec; J. C. Edwards & Company, Montreal, Cooperative Federee de Quebec, Montreal; United Dairymen Limited, Montreal; Hodgson, Rowson & Company, Limited, Montreal; Geo. Hodge & Son Limited, Montreal; Lovell

Questions
& Christmas (Canada) Ltd., Montreal; P. W. McLagan Limited, Montreal; Olive & Dorion Limited, Montreal; W. S. Cook & Son, Belleville, Ontario; Ingersoll Cream Cheese Co. Ltd., Ingersoll; Swift Canadian Company Limited, Toronto; Belleville Cheddar Cheese Limited, Belleville; Canada Packers Limited, Toronto; Jas. A. Sanderson, Oxford Station; Whyte Packing Company Limited, Stratford; Burns & Company, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Canadian Red Cross Society, Montreal; Joseph Perry, Kemptville, Corvell Bros. Limited, Charlottetown, P.E.I.; Chateau Cheese Company Ltd., Ottawa; R. B. Coldwell Limited, Halifax, Nova Scotia; Hugh G. Cooke, Kingston, Ontario; Davis & Fraser, Halifax, Nova Scotia; Fowler's Canadian Company Ltd., Hamilton, Ontario; Fraser Valley Milk Producers Assn., Vancouver, B.C.; Fromagerie de la Trappe, Oka, Quebec, G. H. Hammond Company (Canada) Ltd., Toronto; Island Cold Storage Co. Ltd., Charlottetown, P.E.I., Kraft Cheese Limited, Montreal, Quebec; Lambert Cheese Limited, Montreal; Leonard Wood, Charlottetown, P.E.I.; London Cheese Products Ltd., London, Ontario; G. P. Mitchell & Son Ltd., Halifax, Nova Scotia; New Brunswick Cheese Board, Saint John, N.B.; Rowling's Limited, Halifax, Nova Scotia; J. M. Schneider Limited, Kitchener, Ontario; A. Shevell Company Reg'd, Montreal; Slawson Cheese Company Ltd., Ingersoll, Ontario; Wilsil's Limited, Montreal; Joshia Shapray Inc., Montreal; Wellington McNeill, Charlottetown, P.E.I.; Canadian Manufacturers Sales Company, Montreal, Hudson's Bay Company Ltd., Winnipeg, Manitoba; Associated Shippers Inc., Charlottetown, P.E.I.; Pietro Collarini, Loretta, Manitoba.
3.	In 1937, authority not required; 1938, authority not required1; 1939, authority not required; 1940, since July 12, 1940, yes.
4. In 1937, answered in question No. 3; 1938, answered in question No. 3; 1939, answered in question No. 3; 1940, yes.
5. In 1937, answered in question No. 3; 1938, answered in question No. 3; 1939, answered in question No. 3; 1940, yes.
6.	Rabbi E. Kirzner, Toronto, Ontario;
0.	B. Richardson, Ste Agathe des Monts, Quebec; Hunters Manufacturing Company Ltd., Winnipeg; John Schretlen, Vancouver, British Columbia; MacFeeters Creamery Ltd., Toronto, Ontario; Lambert Cheese Co., Montreal, Quebec; London Cheese Products, London, Ontario; Perreault Cheese Products Ltd., Levis, Quebec; Lucerne Food Products Ltd., Hull, Quebec.
Reasons: In order to conserve the supply of cheese in Canada for export to the United Kingdom, it was necessary to control the expansion of exports, in the form of new business, to other countries.



VOLUNTEERS FOR OVERSEAS SERVICE

Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	What are the numbers from each military district in Canada of (a) officers; (b) noncommissioned officers; (c) privates, now on duty overseas?
2.	What are the numbers and in what military district were they recruited, of (a) officers; (b) non-commissioned officers; (c) privates, now on duty in Canada who have volunteered for service overseas?
3.	What are the numbers and in what military district were they recruited, of (a) officers; (b) non-commissioned officers; (e) privates, now on duty in Canada who have not volunteered for service overseas?
4.	What are the numbers and in what military district were they recruited, of (a) officers; (b) non-commissioned officers; (c) privates, now on duly in Canada who are medically unfit for service overseas?
5.	What are the numbers and in what military district were they recruited, of (a) officers; (b) non-commissioned officers; (c) privates, now on duty in Canada who are medically fit and who have not volunteered for service overseas?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I said that this question could be dropped.


Mr. RALSTON:: I was going to refer my hon. friend, on a portion of the question, to a return to order of the house No. 87, tabled March 26, moved by Mr. Cockeram. I believe that that will give the hon. gentleman about all the information which, in the public interest, can be given now, or which otherwise would require a great deal of research and the examination of a large number of attestations.



ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY

Mr. LACOMBE:: Does the sum of $14,011,000, mentioned under item 15 of the St. Lawrence waterways estimates, cover the acquisition of lands now under cultivation or industrial districts?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: The sum of $14,011,000 mentioned under item 15, St. Lawrence waterway estimates, provides for the acquisition of all lands, improvements, etc., required for the St. Lawrence waterway project on the Canadian side of the international boundary in the international rapids section, exclusive of the villages of Morrisburg and Iroquois which are provided for separately under items 12 and 13 of the estimates.
exports to japan Mr. STOKES:
1.	What commodities are represented by the figure $572,000 exports sent to Japan, during the two months ending February, 1941?
2.	What is the value of each such commodity?
Questions


James Angus MacKinnon: I wish to advise that at the present time it is regarded as not in the public interest to give this information.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Dropped.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Oh, no.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I protest against the minister's statement, Mr. Speaker. We shall have to have a little more reason for the refusal.


James Angus MacKinnon: The policy of the department has been, since shortly after the commencement of the war, not to give answers to anybody in connection with these shipments, because information would thus be given to people who are not entitled to it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But what about the Canadian people?


James Angus MacKinnon: If it could be given to the Canadian people without being known elsewhere, we should be very happy to do it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You think that the others don't know?
Question dropped.


Mr. MULOCK:: 1.	October, 1940.
2.	Alex. John Beaton-$275 per annum. As this rate was considered high the tenderer was given an opportunity to modify his tender but refused. Later, an offer was received from Duncan Gillis of Upper South West Mabou at $240.
3.	Duncan Gillis at $240 per annum-contract dating from 1st January, 1941.
4.	No recommendation received. Contract was awarded at the lowest rate available.
5.	Yes.
6.	No. Public tenders were invited, as the then existing contract was due to expire 31st December, 1940.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	Were tenders called for the construction -work at the airfield at Boundary Bay, British Columbia?
2.	If not, how was the work done?
3.	If the work was done by contract, (a) who was the successful tenderer; (b) what was the total cost of the work?
4.	If more than one contract, (a) who was the contractor in each case; (b) what was the total price of each contract?


FEED GRAIN FOR ONTARIO FARMERS
Mr. AYLESWORTH:: 1.	How much feed grain has been brought into Ontario pursuant to order in council P.C. 497?
2.	Have Ontario farmers been required to pay a higher price for feed grain than the current market price at the head of the lakes?
3.	If so, for what reason?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1. Complete report not received from Ontario.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.


INVERNESS COUNTY, N.S., MAIL SERVICE
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1. When were tenders last called for carrying the mail between Upper South West Marlow and Glencoe station, Inverness county, Nova Scotia?
2.	What are the names of those who tenderec and the amount of their respective tenders?
3.	To whom was the contract let and at wha price?
4.	On whose recommendation was the contraci let?
5.	Is the contractor sixty years of age or o ver ?
6.	Were there any complaints with respect to service rendered by previous contractor?



CANADIAN ARMY PAY AND ALLOWANCES

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaCROIX (Quebec-Montmorency):
1.	What is the regular pay of officers of various ranks in the army, the navy and the air force?
2.	What is the total family allowance, the allowance for lodgings and other supplementary allowances to the various ranks, and what other subsidiary allowances are there, if any?
3.	What is the total number of commissioned officers in the army, and what is the total number of soldiers in (a) active service; (b) reserve army?
4.	Is pay of soldiers on active service and in the reserve subject to the income tax?
5.	Do officers on special duty receive allowances or supplementary pay in addition to their regular pay?


Mr. BLACKMORE:: For a return showing the number of civil servants whose place of birth was Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, as shown by a census of civil servants taken between 1931 and 1938.


Mr. MICHAUD:: On behalf of the Secretary of State I am requested to inform the hon. member that he is assuming facts which are

Motions for Papers
19S1
not as he thinks they are. For example, he is assuming that a certain census of the civil service gives some information, and so states in his question. I am informed that the census referred to does not give the place of birth of civil servants by provinces. The motion, therefore, will have to be either amended or dropped.


Georges Parent: Dropped.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I add just a word in regard to motions of this kind? While the government should be expected to give information on matters which are not readily ascertainable from public records and public documents, it is hardly reasonable to expect that the government should provide the means of collecting information for private members out of available documents. I hope that hon. members will not feel that their full rights and privileges are being in any way infringed if, where a return is requested for information which is already in public documents, the government refers hon. members to the documents themselves.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunburv):: Is the
Prime Minister not carrying that principle just a little too far? Private members come into the house for the first time, say, after an election and they do not know where to turn for these things. The first thing they think of is putting a question on the order paper, and we have civil servants in the country who know where they can place their hands on the information required. I do suggest that it would be taking away from private members the privilege they now have of getting information in this way. I should like to know what the rule is with regard to it-not the interpretation of the rule. Some rule should be laid down which everyone could understand. At the present time, so far as I know, there is no definite rule.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am certain the rule is that the government must be the judge of what it gives and what it withholds.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a question of public interest, not of convenience.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is an
important matter. The government has the responsibility, among other things, of protecting the treasury, and to have the government ask civil servants to go through a lot of documents and collect information for individual members just because the members are unwilling to take the necessary time to look up the information for themselves is something which I do not think the public
would consider justifiable. There could not be a better illustration than the request before us. It is equivalent to saying "Will some one or more civil servants go through some census returns in order to make certain calculations and deductions for an individual member who wishes to have them." Civil servants are fully engaged at the present time with extra duties and to have them taken off their regular or special work simply to do some calculating for an individual member is something which should not, I think, be expected either of them or of the government.


Georges Parent: Dropped.



HOEY, SASK., POSTMASTERSHIP

Mr. COLD WELL:: For a copy of all correspondence and other documents in possession of the department relating to the dismissal of the postmaster at Hoey, Saskatchewan, in 1939, and the appointment of his successor.



KUROKI-SUB ROSA, SASK., MAIL SERVICE

Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: For a copy of all correspondence, reports and other documents in the possession of the Post Office Department, relative to the transferring of the mail route from Kurold, to Sub Rosa, Saskatchewan, and from Margo to Sub Rosa. Saskatchewan, during the years 1938, 1939 and 1940.


William Pate Mulock: Provided the hon. member does not want the reports of the officials of the department, it is quite satisfactory that this motion should carry. It may be amended to that extent.


Georges Parent: Carried as amended.



TORONTO-TAX COLLECTIONS AND POSTAL RECEIPTS

Mr. CHURCH:: For a statement, for the last year of record, showing the amount collected at the Toronto customs house or the port of West Toronto from, (a) customs receipts; (b) excise duties and taxes; (c) sales tax; (d) other taxes imposed under the Special War Revenue Act; (e) other federal levies, if any. Also a statement for the same period of the amount collected at the district income tax office, Toronto, and the amount of postal receipts in the city of Toronto.



DAFOE, SASK., AIRPORT

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: For a copy of all correspondence, reports, telegrams, memoranda and other documents in possession of the government in connection with the establishment of an airport at Dafoe, Saskatchewan, and in particular with regard to the supply of water for said airport.

Sugar-Increase in Price



POLICY WITH RESPECT TO CONTROVERSIAL BROADCASTS

Mr. GRAYDON:: For a copy of any rulings, orders, regulations, or statements of policy made to the government by the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, or the general manager or other official thereof, since January 1, 1939, with respect to political or controversial broadcasting.



MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY-OIL CONTROL

['After April, 1942, the automatic feature will apply; that is, the rate will then be fixed automatically.\nResolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Howe thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 26, to amend the Trans-Canada Air Lines Act, 1937.\nMotion agreed to and bill read the first time.']
George Hugh Castleden: For a return showing:
1.	The names and addresses of all persons employed in the oil controller's branch of the Department of Munitions and Supply.
2.	The qualifications and experience of each of these persons.
3.	The salary and allowances paid to each of these employees.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This information was tabled on March 10, in answer to a question of the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Hoblitzell), passed as an order for return.


Georges Parent: Dropped.



George Hugh Castleden: For a return showing:
1.	The latest figures on unemployed.
2.	The names of places in Canada where there is a shortage of labour.
3.	The extent of that shortage for, (a) skilled labour; (b) unskilled labour; (c) farm labour.


LOANS TO PROVINCES-BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. BENCE:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda, or other documents exchanged between the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance and the premier or Minister of Finance of British Columbia since March 17_, 1941, with reference to the request of the dominion government that steps be taken to pay off or reduce the outstanding obligations to the dominion of the province of British Columbia.


INCREASE IN PRICE AT REFINERY BY ONE CENT A POUND
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: I desire to direct a question
to the Minister of Finance. The newspapers this morning carried the definite announcement that the price of sugar had been advanced at the refineries by one cent per pound, making the standard price to retailers $7.15 per hundredweight, or approximately $8 to the consumer. There were two previous increases-one half cent in October 1939, and [DOT]35 of one cent in May 1940, the three together making a total of 1-85 cents per
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
pound since the war began. I understand that none of these increases go to the refiners; therefore they all must go either to the government or to government agencies.
I desire to ask the minister what is the justification for this increase. The position should be given more clarification. Specifically, has the cost of raw sugars increased since the war started? If so, how much? Have freight and war insurance rates increased since the war started? If so, how much? What was the total amount received by the sugar controller from the "35 cent increase in May last, and did the amount inure to the benefit of the treasury? Or, if not, to what government agency; and if to some agency, for what purpose?
Finally, how much of the total increase of 1-85 cents per pound is tax, having regard to the fact that there is already in existence an excise tax of one cent per pound? It would appear to me that the total tax will now approximate 21 cents per pound, or over $25,000,000 annually. I think the minister should give to the house, not to the newspapers, a clarification of the whole position.


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: I received notice of this question just as I was coming into the chamber, and I am not in a position to answer the numerous points that are raised by the leader of the opposition. However, I will bring them to the attention of my colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty), in whose department the war-time prices and trade board functions.
The part that I might be expected to answer is the part relating to the price rise this morning. That price rise had to be announced publicly yesterday by notice to the newspapers. It could not wait for the meeting of the house, because there are certain announcements the timing of which is extremely important from the point of view of how much will be charged for commodities, and so forth.
The reason I requested the war-time prices and trade board to see that the price of sugar was increased one dollar and that that increase accrued to the benefit of the government was that large buying of sugar was taking place in anticipation of the budget, and that buying was gathering momentum. In the event of action being taken at the time of the budget it would mean that large fortuitous profits would come to speculators in sugar unless something of this kind was done.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If there was no new tax it would not help them.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. gentleman is correct about that.

Sugar-Increase in Price


Richard Burpee Hanson: There must have been a leak.


James Lorimer Ilsley: This agency existed, and the power existed for doing it in this way-I am very glad it did-so that this action was taken.


Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Minister of Labour):: I had no notice whatever of the question asked by the leader of the opposition. But, speaking purely from recollection, I would say there have been two increases in the price of sugar, one on October 3, 1939, and the other on May 21, 1940. I should like to have definite information as to the exact amount of the increases, although I think that in the first instance it amounted to half a cent a pound and in the second to one-third of a cent. I can tell my hon. friend that the increase of one-third of a cent was on account of the increased price the British sugar controller was required to pay under the terms of the sugar agreement with the various dominions and colonies of the British empire.
Had I had a few minutes' notice I should have been able to answer more specifically. I have given the best answer I can from recollection, and shall be glad later to answer further.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What became of the one-third cent per pound, and how much did it amount to?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I can answer that now. I am glad the hon. leader of the opposition raised that question, because it is one with which I am familiar. The reason for the rise in price of raw sugar was the advice received from the British sugar controller that he was required to pay more for the sugar he purchased from the various dominions and colonies of the British empire. It was realized that as soon as this became known it would become public property and there would necessarily be a rise in the price of sugar; the additional cost would be anticipated and it would mean a tremendous inventory profit to the sugar refiners of Canada. I think the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) referred to that. In order that this condition might be avoided, at five or six o'clock on the night of May 20, 1940, the sugar administrator bought the sugar from the refineries and the next morning at ten o'clock sold it back to them at the increased price. The difference between the purchase price and the price at which it was resold will go into the sugar stabilization fund and eventually into the treasury of Canada.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Just another tax on the people.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I suppose this is not the place to debate it, but would not the tax have been greater if instead of taking that action the refiners themselves had obtained the inventory profit which would otherwise be involved?


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the war-time prices and trade board for? Is there not authority to hold the price down until it has to be revised?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Oh, yes; but if they had not taken that action the refineries would have received a profit on the inventories held by them which they had purchased and which we repurchased from them at the old price and resold to them at the additional price. It would be a tax on sugar the benefit of which would go to the refiners of Canada if the action which was taken had not been taken.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But the board could keep the price down. It is not a tax on sugar; it is a tax on the people.
Mr. KARL K. HOMUTH (Waterloo South): In view of the statement of the Minister of Finance that there were large purchases of sugar, and, of an article I saw in the press the other day to the effect that there had been exceptionally large purchases of sugar by the wholesalers; and in view of what the Minister of Labour has said, and also the Minister of Finance, that this decision had to be taken so suddenly-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I am quite in order. I know as much about the procedure in this house as hon. members opposite. I want to ask the Minister of Labour what provision has been made to protect the people of Canada against an increase in the price of sugar now being held by wholesalers and others in Canada.


Mr. ROWE:: And retailers.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The extent of abnormal buying perhaps is not as great as the hon. member has in mind.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suppose it was only threatened.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: It was more than a
threat.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, there was some. But the possibility of recapturing for the treasury any profit which might be made on the abnormal amount has been very carefully canvassed at considerable length, and it appears to be administratively impossible.
Wheat-Freight Rates,

Some few persons, perhaps more than a few, will get some benefit as a result of this. That happens, unfortunately, prior to some budgets.


John Horne Blackmore: I should like to ask one or two questions of the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty) to make sure that I gathered an accurate impression with regard to the control of sugar prices in Canada. Am I to understand that from now on the price of sugar to consumers in Canada is to be governed by the British sugar controller?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Necessarily it will be influenced by the price we pay the British sugar controller for raw sugar imported into Canada. It will be controlled to that extent, yes.


John Horne Blackmore: What is mystifying me, Mr. Speaker, is who tells the British controller what he has to pay.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Perhaps this is not an opportune time to discuss the whole sugar situation, but the price the British sugar controller pays is based on the agreements he arrives at with all the sugar producing dominions and colonies in the British empire.


John Horne Blackmore: And is Canada numbered among those producers?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I do not want to curtail discussion in any way, but I must say that all these answers are being given in a very impromptu manner, without any notice whatever. I think perhaps an opportunity will be afforded of discussing the whole matter at a more appropriate time than on the orders of the day.


John Horne Blackmore: Will the minister be prepared to make a statement in the house with regard to this matter within a short time? I must observe, if I am in order in doing so, that there is nothing of greater interest to the Canadian people at the present time than this very matter of sugar.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I shall be glad to make a statement at any appropriate time the hon. gentleman wishes to ask for it.


REDUCTION OF FREIGHT RATES WESTWARD ON MIXED GRAIN FOR FEEDING PURPOSES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: I should like to ask a couple of questions of the Minister of Agriculture, and I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that they are entirely nonprovocative in character-in fact will have a rather soothing effect.

A statement has appeared in the Vancouver press within the last few days that reduced freight rates have been arranged for on the higher grades of wheat from the prairies to the coast, but it was somewhat indefinitely worded. As it is a matter of very considerable importance to British Columbia, could the minister state whether this has been arranged, and if so what the new rate is, and if, as asserted in the press, it is conditional on the wheat being mixed with coarse grains, how is the purchaser to be protected? Suppose for example a farmer or dealer buys a carload of grain guaranteed to contain only twenty-five per cent coarse grains, how is he protected against having sent him a carload containing forty per cent coarse grains?
While I am on my feet I would ask whether the word "wheat" in this connection will include, as it did in the original rate on which this is apparently based, the by-products of bran and shorts? Because dairy men and farmers do not want to feed their cows a mixture of wheat, barley and oats either ground or raw, and I do not think this reduction will be of much use to the dairymen unless they can get it on bran and shorts. It will benefit the poultrymen, of course.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member was kind enough to give me a copy of his question, and I give the following answer:
Representations were made to the department that the farmers in British Columbia were finding difficulty in obtaining sufficient quantities of the lower grades of wheat to meet their needs. Under CFA tariff 145 CTC 154, grains for feeding purposes may be carried at freight rates more or less intermediate between the regular export and domestic rates on grain from the prairies to British Columbia. This rate does not include wheat of grades higher than No. 4.
Representations were made to the railways to carry, during the present emergency, the higher grades of wheat for feeding purposes at the feed grain rates. They finally agreed to carry the higher grades provided they were mixed with other grain to make it difficult to use the grain for other than feeding purposes. In addition each shipment is accompanied by a certificate from the deputy minister of agriculture for British Columbia that, the grain is to be used for feeding purposes. In other words the railways will not accept the grain at the lower rates without the certificate from the deputy minister, who is supposed to satisfy himself that it will be used for feeding purposes. Under this arrangement it now will be possible for feeders in British Columbia to obtain any grade of wheat desired on the prairies, have it mixed with cereal

Wheat*-Coarse Grains
grains other than wheat before shipment, so that the resulting mixture when inspected will be graded by the inspector of the board of grain commissioners as mixed grain, and have it accepted and shipped by the railways at the feed grain rate.
The last question was whether bran and shorts could be included. Obviously it would be impossible to have bran and shorts included in these mixed grains; therefore it probably would be rather difficult to have bran and shorts come under these rates. But I would point out that all the ingredients of bran and shorts will be contained in the ground wheat, so that there should not be any serious difficulty about the matter so far as the general feeding of live stock is concerned. Of course where a farmer requires bran and shorts separate from the other grain, I understand that the regulation would not apply.


Alan Webster Neill: The point is, of course, that bran is cheaper than wheat, and the dairyman does not want to buy an expensive feed like No. 4 wheat, when bran is a better milk producer.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: May I ask
if these reduced freight rates will apply to feed grain shipped to the maritime provinces?


James Garfield Gardiner: Already offers have been made to the maritime provinces and the eastern provinces generally, under which the government agreed to pay half the freight, which I think would have amounted to an even greater contribution than in the present case. That offer has not been accepted by the eastern provinces, and the offer to British Columbia is in substitution for what was offered to the eastern provinces.


Percy Chapman Black: Have the
maritime provinces been made the same offer that is now being applied to British Columbia?


James Garfield Gardiner: No. A better offer was made to the eastern provinces, an offer which would have given them more assistance in connection with the shipping of grain.


Percy Chapman Black: But it was not accepted?


James Garfield Gardiner: It was not accepted.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What percentage of coarse grains must be included in the wheat to have it classified as mixed grain?


James Garfield Gardiner: In the memorandum to which I have been referring the percentage is not given; but in the question put by the hon. member it was placed at 25 per cent. There was a further question as to how that was determined. The only method by which it could be determined would be by weighing the grain and determining the different proportions that would make up the weight of a bushel of grain.


RECOMMENDATIONS OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE WHEAT BOARD
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Last Thursday the Minister of Agriculture quoted certain recommendations from a memorandum submitted by the advisory committee of the wheat board. Under the rules of the house I wonder if that memorandum should not be tabled.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not quote from the
memorandum; I placed on Hansard all the recommendations.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But they were contained in a memorandum, which I submit should be tabled under standing order 41.


James Garfield Gardiner: The recommendations were made to a committee of council, and those recommendations were placed on Hansard.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But the
memorandum was not.


STATUS OF FLAX IN CONNECTION WITH POLICY RESPECTING COARSE GRAINS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Miller Bell: As a result of several inquiries which I have received from people in western Canada I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if a decision has been made as to whether flax will be considered as a coarse grain under the proposals which the minister now has before the house.


James Garfield Gardiner: The regulations dealing with the matter are not ready for publication as yet, since they have not been before council. I hope to have them ready to submit to council to-morrow.
Condensed Milk


CONDENSED MILK
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. BLANCHETTE (Compton):: Under date of Friday, March 28, the Ottawa Evening Journal published an editorial entitled "Farmers of the East also have their Problems," in which the following statement is made:
So great are the demands on the available supply of milk that there is a very grave danger of some form of rationing this coming summer if Britain's needs for cheese and condensed milk are to be met. Already there is talk of transferring an order for a million cases of condensed milk to the United States.
Is the Minister of Agriculture, or the department, aware of any such proposal for the transfer to the United States of an order for a million cases of condensed milk?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not the information
readily available. I should prefer to have the question stand and answer it to-morrow.


WAR SAVINGS STAMPS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. NORMAN J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln):	As a matter of information I
should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether instructions were issued by the department or by staff headquarters to the officers commanding the several military camps to seek to have men receiving $1.30 a day purchase war savings stamps. There is considerable dissension in regard to the matter, as to whether the officers commanding were doing this on instructions sent out from the department to the different camps, two of which I visited over the week-end.
James Layton Ralston: I can say to my hon. friend that
I know of no such instructions having been given. But I shall inquire further.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Does the minister
know that such solicitations have been made among these men?


James Layton Ralston: I do not.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Then I can tell him
that this statement was made to me.


WAR APPROPRIATION
[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to be called The Supplementary 1940 War Appropriation Act to provide inter alia,
1.	That sums not exceeding $135,000,000 be granted to his majesty in addition to the sums granted by The War Appropriation Act, 1940, towards defraying any expenses or making any advances or loans that may be incurred or granted by or under the authority of the governor in council during the year ending March 31, 1941, for:-
(a)	the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada;
(b)	the conduct of naval, military and air operations in or beyond Canada;
(e) promoting the continuance of trade, industry and business communications, whether by means of insurance or indemnity against war risk or in any other manner whatsoever; and
(d) the carrying out of any measure deemed necessary or advisable by the governor in council in consequence of the existence of a state of war.
2.	That the governor in council be empowered to reexpend, advance or loan moneys that may be received by way of refund or repayment of advances, loans or expenditures under The War Appropriation Act, 1939, The War Appropriation Act, 1940, and The Supplementary 1940 War Appropriation Act.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, with the exception of what might be described as the refunding clauses, this measure is in the same terms as ordinary war appropriation resolutions. I am not sure that we 'have had spread on the record a break-down of this item, and probably we should have it at this time. I notice the government has adopted a very good practice, because the other day the leader of the government in the other place first of all spread a total break-down on the record. Had that practice been followed when the previous resolution was first brought to this house I believe it would have been greatly advantageous not only to hon. members on this side but to the ministers concerned. However, at the moment I am not going to thresh old straw.
Would the minister be good enough to give the house that information between now and the committee stage of the resolution, so that we may have the information for discussion to-morrow-if in fact discussion is not completed to-day? I should like to have that

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
break-down. I have no intention of debating the resolution, because I believe all hon. members thoroughly understand the position, and why the amount is required. As a matter of fact the amount is less than I thought it might be, judging from statements made earlier in the session. For that, of course, we are truly thankful.
When we come to the resolution stage I would ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), or the same gentleman in his capacity as Minister of National War Services, to clarify the position with respect to the production, disposition and marketing of natural products-products which are not termed "war casualties". I notice he included potatoes in that category. Yet the position with respect to potatoes is exceedingly difficult and I did not exaggerate it when speaking the other day. The minister was about to reply but a discussion respecting rules intervened and he did not have the opportunity. I should like him to make it clear whether the government intends to do anything for the potato farmers comparable with that which has been done for the producers of wheat and cheese, and is about to be done for the producers of butter and other dairy products. Our people just cannot go on marketing choice Prince Edward Island potatoes at twenty cents a bushel if production costs continue to rise. That is the position to-day. Both fertilizer and transportation costs have increased. The marketing condition in the Argentine for seed potatoes has been very bad. That is a matter at present the subject of discussion among association members in New Brunswick. What is needed in connection with the potato export trade is some marketing authority which would see to it that the export of seed potatoes is not slaughtered by consignment shipments in the markets still open. That is the great evil which obtained last fall.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Fournier (Hull) in the chair.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have in my hand an analysis of the figures. The leader of the opposition is correct when he states that the amount is not as much as was first anticipated. Ever since July last I have been making estimates as to the amounts which would be spent for war purposes during the fiscal year ending to-day. Developments have shown that all those estimates have been slightly incorrect. In either July or August last I was asked to estimate the total expenditures under the
war appropriation measure, and my estimate was $940,000,000, although the measure itself authorized an expenditure of only $700,000,000. At that time I expected that before the end of the fiscal year which ends to-day it would be necessary to come to the house with a supplementary bill authorizing an expenditure of $240,000,000. Later in the year I believe the amount was modified to some extent-although at the moment I cannot just recall what my next estimate was, if in fact I made one. At the time of the conference held to consider the report of the commission on dominion-provincial relations it appeared that the amount required for the whole year would be $850,000,000. That was the figure I gave to the conference. Had that turned out to be correct, this measure would ask for $150,000,000, not $135,000,000.
After parliament met the estimates were revised, and it appeared that the whole amount required for the year would be $875,000,000. Had that been correct I would be asking to-day for $175,000,000. As we have drawn nearer to the end of the fiscal year our estimates have of course become more accurate, and it now appears that the actual amount required will be about $135,000,000. That includes the provision of $15,820,700 for unforeseen contingencies. I cannot give the committee at this time particulars of the amount for contingencies, but the figures would show that that amount has been carefully worked out.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is
based on a calculation, not on a mere percentage?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is not a percentage of anything, so far as I can see. I am quite sure that it is not worked out on a percentage basis. I have in my hand a list, by departments, of expenditures to February 28, 1941, and amounts required for March, 1941. These two when totalled give the estimated expenditures to March 31, 1941. I should be pleased to place a copy of this document on Hansard.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That
would be satisfactory. I would ask that the minister let us have a copy of it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The table is as follows:
1988	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
War Appropriation 1940-41
Expenditures to February 28, 1941, and additional amounts required to the
end of the fiscal	1 year		
		Amount	Estimated
Expenditure	required	expenditureto Feb. 28/41	for March	to Mar. 31/41Agriculture 	.$ 3,958,000	$ 1,310,000	$ 5,268,000Auditor General 	47,000	13,500	60,500Chief Electoral Officer	. 5,500	5,500Civil Service Commission 	. 91,000	29,300	120,300External Affairs 	260,700	108,600	369,300Finance 	. 1,442,000	270,800	1,712,800Fisheries 	170,000	4,000	174,000Justice 	25,000	21,700	46,700Labour 	. 734,000	968,300	1,702,300Mines and Resources 	273,000	81,000	354,000Munitions and Supply 	. 78,789,000	16,211,000	95,000,000National Defence-	Army 	. 312,272,000	92,442,000	404,714,000Navy	, 65,122,000	20,071,000	85,193,000Air	. 142,795,000	42,205,000	185,000,000Sundry 	. 4,808,000	1,424,200	6,232,200National Harbours Board	. 201,000	64,000	265,000National Research Council	. 381,000	160,600	541,600National Revenue 	4,600	400	5,000National War Services 	. 1,637,000	906,500	2,543,500Pensions and National Health	. 2,594,000	926,500	3,520,500Post Office	, 180,000	78,000	258,000Prime Minister's Office 	7,300	2,000	9,300Privy Council Office	. 4,000	2,000	6,000Public Works	. 4,406,000	1,133,000	5,539,000Royal Canadian Mounted Police	, 2,234,000	266,000	2,500,000Secretary of State 	138,000	39,500	177,500Trade and Commerce	. 19,000	3,000	22,000Transport 	841,000	510,000	1,351,000$623,439,100	$179,251,900	$802^691,000Loans and investments 	16,488,300	16,488,300$639,927,400	$179,251,900	$819,179,300Provision for unforeseen contingencies 	. .$ 15,820,700


Mr. GREEN:: What is the present situation respecting restrictions placed on the travel of Canadians to the United States? The tourist season is opening shortly and I believe that in some of our cities fairly close to the boundary there is a feeling that the restrictions placed upon Canadians entering the United States are creating in the minds of the people of that country the impression that border crossing is extremely difficult. The result has been a great falling off in the influx of United States tourists into Canada. As the Minister of Finance knows, we have counted heavily upon the United States tourist trade for our

United States exchange. I suggest that perhaps the time has come when the restrictions upon Canadians entering the United States should be modified to some extent. The residents of the United States can travel only in the western hemisphere and we should make every effort to attract them to Canada. I am afraid that our tourist trade will be severely hit this season. Could the minister explain the situation at this time?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Without having the regulations before me I can do so only in the most general terms. After giving the matter some

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
thought I have come to the conclusion that there is no evidence whatever that so far our pleasure travel restrictions have had a prejudicial effect upon United States tourist business.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister means our restrictions?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I mean exactly what I said- our pleasure travel restrictions. Last year the tourist business from the United States fell off quite seriously during the months of June, July and August.


Howard Charles Green: Those are the big months.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Our pleasure travel restrictions, if my memory serves me correctly, came into effect on July 1. The main reason for the falling off of tourist traffic from the United States to Canada was the passport regulations put into effect by that country.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is quite unexplainable because that is the reverse position. I should like to know upon what the minister bases his argument. He is making an assertion, but of course that is not proof.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is not proof, but the falling off of tourist business took place about the time the passport regulations came into force. Of course, that is not a conclusive indication that the drop in tourist travel was the result of those passport regulations, but it is well known that as soon as the passport regulations were announced the feeling became general in the United States that if one came to Canada he would have difficulty in getting back to the United States. The passport regulations were not understood and the people simply stayed home; for some reason or other they did not dare to come to Canada, It took the dissemination of considerable information to disabuse the minds of United States residents of that apprehension. In September and October there was a considerable increase in tourist business as compared with the previous months and the business came back practically to normal. It was comparable with the previous year.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Does the minister mean it was normal as compared with the previous year?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, nearly normal.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: No.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It was much nearer to
normal, anyway.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: There was some travel during those months but for the previous two months there was practically none.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It was nearer to normal than it was in the earlier part of the summer. That in itself is an indication that the pleasure travel restrictions here in Canada were not the cause of what dropping off in tourist business there was. It must be remembered that while we are not in a desperate position in connection with United States exchange, we are in a serious position.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Did the minister say "desperate"?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I said that it would not be fair to say that we were in a desperate position, but we are in a serious position so far as our stock of United States exchange is concerned. It should also be remembered that our pleasure travel restrictions conserve for us somewhere between sixty and seventy-five million United States dollars per year.


Howard Charles Green: To what extent did our
tourist trade fall below what was expected?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It fell off a lot.


Howard Charles Green: Did it fall off $60,000,000?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is the very point, and I see I shall have to go over this quite patiently. I have not the figures before me, but what I was pointing out is that the drop in tourist traffic occurred before the pleasure travel regulations came into effect. Later in the year there was a trend the other way. It is impossible to trace the cause and effect as between the pleasure travel regulations and the tourist business, but it is possible to see the cause and effect as between the passport regulations and the tourist business. Apparently the feeling held by some people is that if we were to abolish these regulations-


Howard Charles Green: I did not say that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Let him finish his argument.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Let me finish the sentence- if we were to do away with the pleasure travel restrictions and allow this $60,000,000 or $75,000,000 to go to the United States, we would get that much or more than that through increased tourist travel to Canada. That might be so if there was a large disproportion between the amount which United States tourists spend in Canada and that which Canadian tourists spend in the United States. Canadians generally are under the impression that there is a great disproportion in these amounts. One very eminent gentleman who was concerned about this matter came to see me and told me he understood that the United States tourist spends about ten times as much in Canada as the Canadian spends in the United States when
1990	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
travelling for pleasure. I told him that I thought the figure was more like three to one, and when I got the exact figure I found it was nearer to two to one. The proportion of our travel to theirs is surprisingly large. It is quite improbable that if we were to take down the bars and allow our people to visit the Florida beaches and the New York night clubs and other places where some Canadians in the past have liked to go, and let this $60,000,000 or $75,000,000 go to the United States, there would be a similar increase in United States tourist expenditure in Canada.
I do not like to be talking about the matter in this way. I do not know that one can sit down and put it on a purely dollar basis. I do not like to say that we should not spend a dollar unless we are sure we will get a dollar back. I should like to see no restrictions whatever upon travel between the United States and this country; I should like to see no passport regulations and no pleasure travel regulations or anything of the kind. But it must be remembered that we are buying such huge quantities of goods from the United States that there are some things which we must cease buying from that country. We cannot buy everything. We cannot buy all kinds of articles which were shut out under the War Exchange Conservation Act, allow our people to go on pleasure travel to the United States in a free and unrestricted manner, and at the same time pay hundreds of millions of dollars for munitions. The people of the United States understand that pretty well. If we were trying to keep our money here and get theirs, it would be a different thing, but as they well understand, we are not trying to do that. We are buying and buying and buying from the United States of America, and we are earnestly seeking ways in which we can keep ourselves in a position to continue to buy.
I do not believe it would be acceptable to the people of Canada if we were to ask those in the low income classes to deny themselves and to sacrifice, as we are asking them to do, making it impossible for them to import certain things which many of them regard as important, injuring seriously some importing businesses, as we have done by our War Exchange Conservation Act, and at the same time say to our people, "Go freely to the United States." It would look unfair on the face of it; it would be pretty hard to face down or to argue for. The only argument we could advance for such a proceeding would be that it would be good business for us to do that. But when, as I have said, normally the number of Canadian dollars spent in the United States is something like half the number of American dollars

spent in Canada, it is very improbable, if we were again to take down those bars and let our people go freely on pleasure travel in the United States, thereby depleting our stocks of exchange to the extent of sixty to seventy-five million dollars a year-which is a lot of money-that we would gain anything like that much from United States tourists who would come to Canada. All over the United States people are, progressively, realizing our situation. They understand that this country is at war, that it is putting forth a tremendous effort, and must conserve every dollar of United States exchange, not to keep it away from the Americans, but to spend it with them for things which will advance the prosecution of the war.
That is my conviction regarding this pleasure travel relaxation issue. I know that certain newspapers and individuals sincerely believe the contrary. They hold that we should try the effects of relaxation, but the risk is far too great for a government which has as one of its primary responsibilities the safeguarding of adequate stores of foreign exchange for a considerable period into the future.


Howard Charles Green: My suggestion was, not
that the restrictions should be abolished, but that the government should review them to see whether they might be relaxed to a certain extent. For example, it is almost impossible for Canadians to visit relatives in the United States. There are other factors to be considered. Railway companies, hotels, tourist agencies and bus companies have arrangements whereby they route tourists from one place to the other, and I doubt very much whether we can expect United States companies to route their citizens through Canada when there are no Canadians going down there. I should like to see something done in this direction. I hope for the sake of Canada that the government's policy is the correct one, but I suggest that further consideration be given to the advisability of relaxing these restrictions to some extent in the hope that a larger tourist trade from the United States will follow. They are only too anxious to help us in every way, but it is asking a lot for them to come up here when Canadians are unable to cross the border to see their friends. I doubt whether it is wise so to restrict the intercourse between the two countries.


Victor Quelch: Can the minister say whether as a result of the passing of the lease-lend bill it is intended to borrow from the United States?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I cannot say. I do not know whether Canada will take advantage of the provisions of the lease-lend bill.

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should
like to intervene briefly in this discussion on tourist traffic. The minister says the proportion is about two to one. That is far different from what we have been told over a period of years, when tourist agencies and boards of trade and similar bodies were agitating for increased grants from parliament and the provinces. It corresponds much more nearly to what my own view has always been, namely that so far as Canada is concerned this is a very ephemeral business-due in a large measure of course, to the shortness of our season, as well as to our failure adequately to advertise the attractions we have in this country for foreign visitors. I am astonished that the minister contends that it is only two to one.


Thomas Reid: There is a lack of roads.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think
the road situation has been taken care of reasonably well, having regard to our ability to foot the bill. In New Brunswick we have spent forty to fifty million dollars, which we could very ill afford, on the construction of roads to attract tourists. In the result we have not got back from the increased tourist traffic enough to take care of the carrying charges; we have had to resort to new taxation to build those highways. However, that was not the purpose for which I rose.
I think there is a lot in what the minister says. The imposition of the passport requirements on travellers going into the United States and the beginning of the falling off of the tourist trade into Canada more or less synchronized in point of time. I should not like to think that they represented cause and effect, although one might be driven to that conclusion. What I wanted to suggest to the government-now that such friendly relations have been established between the two countries, now that we are out to do all that we can for them, now that we are even going to let them build the waterway for us at their expense-was to ask the United States to withdraw the passport restriction upon the entry of Canadian nationals bona fide guaranteed and accounted for. That would do away with a lot of restrictions. If I want to go home by car to-day, it is almost an impossibility, even though I had the United States funds with which to pay my way through the United States; there is so much red tape about getting through. Now arrangements have been made for travel by rail. I come and go by train freely through Maine, to and from New Brunswick, but if I want to go to New Brunswick by automobile I have a lot of difficulty. The result is that both of us-they and I-lose something
which might be avoided if the passport restriction conditions were, at least, ameliorated. A much more friendly intercourse back and forth would be the result.
It occurs to me that the government could explore a number of other avenues for the saving of exchange. I am going to mention a case which came to my attention the other day. One of the contractors on an airport in the maritime provinces had as part of his contract-and an additional contract-a tremendous amount of trenching to do, and he got a good price for it. The prices for building these airports are good; I do not say they are too high or anything of the sort. The work had to be done in a hurry; we are told that speed is the first requisite. I realize that there is a great deal of truth in that. This contractor sublet the trenching to a man who did that class of work. It was profitable to the subcontractor, so much so that when the additional contract meant some miles of additional trenching the contractor would not give the man the new subcontract but sent $10,000 across to the United States to buy a new 10B Bucyrus-Erie trenching machine. He bought that machine to do the work himself.
This matter was brought to my attention by the subcontractor, who was out of a job and whose machine was idle. I brought it first to the attention of the foreign exchange control board and they said they had no jurisdiction; they were not policing importations. Then I brought it to the attention of the Minister of National Defence and he would have nothing to do with it; he said, "I have no authority". I will tell the minister that there is a tremendous amount of importations from the United States just in that category which should never be allowed, and one of the worst offenders is the building of the Canadian National railway terminal in Montreal. How much steel was imported into Canada during the last fiscal year to build the terminal of the Canadian National railway in the city of Montreal, using up important foreign exchange? The government is not a bit consistent. It will put the clamps on in one place but leave it wide open in another place.


William Earl Rowe: Fruits and vegetables.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The other day a return was brought down showing importations of $22,000,000 worth of fruit and vegetables, which, with express and freight charges, would bring the bill up to $42,000,000 a year. It seems to me that the proper thing for the government to do is to review the whole position. Take my contractor friend: he should never have been allowed to import
1992	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
that new machine, which was not made in Canada. The machine paid for itself in the one job-to him-but we lost $10,000 worth of exchange. I can give the minister the name of the contractor, the name of the subcontractor and the name of the machine he bought. These things have to be tightened up. I am not saying this in a complaining spirit. I am trying to help the minister on the question of foreign exchange, because I realize that while the situation with respect to United States exchange is not desperate-the minister did retract that word-it is very serious, and just what is the best way to meet it I do not know. I am not an expert and I would not undertake to advise the minister, but every day, every week and month sees a situation cropping up which, if it could have been foreseen-and it should be foreseen- would have materially altered the position.
I hope the minister will review the whole thing. American tourist traffic is important. If you can get that passport requirement lifted by the United States government it will go a long way to help the position. The difficulty is that a large number of tourists from the United States are former Canadians who are afraid to come over for fear that they will not be able to get back, although they may have been over there for thirty years. I know of a young lady who wanted to visit her sister. She came to Calais, Maine, and they sat and talked together on the doorstep of the customs house. She was afraid to come across for fear of the restrictions; she was afraid she could not get back. That is not a good position between the two countries to-day. We have a great ally in this matter in the person of our distinguished visitor here of a week or two ago, Senator Pepper of Florida. I am sure he will do everything he can to help the position. He knows the value of the Canadian tourist in his own state of Florida and he will help the government if they go after the thing man-fashion. Let us see if we cannot get some of these restrictions lifted.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: With regard to the
difficulties arising at border points, I concur entirely in what the leader of the opposition has said with reference to people who have been residents of the United States for fifteen or twenty years or more. They are afraid to come over here on account of the restrictions. Canadians may go over and take $5 in Canadian money to be used for emergencies and transportation, but this privilege serves only a limited purpose. I would urge the minister to give some further latitude. There are thousands of people in Canada and in nearby places in the United States, 
and even in places further inland across the border, who by reason of intermarriage desire to visit back and forth. Canadian visitors by signing a card can take $5 in Canadian money for emergencies and transportation only, but this is not satisfactory. While I was home in St. Catharines this week-end I learned of a number of people who wanted to go over for urgent reasons-illness among relatives, for example. I believe a definite extension of the privileges granted would greatly facilitate intercourse between Canada and the United States.
There is another matter I wish to mention particularly. The summer season is approaching and there will be a considerable movement of people to the Canadian west, crossing at Windsor and Sarnia, where they have to go through United States territory in their motor cars, in order to get to Saskatchewan and other parts of western Canada. I urge upon the minister the importance of facilitating communication, making things a little bit freer and easier for these people.
There is one other important point I wish to bring to the attention of the minister; it came to my notice over the week-end. In Camp Borden there is one hut with forty-two men including three Canadians; the rest are all Americans. They jocularly refer to the three Canadians as foreigners. One man from Massachusetts, who rode with me on the way to Ottawa, said that his wife was having to pay 18 per cent exchange in Massachusetts in order to get his money changed into American dollars. If there is any large percentage of such men in the air force and the army, as has been suggested to me on many occasions, every possible precaution should be taken to protect the interests of these boys who are serving their country for $1.30 a day. I ask the minister to see whether something can be done in cooperation with the Minister of National Defence or whoever is the proper authority to ensure that the pay of these soldiers shall be transferred on the ten per cent basis established between the two countries. I can give the name of the man who told me about the eighteen per cent. He said they had pleaded with their commanding officer asking if something could not be done to make sure that their wives did not suffer this hardship. Thousands of Americans are serving in our Canadian army and air force, and they should be protected in connection with exchange.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will look into these various suggestions and see what can be done.
The leader of the opposition made one or two suggestions about imports which he regards

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
as unnecessary. Possibly there are unnecessary imports. But the difficulties of administration are tremendous. If, for example, we add machinery to part II of the War Exchange Conservation Act so that it can be imported only under licence or permit, the staff of the Department of National Revenue would have even more grief than they have at present.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think you will have to come to it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: At the present time they find it almost impossible to know when to issue permits and when not to issue them to persons wishing to import articles listed in part II of the War Exchange Conservation Act. I receive representations from indignant wouldu be importers, although it does not come under my department, -and I know that the Minister of National Revenue receives ten or perhaps one hundred for every one I receive. I assure the committee it is no easy matter to pick and choose as between importers and to say to A that he may import and to B that he may not.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You have to know the facts in every case.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, the facts have to be investigated fully; and then, after that is done the disappointed applicant will go away with a serious sense of grievance. I do not want to provoke discussion but I do not think the committee or the country has any idea of the number of protests we have received because of the prohibition of imports under the War Exchange Conservation Act. Some day I may make a list of the articles that have been represented as necessary to the people of this country. They include everything that the mind of man can conceive. If I were to undertake now to name them from memory I might be suspected of making sarcastic reflections on certain businesses, but certainly a great many of the articles did not appear necessary to me.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We are a nation of individualists.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Could the minister say a word on fruit and vegetable imports generally?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The matter of importation of fruits and vegetables was dealt with carefully at the time the war exchange conservation bill was introduced in this house. That was a class of imports as to which the United States government made very strong representations, and we just had to consider whether we should endanger the Canada-United States trade agreement, which we would be doing if we restricted in any broad way the importation of fruits and vegetables. Now we export a 14873-126
great deal to the United States, a great deal more than we would if it were not for the existence of that trade agreement. We decided that we would not be justified in prohibiting those imports.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Why were fruits and vegetables singled out with such definiteness while many other things were excluded?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I believe the hon. gentleman would appreciate the reason if he gave it a little thought. Perhaps his is purely a city constituency-


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: No.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Then he doubtless has a healthy respect for the fruit and vegetable growers in his constituency, their power when they begin making representations, and the great importance of meeting their wishes if he can. Does he not know that all over the United States there are powerful agricultural interests which the United States government would not like to antagonize any more than we do ours in Canada?


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I have followed closely what the minister said, yet I fail to understand how these interests in the United States could offset the very strong influence exerted, and rightly so, by Canadian producers on their own government. I do not understand why these United States interests should have greater influence here than our own Canadian producers.


James Lorimer Ilsley: 'It is not a question at all of influence exerted on this government by the agricultural interests of the United States. The position was that the United States government made very definite and emphatic requests in regard to this class of commodities.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: At the instigation of the producers there.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am not in a position to say. The hon. gentleman talks about $22,000,000, I do not know how much could be shut out. A great many would have to be admitted; it would be absurd to shut out all. But some could have been shut out without endangering the health of our citizens and without any bad effects, so far as I could see, if we did not have the trade agreement to consider as a whole. But it would not do to endanger our cattle market-


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Oh, that was never in danger.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It was. There would have come a point where the agricultural clauses of the agreement would have gone just like that if we went too far, and we did not want to go that far.

1994	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill


Richard Burpee Hanson: What the minister is saying in relation to this position amounts to this, that our fiscal policy is being dictated by Washington. This government are so fearful of offending the United States that they will not protect our own nationals. There is the position in a nutshell. You sacrifice the market gardeners and fruit and vegetable growers of this country to appease the United States government, whose own nationals put pressure upon them. If that is not dictation I do not know what is. We had the same position in the last Dunning budget prior to the 1930 change. Hon. gentlemen opposite know what happened because of that very position, and it will happen again if the Canadian public begin to understand. We ought to assert our fiscal independence and point out to the United States government- surely they are amenable to reason-that never before in the history of this nation have we spent so much money with them. True, it is for goods of a different class or kind, but we are buying more from the United States than we ever did, and how we are going to pay for it in the days to come is a puzzle to me. The minister will find, and the United States government will find, before we are through that there will have to be further restrictions; unnecessary luxuries from the southern states, such as Florida strawberries, will have to be shut out. They do not amount to much after all.
There is a principle at stake as well as a question of expediency. Surely the United States authorities are not so obtuse, shall I say, as not to know that their trade with Canada has always been one of the bulwarks of their export trade. How this little country has paid the millions of dollars of adverse balances that have grown up in connection with our trade with the United States has been almost beyond me. We never would have been able to do it if we had not had the greatest customer in the world on the other side of the Atlantic, which enabled us to settle our accounts on a three-cornered basis. I heard my late chief, Mr. Bennett, make a speech on this subject. From 1867 to 1930 the adverse balances of trade against this country, as between imports and exports between Canada and the United States, came to an astonishing figure, not millions but billions. We paid that adverse balance by exporting to the mother country, though a good deal of it was paid by exporting our estate, our raw materials which should have been manufactured in this country.


Mr. BLAIR:: What about the tourist
trade?


Richard Burpee Hanson: After what the minister has told us this afternoon I am afraid that the tourist trade is more or less a snare and a delusion. We only get two dollars for one. The estimate is away below what we have been told by this government, by other governments, by the travel bureau and others. In my own mind I have always regarded the tourist trade with some reserve; it can never assume great dimensions, for reasons, climatic and otherwise, which are obvious. According to the minister to-day the tourist trade is worth only about two dollars to one, though I thought the quints alone were worth that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I would not like to be held too strictly to that, but it is nearer two than three.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Quite so.
No one knows accurately the measure of the tourist traffic. It is and always will be a guess, unless you make people register what they bring in and what they take out, or something of the kind. It has always been grossly overestimated.
I appeal again to the minister. The United States government must know that to-day this country is spending tremendous sums there for war purposes, some of them essential and some not so essential. Surely they will take a broad view and a long view of this question. It is due to us, as well to to them, that they should do so. I should like to know who is getting the best end of this game, if you want to put it on the very lowest possible basis. Certainly we are not.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. gentleman must not be unfair to the government or people of the United States in this matter. He must remember that we have a trade agreement with that country, and that we have used the war clause of that agreement to vary a great many of its provisions. Though the United States exporters considered that they were really guaranteed the Canadian market for their goods, in connection with hundreds of items we have imposed an embargo and the government of the United States has not offered any objection. They have permitted us to take advantage of the war escape clause in the agreement, because they understood the extremely difficult position that we were in with regard to our need of foreign exchange. But as to fruits and vegetables the United States government felt compelled to point out that prohibition of their importations would gravely prejudice the position of the Canada-United States trade agreement and, under it, the tariff concessions assured to certain Canadian agricultural ex-

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
ports. I have heard the hon. gentleman talk about the lack of affirmative, positive measures to increase our foreign exchange. There is no more positive measure than selling our goods in the United States.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it not the balance that has to be settled that constitutes the measure of your trouble?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No. You do not balance your trade evenly with any country. With some countries your balance is favourable and with others it is unfavourable, but I would not consider that we had been treated unfairly at all by the United States in regard to the trade agreement.


Gordon Graydon: That may be so, but as one of the hon. members who represent constituencies having certain specialized types of agriculture I feel that something further should be brought to the attention of the minister at this time with regard to the orchard men and the growers of vegetables. There is a little more to this whole problem than the minister has stated. It may be true that representations on behalf of our own growers have been given consideration, but there is another angle to this matter that I think should be kept in mind. There are other influences, in this country as well as in the United States, which somewhat conflict with the interests of the growers themselves. After the foreign exchange conservation act had been passed in this house I was amazed at some of the comments that were made in the United States with regard to this industry. I should be the first to admit that nothing should be said in this house that would reflect in any way upon the United States government or people. We are all in this thing together, and perhaps it is very largely a question of conflicting interests within both countries rather than of any conflict between the countries or the governments themselves.
In the New York Packer of December 7 last there appeared a very interesting and enlightening article-later reprinted by the Canadian food distribution council-which I think is rather important. Mr. William Garfitt, the executive vice-president of the United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association in the United States, was discussing the failure of the Canadian government to impose any embargo, as he termed it, upon the importation into this country of fresh fruits and vegetables under that act. As most hon. members will recall, there was a good deal of rumour and gossip to the effect that the importation of fresh fruits and vegetables was to be in some way restricted, and evidently 14873-1261
this article was written with that idea in mind, because it comments on the good fortune of the United States growers in not having to face this problem. Addressing himself to the growers of the United States, Mr. Garfitt had this to say:
Last week I was able to tell you that, partly through the efforts of your association, the Canadian government had decided to modify an almost total embargo on fresh fruit and vegetable imports from the United States, and to exclude only a limited number of perishable commodities. This week I am happy to be able to report that the embargo has been lifted entirely, and that any American fruit or vegetable can enter the dominion without restriction.
This will be good news, not only to American growers, but to wholesalers and commission merchants, who were confronted with what seemed the necessity of finding home markets for close to $20,000,000 worth of products. . . .
That is about the value of our yearly importations from the United States, without including freight and so on.
. . . that would otherwise have been exported to Canada. Other industries were not so fortunate, as entire classes of goods, such as automobiles, radios, canned fruits and wearing apparel, are on the list of prohibited "nonessentials".
This is something which concerns all of us. The minister will understand that I am not in any way critical of him, but I believe this should be placed on the record so that we may know what influences other people believe are brought to bear on the situation. He goes on to say:
Just what caused the Canadian Minister of Finance, Mr. J. L. Ilsley, to make such an abrupt aboutface will probably never be known. But I believe your association can take some credit for it. When the threat of embargo became known some two or three weeks ago, I conferred with the Canadian jobbers in Toronto-
In ordinary farm parlance, this looks like the nigger in the woodpile. In any event
he says:
-I conferred with the Canadian jobbers in Toronto, suggesting to them that they send a delegation to Ottawa to protest that fresh fruits and vegetables should be admitted as a public health measure.
He goes on to say:
Immediately following the Toronto conference, the United-
That is, United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association of the United States-
-started a stream of protest flowing through the United States Department of Agriculture, the Treasury department and the Department of State to the Canadian ministry of finance, pointing out that any such restriction on the movement of American agricultural goods would jeopardize the reciprocal trade treaties in effect between the United States and Canada. This seemed to have considerable bearing in the minister's decision.
1996	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
This incident seems to be a good example of what an alert trade organization can do if given aggressive backing by its members and by others in the industry it serves.
In response to our telegrams to shippers and important handlers of fruits and vegetables in all parts of the country, the industry began at once to make its voice heard in official Washington-and official Washington had no choice but to lay the facts of the matter before the Canadian authorities.
Perhaps this is pertinent in view of the fact that the budget is coming down. The minister should be well advised so that he may say to this organization that he is independent of it. The article continues:
This does not mean however that all danger of future embargoes has been disposed of. In its anxiety to conserve every dollar of its liquid resources for war material purchases, the dominion is likely to revive this so-called economy measure. In that event, we shall be ready to go to bat again, but in the meantime it would seem to be only the part of wisdom for American shippers and receivers to do everything in their power to stimulate consumption in their home markets.
In other words, they are getting ready for changes which the minister may make in his budget.
It will be understood that I do not place this on record for the purpose of criticizing the minister. I realize the position in which he finds himself, and I would be the first to sympathize with him. It must be remembered that here in Canada two different and sometimes conflicting influences are being brought to bear, one by those whose business it is to make money from the importation of fresh fruits and vegetables, and the other by those who are connected with the growing of fresh fruits and vegetables for our own consumption.
The placing of this article on the record may serve to bring to the attention of the minister the type of influence being brought to bear in the trade in the United States.
The view seems to be held that the Canada-United States trade agreement might be jeopardized in some respects through the placing of restrictions on importations of fresh fruits and vegetables. I have not been greatly influenced by that bogy of altering trade agreements. It has always been said to the other farmers, "If you people want restrictions on fresh fruits and vegetables, then you must be prepared to lose some of your cattle quota or your cattle market in the United States." Of course that has had some effect on the public mind. No one wants our cattle market curtailed but I have never been convinced that that would be the result, because, as the minister very properly pointed out-and I was glad he did so-we are not attempting to curtail our purchases in the United States.
fMr. Ilsley.]
The fact is we are trying to expand them. In order to expand them we ask simply that we be given by means of these restrictions more money with which to make such expansion. In my opinion no interests in the United States can properly take exception to what I am saying, because, after all, the money is being used for one purpose only, that of keeping industry in the United States moving so that it may provide war materials for us.
I would ask the minister when preparing his budget again to give consideration to this matter of the importation of fresh fruits and vegetables. It is a serious matter, because it is double-barrelled so far as we are concerned. The growers are having a tough time of it-and when I use those words I believe I am speaking as fairly as possible. Their difficulties are increasing because of the increased costs of production. In addition they are experiencing labour scarcity, and to the gardeners particularly that is a great difficulty. On top of that, the influx of United States products has seriously decreased their market. I make a sincere and urgent plea to the minister to give further consideration to this one method of conserving foreign exchange.
I do not believe any of us would ask for a complete restriction or a complete embargo. I do not believe the fresh fruits and vegetable growers themselves would want any hon. member to make that suggestion. But there are certain restrictions which might properly be made. I ask the minister to give careful study to the whole question of the importation of fresh fruits and vegetables, basing his conclusions entirely, if he wishes, on the question of conservation of foreign exchange, and leaving out consideration of the growers. We have here a chance to save at least something of the $43,000,000 exchange position which we are trying in so many other ways to guard and protect. While our imports into Canada of fruits and vegetables are valued at something like $21,500,000, we must double that amount when we add freight and other charges which the Canadian consumer has to pay.
I make this earnest plea to the minister. Our great agricultural industry needs help. Here is a chance to help it, and at the same time to help our foreign exchange position. The Minister of Finance has an opportunity in this instance to do both, with the same stroke of the pen.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I should like to ask a question regarding the amount of foreign exchange used in connection with the automobile industry in Canada. I have before me returns from the bureau of statistics which

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
indicate that we are spending a large sum of money in that industry. I understand one of the objectives of the war exchange conservation measure of last year was to decrease the amount of money involved in that industry. The figures I have indicate that we bought 101,789 new passenger cars in 1940 compared with 90,054 in 1939. After the passing of the act there was a decrease, it is true. No doubt many people anticipated that prices would go up, and there was an increase in June. In August and September, however, there was a decrease in the number of automobiles purchased. The total number of automobiles and trucks purchased in 1940 was 130,552 as compared with 114,747 in the previous year. What is the amount of foreign exchange used in maintaining these industries, and has the government considered the fact that these industries are using a great many highly trained men and a lot of material which might well be used in connection with our more direct war effort? What percentage of these figures will be used for foreign exchange?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have been a little concerned about the progress of the debate and have been looking for an item under which all this discussion would be in order. Unfortunately I cannot find one. I thought there was a finance item under which all this discussion could take place, but I do not think there is. With regard to the question asked by the hon. gentleman I may say that in order to present the situation adequately it would be necessary for me to get figures and to go into a number of matters. I suggest that we defer this until something else is up under which it can be discussed. There is nothing here under which this could be discussed properly, or under which the preceding matters would come.


James Layton Ralston: The other evening the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) asked that I give as much information as I could with regard to the equipment situation, particularly for the army.


Mr. STIRLING:: Training in Canada.


James Layton Ralston: I am really going further than that, because I have gone into the matter in some detail. I think my hon. friend realizes, and I believe the committee will realize, that this is probably the most difficult task which could fall to one. I do not think I am unduly secretive, but at the same time there are in connection with equipment a great number of matters regarding which the staff are positive that information should not be given. I am between the upper and the nether millstones. On the one hand, the committee wants all the information possible, as do the public. On the other, the staff very
properly points out to me that I am the head of a department which has an intelligence service part of whose work is to see that subversive activities are not carried on, and part of these subversive activities is to endeavour to get information with regard to types and production of equipment being produced in this country. The staff at headquarters find it hard to see why the minister, simply because he desires to be as frank as possible, should be giving information which spies would give their lives to get and for which other countries would pay a great many hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of dollars.
I am going to give the best information I can, and I am afraid I shall be erring on the side of giving more than I should. The tabling of the MacMillan report by my colleague the Minister of Munitions and Supply was not regarded with equanimity by the staff at national defence headquarters. It was, however, deemed necessary to table that report in view of a situation which had arisen. That is water over the dam. I do not wish to go further in that direction by way of forecasts, predictions and the giving of figures. Let me say this further, because I think it is time that we had a frank discussion and a frank study of the situation. You do not find the Prime Minister of Great Britain making any statements with regard to the number of aeroplanes or the number of ships or the number of anything else. You do not find Mr. Eden or Mr. Margesson rising in his place in the British House of Commons and outlining the situation in connection with various items of equipment which are being produced for the army. You do not find Lord Beaverbrook giving the number of aeroplanes. Those gentlemen are said to have been extremely frank, and they have been frank in stating that there have been discouragements, delays and so on-these have occurred in Canada as well-but they have not given any figures.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They have
had closed sessions.


James Layton Ralston: If my hon. friend can
tell me what went on in those closed sessions, then I shall know whether or not they gave figures. Nevertheless, I am going to go just as near the line as I can in an endeavour to give all the information I think it is possible to give, and I am going to deal also with some definite items of equipment and the situation in which we find ourselves, having regard to formations and to training necessities in Canada.
I am going to begin with what is perhaps one of the most difficult items, at least so far as the army is concerned. I refer to the
1998	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
matter of field guns, anti-tank guns and antiaircraft guns. The making of these guns is in the hands of four of the most reputable, efficient and best known Canadian firms. The fact is that so far the army has not received delivery of any of these guns. The committee will be glad to know that anti-aircraft gun barrels have, as has already been stated by my colleague the Minister of Munitions and Supply, been delivered and been found to be eminently suitable for the purposes of substitution for barrels in guns which have been used already. I may say also that we expect very shortly to have some anti-tank guns for training purposes.
The situation with regard to 25-pounder guns has been particularly scrutinized by my colleague the Minister of Munitions and Supply. I told the house some days ago that we had a definite understanding with our friends in Great Britain with regard to field guns. The committee will realize that 25-pounders are being produced in the same plant in Canada for both British and Canadian account. There is no lack of recognition of their importance by us or by the Department of Munitions and Supply. My colleague the Minister of Munitions and Supply, and his staff know how much we should like to have these guns just as soon as possible. I feel that it is due to both the minister and his staff to say that they certainly have put their backs into trying to get these weapons for us.
There is nothing to be discouraged about. We have approximate target dates for the delivery of these weapons, and I am sure that Canadian industry will strain every nerve to see that we get them. While I am speaking of this matter of target dates, perhaps I may say something else-my colleague the Minister of Munitions and Supply referred to this the other night-with reference to the matter of forecasts. My officers go to the Minister of Munitions and Supply from day to day to ask him when they may get this, that and the other article, and I think my colleague is getting just a little weary of that sort of thing. He tells them, "If I do tell you, you will hold me to it, and when the time comes, you will say that you are getting it two or three weeks late." Here is what he says now, "I will tell you that we will get them just as soon as Canadian industry can fill the order, and we have placed it in reliable hands."
I have to say to my colleague that this is really not good enough for me, although I appreciate his position. I should like to have some sort of target date so that I can make plans to equip certain formations with certain types of weapons. I tell him that if a target date is set, it will assist us in making our

plans ind will encourage industry to live up to that date. I think we should all realize that this is not a matter which concerns only the Department of Munitions and Supply. It is a matter particularly for Canadian industry. That department passes on to us what it gets from the particular industry which is engaged in making the particular piece of equipment. We ought to realize, and we in national defence have to realize, as does munitions and supply, that industry is engaged-I am speaking particularly of weapons-in the manufacture of something which has never been manufactured in Canada before. They are trying to do their very best with plans and specifications, drawings and tools, and dies and jigs, getting machine tools from everywhere, and adapting their plant facilities accordingly. Probably there is a tendency on the part of industry to make us a little happier by saying that they will make their deliveries at a certain date-finding afterwards that unexpected difficulties have arisen. At the same time I do not wish to discourage industry or munitions and supply from giving us the best forecasts they can in order to help us make our plans. If they do their level best to live up to those forecasts, that is all we can ask of them.
In the meantime, we of the service departments to whom these particular weapons are coming are not going to lie down and say that because equipment does not come faster, we cannot do anything. We try to help by agreeing on a different priority, so that this particular thing may receive more attention and something else may get less, in order to obtain the particular weapon we desire. We endeavour also to do our best to use what we have, or get along with some sort of substitute, until we receive the particular weapon we want.
In connection with anti-tank weapons, we have been training right along with 18-pounders. They are not the ideal thing, but our artillerymen are used to them, and training for anti-tank work is extremely desirable and has had good results.
Speaking of anti-aircraft guns, we are using for training purposes such equipment as there is in this country. We are not groaning about the fact that we cannot get more anti-aircraft weapons immediately. They will come. We are sending personnel overseas in order that they may be familiar with this weapon when the units go over, and also to enable some of the men to return and give instruction on this side in the use of these weapons.
I emphasize this-and it goes back to the question which the hon. member for Yale was asking-that our Canadian production of these articles must be used to the very best

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
advantage. A small number are utilized for training here, but the bulk of the production goes to the United Kingdom, because we believe that to be the sound distribution; after all, we expect them to be used by our men overseas.
With regard to anti-tank rifles, as the committee knows, engineering and production of these rifles were put in the hands of the Inglis company by the new contract which was made late last fall, and my assurance is that every effort is being made to manufacture them as quickly as possible.
As regards the 2-inch and 3-inc'h mortars, deliveries of 3-inch mortars have actually been made; and manufacture of 2-inch mortars is under way, but it will be a considerable time. I believe, before deliveries are received.
I am advised that we have sufficient Lee-Enfield rifles for operational purposes in Canada. For training requirements and for the reserve army we are depending mainly on the rifles which we got from the United States, plus sufficient Lee-Enfields for firing practice.
In November I said something to the committee about the steps which were being taken to increase our stock of rifles. My colleague the Minister of Munitions and Supply has been successful in that respect, and there are now additional rifles on the way to add to our stocks from the United States. These, I am advised, will suffice for our requirements until Canadian production begins. The committee will understand, of course, that these United States rifles could be used, if necessary, for operational purposes as well.
My hon. friend mentioned the Bren gun situation which existed some time ago, when, he said, infantry units had only enough Bren guns to look at. I can assure him that that is not the situation to-day. Bren guns are now being issued on what we consider to be an adequate training scale to the formations of the active army and also the training centres in this country. What is, perhaps, more important to the committee, all active units proceeding overseas will be equipped to full establishment, I believe, with Bren guns before they leave.
My hon. friend asked about Bren guns for training centres. I expect that at the present rate of production and on the present scale of distribution, all training centres will be adequately equipped by the end of May.
My hon. friend asked for information regarding the rate of output for Bren guns. As I have intimated, I am not going to give the figures, but I can come very close, because of the fact that the figures are mentioned in the contract. I can say, what I am sure will
be satisfactory to him and the committee, that, as this month ends, there will have been delivered three times the number of completed guns which the contract called for up to this date. Further than that, in order to help in the front line until our additional formations get there, Canada is shipping directly overseas about one-third of the guns she is getting. That is, of course, in addition to the British allotment under the contract, which is also going overseas.


Grote Stirling: Meaning that two-thirds
are going for training purposes?


James Layton Ralston: Meaning that two-thirds
of the Canadian allotment are going for training purposes and also to equipping formations which are still in Canada and which are going overseas.
The item of machine guns is not a major one at the moment. As I explained to the committee in November, we have machine guns to equip every machine gun battalion in the field on the basis of the present establishment. The committee will remember that I indicated that the establishment of machine gun units had been substantially lowered, and therefore as many guns were not required. We consider that we have sufficient for our coast defence units and for the advanced training centres. I believe that I mentioned last November that we had machine gun units which were surplus to this new establishment; that is to say, the new establishment which had come into force required less machine gun units, and therefore we had some surplus. Since that time we have converted two of them into other types of units. There may be further changes along that line.
There are some reserve machine gun units; whether they will be retained as such is a problem. If they are, we could do with more machine guns; but as matters stand, we consider that we have sufficient on hand to enable training to be carried on effectively for such units as are required.
Regarding field guns, I spoke a moment ago of the 25-pounders, and I wish to repeat what I said in November, that we have sufficient at least to equip the third and fourth divisions. Our plans are that only a portion of the field guns of the third division will be sent to England, and the remainder of this equipment will be supplied from United Kingdom sources. The committee will remember that our supply of field guns was augmented last summer. I will not mention the number, but it was substantial. Practically all of those, that is about six-sevenths of them, have already been high-speeded, as have all the 18-pounders. The field guns which we have
2000	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
are, in the opinion of our staff, quite sufficient for training and for Canadian defence until 25-pounders are available. I do not think there is anything more I can say about the 25-pounders. As I stated last November, the Minister of Munitions and Supply has indicated and still indicates that a substantial number will be forthcoming this year. I had a full discussion about them with the war office. I have just mentioned our understanding with regard to the scale of equipment of field guns for the third division.
In the earlier stages of the production of 25-pounders it is likely that the bulk will be sent overseas to equip empire forces including our own. I should think that probably we would retain in this country only the minimum until production gets into its stride-that is, the minimum essential for training purposes. As a matter of fact, we have that arrangement now with the British.
With regard to universal carriers, this weapon is new to the war, but at the same time it is a most interesting one. Here again I am not going to give the committee the numbers of deliveries. Deliveries have commenced at a good rate, and our purpose is to make the best use of these carriers as they come off the line. What we are doing, to take full advantage of them, is to divide them up between Canada and overseas. For Canadian requirements, we have in mind training the units which are earmarked for formations planned for this year. To be more specific, I can say that at the present rate of production-even if there were no increase-our requirements on the training scale for the training centres in Canada and for active formations in this country will be filled, according to present calculations, in three months.
Let me say this in the same connection. We have made a schedule of deliveries for all the units and training centres which we think need these carriers, and we have allotted the exact number to be given to each, the order in which they are to be given, according to what our officers regard as priority. We have every unit's requirements planned out and have provided for the number which each unit should have in turn in the earlier stages. That includes not only units in Canada but those in the outposts as well, particularly in Newfoundland and Iceland. That is so far as Canada is concerned.
As I have said, we are making the allotment in two parts, part for Canada and part for Britain. The allotments for the United Kingdom will give us a large volume over there to complete the equipment of the corps, including the third division. To give the

committee a general idea, perhaps I shall be going further than I ought to. I can say, however, that at the present rate of production, without any increase-and my colleague the Minister of Munitions and Supply will say that we are really just getting into our stride now-we shall have received in six months enough carriers to provide the initial war establishment equipment for every unit and formation of the Canadian army both overseas and here-that is, the Canadian active army. That is not taking into consideration the carriers which have already been issued to the units of the corps overseas through British sources.
Regarding signal equipment, my hon. friend the member for Yale discussed this question, mentioning the difficulty with the technical units and the trouble they are having in training without sufficient up-to-date equipment. These difficulties have been realized from the beginning. As I have explained on more than one occasion, we were advised, and we felt that there seemed to be no alternative, to get the British pattern equipment so as to have it interchangeable, and we put two of the outstanding firms in electrical apparatus to work on that job. I had a talk with the manager of one of them only last Saturday. There had been a setback in the target date he had given originally. That setback is over now because deliveries are being made in this particular type of equipment. I said to him, "How is it that you have had to set your date back?" He replied, "I must confess that there were 2,000 items, different bits and pieces in that particular piece of mechanism. We had to plan for tools, dies and jigs to deal with each one of these parts, and to be quite frank, we underestimated by a considerable percentage the number of machine tools that would be required." That is understandable, when they are working under pressure One cannot find fault. I am glad, however, that we had a target date to shoot at, even if there were delay, because I am sure it helped to some extent in making the delivery as prompt as it has been.
There have been disappointments and delays in the production of wireless sets-I believe wireless sets are what my hon. friend referred to particularly-but I am pleased to say that deliveries of sets of one pattern will begin, not in a few months or in a few weeks, but in a very few days, and the rate of delivery is expected to be such that our requirements will be complete within a month. The other wireless set will be rather slower, beginning in May, but this will not interfere with

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
training, although we want them as quickly as possible. In the meantime, we have had a certain amount of wireless equipment in the training centre, and such equipment has been augmented by commercial line telephone sets adapted to army use. We have received these in large numbers. We are now also receiving satisfactory deliveries of standard field telephones in very large quantities.
With reference to signals lights and so on, I might mention that orders have been placed. Some deliveries have been coming in and we anticipate no delay.
My hon. friend mentioned motorcycles. I would remind him that the motorcycle unit as such is no more, so far as the Canadian active army is concerned. All of them have been converted into units of the Canadian armoured corps. Of course, some motorcycles are needed for units that are not actually motorcycle units, but we have been able to procure all motorcycles which we considered were required. My hon. friend may have had in mind some particular case in which they have been short, but we have been able to procure all the motorcycles which in our opinion were required for training up to the present, and we do not anticipate any difficulty in meeting the needs for the future for such motorcycles as may be required for army purposes. Motorcycles are not manufactured in Canada, or have not been up to date, and we have procured requirements from England and, later, from the United States. Probably the Minister of Munitions and Supply would tell the committee that for the future such requirements as we have will likely be filled from the United States, because the type we use in the army is practically standard production there.


Grote Stirling: If a motorcycle unit does not still exist, the individuals who composed it must exist and must need motorcycles, or what have they become? Are they not a unit?


James Layton Ralston: They are in the Canadian armoured corps. Some form the reconnaissance squadron of the Canadian armoured corps, but the same establishment is not required.


Grote Stirling: Not so many are required?


James Layton Ralston: No. My hon. friend will understand that in the reconnaissance squadron there is a reconnaissance side car 14873-127
which is used and which will probably be of the pattern which was adapted overseas on General McNaughton's suggestion-a side car that carries a machine gun.
Regarding tanks, I will not deal with these since the matter has had the fullest discussion by the Minister of Munitions and Supply. The MacMillan report was laid on the table, and it gave the committee the benefit of Mr. MacMillan's views as to the probabilities with regard to production. I do not think I can usefully add anything to the statement except to repeat what I said a moment ago when the main resolution was before the committee, namely, that we have arrangements with the British which are considered mutually satisfactory, whereby armoured formations, for which we have pledged ourselves and for which we have planned, will be equipped between British and Canadian production.


Grote Stirling: I excluded that.


James Layton Ralston: Yes. In that connection the committee might be interested to know this.
In connection with the production of tanks I think I can say that there is as good coordination between the Department of National Defence, the Department of Munitions and Supply and the manufacturers as there could possibly be. We have a tank committee presided over by the director of munitions in the ministry of munitions and supply, and the Department of National Defence is represented there by men from the ordnance department and the general staff who are particularly interested in the requirements for tanks and in the general design and types of tanks and the needs of the various formations. On the committee, too, there are representatives of the Department of Munitions and Supply in touch with the manufacturers and are able to say whether or not the thing which is wanted is possible of production here having regard to the materials and workmen and plant facilities available. I have been pleased with the way in which the tank committee has got together in connection with modifications which have to be made and matters which come up constantly with regard to the manufacture of tanks. The committee may be interested to know that there are some ten thousand individual drawings for the manufacture of tanks.

2002	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
With regard to mechanical transport I do not think the committee will expect me to take much time. We regard the situation as good. As the committee know, we have been supplying large quantities not only to the Canadian forces but to empire forces overseas, and I think Canadian transport played a substantial part in the Libyan campaign a few weeks ago. The only limitation placed on the issue of mechanical transport to troops in Canada has been due to the fact that one hundred per cent establishment is not needed for training. We could have supplied more if needed; there is in fact a surplus available above our present requirements. The committee will be particularly interested to know that the formations proceeding overseas, for instance, will be fully equipped from Canadian production. I should perhaps except a few-only a few-special type vehicles which are not manufactured in this country and which it would be economically unsound to procure here, a few of which are needed for each division. I think the committee listened to Mr. Wallace Campbell's statement when he spoke a few weeks ago with regard to the production of mechanical transport for army service purposes.
With regard to munitions, provision has been made for all small arms artillery ammunition required for operational purposes and training in this country. In addition, small arms ammunition is being produced in enormous quantities for British account. Our policy in connection with this production is to ship overseas everything we possibly can; what our forces require there will be met from that supply. On account of the urgency of the situation abroad, we deliberately planned to retain in this country only a sufficient amount for operational necessities and for the training of the troops here.
In connection with gas respirators, I spent an interesting Saturday afternoon at the gas respirator assembly plant here. I think hon. members would be interested in visiting it. Respirators are being assembled at our own plant at the research building; they are being delivered in large quantities and within a month or so, all the active formations will be fully equipped. Production is in excellent shape. Production has been such that if we had used them all for the Canadian fighting forces, we would have met the full requirements of the active army, the navy and the 
air force. Production, however, was diverted a bit to promote increased deliveries on a big order from south Africa. The army already has had enough to provide initial equipment for all the active army both here and overseas and for one-third of the reserve ranks as well. We anticipate that there will be no trouble in filling all requirements on time, as they are needed.
That is a brief resume of the equipment situation. I happen to be the customer; my colleague the Minister of Munitions and Supply is to some extent the supplier-at least he is the procurer; the real supplier is Canadian industry. I have faith that Canadian industry will do the job that is before them. They have had disappointments and discouragements; those have been translated into some setbacks and discouragements to us. As I have indicated, however, we are not lying down; we are going ahead full blast endeavouring to make the best use of what we have, seeing that the cardinal policy is observed, that is, to send overseas all we possibly can, also doing everything we can to speed up production by regulating our priorities. We in the Department of National Defence will not rest until we have everything to equip our troops. We are not boasting but we do feel that substantial progress has been made and that the serious shortage of equipment which I mentioned both in July and November is being gradually but, I think, surely overcome.
May I ask my friend the leader of the opposition what he would desire with regard to some other information which was asked for, namely, the matter of the cost of training camps. There is a long table which he wanted, and there were some questions put to me by other hon. members with regard to financial matters, training centres, et cetera. It is a long statement-


Richard Burpee Hanson: If it is tabulated, that will serve my purpose; I have no wish to discuss it.


James Layton Ralston: If I could put it on
Hansard-


Richard Burpee Hanson: That will serve the purpose.


James Layton Ralston: 
Grote Stirling: The statement the
minister has put on the record will be of considerable service. He made it in response to a request of my own. I knew that I was asking a question which many people in Canada were asking, as to the situation with regard to equipment for units in training. The success that has been attained in producing this equipment must, of course, be measured by the difficulties which have been surmounted, and neither I nor anyone else outside government departmental circles can measure those difficulties. The minister cannot be satisfied himself that all the difficulties have been surmounted, all the equipment has been provided; he must observe with regret that units are not- yet able to carry on their training as they will be able when they are fully equipped. I have, however, no doubt that the difficulties have been considerable, and I fancy the progress made has also been considerable. If active service units in training in Canada are not adequately supplied with equipment, it follows that the training camps cannot have what they need and certainly the reserve units must be very short indeed. But I realize that so many changes of plan have taken place after the slow start that was made, that now that equipment is being produced in Canada in so many places it is greatly to be hoped that the progress attained will be but a measure of the progress which will be attained, and that the training will be able to go forward without this aggravating use having to be made of something which is not the equipment with which the troops will have to fight.


James Layton Ralston: Not aggravating. Sometimes it is a good thing.


Grote Stirling: I know from my correspondence and contacts that there are men in units who have been, shall I say, losing heart because for too long they have been looking on at attempts at training with equipment which is not the equipment with which they will have to do their work. Let us leave it at that. I think the information the minister has given will be of considerable assistance. The amount of information given is the responsibility of the government; and we on this side of the house have never urged that the minister should go further than he sees fit to go in giving information. That amount of information which has been given is what we pass on to the public who ask us.
There is another matter on which I should like to ask the minister whether he would care to make a statement for the information of hon. members, again in order that they may pass it on to those who ask them questions. The position of the Canadian army overseas in

reference to the British army is not at all clear. To what extent is it an entity whose organization, administration and operations are entirely in the hands of the Canadian general staff and, behind the general staff, the minister and the government? Is the minister able to clear up this difficulty? Is the decision with regard to where the Canadian forces may be used entirely at the discretion of this government? Is it worked out in collaboration with either the imperial general staff or the British government? To what extent is (a) the organization, (b) the administration and (c) the operations, which are the three main factors of military direction, solely in the hands of Canada? May we say that Canada and Great Britain are partners, directing the course of these operations, and that, therefore, Canada has a voice, an equal voice, a predominating voice, in the decision with regard to the organization, administration and operations of the Canadian forces?


James Layton Ralston: I hesitate to make a statement in that connection, particularly with regard to the last point, without bringing down the Visiting Forces Act.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the effect of it? It is a very obscure statute, is it not?


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is quite right. I am afraid the only one who understood it, if I may say so, was my friend the late Minister of National Defence, who seemed to have a clear appreciation of it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And I think Mr. Bennett understood it.


James Layton Ralston: Speaking generally, the Canadian forces, for administration, organization and operations, are responsible to the commander of the Canadian corps in so far as the corps is concerned, and the senior officer at Canadian military headquarters, in so far as troops are not in the corps; and through them to the government of Canada. I would say the commander of the Canadian corps has a perfect right to refer to the government of Canada at any time he is asked to carry on an operation, if it should be thought fit-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would it be saying too much to say that he is obliged to do that?


James Layton Ralston: No, I do not think that would be going too far. He is responsible to the Canadian government if he carries on an operation without consulting the government; let us put it that way. I may say that reference was made to the Canadian government in connection with the Norwegian campaign

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
and also in connection with sending troops to Prance. Reference was made before action was actually taken.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Was it not really ratified by the Canadian government afterwards?


James Layton Ralston: Hon. members can realize that, on the ground, plans would be made in the expectation that the Canadian government would ratify the judgment of the officer commanding the Canadian corps, if he saw fit to commit his troops; but in connection with one of these matters I have a distinct recollection of communications indicating most clearly that the Canadian government must be consulted with regard to matters of this kind. It is not a case of ratification; it is a case of approval.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Beforehand?


James Layton Ralston: Beforehand. I am talking particularly about moving out of England.


Frederick Clayton Casselman: Would that be so if the governor in council had passed the order in council which is provided for in either section 6 or section 8 of the Visiting Forces Act?


James Layton Ralston: Yes, in my opinion. My view was mentioned at the time, if I know what my hon. friend is referring to; it was that section 6 or 8 applied only to the operation of troops in the United Kingdom, not outside.	[DOT]


Paul Joseph James Martin: The question raised by the hon. member for Yale is extremely important. It may be the minister feels that at this time the committee should not be fully informed as to the situation; but when one recalls the criticisms of the direction by Canada of military strategy in the last war, I think it is open to hon. members to consider the question seriously at this time. From what the minister has said, I suspect that he proposes later to bring down the act and perhaps discuss the matter more intimately, but I should like to put a question now perhaps for reply later. To what extent, for instance, does General McNaughton sit down and assist in the initiation of a particular programme? From the reply of the Minister I gather that there is consultation. Does that mean consultation after a decision has been reached, or is the decision arrived at with the participation of officers of the Canadian forces?


James Layton Ralston: Without getting more
intimate information, to use my hon. friend's adjective, I can only say that I have talked with the present chief of the general staff, who was in England at the time of the two
operations to which I referred, and I have been in England myself and know the collaboration that exists there. I think I can say without hesitation, and even without checking up, that never has there been a proposal by the war office to utilize Canadian forces without the officer commanding the Canadian forces being present and taking part in the discussions.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In other words, if I appreciate what' the minister is saying, there has been full collaboration between the commander in chief of the Canadian forces in England and the war office. Is it fair to say that there is still, as there used to be, full collaboration and discussion between the two staffs as to proposed dispositions and operations in England, or do those discussions have to come through some other government agency such as the high commissioner, or to the government here and then to the general staff? It seems to me the minister would be doing a service by clearing up this situation if it would be permissible to do so. I do not wish to ask him to make statements that might be contrary to public policy or prejudicial to the safety of the state, but perhaps he would give a factual statement as to just what is the position with relation to our forces over there and their collaboration with the British forces.
I realize that there is a principle at stake, that at all times the civil authority must be paramount except perhaps in case' of a great national emergency when action may have to be taken. That, however, is not the position to-day. After all, I suppose it is a sound principle to assert that the civil authorities still must be above the military, naval or air authority in connection with operations and dispositions. I should like to know what is the modus operandi. There is some discussion going on with regard to this matter, and I have received communications. I am not a military man, and I had to ascertain as best I could what was the true position. I believe it would be helpful if the minister would give a statement as to the exact position. I know that the Visiting Forces Act was set up for a purpose. I have not refreshed my memory respecting the debate which took place when Mr. Bennett introduced the bill, but with all due respect to the Minister of National Defence I do not believe anyone understood the implications in that measure better than did the former Prime Minister. As I understand it, the measure was passed after a definite arrangement with the British authorities. It was felt that a policy would have to be embodied in a statute.
2006	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
I would ask that the minister make an explanation at a later time, because this is a matter which may have some practical importance. If he would make a statement respecting the true position as to the matters raised by the hon. member for Yale, we would be greatly obliged.


James Layton Ralston: I shall endeavour to have a statement after eight o'clock.


Howard Charles Green: Has there been any reduction in the age limit for recruits for the active army? A press dispatch appeared in the Vancouver papers last Tuesday stating that the limit had been reduced from nineteen to eighteen years. Is that correct, and, if so, why was the change made?


James Layton Ralston: If it has been made, it was without the minister's knowledge. I shall, however, find out.


Howard Charles Green: The press dispatch states:
Reduction of the age limit for recruits from nineteen to eighteen was announced to-day in Victoria by Lieutenant-Colonel H. E. Goodman, district recruiting officer. Youths of eighteen will now be accepted for training, but not for service overseas. Previously none below the age of nineteen was taken on here.
The minister has no information on that?


James Layton Ralston: No, none.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would call the attention of the minister to a statement which has been handed to me by one of my colleagues. I believe the minister has given a restricted interpretation of the application of this section. Perhaps he would include that in his statement this evening.


James Layton Ralston: Yes. I was thinking of an order in council which we passed by which we can place some limitation on the employment of Canadian forces overseas. I have it in mind that an order in council was passed which outlined the extent of the powers of the senior combatant officer of the Canadian forces.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Was that as a result of the Norway incident?


James Layton Ralston: No; it was before that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Before the resolution carries, there is a matter of some importance which I believe might properly be mentioned at this time. On March 27 the leader of the government group in the other chamber made what seems to me an astonishing and, may I say, ill-considered and ill-timed statement.


Thomas Vien: It is not permissible in this house to refer to the debates of the other house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I shall not go into those debates, but I wish to base my question upon that preliminary statement. Will the government bring down the papers referred to in the debate in the other house wherein it was suggested that certain things were refused to be done by either British nationals or the British government? The minister will know exactly what I am referring to.


Thomas Vien: I would draw the attention of the leader of the opposition to the point that his question should not have any reference to the debate in the upper house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then I
shall say "in another place."


Thomas Vien: Even that would not be satisfactory. No reference to a debate in the other place can become part of the debate in this house.


James Layton Ralston: Perhaps my hon. friend would-


Thomas Vien: The leader of the opposition can put a direct question to the minister, without making reference to the other house, at all. If we were to begin breaking that rule, we would fall into a chaotic condition.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Chairman, I understand the technicalities of the ruling you have given-


Thomas Vien: I am sorry, but it is not a technicality.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is my interpretation of your remarks, and I do not think you are entitled to face me down on that.


Thomas Vien: Order. It is not permissible for any hon. member in the house to address the chair as the hon. member has just done.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, well, I am not


Thomas Vien: Order. Furthermore, it is not open to any hon. member to question the ruling of the chair, except by appeal to the house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I was not questioning the ruling of the chair.


Thomas Vien: The ruling of the chair was not a technical question, but a fundamental rule of debate. Therefore my ruling is given, not as a technical point but as a fundamental rule of debate, namely, that in a debate in this chamber no reference can be made to a debate which has occurred in another place. Therefore, if the leader of

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
the opposition desires to appeal, he may do so; but he cannot discuss, in a way which I shall refrain from qualifying, the ruling of the chair-except by appeal.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, Mr. Chairman, a member of the government has made a certain statement with respect to the failure of the British government, and with respect to British industries refusing to produce certain blue-prints so that we might have production in Canada. I now ask the government to bring down a statement indicating what blue-prints were refused, by whom, for how long, and to what extent the British government was in any way in complicity with such refusal. The statement having been made by a member of the government, we are entitled to production of the papers.


James Layton Ralston: I shall take note of my hon. friend's question.


Mr. GILLIS:: Canadian infantry units now being trained for service overseas are not supplied with a slicker or raincoat of any description. I have had letters from several members of the infantry forces training throughout Canada asking that the matter be brought to the attention of the government. This is only a small matter, of course, but it may be of some importance to a sentry on a wet night. Has the minister any information on the point, and, if so, will any effort be made to improve matters?


James Layton Ralston: Probably the hon. member knows that such equipment is now being issued to certain units-and I believe to all units-for the purpose of protection against gas. I shall, however, look into the matter.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am sorry the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) is not in his seat-


James Layton Ralston: He is in Nova Scotia.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have no desire to hold him to his seat, of course. There has come to my attention over the week-end a matter in connection with which he would have special information. When recruiting for the air force began, it will be recalled that the educational requirements were exceedingly high. My recollection is that a man had to have university training and, I believe, a degree.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That has been changed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: 
James Layton Ralston: I shall be glad to make inquiry. The point that interests me, the point which my hon. friend has anticipated, is that these men may be needed in the ground service. Otherwise, one would think that they would have been transferred because obviously the purpose of the change is to get more men in the air. In the army, men ask for transfers from one branch to another, or sometimes from one service to another. It is sometimes found that much time and money has been spent on training a man, that he has become qualified for a certain job and it is not considered to be in the public interest that he should be transferred to another branch for personal reasons, and have to be trained all over again in the new job. I assume it is desired to go on with this. I was just looking for the best way to make the statement which has been referred to without delaying the passage of the resolution.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Suppose
we call it six o'clock and have it understood that the minister will make the statement after eight o'clock. As far as we are concerned, it could be done when the bill is in committee.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Shall we pass the resolution now?


Charles Edward Johnston: I have
been informed that men from as far west as Calgary, or even as far as British Columbia, have been required to go to Toronto to get their uniforms. They spend two or three days there and all they do is to get uniforms. This seems to me to be a tremendous waste, and I should like to know if the minister can enlighten us in this regard.


James Layton Ralston: All I know is that the
manning depot is at Toronto. I suppose that is similar to the army depots where men are examined, documented, issued with uniforms

and so on. I think something more is done than just simply issuing a uniform to a man. Whether or not it is more convenient to do it in other places, or whether it is desirable to have it done in one central place, I do not know. As I remember, the only manning depot is in Toronto.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is
one in Brandon.


James Layton Ralston: Then my hon. friend's
question is more in order if they come past Brandon to Toronto. I shall be glad to look into the matter and give my hon. friend an answer. I think there must be an answer.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Ilsley thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 25, for granting to his majesty aid for national defence and security.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES EXTENSION OP INITIAL SUBSIDY PERIOD- CHANGING OF FIXATION-OP-RATES PERIOD
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, March 20, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Howe-Mr. Vien in the chair:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Trans-Canada Air Lines Act, 1937, changing the period for the fixation of rates for the current year, as defined in the act, and extending the initial period during which a subsidy may be payable to Trans-Canada Air Lines.
John Ritchie MacNicol: What is the background of the proposal?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This proposal was discussed at great length about a week ago; and at that time, although we had to report progress in order to let another item of business go through, I believe the discussion had about ended. This is a proposal which changes the act to the extent that compensation for the carriage of mail is not fixed automatically but is fixed arbitrarily. Owing to the fact that the expansion of the line is quite rapid, the arbitrary figure set out in the act is, under present circumstances, hardly fair to the post office. In other words, this permits us to change the rate per mile for carrying mail from an automatic rate of 53 cents to a negotiated rate of 40 cents. Also it changes

National Parks-Prince Albert
the period in which the new rate shall apply so that it runs from the first of April to the first of April, instead of from the first of January to the first of January.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Will the rate be automatically set by the Post Office Department?


Clarence Decatur Howe: After April, 1942, the automatic feature will apply; that is, the rate will then be fixed automatically.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Howe thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 26, to amend the Trans-Canada Air Lines Act, 1937.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRECIOUS METALS MARKING ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the third reading of Bill No. 12, to amend the Precious Metals Marking Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (for the Minister of Transport) moved the second reading of Bill No. 13, respecting the appointment of *. <idi-tors for National Railways.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Vien in the chair.
On section 1-Appointment of auditors.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Are they the same auditors as last year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, the same auditors, and the same compensation. This bill, I believe, is exactly the same as the bill last year.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the compensation? I am not sure whether I know.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is 850,000, and I believe that a small fee was added to cover subsidiary companies such as the Canadian National Steamships and the Trans-Canada Air Lines.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They are not subsidiaries of the Canadian National itself.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They are, I might say,
wholly independent companies.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved the second reading of Bill No. 20, to amend the National Parks Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Vien in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Prince Albert national park lands.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, all of us realize the great benefits of parks in providing an opportunity for healthy relaxation and also for the conservation of game. This committee should have an explanation from the minister why the Prince Albert national park is to be reduced in area, as is set out in the bill. The reduction in area will be approximately one-fifth. This is the only national park in Saskatchewan. If my memory is correct, it was established in 1927, following the election of the Prime Minister in the constituency of Prince1 Albert.
The reasons given by the minister when the bill was introduced were, as I understood them: first, that the area which is being removed from the park boundaries is to be so removed because it is swampy. May I point out that, in so far as the eastern portion ol the park is concerned, that area is covered ir the main with timber, and that this timber is valuable and, I think, necessary to the preservation of the water courses within that park.
The main reason given for cutting down the area of this park is that it will reduce the cost of fire ranging; but when we look at the estimates for the year 1941-42, it is apparent that that cannot be the reason for reducing the area of the park. At page 116 of the estimates for 1941-42, under the heading of "temporary assistance," there is an amount of $95,789, a reduction of some $8,000 as compared with the preceding year; but under the head of "wages" there is an increase of $30,000 among the various parks throughout the dominion.
The stand of timber in the eastern portion of this park is a valuable one, and it is being sought by certain interests in northern Saskatchewan who are endeavouring, I understand, to obtain an opportunity to take over this area of timber. For that reason I protest against the reduction in the size of the
National Parks-Prince Albert

park. Lumber is needed now, yes; but there are other places in northern Saskatchewan where timber is available. As regards the argument that a part can be set aside for settlement, there is a great deal of land there for settlement without reducing the area of a park which up to the present time has been generally accepted as being of the proper size.
The minister has stated that there has been no request from the government of Saskatchewan to reduce the area of the park. The explanation is that there is a saving in the cost of fire ranging. That, however, is scarcely tenable having regard to the estimates that have already been given, and I should like the minister to give a further explanation, showing the committee in detail what that saving will be. I point out to him, as he already knows, that no other areas are available in the future that will allow for any addition to the park. I should like to have a full explanation from him.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: There is little to add to
the explanation I gave when the bill was in the resolution stage. The hon. member for Lake Centre rather hints that there is something dark and mysterious behind the suggestion that the area of the park be reduced. There is nothing to that, further than the degree to which it exists in the hon. member's imagination. As a matter of fact, as I stated when the bill was in the resolution stage, the recommendation came to me from the officials of the department. It did not come from any member of the Saskatchewan government or from anyone who might be interested in timber. It is true that there is some timber in this area which is being taken out on the eastern boundary of the park. As I stated previously when the matter was before the committee, there are three separate blocks being removed from the park. One of them, the largest one, is the eastern portion of the park now and consists, as I stated before, of swampy land and timber. I never said that there was not a certain amount of timber being taken out of the park. I stated before that the area was timber and swampy land, and I stand by that. That is the area on the eastern boundary. The added economy may not be very great, but it will amount to something.


An hon. MEMBER:: How much?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I could not say-perhaps
the expense of a couple of timber rangers. In addition to that, there is the maintenance of a portion of the road that runs through the park to Montreal lake which, when this area is removed, will become the burden of the Saskatchewan government.


John Ritchie MacNicol: We shall have to pay
it anyway.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: At any rate, I can tell the hon. member that it will not be paid by the parks branch, and that is what I am mainly interested in. Then there is a small area of eleven square miles which is to be added to an Indian reserve. I was in error the other evening when the leader of the opposition asked me if that provision would be in the bill. The arangement is that these areas are transferred to the province, and by agreement with the province certain lands are transferred back to the federal government for Indian reserve purposes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why is that method followed?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It is the simplest method of dealing with the matter, and I always believe in pursuing simple rather than complex methods.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It would not appear to me to be so. Title is now vested in the crown in the right of the dominion; all you have to do is by proper order in council, or. if necessary, by this bill, to transfer it to the Indian Affairs branch, and the title never changes.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Except for this-and I speak subject to correction-that in the transfer agreement under which the resources were returned to the province, any land set aside for park purposes that ceased to be used for this purpose would be returned to the province. This, at any rate, is the simplest method of dealing with the matter. The reduction is not nearly so serious as the hon. member for Lake Centre supposes. The area of the park at the present time is 1,870 square miles. What is taken out is 376 square miles, and of that a block of eleven square miles comes back to the government to increase the area of the Indian reserve, which we need rather badly.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is it the swamp that goes to the Indian reserve?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The timber in the muskeg area does not go to the Indians. The land that is being added to the Indian reserve is fair agricultural land. That is the description given me, and I have no reason to doubt it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How much timber is in the part that is going to the Saskatchewan government?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am afraid I cannot tell the leader of the opposition.

National Parks-Prince Albert


Richard Burpee Hanson: It seems to me we ought to know what we are giving away; we ought to know the value. I understand that certain interests in northern Saskatchewan are lumbering on the fringe of this reserve, and that they have cast their eye-I will not say evil eye; perhaps "covetous" is a good word-on this stand of timber and will get it much easier one way than another. They probably could not get it as long as it is part of the park. The minister ought to be able to tell us what stand of timber this is.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: We have not had any occasion to cruise the timber.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Surely the department has some data on it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: As far as my knowledge goes, no lumbering operations are being conducted there.


Frederick Clayton Casselman: Is that a definite statement of the minister's own knowledge?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The recommendation comes from the officials of the parks branch.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, you could get a recommendation to hang a man.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Does my hon. friend wish to insinuate that some influence is brought to bear on the departmental officials?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not know anything about the matter but I am trying to elucidate the truth.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The parks officials recommend that this area be taken out because it is not needed for park purposes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has the minister the recommendation there?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: There is still left almost 1,500 square miles; that is a pretty good sized park. I am sure if the leader of the opposition had a park even a fifth of that size for New Brunswick, he would get up and cheer for it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would
not give any of it away.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: We are not giving this
away. The procedure for handling this is the usual one. On more than one occasion changes in park boundaries have been made. If we do not need an area for park purposes, it goes back to the provincial government.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister said, "We are not giving it away." Then what are we getting for it?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: We are giving it back to the province.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Who will get it from the
province?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have not the remotest idea; I have enough on my hands to run my department without attempting to tell the Saskatchewan government what they should do.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: But the minister ought to know the value of this property and the timber and what we are giving away. We do not give it away in Ontario.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: We have not had occasion to cruise this timber; why should we?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: That should be one of the jobs of the park rangers and the park superintendent, to know the value of the park lands and the timber on them.


Thomas Vien: The minister has the floor. If any hon. member desires to question him, I would ask him to do it in an orderly
way.


Ernest Edward Perley: In the explanatory note, the last paragraph reads:
The department has been in communication with the government of Saskatchewan-
Would the minister table this communication, or say what it is?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: When we decided to reduce the area we took up with the Saskatchewan government the question of securing the additional eleven square miles to which I have already referred. As far as I am aware, the communications cover only that point. The Saskatchewan government has agreed, and the Indian reserve will be increased accordingly.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has the minister the communications with him and the recommendation of the parks branch? We have had this big national park there for years. Does the minister mean to tell us that he does not know anything about the resources on it? That is astonishing. They must know in the parks branch how much timber is on this area. What are the fire rangers and the other officials doing there? There should be some information as to the stand of timber on that part which we are now giving away.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: There may be an estimate in the branch as to the amount of timber, but I do not see that that comes into the question at all. We are not operating the national parks as timber limits. We do not wish to give an area in a national park to some timber operator to cut timber on.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister misses the whole point of the inquiry. We wish to know, if an asset of the dominion is being handed over to a province for nothing.
National Parks-Prince Albert

how much that asset is worth. If it has valuable timber on it, it will soon be on the market. Indirectly we are giving a subsidy to the province of Saskatchewan; we should have all the information the department has. Surely that is a reasonable request.


William Earl Rowe: It may be summer-fallowed.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not think there is any summer-fallow in connection with that. The National Parks Act provides for the setting up of national parks for specific purposes, and the matter of going into the lumber manufacturing business is not one of these.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister's lack of information about natural resources which are owned by the dominion, and which he proposes to give away for nothing, is extraordinary.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If my hon. friend will let me continue, I will tell the committee that it was not the purpose, in establishing national parks, to gather in timber and resources of that kind in order to operate them for the benefit of the federal government. The parks were created as national playgrounds. This area does not contribute to that purpose; therefore, it is being dropped and1, under the agreement by which we are governed, the resources go back to the province and they administer them.


Ernest Edward Perley: The third paragraph of the explanatory note reads:
The cost of patrolling these areas in the interest of fire and game protection has been out of proportion to the value of the land for park purposes.
Would the minister give the figures as to
the cost?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have not that information here. I could give it when the estimates of the parks branch are before the committee later on, if my hon. friends wish information about the number of park wardens, the colour of their hair and eyes, and that sort of thing.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I am not treating this matter in a jocular way, and I do not think the minister should try to be facetious about it. Here we have a few hundred square miles of land, on which the hon. member for Lake Centre states there is considerable timber. I know something of what we have done in Ontario with regard to our parks. A group of men in our own district saw a stand of virgin timber in our county going to the sawyer. We refused to let that pass; we took it over and made a public park of it. As a result of careful administration, we have had that timber harvested as the trees came to

the proper age, and by handling it in that way we were able to pay the total cost of that park and the administration and upkeep of it.
I do not know what mistakes have been made in the past in the handling of our national parks, but it is time we introduced some real business methods into the administration of those parks. Instead of reducing our playgrounds in Canada, let us expand them. We have been talking about the tourist traffic. Let us try to increase it. Here is a definite asset, a stand of timber which, if properly handled by the department, might not only pay the cost of maintaining that park but help to pay the cost of maintaining other parks. Let us do this in a businesslike way instead of giving that timber back to the province. When the province gets it, as the minister and everyone else knows, some operator is going to go in there and cut that timber. I object to that. I think we will require far more and better information than we have had as yet; otherwise it might be as well for the minister to move that the committee rise until he can give the committee the information to which it is entitled.


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: May I ask if it is not true that the land which constitutes the Prince Albert national park belonged originally to the province of Saskatchewan?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: What does that matter?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The hon. member for Waterloo South has had his say. If he wants to carry on this discussion, he may do so when I have finished, but he is not going to interrupt me. I am asking the minister if it is not true that in the beginning Saskatchewan gave this land to the dominion government and that now the dominion government, finding some of this land not needed for park purposes, simply intends to restore to the province that which the province gave in the beginning, as I understand it without charge. Is this not merely a return of the land to the original owner?


William Earl Rowe: That does not add much light. We knew that before.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I do not think you did.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is not quite the
position.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Now that my hon. friends of the opposition have had their laugh, perhaps they will let me state the position. What has been said by the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services is, in effect, the situation,

National Parks-Prince Albert
but when the park was created, the dominion government controlled all the resources in western Canada.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then this park never belonged to the province of Saskatchewan.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The dominion government owned the resources; but in the transfer agreement-I am sure I am right in this, although I speak subject to correction-it was provided that any lands which the federal government did not require would be transferred to the province. That, in effect, is what is happening here, and we have it happening almost every day. Consequently, when the area of this park is reduced, under the terms of that agreement the land goes back to the province, where it should go, where it belongs. So the Minister of National Defence for Naval Servires was quite right.


John Ritchie MacNicol: He may know about boats but not about timber.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: As a resident of Saskatchewan I would not think of opposing any legislation likely to benefit my province, but I have had some difficulty in trying to secure land there for provincial parks. I think hon. members will agree that it is much more difficult to secure land for inclusion in a park than it is to give the land away after it has been placed in the park. The minister should give a more satisfactory answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, as to the cost of patrolling these areas in the interest of fire and game protection, as compared with the benefits derived from the area.
As has been pointed out, we are proposing to give away about one-fifth of the area of this national park, which is one of the great natural assets of the province of Saskatchewan. Hon. members who have visited this natural park will agree that it is a very great tourist attraction, and I think we would be ill-advised to give away this land, even though the minister says it is not of any great value as part of the park area. It has been pointed out, however, that there is a sizeable stand of timber on this land, so the minister should give us more information as to the value of that timber and the cost of patrolling it before we are asked to pass this bill.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: As I have said, I do not think the value of the timber is the consideration in point at all. The fact of the matter is that the parks officials, whose business it is to advise on these matters, have said that this area is not necessary for the purposes of Prince Albert national park. They have given me that advice. I do not think any member of the government of Saskatchewan, or any
person having an eye on this timber, influenced the park officials in coming to that decision. In carrying out their duty and doing their job they make a recommendation to the government that this area can be reduced. This reduction will effect some saving in administration and will not detract at all from the park as such.
I point out once more than there will still remain 1,495 square miles of lakes, streams and timber for park purposes, which would appear to be all that is necessary. If this land goes back to the province, it then becomes the business of the province to administer it. I do not think it is the affair of the federal government or of the parks branch to attach any conditions as to how the province shall administer its resources. That is their business; it is not our business at all. For instance, if we attempted to interfere in Quebec or Nova Scotia or any other province as to how they handled their natural resources, we would be subjected to criticism', and properly so. The same thing holds true as far as Saskatchewan is concerned. There is the added advantage to the federal government that in this rearrangement we get an additional area for an Indian reserve, which we need rather badly. I think the Saskatchewan government have been generous in that respect. They could have said, "No, we do not want to give you back any land; we want to keep it all."


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: You are getting back eleven square miles, I understand.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes, and getting it back without charge.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Well, Mr. Chairman, the 300 square miles must be in terrible shape if we are to get back eleven square miles as an even trade. In spite of the assistance of the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services, I still think we ought to be given quite a good deal more information on this matter. It seems to me this bill could very well stand over for another year. Let us have the timber cruised; let us know what is the value of it. Let us understand the whole situation and see what saving we may make by giving away this land. At a time like this, when we are concerned with much more important matters, a controversial bill of this kind might be very well left over until another session, in order that the minister may know more about the parks which he is administering.


John George Diefenbaker: I have listened with interest to the explanation given by the minister, particularly in reference to the circumstances under which the park was set up. I remember those circumstances very well.
National Parks-Prince Albert

When the Prime Minister was first elected in Prince Albert, in 1926, he pointed out the needs of northern Saskatchewan with regard to parks, and this park was duly constituted. The minister will remember that at that time the provincial government had nothing whatever to do with the natural resources of Saskatchewan.


James Garfield Gardiner: They did in 1930, though, and that was when the park was set up.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The park was established in 1927, opened in 1929, and the resources of Saskatchewan were returned to that province some time in 1930.


James Garfield Gardiner: The bill was 1930.


William Earl Rowe: You are wrong again, both ministers have gone wrong, now.


John George Diefenbaker: I am only trying to get information, because the people in northern Saskatchewan want to know why it is that the national park set up by the government now in power, and under the leadership of the Prime Minister, should find it necessary at this time to remove from the confines of the park the eastern portion of it. They want to know that, particularly in view of the fact that the merchantable timber is to a great degree reduced in northern Saskatchewan.
The minister has stated that no lumbering is done in this vicinity. But he must know that to-day on the northern side of the park, in the Montreal lake area, considerable lumbering is being done, and that within the confines of the eastern portion of the park that timber would be available for those who might wish to exploit it. I can understand very well his desire to get eleven square miles for an Indian reserve. No one would have any objection to the removal of eleven square miles from this park for that purpose. Our objection, however, is this: At a time when the timber resources of Saskatchewan are being more and more depleted, what justification is there, in order to save the cost of the services of two timber men for a matter of four or five months in a year to remove one-fifth from a national park which has been set up and which for many years has functioned so well? Would the minister be willing to table recommendations from the government officials? If we had those recommendations, we would be able to see whether or not the committee ought favourably to consider the bill before it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It is not the practice to table reports from one officer in a department to another officer in a department.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I object to that statement. If the minister makes reference to a public document in this matter, that document must be tabled.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I did not say there was a public document.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is a
public document. The principle is wrong, and the minister should not take refuge in refusal.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not think it is a public document.


William Earl Rowe: What is it, then?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: As a matter of fact, the officials of the parks branch came to my office and discussed the matter with me. We had maps; they gave me their reasons, and this bill is the result.


William Earl Rowe: Give us the reasons.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have given them.


William Earl Rowe: The minister has not given
any yet.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It will mean some reduction in the patrolling of the area. .


Richard Burpee Hanson: A saving of two fire rangers.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I think my hon. friends
opposite are under a misapprehension. It is not the business or the function of the parks branch to be disposing of timber limits, or to be supervising timber limits, and all that sort of thing. The national parks were set up as national playgrounds. Does anyone say that because there may be a few million feet of timber in this area-and I do not know how much there is-that that is necessary for a national playground. Not at all. What is the sensible thing to do? Is it sensible to let the timber rot and fall down?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: No; that is ridiculous.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The hon. member for
Waterloo South makes frequent interruptions; he may have his say, after I have finished. It is not the purpose of the parks administration to do that sort of thing, and my hon. friends know it as well as I do. Some person, however, has carried a story to them to the effect that there may be a bit of jobbery behind this transaction, and they are exercising their right-and it is unquestionably their right


William Earl Rowe: That is only suspicion on the minister's part.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: in the manner in which they choose to exercise it. I repeat that it was never intended that the national parks should deal in timber. They were never created for that purpose. On the contrary they were created as playgrounds. Incidentally there is this timber in this park. It is a swampy area, with timber on it. So the

National Parks-Prince Albert
sensible thing to do is to give it back to Saskatchewan, to administer as part of the public domain in that province. I see nothing strange about that. I do not see anything wrong in it.


William Earl Rowe: What is meant by this
explanatory note:
On the other hand such lands have a distinct value for development and settlement.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Probably they have.


William Earl Rowe: In marsh land, does the
minister mean? Who wants to settle in muskeg?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: As I explained when the
bill was in the resolution stage part of the land on the southern boundary is fairly good agricultural land, and probably will be settled.


William Earl Rowe: How much timber is on it?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: There is very little on
that. I cannot just say how much is on this other area. But I repeat, we can leave the timber there. It is not needed now for park purposes, and never will be. Is it not sensible to give it back to the province and let them deal with it, the same as they deal with any other part of the public domain?


Mr. IIAZEN:: The minister says that these parks are created as playgrounds; surely they are created for more than that. Are they not created as a place where game can be preserved and conserved? Are they not, in some instances, provided as protections for watersheds? Are there not a number of other reasons for their establishment? To say that they are created merely for purposes of playgrounds is surely limiting their use to an extent to which it was never intended they should be limited. Even for playground purposes, it is important that we have these vast stands of timber, if we can. They add much to the attractions of any park. How much money has been spent by the dominion government in developing this area since it was declared a park?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have not the information at hand as to how much money has been spent in the development of this or any other park.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What
about the road through the Montreal lake
area?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That information will be available to the committee when the estimates of the department are before it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is
where it should be available.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not think so.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, I
think so.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not think it is germane to a discussion of this bill to have all the details of expenditures in connection with the park. I am advised by my officials that there will be a decrease in the cost of fire ranging and fire fighting in that particular area. In these times, when there is difficulty in obtaining money, I believe this is a sensible procedure to take.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: This sort of thing has been happening in northern Ontario. One of the finest provincial parks is that of the Timagami timber reserve. Some people know about a fine timber stand, and decide they want that timber. Before the timber is taken off, they give the government the excuse that the timber is ripe. I do not know when timber is ripe, but I do know that about 1900 I visited Timagami, as a boy. Then about two years ago I went through the same country and saw the same forest. I saw the forest, and the reforesting that had been done by nature. It was said that the timber was ripe, and it was cut to a distance of so many hundred yards back from the lake, ruining the tourist resort. The excuse was given that the timber was ripe. As I say, I went back into other parts of the country and it looked just the same to me as it had before. You could see the seedlings in the ground; you could see the timber growing up; you could see how nature was taking her every day course; you could see where the trees had fallen down and rotted, and where others were coming in. But where there had been forest fires, you could find nothing but birch and poplar coming up. That is what we may expect.
As a member from Ontario, I am speaking for the people of Saskatchewan. To my mind, an effort is being made here to be allowed to cut good timber. We have our national park at the present time and the timber is safe. Let us look at this matter from another point of view. We have the conservation of water; we have the organization known as Ducks Unlimited who, as lovers of wild life, have gone into the north country and reclaimed thousands of acres for the breeding of ducks. We have this place here which is preserved at the present time and which does not cost us anything to speak of, as far as the federal government is concerned. It is providing conservation of trees, conservation of water, and conservation of game for tourists. The people of Saskatchewan really do not want this bill. It is a crime that we should try to put this into the hands of someone who will cut all the timber and just make so much more poor land in that country. Why is summer-fallow
National Parks-Piince Albert

being attempted, because of the small amount of care that is required? The minister has not told us anything yet which will justify his position in connection with this bill.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: It seems to me that we are not very consistent in this matter. On the one hand, we have the Department of Agriculture spending millions of dollars upon prairie farm rehabilitation, chiefly in Sas-kachewan, upon reforestation work, the seeding of grasses, soil, water conservation and such matters; and, on the other hand, we have another department giving away the very asset we are trying to create in other parts of the province. The minister has said that the province has not asked for this, that the only idea in giving it away is to save the cost of administration. That being the situation, surely he can tell us at this time what the saving will be. As a previous speaker has said, the minister has not said anything which would convince this committee that this is good business.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: On March 20, as reported on page 1741 of Hansard, I asked the minister to get the figures with regard to the administration costs of the park and what would be saved. The minister then replied :
I think I would be in a position to give the hon. gentleman the information he has requested with regard to savings when the estimates of the parks branch are before the committee at a later stage.
That is the stage we are in at the present time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: To every
request for information the minister's reply has been that this step is taken upon the advice of the officials of the parks branch. Like most hon. members, I am not familiar with all the facts; I do not know the real value of this land or what effect this move will have. We have to judge the case upon its merits. No group of officials, even the parks branch officials, are infallible. As a matter of fact, there must have been parks branch officials who at one time thought this was valuable land or they 'would not have had it included in this national park. There must have been some parks branch officials who thought this land was sufficiently good as a play ground to warrant its being brought within the boundaries of the park. Then apparently another group of officials, or perhaps the same group, now advise the minister that it is no longer wise to continue to include this land within the boundaries of the park. They may be right, but I do not think the minister can expect this committee to take so

serious a step merely upon the advice of officials who may have changed their opinion as to the advisability of keeping this land within the boundaries of the park. It seems to me the whole thing is summed up in the following paragraph in the explanatory notes:
The cost of patrolling these areas in the interests of fire and game protection has been out of proportion to the value of the land for park purposes;
If the value of the land is such that it is not worth patrolling, and the minister can demonstrate that, then I am quite prepared to support the bill. But to do that I must know the value of the land and what it has cost to patrol it. I must know what it will cost to keep this land within the boundaries of the park. If it is too much, then the minister is justified in taking it out. This, however, is a serious step unless the cost is fairly high. As the minister has said, a road runs through this land to Montreal lake, and this park has become one of the beauty spots of western Canada. We have not had the cost of patrolling this park, nor have we had any indication as to the value of this piece of land. We should know whether it is worth the expense of keeping it within the boundaries of the park, and until we have further information I cannot see how the minister can ask us to support this bill.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The cost of patrolling this land against fire probably would not be more than the expense associated with two or three fire rangers, and I cannot at the moment give the details. If fire broke out, however, we would be at the expense of endeavouring to put out the fire and control it. In these days of pressure for economy in administration, I imagine that this is one of the considerations which induced the parks branch officials to bring the matter to my attention. We went over the matter in detail, and I was satisfied that while the area had some timber of value, in a considerable measure it was swampy land not suitable for park purposes. I cannot imagine a tourist or a visitor to the park going out into the w'oods on the edge of a swamp where the black flies and mosquitoes are in myriads. It was thought this land was not necessary for park purposes and it was believed we could save a few thousand dollars by allowing it to revert to the province.
Some hon. members have referred to the timber and have asked why we do not keep control of the timber and realize on it. That is not the purpose for which these parks were created. It is true that when trees become overripe in some of the parks, we sell some cordwood, but that is because the

National Parks

Prince Albert
land is required for park purposes. Here we do not require it for park purposes, and when the National Parks Act was passed, it was not the intention that the national parks would be developed for the purpose of obtaining a profit from the timber resources in the parks. What has been done here is a sensible thing. We have dropped a part of the park which is not needed for park purposes. We are letting this land go back to the province for administration, thereby saving the federal government something in cost of administration.


William Earl Rowe: What is the cost for the whole park?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: There was one other
point raised. My hon. friend referred to the fact that when the area was first set up for park purposes, the officials of the branch must have considered that this particular park was necessary for park purposes. When it was decided to establish a park area there, full surveys had not been made in detail of the area which was included within the boundaries of the park. It was known in a general way that it had lakes-beautiful lakes-forests, little valleys, and streams, and enough was taken in to ensure that a sufficiently large area would be secured for park purposes. In the passing of time it was found that all this was not necessary, and I think the sensible thing to do is to exclude a portion of it. As I have pointed out several times, if we were to take it as a squared area, it would be almost forty miles square, which is a considerable size for a park.


William Earl Rowe: The hon. member for Souris has said, and I think it is very true, that we have had the spectacle of inconsistency demonstrated to-night more clearly than ever before with reference to the administration of a plan in the great province of Saskatchewan. Millions of dollars have been spent in that province to dig water-holes for supporters of the government, to reforest areas which have been very dry-


James Garfield Gardiner: Started by the government when you were in it.


William Earl Rowe: Yes, and played with for political purposes by the government when you were in it. We have seen water-holes dug here and there, up and down throughout that province. To-night it is proposed to set aside an area involving enough ground, after it is summer-fallowed by this new, spectacular, fantastic policy of the Minister of Agriculture, to cost the Dominion of Canada $962,000 in order to keep it out of wheat. It is being
taken out of the park in order to put it into wheat or some other development. If you do not wish it to be summer-fallowed, if you put it in grass, as the Minister of Agriculture has curtly told us, to help to retain moisture and prevent the soil from being blown away in certain districts where there is overcropping, it will take over $480,000 to pay $2 an acre on it. Here we have an area with God-given facilities to retain moisture, including muskeg, rivers and lakes, which are all too few in that great province, and tall trees which, no doubt, timber exploiters are looking at with anxious acquisitiveness. Yet, on the one hand, the Minister of Natural Resources presumes to tell us that his department is going to save the expense of three or four timber cruisers in this area, for the benefit of the hard-pressed treasury of Canada, while on the other hand, the Minister of Agriculture says, "Hand it over to me, and I will give them S4 an acre to summer-fallow it or $2 an acre to grow grass on it". That is how this muskeg is to lend itself to development.
I agree with hon. members on this side that we have heard very little sound reason why this section of the park should be taken back. Even in Ontario, where perhaps we are more in need of land, it would be wise policy for any government to retain an. area such as that to conserve moisture through its trees, and its lakes and streams, which without doubt would dry up with such a development as the minister suggests. It seems to me a pennywise and pound-foolish policy to take part of that great province of Saskatchewan, which needs muskeg, which has not too many trees, or lakes, or streams, and hand back 240,000 acres which are ideally adapted to retain moisture. I suggest that the minister reconsider this recommendation of his parks branch, and I advise him to be very careful in approving any such recommendation from them.
I recall the time when this park was inaugurated, and I also remember some reasons for its inauguration. Back in 1926 the Prime Minister, who should be here to-night to tell us what he thinks about it, informed us that a great playground was to be established in the province; it was to have an area of 1,500 square miles. As one hon. member has mentioned to-night, if it is too large now it must certainly have been too large then. The Prime Minister, however, during his first election campaign in that riding, promised the people ample room for a playground. I do not suppose he had in mind, when he suggested that he would establish a 1,500-mile square playground, that people would use the entire area as a playground. He must have had in mind the conservation of moisture and the preservation of the
National forks-Prince Albert

timber, because 1,500 square miles is, I submit, too large an area for a park; I do not believe we need in any province an area of that size except for the purpose of conserving moisture, preserving game, and effecting the other objects for which we maintain trees and muskeg. I earnestly and sincerely urge the minister to reconsider this suggestion of handing the land back to the province for development.
When we have so many acres which it is proposed to summer-fallow or to utilize for the development of moisture, why should we dry up what moisture there is in an area *which is naturally adapted for the purpose of conserving moisture?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I was much interested in
the eloquent plea of the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe. Does my hon. friend mean to say that to his own knowledge there is behind this move to reduce the area of the park any exploitation scheme so that somebody may get timber cheaply? Has any hon. member on the other side any information of that kind? Has the hon. member for Lake Centre any such information? It has been hinted.


William Earl Rowe: That is beside the issue.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It is not. It has been
hinted at by at least half a dozen hon. members who have spoken in this discussion. If any hon. member of the opposition will assert (hat behind this thing, to his knowledge, is an effort to exploit this timber in the interest of any individual or group of individuals, this bill will be withdrawn immediately.


William Earl Rowe: I would suggest that the
minister's observations are a little beside the point, whether anyone has made insinuations, or not. The issue is, whether the area is better left as it is, or is to be allowed to be dried up for the sake of a summer-fallowing policy? Has it not some value for the preservation of game, for the conservation of moisture, for its scenic beauty? Surely there is some other question involved than an exploitation by friends of the government. I do not for a moment charge that the minister or any other hon. member opposite has friends who want to get some trees for nothing. I have no knowledge on the matter. That is only a side issue-perhaps, a side danger. No doubt the government of Saskatchewan is as capable as, although not more capable than, the government of any other province to administer its natural resources.
This issue is one of national concern. The federal treasury has been asked to provide thirty-five to fifty million dollars to conserve
'Mr. Rowe.]
moisture, to diversify production, almost to change the landscape, in the province of Saskatchewan. Year after year we in this house have voted large sums from the dominion treasury, and we are required to vote more, hard up as we ai-e, trying to save every nickel for the common purpose of winning the war; we have spent millions of dollars-and I do not say this jocularly'-to dig water holes in Saskatchewan, to dig canals, to divert streams, to establish lakes and bushes, to encourage the growth of trees, and now we are asked to save the treasury of Canada the cost of five or six timber cruisers so that we can cut down what nature has planted better than this government could.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I take it, then, that my hon. friends opposite can produce no evidence that there is any proposal of exploitation-


Mr. ROWTE:: I am not speaking for them all. That is not our responsibility.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: May I say it is not the responsibility of the hon. member to throw out the suspicion that such is the situation, which is what he did when he spoke a moment ago.
Mi'. ROWE: I did not throw out the suspicion that such is the situation, and I rise to a point of order.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Let my hon. friend keep his seat; I did not interrupt him.


William Earl Rowe: The minister said that I threw out a suspicion, and I rise to a point of order.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The suggestion has been made to-night that behind this was the idea of exploitation.


William Earl Rowe: I made no such suggestion.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Surely the hon. member did suggest exploitation. But let that pass.


William Earl Rowe: Exploitation of natural resources. The government of the country is exploiting them in this type of policy.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Exploiting by whom?


William Earl Rowe: By your government.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Let that pass. My hon. friend tries to make the argument that it is necessary for the federal government to maintain this area in the park for the conservation of moisture.


William Earl Rowe: The minister cannot put words into my mouth. I did not say it was necessary; I said it was conducive to the preservation of moisture and would help.

National Parks-Prince Albert


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Then I will agree with my hon. friend and say it is conducive. Does he mean to tell me for a moment that if a block of 350 square miles is taken out of the park, the rain will not fall on that block in the same way-[DOT]


William Earl Rowe: Surely the minister knows
better than that.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: -and that the conditions making for moisture will not be there?


William Earl Rowe: The minister knows better
than that.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Then why does my hon. friend suggest that we should not take it out because, if we do so, it will tend to lessen moisture.


William Earl Rowe: So it will. The minister knows that.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I cannot see the force of that argument at all. The hon. member for Dutferin-Simcoe speaks about expenditures under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. Those expenditures have taken place several hundred miles, in the main, from where the park is located.


William Earl Rowe: We did not want another dry area established in the same province.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Well, my hon. friend-it is not his fault-is not familiar with this particular area.


William Earl Rowe: The minister is not very
familiar with it himself.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am fairly familiar with it. I may tell the committee that I have flown by aeroplane over the greater part of northern Manitoba and Saskatchewan.


William Earl Rowe: I, too, have flown over a lot of land with which I am not familiar.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not think there is force in the argument that we should keep this particular area within the park boundaries in order that we might the better protect the water supply.


William Earl Rowe: I do not wish to hold up the committee, but I am more surprised than ever that the minister should rise in his place tonight and say that he sees no relationship between the conservation of moisture in Canada and the preservation of muskeg and timber stands. I would ask him to pause and reflect upon what he has said. Why, every hon. member knows that throughout the dominion we have been studying policies whereby we can develop areas. We have been studying the conservation of moisture and the reforestation of various areas.
Twenty years ago or more, as the member of a county council, I was interested in this very question. We started reforestation and to-day we can see the results. Experiments were carried out on patches of twenty, thirty, fifty and a hundred acres, and there were areas in some districts covering from eight to ten square miles. Here we have an area that is twenty square miles. There is not an hon. member who does not know that, especially in the old province of Ontario, there has been a constant study of schemes that would cost millions for the purpose of damming water so as to avoid floods down through the Belleville district and the Guelph and Galt districts. Reforestation has been taken up more or less as a provincial policy, and every county council in Ontario has interested itself in the subject.
In Saskatchewan, we are told, the proposal under consideration will not affect the area in question. Millions are being spent to conserve moisture in seeding down, because after all, next to trees, there is nothing that will preserve moisture more than grass, and next to muskeg there is nothing that will better serve that purpose than trees. All you have to do is to ride along the highways when the snow disappears and you will see trees, large and small, if they are thick enough, with snow still under them. If one flies over northern Ontario one will see snow up there a month after it has disappeared in the open. Surely no one knows better than the Minister of Agriculture that trees, lakes and rivers are of enormous advantage. I know that what the minister has said is to some extent true, that the rain will fall just the same if these few' trees are cut down. Surely he does not think, however, that they can be taken over to the other part of Saskatchewan. I would suggest to the minister that he read that book prepared by an able industrialist, Mr. Aubrey Davis, and endorsed by every forest ranger, and he will change his mind. He will agree that when trees are cut down, streams and springs dry up.
I can show the minister areas in my own county to illustrate the point I am making. I have one area particularly in mind, and there were a number of small areas of two or three acres. Twenty-five years ago, I understand, there were five or six bubbling springs on that area and the trees were cut off. In later years, when the springs dried up, the agricultural society reforested the area and recently three of the springs have appeared again.
This country needs a national reforestation policy. Years ago I said, both in this house and elsewhere, that if we went on exploiting we w'ould some day regret it-and I do not say that as a reflection on the friends of the
National Parks-Prince Albert

minister. I am speaking of exploitation generally such as we have had through the years, because we have been a nation of exploiters.
We have robbed the forests; we have cleared the ground, rolled back the map until the ground has almost blown away beneath our feet. I am amazed that the minister should suggest that, in a province as dry as Saskatchewan, an area involving almost a quarter of a million acres with all the moisture, and the trees necessary to retain that moisture, is not a permanent asset of that province.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: We are spending a great deal of time on this bill. When the resolution was before the committee I asked the minister how much the saving would be. He did not have the information that night, but my understanding was that he was to have it when the bill came before us. I think we should have that information before this bill is passed. As I recall, the minister said it would mean saving the services of two rangers during the fire-fighting season, which is usually three or four months. The minister should have some information as to the amount spent on fire fighting during the last five or six years. Ten years is a very short time in the life of a park. This park was set aside just a few years ago; I think the first proposal was made in 1926, and the boundaries were defined in 1928. Since then we have had ten years of depression, and the federal government were cautious about appropriations for the development of playgrounds. The minister said this area has not been found necessary for the park, but we should keep in mind the needs of the future, and I can think of no finer asset to this park than a large area of good timber. While there may be a lack of roads through this part of the park, I hope that hon. members sitting here to-night will live long enough to see scenic drives through this Prince Albert national park.
I suggest that the minister let this matter stand until he can give us more information as to the saving to be effected. The last clause of the third paragraph of the explanatory notes reads:
.	. . such lands have a distinct value for
development and settlement.
I agree with the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe as to the need for preservation of forests. For the last ten years we have seen our governments, federal and provincial, and of both parties, setting aside for settlement lands which should have been preserved for park or forest. I know there is a conflict of opinion in the administrative work. Those particularly concerned about forestry have objected to these areas being set aside one after another for land settlement when in their

opinion those areas were much better suited for forests. I have seen Conservative and Liberal governments making appropriations year after year for the settlement of lands, in some instances heavily timbered, to produce more wheat. In 1932 I think it was, when wheat prices were at the lowest levels ever known in the last four hundred years, we still found federal and provincial governments providing money to bring more of these bush lands under cultivation. The federal government has had some responsibility for encouraging the settlement of such lands.
The minister advances, as a reason for taking this area out of the national park, the suggestion that it might have some value for agriculture. With the largest supply of wheat ever on hand in Canada, this government should not be giving away land to be devoted to the production of more wheat and cereals. This park is one of the greatest assets in Saskatchewan. My information is that it is costing very little to retain this area in the park. It should be retained until the minister gives us much more detailed information as to what it is costing the federal treasury. I would ask the minister to consent to have the committee rise and report progress, and to give us further information at a later date.
Mr. CREiRAR:	As I have stated at least
half a dozen times, the direct saving will be the expense of two or three fire wardens. The hon. member says I should bring detailed estimates of the savings. It is impossible to do that; I do not know, no one in the parks branch knows, what the cost of fighting fires in this area may be this year.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: But the minister should be able to tell us what it has been in the last five years.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If we retain this area in
the park, we have to build trails and roads through it so that the fire rangers can reach any fire that might break out. It should be protected against fire by the provincial government which has the equipment to do it. They have their fire-fighting services and can do it more effectively than we can.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: We have more money than they have.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not think anything
would be gained by acting on the suggestion of the hon. member.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: To my mind the minister's arguments are getting weaker and weaker as the hours go by. First he talks about the saving in fire rangers. The other day he said it would open land for settlement. If this timber is of the right sort, and judging

National Parks-Prince Albert
from this pamphlet put out by the department there is good timber there, there will be men going in to cut the timber; there will be slash and undergrowth, and the fire danger will be greater than it is to-day. If the land is opened for settlement, the fire danger will be greater. The minister says, "we do not know what the cost of fire protection will be in coming years." They did not know it ten years ago when they took it over. We do not know what our wheat bill is going to be for western Canada next year. Ministers have said they will do no more prophesying. This pamphlet shows the stand of timber there, the animals and wild life and flowers, all those things that we have wasted in the older provinces, the very thing that the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe has said is scarce enough in Saskatchewan.
Unless the minister is prepared to give some better reason and more detailed information as to why his officials recommend this thing- I know ministers who have had different courses recommended to them by their officials in the past not so long ago and who did not follow those recommendations-I think I am justified in moving that the committee rise and report progress.


Mr. CARDIFF:: Will the minister assure
the committee that if this timber land is given to the province, it will remain as it is and not be exploited by any private enterprise?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am afraid I could not
give any such assurance. If the Minister of Mines and Resources of the federal government attempted to tell any provincial government how they should administer their resources and to whom they should give licences to cut timber, I am afraid we should be in serious difficulty. I am sure no one would object more than the hon. member who has just spoken.


Mr. JACKMAN:: There was one other point which at first blush I did not believe worthy of the consideration of this committee, but I have since learned that this is the only national park owned by the federal government in Saskatchewan. I would recall to the minister that within the last year, if my memory serves me aright, the government of the United States has added to a number of its national parks. In the first place a large area was added to a park at Fort Bragg in the Carolinas, which, I believe, is the largest artillery encampment in the world. That area has been added in order to make available land which will be safe for target practice. Another large park recently acquired by the United States government is in connection with the Hearst estate in California, which embraces a very large area and which is now
used for military purposes. If this is the only national park in Saskatchewan which could be used for military purposes, it might be advisable for the Department of Mines and Resources to consult with the Department of National Defence before any action is taken in this regard.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I should like to say one word in connection with a matter raised earlier in the evening. At another stage of this discussion I suggested that this land originally belonged to the province and that it was only fair it should revert to the province. To support that view, I have before me chapter 41 of the statutes of 1930, which is the Saskatchewan Natural Resources Act. In the schedule to that act there is set forth the memorandum of agreement entered into by the Dominion of Canada and the province of Saskatchewan with regard to the natural resources of that province, in which agreement I find these words:
. . . whereas the government of Canada desires that the province should be placed in a position of equality with the other provinces of confederation with respect to the administration and control of its natural resources as from its entry into confederation in 1905 . . .
Then I omit some lines which are not relevant, and the agreement goes on:
In order that the -province may be in the same position as the original provinces of confederation are in virtue of section one hundred and nine of the British North America Act, 1867, the interest of the crown in all crown lauds, mines, minerals (precious and base) and royalties derived therefrom within the province . . . shall . . . belong to the province .	. . and be administered by the
province for the purposes thereof . . .
Later, it speaks of national parks, and provides that the Prince Albert national park:
.	.	. shall continue to be vested in and
administered by the government of Canada as a national park, but in the event of the parliament of Canada at any time declaring that the said land or any part thereof is no longer required for park purposes, the lands, mines, minerals (precious and base) and the royalties incident thereto, specified in any such declaration, shall forthwith upon the making thereof belong to the province . . .
That makes it quite clear that the intention of this agreement was to put the province of Saskatchewan back to the year 1905 so far as the administration of these natural resources was concerned. Therefore I think it is absolutely correct to say that this land belonged to the province by virtue of this agreement, which was ratified both by this parliament and by the legislature of Saskatchewan. The intent was to put the province of Saskatchewan back to 1905 and to treat these natural resources as though they had belonged to Saskatchewan from that year,

National Parks-Prince Albert
when the province was constituted. I think that is abundantly clear, and this statute, with its particular reference to national parks, bears out that obvious intention.
There is one other point to which I should like to refer. From this discussion the impression might be gathered that it is an abnormal thing to change the boundaries of a park. I do not know what happens elsewhere, but I know that in Nova Scotia, when I had something to do with public affairs there, we took some of our own crown land, bought some other land and gave it all to the dominion for national park purposes. That land was accepted by this government. After a year or two it was found that some of the land had better be taken from the park. I believe on one section there were some fifteen or twenty families, and it was the opinion of the park authorities that this section had better be left out. The boundaries were changed and that land was given back to the province. Then I find in the statutes of 1938 that no less than five separate parcels of land were withdrawn from the Prince Edward Island national park and vested in the crown in the right of the province.


Douglas King Hazen: What was the acreage of
those parcels?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I am not sure of the acreage, nor am I sure of the acreage of the Prince Edward Island national park, except that it is quite a small park. I am informed that it has a length of twenty-seven miles, and that the width varies. Here were five separate parcels of land withdrawn from that park. I have already instanced the case of the Nova Scotia park, and I understand that in connection with national parks it is not uncommon to find after a time that certain land formerly included should be excluded, and perhaps, in some instances, certain other land taken in. As I understand it, the boundaries of parks are never like the laws of the Medes and Persians, inexorable and unchangeable for all time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Where does that agreement lead the minister? It simply leads to this, that in a few isolated instances and with regard to comparatively small areas the boundaries of parks have been changed. But here is an area of some forty square miles being taken right out of a great national park which has been set up for only ten years. When the park was constituted and the boundaries defined, there must have been a long term view taken as to what was going to happen over a period of, say fifty years.
The point is that the minister has not yet made a convincing statement as to why this 
is being done, except on the theory that it will save the wages of two or three fire wardens. We ought to know exactly what is the value of the asset. This land never was the property of the province of Saskatchewan, notwithstanding the declaratory statute to which my hon. friend has referred; but if effect is given to this bill it will become vested in the province, and the natural resources go back as of 1905. That is all the agreement means. A legal position was created there, and the dominion government gave the province of Saskatchewan a grant, after arbitration, in consideration of the alienation of certain of these natural resources.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: We gave them back the natural resources.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, and placed them on an equality with the other provinces. We treated them very generously, too. They were given a large grant in 1905, in lieu of their natural resources, and they retain that to this day. In addition to that, parliament voted a sum of money in lieu of the resources which had been alienated by the dominion. All that is, of course, beside the point.
The minister has come to the house asking for the passage of a bill about which, if he will pardon my saying so, he knows very little. That is the truth of the matter, and I suggest he ought to withdraw it until he can give the committee the information it seeks.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Where is the Indian
reserve, in relation to the park?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It is off the southeast corner of the park.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And from the park, as now constituted, I understand eleven square miles are to go back to the Indian reservation. Is that correct?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Carried.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Oh, that is all right; but there is a certain principle about this that we are definitely against. I am definitely against it.


John Gordon Ross: Why?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The Minister of National Defence for Naval Services tried to substantiate the stand he took. He was just as far w'rong when he finished as he was when he started. Undoubtedly the clause which deals with giving back natural resources to Saskatchewan was put in the statute so that in the event of the federal government not wanting the land for park purposes it could give

National Parks-Prince Albert
it back only to Saskatchewan. That is plain. They could not give the natural resources away to a private individual. They could not give them to British Columbia or Alberta. They could be given back only to Saskatchewan, and the act would have been ridiculous had not that clause been in it.
I maintain our arguments are sound. Members from Saskatchewan may think what they like, but there is one broad principle which obtains in connection with this whole matter, and which should be observed. In my district we spend nearly $2,000,000 every year to stop the ravages of floods. The federal government contributes hundreds of thousands of dollars toward that scheme. Those contributions must be made because we have denuded the land; we have cut down the trees. Hence the large expenditures.


James Garfield Gardiner: Why does the hon. mem-her talk so much about our water-holes, then?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I do not. I want to keep some of them for you, and I wish you had a lot more. I have been out in that country when it was very difficult to find a water-hole. The only reason I left was that there were so many Liberals out there.
I am definitely opposed to the passage of the bill. I do not wish, in a discussion of this kind, to move a vote of want of confidence, but in fairness to hon. members I say the minister should decide either to give us better reasons or allow the matter to stand until the war is over, when we will reorganize our whole economy. That will have to be done, when the men in the army come back, and when other people will be coming into the country. In fairness, I suggest that the minister ought to move that the committee rise, and that to-morrow he ought to ask leave to have the bill withdrawn from the order paper.


George Hugh Castleden: I have one further
objection to the passage of the bill. As I understand the situation, the land to be taken away from this national park runs along the east side of the reserve. The minister has said there is a road-I believe it is just a trail-which comes up from Montreal lake, and he has said that for a long time that area has been a preserve where natural animal and bird life has been permitted to multiply in peace. If this portion of the reserve is opened up and shooting is permitted, hunters will come up from the south, and the animals which in the past have been trusting and to a certain extent have become domesticated will be thrown open to the ravages of those hunters. In the interests of the natural life, which in the last few years has been depleted by drought, I suggest that this land ought
not to be turned back to the province, making a condition possible whereby adequate protection might not be given those animals requiring it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: We cannot accept that motion, and the hon. member knows it very well. I would say in reply to the hon. member for Yorkton, who spoke a moment ago, that he is probably aware that about two years ago by legislation the government of Saskatchewan took definite steps toward setting aside by far the greater part of the northern part of the province-almost from the northern boundary of the park to the northern boundary of the province-for the express purpose to which the hon. member referred, namely the preservation of wild life and the restoration of fur-bearing animals. I think he need have no apprehension that the turning back to the province of a little less than 400 square miles will have any detrimental effect upon the wild life.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is apparent, I suggest, that the minister-


Thomas Vien: Order; there is a
motion before the committee. It is moved by Mr. Homuth that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. This motion is equivalent to a motion for the adjournment of the debate, and under standing order 38, subsection 2, it is not debatable. Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Thomas Vien: The question is on the motion to adjourn the debate by the committee rising and reporting progress. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion? All in favour say "aye."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Aye.


Thomas Vien: In my opinion the
"noes" have it. I declare the motion lost.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I rise to a point of order. The question was not properly put. The chairman asked for the ''ayes," and in the exuberance of the occasion he forgot to ask for the "noes." The only members who voted were those who voted "aye."


Thomas Vien: The point of order is badly taken-I was going to say "poorly taken", but I think "wrongly taken" would be
National Parks-Prince Albert

more appropriate. The question is on the motion that t'he committee rise. All those in favour say "aye".


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Aye.


Thomas Vien: All those opposed say "no".


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Thomas Vien: I declare the motion lost. The question now is: Shall section 2 carry?


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister has shown that he has a certain amount of information with respect to this question, but the information asked for by t'he committee in the early part of the debate has not yet been given. I think we are entitled to it. I think we are entitled to know the value of the asset we are handing over to the province of Saskatchewan, and the minister has not attempted to give us that information. I think we are entitled to it, and he ought not, as a matter of public policy, to ask that this bill be passed without that information being placed before parliament.


Thomas Vien: The question is: Shall section 2 carry?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that after you declared the motion lost, a point of order was raised, I ask that a standing vote be taken.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member is out of order because five members should have risen in their places. Standing order 9 applies to procedure in committee as well as in the house. It is too late now. The motion was declared lost, and the question now is: Shall section 2 carry?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I rise to a point of order.


Thomas Vien: State your point of
order.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I am going to stick to my point of order. My point of order is that immediately after you declared the motion lost, the leader of the opposition rose in his place before we could ask for a standing vote and raised a point of order.


Thomas Vien: There is no point of order.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He has not stated it.


Thomas Vien: Shall section 2 carry?


John George Diefenbaker: Are we in this committee going to get the information to which we believe we are entitled? We have asked for certain information which it is not difficult
for the minister to procure. First, we asked what the saving will be in consequence of the removal of this portion of the park and handing it over to the province; and, second, we asked the value of the asset which was being alienated to the province. Surely we are entitled to that information. The very fact we have been denied it for a period of an hour and a half or two hours is bound to raise a suggestion in our minds.
The information is available. The estimates show that there will be an increase rather than a decrease so far as the patrolling of these parks is concerned. If the recommendation which the minister has received from his officials is reasonable and cogent, if he will answer the questions we have asked, there is no reason why the information should be withheld. These questions were asked on March 20, and at that time the minister said he could not answer, but that the information would be available. Now, some ten days later when the matter comes up again and we ask for the same information, we are told we will get it when the estimates are before the committee. By that time one-fifth of Prince Albert national park will be gone. Surely the minister should give us this information.


Thomas Vien: I would remind the committee that it is within the discretion of a minister of the crown to give whatever information he desires. The question as to whether the information should be forthcoming lies in the hands of the committee which can vote for or against the particular matter before the committee. Standing order 40, subsection 2, refers to the repetition of a question ad nauseam. That is prohibited by the rule. The remedy lies in the hands of the committee by way of vote. The question now is: Shall section 2 carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Arthur Ross: Hon. members have asked for certain information which the minister has not given.


Thomas Vien: The minister has said that he will not give the information now.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He never went that far.


Thomas Vien: He said he would give the information when the estimates of the park branch were under consideration.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: After the bill is passed.


James Arthur Ross: I have not received an answer to the question I asked. I asked the minister to give us approximately what the financial saving in administration would be when this portion of the park was eliminated.

National Parks-Prince Albert
I have not received an answer, and I protest against handing over our resources in this manner.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: May I say to the hon. member for Souris that I have answered that question at least three times this evening.


James Arthur Ross: In dollars and cents?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Excuse me; I have the floor. The saving will be probably about two rangers, but I cannot say definitely.


William Earl Rowe: What would they cost?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I should think each around 11,500 a year. In addition to that, there are the expenses which may be incurred in connection with this particular area and which are impossible to estimate. If we retain the area and a fire breaks out, say next June, we may have to hire one hundred men to put out the fire. W7ho can give an estimate at this time as to what that will cost?


Grote Stirling: Nobody has asked for that.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If we remove this area from the park, we shall not have that expense. The hon. member for Souris is a reasonable man, and I think if he will reflect for a moment he will see the cogency of the point I make. I answered a question asked by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) on the same point. It is impossible to give it down to a dollar and cent, notwithstanding the eloquence of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). It is impossible to give anywhere near a dollar just what the saving in expense will be. I do not really think there is any more information on this point that I can give the committee.


William Earl Rowe: Surely the minister will say that we are entitled to more information when we are asked to give away a quarter of a million acres in order to avoid employing two fire rangers.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend is not fair in making that statement.


William Earl Rowe: That is what the minister said.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It is not only the saving of the cost of fire ranging; there is the potential saving of fighting fires for years possibly. Why should the parks branch or the federal treasury be put to the expense of protecting whatever timber there may be against fire, and I do not know just how much there is. I do not think it is a large quantity. The information I have is that the country is mainly swampy in character. I am speaking now of the timber in the area which is to be taken out of the park. I have said at least three or four times that it is not part of the 14873-128
business of the national parks branch to operate timber licences and that sort of thing. Therefore we are handing this land back to the province whose business it is to administer the public domain in that regard. As I have said, of the other small areas, one goes into an Indian reserve and the other will be returned to the province. I presume some day they may open it up for settlement.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I feel certain the minister is getting more mixed up all the time. If there is no timber there, and it is only swampy land, there is no fire hazard with which the department has to bother. If there is timber there, it is a fire hazard; it has been there all along, and if it is to be the policy of the government to take from the Canadian people this large area of timbered land and give it back to the province because there is a fire hazard, we might as well adopt the policy of giving all our timbered parks back to the provinces.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I still think the minister is unfair to this committee and unfair to the people of this country in not giving us more information.


Thomas Vien: It is not in order to say that an hon. member is "unfair".


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I never was in order!


Thomas Vien: The hon. member will withdraw this expression, which is unparliamentary.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I withdraw.


John Ritchie MacNicol: May I ask the minister a question? I listened with interest to his remarks about the probability of a fire in the area which is to be given away, and how much it would cost the federal government if we owned the land at the time of the fire. If there is an Indian reserve on one side of the park, and a large park remains, supposing a fire should occur of the magnitude which the minister leads us to believe might take place, are we to assume for a moment that the federal government would not send men to fight against the fire spreading into the Indian reservation or into the park area? Or would they leave both the park area and the Indian reserve to the mercies of the provincial government so far as firedighting is concerned?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Ordinarily we would protect the park area against fire. We would have to do that. But our risk in that regard is lessened, in my judgment and in the judgment of the park officers, if this area is taken out.

National Parks-Prince Albert


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I regret we are spending so much time on this, but we are asking for information which the minister should supply before we give away one-fifth of one of the greatest assets of the tourist traffic in western Canada. On March 20 I asked the minister what saving would be effected by this measure, and the minister replied, "I have no definite figures that I can give my hon. friend as to the saving". But I for one took it for granted that when this measure came before us as a committee, we would have the 'nformation.
The minister says that possibly his department will save the services of two rangers. These rangers would be engaged, I understand, no longer than from May to August, when the fire hazard is at its greatest. Fire rangers in Saskatchewan do not receive high wages, and the wages of two rangers for this period would not be a large sum. The minister cannot tell us, he says, what will be the fire hazard next summer. But that applies to the part of the park which we are going to retain just as truly as it does to the one-fifth which we propose to give away. It would be a great mistake for this government, when funds are needed for so many purposes, to embark on the policy of giving away-


Thomas Vien: Order. I draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that he is repeating the remarks he has already made, and under standing order 40, that is not permissible. It is my duty to draw to the hon. member's attention that the tedious repetition of the same arguments is prohibited by the rules of the house.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I would remind the
committee that the minister promised that he would have certain information for us. He should give us that information before we are asked to pass this bill.


Thomas Vien: This request has
already been made at least ten times in this debate to-night.


William Earl Rowe: And refused.


Thomas Vien: And the remarks of
the hon. member are simply a repetition of what has already taken place.


Thomas Miller Bell: I believe it has always been the practice in this house that, if a minister is asked for information which is available, he will bring it down at some subsequent date. It is true that it has been asked for a number of times to-night, but it was asked for some days ago. I take it that hon. members who are inquiring into the subject to-night want this information, and I suggest

that as a matter of courtesy it should be given when there is an insistent demand for it.
I do not think that the minister is deliberately unfair in not giving that information to-night, although his conduct was so characterized just now. I have, however, looked through the rules of this house, and I cannot find that "unfair" is a word which has ever been deemed unparliamentary under our rules. It seems to me that we are getting some very strange rulings from the chair.


Thomas Vien: A point of order is
not before the chair now. Shall section 2 carry?


Mr. COLDWELL:: May I use the term
"unfair"?


Thomas Vien: No, because it would
be an offence-


Major James William Coldwell: Will the chairman tell me where I can find the word described as unparliamentary ?


Thomas Vien: Any term which is offensive to an hon. member is unparliamentary.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Vien: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: For instance, if you call
me a "Tory," that would be very offensive.


William Earl Rowe: To both sides.


Thomas Vien: I refer the hon. member to citations 295, 299 and 300 of Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms. Citation 295 states:
The House of Commons will insist upon all offensive words being withdrawn, and upon an ample apology being made which shall satisfy both the house and the member to whom offence has been given.
And so on. The expressions which are mentioned as having been ruled out of order are only examples of offensive language, and by no means an exhaustive list.


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask, Mr. Chairman, what is the meaning of the word "unfair"?


Thomas Vien: Be that as it may, the hon. member is out of order, because the question has been dealt with and it is no longer before the committee.


Major James William Coldwell: Surely, Mr. Chairman,
an hon. member may rise at any time and discuss a point of order when it is under consideration.


Thomas Vien: There is no point of
order before the chair.

Export oj Game


Thomas Miller Bell: The point of order is this, that you ruled that the word "unfair" is unparliamentary.


Thomas Vien: Order, please. The hon. member cannot discuss a ruling of the chair except by an appeal to the house. Therefore the hon. member is out of order in discussing a ruling which has been given in the debate.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Vien: Order.


Major James William Coldwell: I am not discussing a
ruling of the chair. I am discussing a point of order.


Thomas Vien: Order, please. The
point of order was decided long ago, and it is no longer open for discussion. There is no point of order before the chair. Shall section 2 carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.
Section agreed to: yeas, 73; nays, 38.
Section 3 agreed to.
Bill reported.



EXPORT OF GAME


[Stage Direction]
On the order for the second reading of Bill No. 16, to control the export of game-the Minister of Mines and Resources:
Richard Burpee Hanson: Before this order is called, may I politely ask the minister if, on the third reading of the bill, he will provide the information which the committee asked for in the committee stage on Bill No. 20?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes. I was going to suggest that I will take the matter up again with the officials of the department to see if it is possible to give the information. I have not the slightest desire to withhold information from the committee.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I did not think the minister had. He did not have the information with him, but he was not frank enough to tell us.
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved the second reading of Bill No. 16, to control the export of game.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Vien in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister gave a rather inadequate explanation of this bill. I do not wish to waste the time of the committee unduly, but we were striving for a principle on the last occasion.


Thomas Vien: I suggest that on
section 3-


Richard Burpee Hanson: We can do it on the short title. I would ask the chairman to exercise some liberality.


Thomas Vien: The point I bring to the attention of the committee is simply that when we have a discussion on the proper section of the bill, it avoids repetition. There is no objection to a discussion on the short title or on the section with reference to definitions, but the principle to which the leader of the opposition refers comes under section 3. We are now on the short title.


Richard Burpee Hanson: With all due respect, may I ask the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, if under this section he will give a general explanation of the bill.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes. I am glad indeed to meet the request of the leader of the opposition, which is a reasonable one. As hon. members are aware, the control of game, the licensing of hunters, permits to trap, and everything relating to the taking of fur-bearing or other wild animals are wholly in the jurisdiction of the provinces within their respective boundaries. A province can take necessary steps to conserve fur-bearing animals within its own boundaries; that is, it can require a trapper to take out a licence to trap, to make a return of his take, and to give any other particulars that the provincial authorities may require of him. The same thing holds true with regard to the shooting of big game, in fact, the taking of any sort of wild animal for any purpose whatsoever.
A rather serious difficulty has, however, arisen in this respect. Frequently wild animals are illegally taken within a province. A province may declare a closed season for a period of time against the trapping or taking of beaver, for example; because, while beaver in large areas have almost disappeared, in our western provinces particularly, and also in the eastern provinces, there was a time in the history of this country when skins taken from beaver constituted a very large part of the total commerce in furs. A province may declare a closed season on beaver, and under those conditions it is illegal for any one to trap or take beaver within that province. As frequently happens, however, some trapper who does not take out a licence, illegally and against the laws of the province traps beaver within the province and has the pelts or skins
Export of Game

for sale. He cannot sell them within the province because, if he attempts to sell within the province, he must produce his licence or permit, and since none was issued to him he is in difficulties. But he will take these pelts or skins across the boundary into another province, and there is nothing in the laws of the second province that prohibits him from making a sale and putting the proceeds in his pocket. The purpose of this bill is to overcome that defect, and it is sought to overcome it by means of proclamation in provinces where it is necessary-and eight out of the nine provinces have asked for it. Then it will be necessary, before the trapper who has taken skins illegally in Saskatchewan, for instance, can sell them in Manitoba, to produce a licence or permit to take them in Saskatchewan. If he is unable to produce a licence or permit showing that he has taken them legally, he is in difficulties in the province in which he tries to sell them. The furs can be seized and he can be charged and fined or, if he fails to pay the fine, imprisoned. That, as simply as I can state it, is the purpose of the legislation.


Grote Stirling: Who issues that licence?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The province issues the licence where licences are being issued. If the trapper takes beaver illegally in Saskatchewan where there is a closed season, he knows that he cannot sell them there because he has to produce some government permit or licence, which he is unable to do. If, in that case, he takes these pelts across to Manitoba and attempts to sell them to a dealer there, the dealer would require him to produce a permit.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What kind of a permit would he produce, provincial or federal?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It would be a provincial permit.


John Ritchie MacNicol: So if he crosses the line he has to produce a permit, no matter where he goes?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes, before he can effect a sale he must produce evidence that he has taken the furs legally.


William Earl Rowe: In this matter I think the minister has given an excellent explanation, and [ think this measure should pass. It deals with a difficulty that has arisen for many years and is something which will be of great assistance.


Mr. EMMERSON:: The minister speaks of "game," and by section 2(b) "game" is defined as meaning the carcass or any part of the carcass, including the skin, of any wild animal, domestically raised fur-bearing animal, wild

fowl or wild bird. I have heard no explanation whether this affects farmers who raise fur-bearing animals such as foxes. It appears that it would be an extra tax put on those farmers.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No, I think not. This would not apply unless there was a provincial law that applies.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is, if the provinces did not require a permit for raising fur-bearing animals domestically, then there would not have to be an export permit; is that what the minister is saying?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Take this illustration: Say the province of New Brunswick has a closed season on the taking of beaver. But some individual is operating a beaver farm. The provincial laws will control, either preventing him from making the sale or providing for sales. He can have a simple document showing that he is entitled to traffic in these skins, and if he took them outside the province-which he would not do, because if he were doing a legal business he would sell them within the province-


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon.
member for Westmorland has in mind a case of the fur farmer in New Brunswick who raises foxes and exports them nearly altogether to the Montreal market. In that case will the fur farmer be obliged to take out an export licence in order to ship those furs to Montreal, and will there be an additional expense or tax on him? I think that is the point of the hon. member's question.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I think to-day he requires a licence to send them out of the province. In any event this legislation is intended to supplement the provincial legislation against illegal trafficking in furs. If a person who has a fox farm desires to sell his furs, he has the right to do it under the laws of the province, consequently this legislation would not touch him.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In other words, it is confirmatory of provincial laws; if the provincial laws require it, he has to have an export licence; if there is no provincial law requiring him to have a licence to raise and sell, he need not have an export licence.


Thomas Reid: I realize the desirability of such legislation as this, but will this enable one province to prosecute a man for not having a licence in another province?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: As we proceed further with the bill it will be noted that penalties are provided for illegal practices. Reverting again

Export of Game
to the illustration I mentioned, if a trapper took beaver furs in Saskatchewan illegally and attempted to sell them in Manitoba, he could not produce his permit and under this legislation he could be charged and would be prosecuted.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He would probably be prosecuted in both provinces.


George Alexander Cruickshank: In British Columbia we produce considerable furs. It is not quite clear to me whether if a man producing furs in British Columbia takes them, say to Saskatchewan, he has to get a licence to sell them there. Is that right? If he cannot sell them there and goes on to Manitoba, does he have to have another licence? I am speaking of domestically produced pelts.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No; the permits would not be issued for sale in any particular province. The permit is evidence that he has taken the animals legally.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it the intention to set up a series of game officers to enforce this legislation? If so, how many will there be, what will they be paid and how will they be appointed?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is dealt with in a subsequent section.


Charles Edward Johnston: Would this legislation cover, under game or fur-bearing animals, the chinchilla which were introduced from Los Angeles, California, originally from south America, and which are now being raised on a ranch at Cardston? Can the minister inform me whether that Chapman ranch in California has obtained a charter to form a sales organization in Canada for the purpose of selling chinchilla pelts in Canada?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have no information on that matter.


Charles Edward Johnston: But this
legislation would cover that chinchilla organization, would it?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No; I should think that would be covered under the general customs tariff or laws of the country. The federal government has control over imports into Canada and exports from Canada.


Charles Edward Johnston: This legislation would empower them to exercise authority over the export of those pelts from one province to another, would it not? There are quite a number of these being sold now from Alberta, coming down to Ontario, I understand.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: But they originate outside Canada ?


Charles Edward Johnston: No; there is a ranch at Cardston, something like three ' of four hundred animals are there now, I understand, and I believe the intention is to start ranches in different parts of Canada. Therefore that would definitely come under this legislation?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No; this legislation would not touch that unless the Alberta government declared a closed season on chinchilla rabbits.


Charles Edward Johnston: This is not
a chinchilla rabbit; it is the regular south American chinchilla.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: This legislation would not touch that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Section 6 hardly covers the question I asked, under which, and having regard to section 2 (c), certain officials are made ex officio game officers. What I asked was whether it was the intention to appoint anyone other than those covered by section 6.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But still there would be power to do so?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This section just designates these as ex officio officers, but there is no reason why the government could not appoint other game officers under this clause if they so desired.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Perhaps this matter does not properly come under this section, but last summer when I was at Churchill with a large party a number of the party purchased white fox furs from the Hudson's Bay company there. The furs were not finished; I do not know what had to be done to them after they were brought back, but when some of those people arrived in Ontario they had some difficulty over the purchase of those furs. Were they violating any law by buying unfinished furs and bringing them from Manitoba to Ontario?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: On this point once again I must speak subject to correction, but my recollection is that a permit of some kind is required by an individual to purchase furs taken in the northwest territories.


John Ritchie MacNicol: But Churchill is in
Manitoba.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The furs were taken in the northwest territories.
Export oj Game


John Ritchie MacNicol: Well, I do not know that, but they were hanging in the store-


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The hon. gentleman spoke of white foxes, which really only come from the arctic country.


John Ritchie MacNicol: These furs were hanging in the store; the price was reasonable-I have forgotten just what it was-and several of the party purchased them. I know that some who brought them back to Ontario had trouble when they attempted to have the furs finished. I have forgotten just what the trouble was, but they certainly did not have any permits when they went into the store to buy the furs, nor were they told that they required permits. The furs were simply sold to them and brought back to Ontario. The furs had to be given treatment of some kind, and it was then that they found they had violated some regulation.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am sorry I cannot give my hon. friend that information at the moment, but I shall be glad to have the matter looked into and communicate with him.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Provincial export permit.
Richard Burpee Hanson: This, of course, is the jurisdictional clause. My colleague has called my attention to the phraseology. Perhaps he would say what he has in mind.


Grote Stirling: As I read paragraph (a), it appears to me to say that a sale shall not take place in another province unless an export permit has been issued by the province in which the fur was taken, and I understood the minister to say that this became operative only if the province issued an export permit. If the province in which the fur was taken did not issue an export permit, this bill says that the fur shall not be sold.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If an attempt is made to sell it, the vendor comes under the provisions of the legislation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The last line of paragraph (a) looks to the issue of an export permit by the province, which permit may not exist. That point might bear a little more study. I should not like to express an opinion offhand, without looking into the matter more carefully. Perhaps this section might be left over for further consideration.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I might be able to clear it up. Let me read paragraph (a):
3. No person shall knowingly,
(a) take, carry, send, ship, or have in possession for the purpose of taking, carrying, sending or shipping or receive for shipment or 
transmission beyond the limits of the province within which such game was killed any game except under the authority of an export permit duly issued under the laws of such province.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is there
not a constitutional question right there?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: This requires any person who desires to send out of the province anything of this kind, including skins, to get an export permit.


Richard Burpee Hanson: From the
province?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What
authority has the province to issue export licences?


Thomas Reid: I do not think it has any power.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes, I think so.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The province has authority to control these skins while they are within its territorial jurisdiction, in any way it likes, even to the extent of prohibition; but to say that the province shall issue export licences-well, I should like to think that over, to tell you the honest truth. I have a doubt in my mind as to whether that is within the power of the province.


George Alexander Cruickshank: R. B. Bennett said the province had the power.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
high authority, I admit, but I should like to think the matter over. The federal jurisdiction has the right to issue permits governing interprovincial trade; a province has not. I have not at hand the section of the British North America Act which governs, but my recollection is that the act itself prohibits that sort of interference with interprovincial trade. For instance, it is not beyond the realm of imagination that the province might say, "Well, you may not ship your silver foxes to Montreal. You will have to sell them here."


Thomas Reid: Would the principle not be the same if they were potatoes?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes.


Mr. HOWDEN:: I do not wish to presume to instruct the minister, but I would suggest that this bill has more to do with game than with furs. Let me explain briefly what I mean. It is customary for fishermen to come from Winnipeg to the lakes of Ontario to fish for lake trout, of which we have none in our province. They come here and catch quite a number of trout, and they are allowed to take so many out of this province. But if they take more than a certain number out of Ontario, there is no way to punish them once

Export of Game
they get over the border. If they take back to Manitoba many more trout than they are permitted to take, under this legislation they can be followed to Manitoba and taken to court for a breach of the game law. The same situation appertains with regard to game in the western provinces. Hunters from Manitoba can go into Saskatchewan and shoot large numbers of chickens. Then they can come back to Manitoba and say, "Well, we can prove that we shot these in Saskatchewan," and heretofore Manitoba has had no power to deal with such cases. As I understand it, this bill is to give control in such cases no matter what province may be concerned. I think really that is the application of this law.


George Alexander Cruickshank: They take lobsters from New Brunswick all over the world.


John Gordon Ross: I agree with the hon. member for St. Boniface. Shooting parties go into the different western provinces, and when they want to take out their game they must get a permit from the province before they are permitted to do so.


John Power Howden: But once they get away they cannot be caught, and under this legislation they will still be liable.


John Gordon Ross: Absolutely. The question came up as to whether the provinces had a right to give export licences. They are giving them every fall, by the hundreds.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Authority
to take them out.


John Gordon Ross: Yes, to take
them out of the province. But under the law they are allowed to shoot so many, and they must get a permit to ship those birds or game out.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is the jxercise of jurisdiction within a province.


John Gordon Ross: Yes, but if they take that game across the boundary, into another province, under the law there is no way of going after them.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It would
be a nusiance in respect of a hunter from Ottawa going to the province of Quebec, and returning with a bag of partridge, a deer or something like that. He would have to have a permit.


John Gordon Ross: They have to
have permits now, in western Canada, to go from one province to another.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The point was raised by
the leader of the opposition as to the power of provincial authorities to regulate movement. The power of those authorities to regulate
movement from one province to another by permit was considered by the Department of Justice. Indeed, this whole legislation was considered, and was approved by the law officers of the crown.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have no doubt about our jurisdiction in interprovincial trade; there is no doubt about that.


Grote Stirling: Does the minister imagine that the provinces will take this up, and institute export permits? They do not all have them now, do they?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I believe most of them
have. The question of dealing with abuses which have grown up has been under consideration at conferences between the officials of the provinces and of the federal government. Eight of the provinces have asked that legislation of this kind be passed, so that they may effectively control the illegal taking of fur-bearing animals.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is an
aid in that respect, and good legislation.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The only province which
did not express an opinion in favour was Prince Edward Island. They said they had no objection to it, and stated that the condition did not arise in their province.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They do
not have wild game, anyway.


Mr. McNIVEN:: The game laws of the
provinces are premised upon the fact that the game in the province is owned by the province.


Richard Burpee Hanson: By the
crown.


Donald Alexander McNiven: Yes; and licences are
issued subject to certain terms, namely, that one may shoot so many in a day and so many in a season. If one has an outside licence, such licence contains a permit to export so many. The province has the right to give such privilege, because the crown owns the game. I concede that point, so far as wild game is concerned.
Another point, however, arises when one considers the domesticated fur-bearing animals. I am thinking particularly of Mr. McNeill who runs a fox farm at Fort Qu'Appelle. He has hundreds of foxes which he raises and subsequently kills. He markets their pelts in Montreal and New York, and at one time sold them in London, England. Saskatchewan cannot issue an export licence or forbid anyone so situated from exporting that domesticated furbearing animal, because it does not belong to the crown.
Export of Game

The same question arose in 1920, 1921 and 1922 when there were interprovincial export liquor houses in all the different provinces. Those provinces sought in one way or another to prohibit the export of liquor from one province to another, and were unable so to do. I understand that some years ago in Ontario they either imposed an export duty or forbade the export of pulp logs from the province. That was based on the principle that Ontario or the crown owned the natural resources and timber limits, and that they could authorize the cutting of timber on the understanding that it would not be exported or, if exported, subject only to payment of a certain charge.
Where the definition in section 2, paragraph (b) extends and applies to domestically raised fur-bearing animals, I suggest that the requiring of a licence for an export permit to be issued by the province, as provided in section 3, would be wholly ultra vires.


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


Donald Alexander McNiven: I would suggest that the section be given further consideration.


George Hugh Castleden: I understand that in a province a person must obtain a permit from the province to export game. Would that province not be responsible for the punishment of any person breaking the regulation? If this measure passes, would such punishment be placed under the jurisdiction of the dominion, and w-ould punishment of the offender be a federal responsibility?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: As I said earlier, the provinces have complete control over the taking of game and fur-bearing animals within their own boundaries. They do that now, I believe, in every case by the issue of permits or licences to trappers and hunters. But cases have arisen where individuals have taken game and fur-bearing animals illegally, and in the case of the fur-bearing animals have removed the skins from one province to another for purposes of sale. Had they attempted sale within the province where the animals wrere taken, they would have been apprehended, because they could not have produced the necessary permit or licence from provincial game authorities to show that the game had been taken legally.
The purpose of this legislation is not to add to or detract from the powers of provincial governments, but simply to provide machinery to check an abuse.


Richard Burpee Hanson: A system of enforcing provincial law.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It is the principle of using the added authority of the federal government, so that the provinces may be in a position to enforce their own provincial laws.


George Hugh Castleden: Outside their own
provinces. Could they then go outside their own provinces?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It may be that the province from which the hon. member comes has a law declaring a closed season for the taking of beaver. No permits would be issued to trap beaver, and any beaver taken would under those circumstances be taken illegally. I know he would not do it, but if the hon. member did trap beaver illegally, and attempted to sell them within the province of Saskatchewan, he would not be able to produce a permit or licence stating that he had a right so to do. But he might slip across to the neighbouring province of Alberta, or into Manitoba. He could show that he was a resident of Saskatchewan and that the beaver skins had not been taken in Manitoba or Alberta. Consequently there would be no machinery to deal with him. This legislation provides the machinery to deal effectively with him.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: What about
domestically raised fur-bearing animals which are in an entirely different class from wild animals or birds? Has the province or the dominion the right to regulate the export of such animals between provinces?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I shall have to wralk warily here because I do not belong to the learned profession of the law and must speak as a layman. The province has wide powers in connection with property and civil rights, and I think it would be within the right of a province to go quite far in legislating in connection with matters affecting those rights.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But they cannot say that I shall not export my private property, my horse, for example.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Let me use an illustration, more to seek knowledge than to impart information. Assume that a farmer has some very fine silver foxes and that he is the only person in the province who has such foxes. The provincial authorities might take note of it and say that for a certain time the progeny of those foxes shall be retained in the province and refuse him the right to export.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They
could not do it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I shall not attempt to discuss that with my hon. friend. I fall back upon what I said a moment ago, that this legislation has been approved by the law officers of the crown. I assume that if there

Condensed Milk
is anything in the bill along the lines referred to by the hon. member for Regina, it will be made manifest in due course.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I think most of us are confused. We can understand the minister's argument with reference to wild game; we realize that it is perfectly logical, but what we cannot understand is how the argument applies to domestic fur-bearing animals. Such animals are in the same position as live stock. They are a farm product, a totally different thing from wild game. Will the minister explain why this wild game legislation is being applied to domestic fur-bearing animals?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think I can help out the committee. There have been cases of theft of domestically raised furbearing animals and it is to keep down that sort of thing.


John Gordon Ross: Section 3 (a)
states that no person shall knowingly take, carry, and so on, except under the authority of an export permit duly issued under the laws of such province. The province has no right to give a permit in connection with domestically raised fur-bearing animals. Therefore any person who would carry such animals across the border would be in immediate contravention of the law if this bill is passed. The bill says "permit duly issued," but they cannot issue a permit when they have not the right to do so.


Henry Read Emmerson: Have the provinces
asked to have domestically raised animals included?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I cannot answer that at the moment. It is almost eleven o'clock, and since we are not likely to get through to-night, I shall move that the committee rise and report progress.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the minister give consideration to subsection 2 of section 5? It may be all right for a game officer to have jurisdiction anywhere in Canada, but these game officers should not have the powers of a justice of the peace. They are to be the complainant, the prosecutor, the judge, the one who levies the fine and the one who carries it right on. That is very bad legislating. I would refer also to section 10 of the bill. All lawyers know that the criminal code provides that there shall be only one matter of complaint in any one specific charge. This section provides that section 710 of the criminal code shall not apply to any proceedings in respect of any offence under this bill. That is not good practice because that section is in the criminal code for good and important reasons.
I am not going to elaborate upon it, but one offence under one charge is the principle which has been applied in our criminal law. If there are other offences, they are brought forward under separate charges so that the accused is not called upon to meet a dozen cases in one charge. I bring that to the minister's attention.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, April 1, 1941.