1942-07-25

Mr. SPEAKER:: I wish to make a statement in the matter of the Dominion Controverted Elections Act and the election of a member of the House of Commons for the electoral district of Stanstead, held on March 26, 1940.
On June 30 last I received from the registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada certified copy of judgment of said court setting aside the decision of the trial judges of the superior court of Quebec and declaring the petition in the matter of the election for the electoral district of Stanstead should be maintained, and the election of the respondent, R. G. Davidson, for the House of Commons, should be annulled. I tabled the judgment, and it is set forth at length in Votes and Proceedings of that day, pages 441 to 451.
On July 3, 1942, I was served a notice by the agent of the respondent's solicitors that a motion would be presented on behalf of the respondent before the presiding judge in chambers at the Supreme Court building in the city of Ottawa, on Thursday, July 9, 1942, at ten-thirty of the clock in the forenoon, or so soon thereafter as counsel can, for an order staying the execution and all other proceedings herein so as to permit respondent to apply for leave to appeal to His Majesty's Privy Council.
On July 6, 1942, I was served with a copy of a petition for special leave to appeal to His Majesty's Privy Council praying that His Most Gracious Majesty in council will be pleased to exercise his royal prerogative and order that the petitioner shall have special leave to appeal from the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada of June 26, 1942, and that His Majesty may be graciously pleased to make such further or other order as to His Majesty in council may appear fit and proper.
In view of these proceedings I did not issue my writ for a new election, awaiting the final disposition of the motion before the Supreme Court of Canada to be heard on July 9 last.
On July 21, 1942, I was served with a certified copy of the judgment of Mr. Justice Hudson refusing the motion made before him on July 9 last. In his judgment Mr. Justice Hudson points out that His Majesty's Privy Council have consistently refused such applications for leave to appeal.

Controverted Elections
There is one feature of these proceedings which does not commend itself to me, which infringes upon the immunities of the House of Commons in its relations with the courts of justice, and that is the practice sought to be established of serving on the Speaker notices of court proceedings.
When a court of justice renders a judgment affecting a member of parliament in cases which parliament has empowered it to try, the registrar or clerk of that court is bound by law to certify that judgment to the Speaker. That practice should not be departed from when the house has to be apprised of a court decision or court proceedings with respect to one of its members. Such notification should be certified to the Speaker by the officers of that court instead of service being made by the solicitors.
I now table the certified copy of the judgment of Mr. Justice Hudson, which will appear in Votes and Proceedings of this date.
I considered carefully and thought it proper to have legal opinion as to the steps which I should take to bring the matter before the house.
Under the Dominion Controverted Elections Act, chapter 50, section 68, the registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada certifies to the Honourable Speaker of the House of Commons the judgment of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada reversing the decision of the trial judges, and also certifies as to the matters and things as to which the trial judges would have been required to report to the Honourable Speaker had their decision not been appealed to that court.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was in the following terms:
Under Section 59 (a)
This court was of the opinion that no corrupt or illegal practice had been proved to have been committed by or with the knowledge and consent of the said Robert Greig Davidson, the candidate declared to have been elected at the said election, or by his official agent, Robert Bouchard.
Under section 59 (b)
The following persons have been found by the supreme court of Canada to have been guilty of the corrupt practices set opposite their names, as appears in the reasons for judgment given in support of the decision of the court:
The names and nature of offence appear in Votes and Proceedings of 30th June last, page 442; I need not read them.
Under section 59 (c)
The supreme court of Canada came to the conclusion that corrupt practices,on the part of the agents of the candidate had prevailed at the election to which the petition relates, to an extent sufficient to warrant the annulment of the election.
Under section 59 (d)
The supreme court of Canada did not find that the inquiry into the circumstances of the election had been rendered incomplete by the action of any of the parties to the petition, or that further inquire as to whether corrupt or illegal practices had extensively prevailed was desirable.
I call attention to paragraph (c) of said section 59 which requires the court to report to the Speaker-
. . . whether corrupt or illegal practices have, or whether there is reason to believe that corrupt or illegal practices have extensively prevailed at the election to which the petition relates.
If the court states that such practices have prevailed, then section 71 of the said Dominion Controverted Elections Act provides that no new writ shall issue for a new election in such case except by order of the House of Commons.
Certified copy of the judgment of the supreme court certifies as follows, as I have already read:
Under section 59 (c)
The Supreme Court of Canada came to the conclusion that corrupt practices on the part of agents of the candidate had prevailed at the election to which the petition relates, to an extent to warrant the annulment of the election.
In my opinion, therefore, section 71 of the said act governs the subsequent proceedings. That section is as follows:
"When the trial judges or the Supreme Court of Canada in their report on the trial of an election petition under this act, state that corrupt or illegal practices have, or that there is reason to believe that corrupt or illegal practices have extensively prevailed at the election to which the petition relates, or that they are of opinion that the inquiry into the circumstances of the election has been rendered incomplete by the action of any of the parties to the petition, and that further inquiry as to whether corrupt or illegal practices have extensively prevailed is desirable, no new writ shall issue for a new election in such case except by order of the House of Commons.
I shall therefore await the order of the house before issuing a new writ for a new election for the electoral district of Stanstead.



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. J. McCANN (Renfrew South) presented the third and final report of the special committee on radio broadcasting.
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: I think perhaps at this stage I should point out that the committee was not unanimous in its report. I should like to make that clear.
Labour Conditions



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance first if he anticipates that it will be necessary for him to bring down any supplementary estimates before the house adjourns and second when he proposes to move the resolution standing in his name relating to the Canadian National refunding operations. I suggest to him that we should have that bill as soon as possible.


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: I have not given much thought to it lately. I shall take into consideration the hon. gentleman's suggestion.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What
about supplementary estimates?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, there will be supplementary estimates.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
- On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: Last night I received a telegram from interested parties in Oshawa representing the United Automobile Workers of America, stating that the General Motors plant there had not been put in full operation by July, as had been previously suggested or indicated would be the case, and alleging that a large part of the plant is ndt in operation and that men are working short hours. My understanding of the position is that the plant was to be retooled and a change made, but I wonder if the Minister of Munitions and Supply could make a statement with regard to the matter. I may add that I sent him a copy of the telegram just a moment ago.


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: As my hon. friend has said, just this moment I received a copy of the wire. With regard to the situation at Oshawa I may say that some six weeks ago the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) and I met a delegation from the United Automobile Workers and discussed the situation with them. It was claimed then that the plant was only partly operated and that the men

were working short hours. We looked into the situation and found, as obviously must be the case when a peace-time operation is shut off, that a period is required for retooling in order to put the production lines to other uses. That retooling has been going on for some time. I told the delegation that I expected the tooling to be completed in July. This is still July. The retooling operation may be a little late; at this time it is difficult to get tools and procurement of tools is becoming increasingly difficult as the tempo steps up in the United States. I presume tooling is still going on, but I may add that the number of employees at Oshawa at that time was, and I think now is, vastly greater than it was at any time during the course of ordinary operations. I think it was then at its peak for all time, and I believe it is still at about the same level.
In the matter of short hours, we questioned the men who composed the delegation. They were all working overtime, not working their eight hours but actually working nine hours, so that I do not think the complaint with regard to short hours is very serious.



PICKERING MUNITION PLANT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: I desire to ask another question of the Minister of Munitions and Supply, and I will say very frankly that under ordinary circumstances I would place the question on the order paper as a notice; but because we are so near the end of the session I fear that we could not get an answer quickly enough. If the minister so desires, I shall ask him to treat -this as a notice. It arises out of the explosion at the government munition plant at Pickering. According to an article appearing in last evening's Ottawa Journal, the attorney general of Ontario has ordered that the evidence taken at an inquest following the explosion at the Pickering munition plant shall be forwarded to the minister.
I should like to ask the minister if he has received that evidence and if he has had an opportunity of considering it. At the same time I should like to draw his attention to a leading editorial which appeared in the Globe and Mail regarding this matter and the series of questions posed in that editorial with respect to the explosion and the operations at the plant. With the permission of the -house I

Cheese Containers
should like to read those questions, and the minister I think should at a later stage make a full reply. The questions are:
What the citizenry must know is why 60 per cent of all the shell casings received up to June 8 from the Montreal plant were defective; why 420,000 out of 700,000 received were defective.
Was there any inspection at Montreal before the shell casings were shipped? If not, why not?
Was there any inspection at the Pickering plant before loading? If not, why not?
Is the inspection system effective? If not, why not?
Who pays for the defective shell casings, and who pays for the buffing of defective casings?
Who is responsible for the production of 420,000 defective shell casings in one plant out of a total received of 700,000?
This is an important matter in connection with a government-operated plant, I suggest the house should be informed as to the true situation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I saw neither the editorial in the Globe and Mail, nor the article mentioned in last night's Ottawa Journal. However, the matter was called to my attention. It was merely explained that there had been an editorial in the Globe and Mail and an article in the Ottawa paper this morning.
I made inquiries, and I find that we have received no copy of the evidence at the inquest. I have heard nothing about difficulty there. I am told that the editorial places the responsibility in my department. I might add that one responsibility which is not in my department is that of final inspection.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then it is some other government department.


Clarence Decatur Howe: However, in view of the question asked I shall give the house a full report as soon as I can possibly get the information.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is fair enough.


Clarence Decatur Howe: But I will have to get the evidence itself, I think.



COMPOUND GIN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, I prepare my own questions. I wish to refer to sessional paper 303-D of June 5, 1941, in which it was officially declared that it was not permitted by the
regulations under the Food and Drugs Act to label as gin the product called John de Kuyper compound gin. I refer in the second place to the numerous exhibits produced in the house in June 13, 1941, April 30, 1942 and July 10, 1942, in which and by which the said compound was labelled and advertised with impunity in the press for more than a year as "gin". How is it that this could have been done for more than a year, in contravention of such regulations?
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health): I had no notice of this question. I may say, however, that I am informed by the Department of Justice that the Department of Pensions and National Health has conformed with the law as it exists. We are pursuing our research into the important question asked by the hon. member for Temiscouata, which is a very valuable contribution to the war effort.
Mr. POULIOT:: I do not want the Canadian people to be poisoned.



ARRANGEMENTS FOR HANDLING OF 1942 CROP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I prepare my own questions. Owing to the fact that the house may adjourn on Tuesday next, and that I cannot go through the form of putting my question on the order paper, I should like to have an answer from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon). Has the wheat board made any new agreement with the line elevator companies for the handling of the 1942 crop; also is there any new agreement made with the executive of the Winnipeg grain exchange with respect to the handling of that crop? If so will the minister table the agreements on Monday, or as early as convenient before the house adjourns?


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I have no knowledge of any new agreement, either contemplated or in course of preparation. The members of the wheat board, however, are expected to be in the city within the next day or two, and I shall make inquiries.



DIFFICULTY IN SECURING CONTAINERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. STOKES (Hastings South):: Like the hon. members for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) and Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley), I have prepared this question myself. My question
Labour Conditions

is directed to the Minister of Agriculture, and is based on a report appearing in this morning's Globe and Mail, which states, that there is serious difficulty in the procuring of cheese boxes in that section of eastern Ontario from which I come, because of the fact that the manufacturers of the boxes are demanding a much higher price than ordinarily prevails in western Ontario and in other parts of Canada. The article states further that thousands of cheeses are sitting on the factory floors because of this condition.
Is the minister aware of the condition, and what steps are being taken to ensure a regular supply of boxes for this very necessary production?


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: I am aware that there have been some difficulties in connection with the production of cheese boxes, but I believe the details might better be discussed when my estimates are before the committee later in the day.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is no difficulty so far as production is concerned; it is a question of the price ceiling.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is a difficulty in connection with production too. The proper material to make the kind of cheese boxes we have been using is not available.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is a matter of price ceiling.



ACCOUNTANTS AND AUDITORS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. N. J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln):: A few days ago I referred to the Minister of National War Services the question of competition in connection with auditors and accountants. I have a further communication this morning asking if some definite direction could be given. Is there any possibility that these men will be taken out of civil life and away from the important work they have been doing in connection with the preparation of intricate audits for smaller corporations in the vicinity? Would the Minister of National War Services suggest that their services are urgently needed? If so, very many of them would be glad to divert their energies to the assistance of the government, if it is indicated by the minister that there is such a need for this type of man.


Hon. J. T. THORSON (Minister of National War Services):: I indicated to my hon. friend that chartered accountants had been listed under section 15 of the national

war services regulations. That means that they are regarded as essential to the efficient prosecution of the war. The attention of administrative boards therefore is directed to the desirability of considering any application for postponement which may be made by any individual chartered accountant. Further than that I do not think I can go.



TOURIST TRAFFIC


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I should like to make a further inquiry of the government, although I am not sure to which minister it should be directed. I refer to a dispatch dated at Washington, July 22, indicating that negotiations are proceeding and that a bill has been introduced in congress with a view to assistance in financing the great losses sustained by persons who have been affected by lack of tourist business. I shall be pleased to send the clipping to the appropriate minister. Has any general discussion taken place between the two governments on the question of assisting those who have suffered great loss in this way?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I am not aware of any such negotiations.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. NOSEWORTHY (York South):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice. I have received a complaint from a young man who enlisted in the Royal Canadian Air Force, and was given three weeks ' time in which to report for duty. According to the information I have he was immediately dismissed by his employer. I understand that is an illegal procedure. I should like to learn from the Minister of Justice, whose responsibility it is to check on that type of violation of the law, if it is the responsibility of the young man, or does a government department make a check?
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): There is not a sufficiently concrete case stated by the hon. member to enable me to give an answer. If the hon. member will submit the exact facts so that they can be ascertained and verified, I shall be glad to have the law officers of the department examine into the question and give my hon. friend their findings.

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I should like to ask the Attorney General (Mr. St. Laurent) if it is not a rule of the house that the Minister of Justice shall not give legal opinions in the house? That has been the rule since confederation, and it is what the predecessor of the minister told me last session, when I raised the matter and he said I was right.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I shall not attempt to give offhand any legal opinions to hon. members of the house. I understood that the hon. member had a case in mind which involved the responsibility of some department of government and I felt it was not sufficiently precise to enable me to express an opinion. I stated that I would be glad to consider such a concrete case as the hon. member might bring up and if the responsibility of any department of government was involved, I would refer it to the law officers for their opinion.


Georges Parent: I call the attention of the house to the fact that most of the questions asked to-day should really have been placed upon the order paper, but in view of the statement made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), that we were nearing the close of the session, I think the sense of the house would be that some latitude should be allowed in connection with questions asked at this time. For that reason I allowed them to be asked this morning, but I hope that this will not be taken as a precedent.



CANADIAN FORCES


[Stage Direction]
The house proceeded to consideration of the amendments made by the senate to Bill No. 5, to provide for the reinstatement in civil employment of discharged members of his majesty's forces.
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour) moved:: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this house agrees to their first amendment and the amendment in the title of Bill No. 5, an act to provide for the reinstatement in civil employment of discharged members of His Majesty's forces or other designated classes of persons; and disagrees with their second amendment for the following reasons:-
"The operation of the said amendment shall detract from the enforcement of the act."


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think the house ought to give some consideration to this. What I gather from the reasons given by the minister is that if the senate amendment is agreed to it will
lessen the power to enforce the act. I think that is the principle of his objection. Section 11 originally provided:	[DOT]
The governor in council may make all such orders and regulations as may be deemed necessary or desirable to carry out the purposes and intentions of this act, which orders and regulations shall have the force of law and shall forthwith be published in the Canada Gazette and be tabled in parliament forthwith if parliament is in session, and if parliament is not in session, within two weeks of the opening of the session next following the making of such order or regulation, and he may prescribe the penalties that may be imposed for the violation of such orders and regulations.
What the senate has done is to delete the words, "for the violation of such orders and regulations," and insert in lieu thereof the words, "upon summary conviction for the violation of any such order or regulation, but no such penalty shall exceed a fine of $100." The effect of that is not to take away from the governor in council the powers conferred by subsection 1 of section 11; that is left in full force, and that is the substance of the section. What the senate has done is to insert a limitation clause covering the method of procedure for violations, namely, limiting it to action upon summary conviction and limiting the penalty to a maximum fine of $100. I suggest that the senate is on sound ground, that the question of gaoling a man should not be left to the governor in council to be enacted by order in council. That is a function of parliament. On the last point the senate amendment is correct. This principle should not be lightly departed from by this house.
I am not sure whether I called attention to this section on a previous occasion, but if I did not I should have. Why in the world should parliament vest in the governor in council the power to gaol a man for the infraction of a civil right? There is a principle involved. If the minister is going to take the responsibility of overriding that principle, that responsibility will be his, but I do not recall that it has ever been done. I think it would be a violation of a fundamental principle of the administration of British justice. The power to gaol a man should never be conferred upon any government to be enacted by order in council.
This amendment limits the method of trial exclusively to summary conviction. I have two opinions on that. If a case were serious enough it might be necessary to proceed by way of indictment, but I imagine that such cases would be quite rare. I should think that summary conviction, which is the speedy method, would be resorted to by the Minister of Labour or whoever is charged with the responsibility of enforcing this act. For the
Vocational Training

reasons which I have given, and which I think will appeal to the house, I do not think the administration should adhere to the statement of disagreement which the minister has just laid down.


Humphrey Mitchell: There is no intention of imprisoning anyone under these provisions. Section 9 is the penalty section, and it provides for a fine not exceeding $500 and a sum not exceeding an amount equal to twelve weeks' remuneration received by the individual appealing to the courts. That clause gave the committee considerable concern. Some members thought that it should be given stronger. If my hon. friend will read the senate amendment he will see that it conflicts with section 9 which was passed by that body.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have not the right to speak again, but I ask the permission of the house to do so. The point to which the minister has directed my attention alters the situation in a degree. By section 9 an offence is created and a penalty imposed by parliament for certain specific contraventions of the act. It is proper that parliament should do that. Any orders and regulations which the governor in council may make under section 11 could not have relation to the matters covered by section 9, with which parliament has dealt already. Therefore, it must refer to other matters, and it seems to me logical to declare that the proposed amendment is dealing only with that limited class. I suggest that the argument I have put forward in that connection is well established. I think there is a straight distinction between the two positions. I do not think I need labour the point further.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hoe. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to Bill No. 64, respecting the carrying on and coordination of vocational training.
Mr. NEILL:: Explain.


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, the
amendments are not of a fundamental character. In paragraph (c) of section 2 the word "forestry" is inserted after "agriculture." Paragraph (d) of section 3 is amended by striking out the word "of" in the seventh line and substituting "vested in," and "Canada" is substituted for "the dominion," so that it will read "vested in the crown in the

right of Canada." In paragraph (c) of section 4 there is a change in phraseology which does not alter at all the intent of the section. Paragraph (c) of section 4 is struck out and the following substituted:
(c) Any vocational training project for the conservation or development of the natural resources vested in the crown in the right of the province;
Subsection (5) of section 6 is amended by inserting after "provided" the word "that." Section 12 is struck out and the following substituted:
12. Expenditures incurred under this act shall be paid out of moneys appropriated by parliament for carrying out the purposes of this act.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think
these amendments are all right.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and amendments read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to Bill No. 56, to make provision with respect to insurance of property against war risks and the payment of compensation for war damage.
Alan Webster Neill: There is a misprint in one of these amendments, the one referred to as on page 5, lines 4 to 9. That should be page 6. That is quite clear because it refers to clause 11. The amendment will be found at page 612 of Votes and Proceedings.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is sufficient, I think, that the error be brought to the attention of the committee for the correction to be made.
The amendments proposed by the senate are acceptable to the government. The only material amendment is the amendment to section 26, and this is an important and substantial amendment. Section 26 as it passed the house provided:
The minister may, on behalf of His Majesty, enter into an agreement, on such terms and conditions as the governor in council may approve, with any insurance company registered and holding a certificate of registry from the minister entitling it to transact the business of fire insurance m Canada.
The senate has added at that point, after the word "Canada", the following words: and such other companies as may satisfy the minister with regard to their financial standing and ability to perform the obligations required of them under such an agreement.

War Risk Insurance
Representations were made before the banking and commerce committee to the effect that provincially registered companies be made eligible for making agreements with the minister under this act. I opposed that position. Several members of this house also wrote me asking that provincially registered companies be included, and I wrote them that I was opposed to their inclusion.


Alan Webster Neill: Does the minister mean provincially registered insurance companies?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. Representations were also made by the government of the province of Quebec to the same effect. I pointed out that if provincially registered companies were included among those eligible for agreements with the minister, it must be understood that they would be subject to certain requirements by the minister, that as minister responsible for the important operations of this branch which is to issue insurance policies against war risk I must take the position that I could not authorize any company to carry on such important agency business on behalf of the government of Canada unless this government had a deposit from such company and had the right to audit the books and investigate and inspect such company.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Have
some jurisdiction, in other words?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. I pointed out that this government had no right as at present to look at the books of any provincially registered companies, and that we had no deposit from provincially registered companies, and [DOT] therefore I felt it would be much better to adhere to the position that we would authorize only dominion registered companies to carry on this important agency business. I did, however, offer to move the inclusion of the very words which the senate has included here, provided that it was distinctly understood that provincially registered companies would be subject to selection. By that I mean that it may be necessary to exclude a large class of small provincially registered companies; for instance county mutuals, farm mutual, parish mutuals, and so forth, and that if these were included it must also be distinctly understood that the dominion government would require a deposit from them and that regulations would be made subjecting them to inspection if necessary. Those conditions were not satisfactory to the government of the province of Quebec; therefore I felt that the inclusion of these words would simply lead to dissatisfaction and perhaps friction. Consequently I did not move their inclusion when the bill was before the House of Commons. But now that the
senate has inserted these words I am prepared to accept them rather than have any disagreement with the senate over the matter. But at the outset I must make it abundantly clear, so that there will be no misunderstanding in the future, that the conditions which I have mentioned as being indispensable-selection, deposit and inspection-will be the conditions that will obtain.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is the minister of the opinion that if the house were to withhold its consent to this amendment it might endanger the whole legislation? Is that the reason why he is acquiescing?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He will agree with me, I think, that the inclusion of the amendment in the bill makes it very much wider than he had originally proposed-


James Lorimer Ilsley: Correct.


Richard Burpee Hanson: -and that none of the limiting obligations to which he has alluded are in this amendment.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.	.


Richard Burpee Hanson: All that has to be done now to include other companies-and they need not necessarily be confined to insurance companies, although I would assume no other company would apply; although perhaps a trust company might-is to satisfy the minister with regard to their financial standing, that is to say, their solvency, their ability to perform the obligations required under such agreements.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Of course that is a safeguard. It leaves it in the hands of the minister. I have a feeling, however, without having given the matter much thought to-day, that the minister's first position was a sounder one.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think it was.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If he is prepared to forgo that position I do not know that I should criticize it.
Mr. IL. C. GREEN (Vancouver South): May I suggest to the minister that this is not a sound way to treat this amendment. The banking and commerce committee were definitely of the opinion that there should be no such provision as is made by the senate. The minister himself has said that he does not believe there should be any such provision; therefore I suggest that the House of Commons should insist on the original section. Otherwise, once this amendment has been
470S
Veterans' Land Act

agreed to it will become law and then we may have another minister of finance-I hope not-who has not such clear-cut and sound opinions on the question; he would find this section in the bill and might exercise his discretion in an entirely different way. That, I suggest, is striking at the soundness of this whole bill. The senate amendment is so worded that it might be construed as covering companies which are not even insurance companies. The wording is not "such other insurance companies", but "such other companies". I submit that if the banking and commerce committee and the ministry and the House of Commons were sound in the wording of the section as it stood originally, we should be firm on it and not agree to this amendment, which is apt to lead to trouble in the future.


Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: The minister was on sound ground in the first place when he insisted that this should apply to insurance companies which come under the supervision of the federal government. Now he has accepted this amendment, and he does more than provide for the original request to include provincially registered insurance companies. He extends it to include such other companies as may satisfy the minister regarding their financial standing and their ability to perform the obligations under the agreement. He has made certain conditions-condition of selection, deposit and inspection-and they are not set out in the amendment. Probably the amendment could be interpreted to cover the question of selection, but I do not think it covers either deposit or inspection. The minister ought either to adhere to his original position, or, if he is going to accept the senate amendment to put into the bill a stipulation with regard to the three things he has just suggested, namely, selection by the minister, provision for deposit, and provision for inspection of companies coming under this legislation. Now he has not only moved from his original position but he has taken in wider territory than was originally asked of him, namely, the inclusion of provincially registered insurance companies.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am quite ready to be convinced in this matter, because I am uneasy about it. I would ask that the matter stand until Monday.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think that is wise.
Motion stands.



VETERANS' LAND ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to Bill No. 65, to assist war veterans to settle upon the land.
Richard Burpee Hanson: These
amendments are numerous, but they are not important?
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre); They are all changes in drafting, a matter of terminology.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Was the
title changed?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: No. The amendments are set out at page 614 of Votes and Proceedings. The first amendment is on page 3, lines 14, 15, 16 and 17, leaving out the proviso. Then on page 3, lines 22 and 23, leaving out all the words after "war" in line 22 to the end of the clause; then page 3, lines 24 to 34. For clause 3 (1) (2) and (3) "substitute the following"-purely a matter of alteration in drafting. All the changes are improvements. The next is on page 4, lines 32 and 33, leaving out all the words after "sole" to the end of clause 5 (1) and substituting the following-and so on. Then on page 5, line 16, for "the crown" substitute "His Majesty". On page 5, line 17, leave out "of the dominion". On page 5, lines 18 to 26, for clause 6 substitute the following-purely a matter of redrafting, with the same intent of improvement. On page 5, the substitution of "acquisition" for "acquirement". On page 5, line 27, leave out "execution of any of the". On page 6, lines 6 and 7, for "under the authority of this act" substitute "hereunder". On page 6, line 7, after "veteran" insert "certified by him to be qualified to participate in the benefits of this act". This relates to the elimination of provisos in the previous section. On page 7, line 12, there is a substitution of words for figures. Page 7, line 34, after "veteran" insert "certified by him to be qualified to participate in the benefits of this act". They have transferred that from the previous section. On page 10, lines 6 to 10, for clause 19 (1) there is a substitution. That is exactly of the same purport as the previous section. On page 11, lines 32 to 35, there is a redrafting. On page 12, lines 23 to 27, it is also a matter of redrafting. They are all definite improvements on the original drafting and I move concurrence.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and amendments read the second time and concurred in.

External Affairs


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill No. 120, to amend the Department of External Affairs Act.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Unfortunately I was not present when this bill was discussed on the previous occasio'n. However, I think I understand from the Prime Minister's remarks and a reading of the bill what its purport is. It is to extend the provisions of the present law to certain officials of the government who were previously not under the superannuation or other acts referred to?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: No; so that
those who have been under the Superannuation Act, if appointed to a diplomatic post, may continue to contribute.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In other
*words, their position is preserved?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is
one consideration to which I desire to allude which would be the reverse of that position, that is, the position of persons who have been appointed to bodies in the government service from without the service and are not allowed to contribute to any superannuation fund and therefore do not get the benefit of the provisions of superannuation acts. This means that at the expiration of their period of office they simply retire with no provision for superannuation. That is true, I think, with respect to certain boards set up by the government. It occurred to me that while we are dealing with this matter, consideration should have been given to that position.
Take the case of the civil service commission or the board of transport commissioners, oodies to which men are appointed for a period of ten years. Those who were in the civil service prior to their appointment remain in that category. They make their contribution, based on the amount of their salaries, and at the conclusion of their period of ten years they are automatically entitled to a retiring allowance. But a man appointed to the transport commission or to the civil service commission, from without the service, that is from the general public, is not permitted under the statutes as they are at present to get into any sort of position comparable to that of his colleague.
It must be recognized I think, that in these days of competition men who take these positions for ten years stand very little chance of reemployment at their time of life. That must mean, unless their situation was such as to make it possible for them to take the risk, that they hesitate to serve the state. Of course I know that some people who do not look far enough ahead would be desirous of taking the positions no matter what the conditions might be. But it would be fair to public servants who perform these duties if we could bring them under the provisions of the superannuation act or give consideration to their position in this regard when drawing up legislation of this kind. It is obviously designed to take care of situations which have arisen-and I think quite properly so. I am not suggesting that the case to which the Prime Minister referred should not be protected. Otherwise men might hesitate to accept positions in which there is no assurance of continued occupancy, and leave the service and the sense of security that goes with superannuation. That is the human point that is involved in this legislation. They might very well refrain from accepting positions which in the national interest it is desirable that they should accept and occupy. Should we not have resurveyed the whole field and taken in these other classes?
There was one question about which I wanted to ascertain the facts. Does this bill affect in any way the position of former Chief Justice Turgeon and his occupancy of the post of minister to the Argentine and Chile? He was on the bench a long time, and he retired from his position on the bench to become minister. He would undoubtedly come under the retirement provisions applicable to the judiciary. What is his position? Will he also be affected by this legislation?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, not at all.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He does not come under it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He is
assured of his retiring allowance as a retired judge. Is that in suspense at the moment, or is he receiving that now in addition to his salary?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot say
positively at the moment, but I should be surprised if he is receiving anything from that source.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would judge so. There is the anomaly in some of our legislation of a man receiving-perhaps this is applicable only to great war pensioners-a large disability allowance under the

External Affairs

Pension Act and at the same time being in receipt of a high salary in the public service. I always thought those two situations were incompatible. I do not say this as against any person, but on principle. A man with a 75 per cent disability allowance under the Pension Act goes into the public service at a salary of $10,000 a year-


Mr. McGEER:: If he had no disability he might have been able to make $50,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But not in the public service. It raises a question of principle.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: There is no reason for denying a man who has actually suffered a disability in the war the opportunity to work in accordance with his abilities-with what is left.


Thomas Langton Church: An important matter of policy is involved in the second reading of this bill. That is the policy of making ministers plenipotentiary and envoys extraordinary-and some of them are very extraordinary-out of civilians serving the state as civil servants, some of them very able men. We have on the whole the finest civil service of any country in the world. Their duties are fixed. True, there are exceptional men in the service. We have one in the Clerk of this house, and there are several dozen others. But to take these honourable gentlemen out of their civil work and think you can land them in some embassy on the seven seas and that they can learn to be ambassadors or ministers in a day is foreign to the situation. No civil servant is trained for that work.
My second objection to this has to do with the question of status which was raised. As hon. members know, since the war started many of our representatives have been washed out, as in France, Belgium, Holland, and in Japan. That office in Japan was much criticized here during the session of 1937 by my former leader, now in the House of Lords, and myself. The ambassador there was a very fine citizen, a splendid man, but unfortunately was absent from his post on account of illness. Those were the years when we got into all this trouble, not only in that country but throughout the world, by thinking overnight that we were a nation. The finest ambassadors that Britain ever had during the past hundred years were men who were trained in the service. One unfortunate practice before the present war began was the thrusting into Washington and many other places of politicians and newspapermen, amateur novice diplomats, thinking that they could learn to be diplomats and ambassadors in a day.

The greatest ambassadors Britain ever had were permanent men trained as such in foreign affairs, such as Sir Cecil Spring Rice, Sir Ronald Lindsay and many other great ambassadors, especially those in the days of Palmerston, Salisbury, Vansittart, and George Canning, that great prime minister who kept Britain out of Europe's wars for almost fifty years. Nearly all Britain's representatives abroad for the past hundred years have been trained diplomats who knew their place and knew how to carry on in Berlin, in Washington, in Paris and all over the world, and as a result Britain's name was respected. A few years ago we came along and thought under this wonderful new Dominion of Canada's status we were a separate country and a nation. That was one of the great problems before the war, the drift of some of the dominions away from the mother country. They were led to believe that the state of affairs in the world had reached the point where they could cut loose from the mother country. Therefore we opened up an embassy in Washington and all over the seven seas, thus dividing Britain's representation there, and Canada was the chief drifter. That was bad enough in time of peace; it was even more fatal in time of war. As I said in 1937, we then became a nation all right at ten o'clock dinners and five o'clock teas, and on the front pages of American magazines, and all that sort of thing. Just let us look at the expense of all these proceedings. As I see it, here we are amending two statutes, the civil service act and the act relating to external affairs.
I do not wish to detain the Prime Minister; no doubt he has more arduous and important duties to perform elsewhere. In conclusion, however, I want to object to this whole policy, as I have objected consistently to it from 1923 onward. During the debate on this question in 1937 I predicted the coming war with Japan and told the Prime Minister he should beware, and my other leader told the house that I represented a large body of public opinion on it. I have always been consistent in opposing the appointment of these representatives, because I believe they do a great deal of harm and duplicate other civil services. Look at what we have done in Washington. Why, we have a small standing army there. We have erected a large building, and the staff is so large that when they go to work in the morning it looks like a parade of the Queen's Own Rifles in Toronto or the Governor General's Foot Guards in Ottawa. First there is the army, wearing epaulettes and all that sort of thing, a great many of whom do not want to be there, who would prefer to be fighting this war. Then comes the navy.

External Affairs
I do not see the minister here this morning, but he has a large number of men down there as aides. Then there is the air force and the women's army. Well, it is no wonder that the tax rate has gone up as high as the moon.
While I have the greatest respect for the Prime Minister and the work he is doing I really believe this embassy business is being carried too far. We have several new countries available now, including Libya and some other parts of Africa. No doubt in the years to come we will want to send ambassadors there. We have some very splendid members of parliament on both sides of the house who might qualify; offhand I could nominate almost a dozen for the job. I do not believe we have any admirals in the house now, but I see on the government benches my hon. friend the old mayor over there, who is on the war expenditures committee, and I think he might be a splendid ambassador to help us get some new ships for our navy. I would nominate him. There are also others. There is the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol), who I think would make an excellent ambassador to Scotland. Then there is the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot); where could you get a better ambassador to Prance? He is a specialist in many languages and he is a man of humour, as he showed the other day w'hen he wanted to have the food and drugs act amended to allow the passing around of a favourite brand of refreshment and entertainment so popular with diplomats.
I fail to see any value in these appointments. It seems to me that our rules are antiquated. I believe we have had some good men, and I agree that those mentioned by the Prime Minister should receive their pensions and other rewards. I am casting no reflection upon them, but I believe our rules are on about the same level and as venerable as those of Noah when he entered the ark. He is said to have taken two of each in with him; I suppose he took in a Grit and a Tory, but at that time there was no C.C.F., and in any case there was no room for them. But there is an opening now in connection with this new embassy business. I think we could very well let these matters stand until after the war, and then consider the whole question of this dream status of ours. It is all right in peace time; hip, hip, hurrah! and the hallelujah chorus, because we are a nation. But what happens when war comes along? We appeal to the mother country to send over the army and the navy to save us.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am sure the country at large will be very glad that the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) is not selecting our ambassadors. I 44561-2975
think when the people of Scotland got Rudolph Hess, they had enough for one generation without adding any further difficulties.
I believe this is a commendable piece of legislation. In days gone by there was a tendency to select as ambassadors wealthy people who had been contributors to campaign funds and who wanted to enter into the social whirl. That practice is still being carried on in various parts of the world, but to-day there is a move in the direction of selecting career men for jobs of this kind, and I am sure everyone is convinced that it is a move in the right direction. The tendency is more and more to select men who have been trained in the government service, who have had some practical experience and who are appointed on the basis of merit rather than of influence with the powers that be. The present secretary for war in Great Britain is a man who has spent almost his entire life in the civil service. The British people generally have approved the fact that the British government are turning more and more to their trained tmen to represent them across the' seas. It seems to me that if we are making, it possible now for the government to avail themselves of experienced, trained civil servants to represent them in the various countries of the world, they are going to get a much better type of representation than would be possible on any other basis. This legislation will make it possible to ask such men to accept these responsibilities without making it impossible for them to continue under the civil service superannuation scheme. It will give them a feeling of security; it will let them feel that when their work is finished they can come back to the service and have that security without which no man should be asked to leave the protection of his career and serve his country abroad.
If the government is moving in that direction it is a commendable thing, and it is to be hoped that in future more and more of the ambassadors and consular officials representing Canada abroad will be trained civil servants instead of merely the playboys of international social life.


Mr. G. H. CASTLEDEN (Yorkton):: I should like to know to what extent this superannuation act is self-supporting. In the estimates of the Department of Finance there is an item of $2,350,000 which is to be advanced by the department in order to maintain these superannuation benefits. Is it possible to ascertain the amount that is contributed by the civil service itself to this fund?
External Affairs


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might point out that we are on the second reading of the bill and many of these questions could be better dealt with in committee.


Georges Parent: If the Prime Minister speaks now he will close the debate.


George Hugh Castleden: Very well; I will ask the question in committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In regard to what has been said by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) and others, may I say first of all that the matter raised by the leader of the opposition with regard to the treatment to be accorded members of boards or commissions who are appointed to perform special services is a very large question. I should think it could be properly considered only on a bill which dealt specifically with the whole question of superannuation. It was suggested at the outset that the aim to be achieved by this particular measure should be achieved by an amendment to the Civil Service Superannuation Act. The Department of Finance, which administers that act, felt that to amend the act on this one specific point would open up the whole question of amendments to that act, including, among other things, the purposes mentioned by the .leader of the opposition. It was felt that the present time would not be opportune for a general discussion of the superannuation act. (For that reason the present amendment is being proposed to the Department of External Affairs Act rather than to the Civil Service Superannuation Act. I believe it was the opinion of the Department of Justice, to which department the matter was referred for consideration by the Department of Finance, that the present procedure was not only preferable but the right one. I might say that members of the public service who receive appointments as ministers or consuls general have not been given as large allowances or salaries as have been given to those appointed to these positions from outside the service, and who have not been members of the public service. That circumstance arises from the fact that has been understood that those who are permanently h) the service will have the benefits to be derived under the Civil Service Superannuation Act. That is the main purpose of the present amendment to the Department of External Affairs Act. This amendment will ensure that those members of the public service who are serving as ministers and consuls will get the benefits to be derived from the provisions of the Civil Service Superannuation Act.
I have made inquiries about Mr. Justice Turgeon, and I find that the leader of the opposition and I were right in assuming that

while Mr. Justice Turgeon is minister, he does not receive the pension he would be drawing as a retirement allowance. His pension is suspended for the time being.
The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) has restated his views in regard to embassies. I thought he somewhat contradicted himself, perhaps unwittingly, when he took exception to members of the Department of External Affairs being appointed as ministers, on the ground that they had not had the kind of training ministers should have, and then proceeded to praise the British service, and the method followed in Great Britain of making appointments from the permanent service to these ministerial posts. In my opinion the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) took the right line, one which certainly has been in the mind of the government, namely that so far as possible we should encourage career men. We should seek to have those who enter the public service to look forward to being in a position to fill higher and more responsible posts. I would say to the hon. member for Broadview that I cannot conceive of any training better adapted to qualify a man for the diplomatic service than that which he may receive as a permanent official in the Department of External Affairs. As hon. members are aware, permanent officials in different grades in the service may be transferred from legation to legation, from country to country. They come, in this way, into contact with those who are most interested in the public affairs of different countries. They become more fully acquainted with all matters pertaining to international relations. Their whole training qualifies them as one who has not had that experience could not begin to be qualified for the higher positions in the permanent service.
One difficulty, in respect of giving appointments as ministers to men who have chosen public service as a career is that for the most part they are not men of means. They have entered the service largely because of the opportunities it offers for service. When it comes to being a representative in a foreign country they are immediately confronted with the difficulties which arise in connection with the social and other obligations connected with such a position. It is sometimes very difficult to persuade public bodies to vote moneys necessary for purposes of entertainment, and for upholding in other ways the standards set by other nations. As a result ministers appointed by countries like our own, where the diplomatic service has not been of long standing, are at a very considerable disadvantage. I believe however that public assemblies are beginning to take a

External Affairs
truer view of matters of this kind, and as time goes on will be prepared more and. more to see that men who devote their entire lives to any branch of public service will not, for any reason other than of efficiency, be handicapped in receiving the highest opportunities which may present themselves in the public service.


[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-Diplomatic or consular representatives to continue as contributors to Civil Service Superannuation fund.
Mr. McCANN:: In his remarks the Prime Minister said that the objective in the bill might have been attained by an amendment to the Civil Service Superannuation Act. Has any thought been given by the government to implementing the report concerning that act which was made three years ago? My interest in the matter arises from the fact that I was a member of the committee and took part in drafting the recommendations. It is too bad that so much time has elapsed without consideration being given at least to the recommendations made at that time. I am not sure whether this question is applicable at the moment, but as the matter was mentioned by the Prime Minister I have taken the liberty of asking it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I believe the Minister of Finance has not only made clear verbally that he has considered the recommendations contained in the report to which reference has been made, but that he has also made this clear by some of the measures which have since been introduced by him- although offhand I cannot refer to them specifically.
Answering the hon. member's question in the broadest way, I would say that the government has repeatedly considered the recommendations contained in the report to which he referred, but it has felt that because of the larger questions which have come up for consideration and action in this period of war it would be unwise to select this particular time to go at any length into matters pertaining to superannuation, and other questions arising under the superannuation act. My hon. friend will understand that any discussion of the kind at this time would certainly occasion very long debates in this house. There are many considerations of which account would have to be taken. It has thus far been thought by the government that it would be better not to seek to enter upon such discussions at this time, if such could be avoided.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Chairman, I was
referring to the hon. member for Huron-Perth, not myself. He was a former mayor,, and was a member of the war expenditures committee. I should like to see the hon. gentleman nominated. I nominated him once myself. I would not want to be dressed up, going all over the world on such a mission.


George Hugh Castleden: This bill brings certain people under the provisions of the superannuation act, that is, those who have been contributors and shall continue to be contributors under that act. Is the basis of the contribution the amount of salary received?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand
so.


George Hugh Castleden: To what extent is this act self-supporting?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This act is the Department of External Affairs Act, and I am not familiar enough with the provisions of the superannuation act to answer offhand any questions in regard to it. I would have to leave it to the Minister of Finance to give to the house the desired information.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am
afraid that none of these acts is selfsupporting.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think everyone would like to see the act self-supporting, but whether it is or not I am unable to say.


Mr. JACKMAN:: I gathered from the
remarks of the Prime Minister that he felt that the allowances paid in certain places were inadequate. Is any provision being made, either in the estimates or the supplementary estimates, to make them adequate in view of present conditions?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: External Affairs
period of war, than that we should have had a legation established at Washington at the time it was. Because of the relations which the Canadian legation enjoys with the departments of government in the United States and because of the fact that its personnel enjoys as well the best of relations with the British embassy and those who are associated with it, as well as the confidence and good will of the British government, it has been of the greatest possible service to the countries concerned at this time of war.


Thomas Langton Church: I see no useful purpose in keeping up all these legations at such great cost. I think the people of Canada do not approve of it. Washington at half cost was enough. It is nothing but separatism. It shows a lack of faith in the ability of the mother country to look after our interests in some of these capitals.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING moved the third reading of the bill.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Is the Prime Minister prepared
to tell the house now, or before it adjourns, the nominations that have been made in connection with certain positions in the diplomatic service?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have been most anxious to be able to make an announcement before the house adjourns, but it may be that I shall not be able to do this until after the house has adjourned. My hon. friend will understand that it is absolutely necessary for anyone accepting an appointment of this kind to consider what it will involve in the matter of finance, in the matter of leaving this country at time of war, and going to a country that is at war. I have approached different persons in the hope and expectation that their services might be secured for some of these posts, but difficulties have arisen that appeared well-nigh insuperable and which I am sure my hon. friend will understand. I am hopeful that after the house adjourns there will be a chance personally to take the matter up at greater length than has been possible thus far, with some of those who are in view.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if something could not be done to make those who speak in this chamber speak loud enough so that we may hear what they are saying? The leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) asked what I assume was an important question of the Prime Minister. We could not hear what he said, neither

could we gather from what the Prime Minister said what the leader of the opposition had asked. I believe all that is necessary is to bring this to the attention of the leader of the opposition and remind him that we are all very weary because of the tremendous strain under which we are working, and it certainly does not make things any better when we cannot tell what he is talking about.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. R. MACDONALD (Brantford City-for Mr. Dubuc) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 99, respecting certain transmisssion and distribution lines of Saguenay Transmission Company, Limited, Saguenay Electric Company and Aluminum Power Company, Limited.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Vien in the chair.
On section 1-Governor in council may approve site and plans of works.
Richard Burpee Hanson: This bill was considered by the private bills committee, was it not?


The CHAIRMAN:: It was.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And
unanimously reported?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The reason for the bill is stated in the preamble. 'If the reason is correctly stated, and I assume it is, it seems to me that in order to avoid any questioning of the rights of the company in respect to the Navigable Waters Protection Act this bill should be passed. I understand that no objection has been urged by anyone.


John Horne Blackmore: I think there should be some explanation of the bill.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The
preamble gives the full reasons.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The sponsor of the bill gave a lucid explanation on a previous occasion, but he is not here at the moment.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The position the company occupies has been doubted in some quarters because they proceeded to do certain things with respect to certain rivers in Quebec, which are named in the preamble,

Private Bills
on the theory that those rivers were not navigable. I have had to deal with this statute and I have never thought it necessary to come to the Department of Public Works, which I believe administers the Navigable Waters Protection Act, for approval to cross or to bridge or to build a wharf or dock on any river unless it was a water which was obviously navigable, like the Saint John river. The short tributaries of the Saint John river would not be considered navigable, but apparently someone has attacked the position of this company and they want to protect their position. I think the bill is all right.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 82, for the relief of Annie Miriam Scott-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 83, for the relief of Marguerite Elsie Ramsay Murdoch-Mr. Claxton.
Bill No. 84, for the relief of Elizabeth Molnar Schneider-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 85, for the relief of Max Kaback- Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 86, for the relief of George McDonald Joseph Carew-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 87, for the relief of Wandless Joseph Henry Verdon-Mr. Abbott.
Bill No. 88, for the relief of Mary Eileen Scott Warrington-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 89, for the relief of Joseph Bergman -Mr. Whitman.
Bill No. 90, for the relief of Marie Martha Hermine Browne Peters-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 91, for the relief of Ethel Gerson Kalmanovitch-Mr. Abbott.
Bill No. 92, for the relief of Freda Sweet Simon-Mr. Gray.
Bill No. 93, for the relief of Phyllis Mary Alice Yerrinder Horell-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 94, for the relief of James McKinna Wood

Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 97, for the relief of Leah May Jarvis Traver-Mr. Hazen.
Bill No. 100, for the relief of Barbara Patricia Strange Wolfe-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 101, for the relief of Bella Miller Keller-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 102, for the relief of Effie Euphemia Shannon Monette-Mr. Boucher.
Bill No. 103, for the relief of Elsie May Cape Newman-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 104, for the relief of Bella White Wolfe

Mr. Mcllraith. '
Bill No. 105, for the relief of Alan Swabey -Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 106, for the relief of Jean Walker Creighton King-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 107, for the relief of Alice Beatrice Armand Roberts-Mr. Hanson (Skeena).
Bill No. 108, for the relief of Frederick William Merchant-Mr. Hanson (Skeena).

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 109, for the relief of Irma Kern Ulrich-Mr. Hanson (Skeena)-Mr. Vien in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Chairman, before these divorce bills are all disposed of I want to say a word. Some of these cases have been before the law courts of Ontario where the parties were domiciled; then they moved overdo the sister province, where they have no divorce court, and now they have applied to this parliament for a divorce. I would like that matter looked into.
There is another matter. I do not wish to take advantage of the absence of the Minister of Justice, but I should like to say a word with reference to Bill No. 67, standing on the order paper in my name, to amend the Judges Act. In the province of Quebec there has been a decision in the court of appeal that the judges must adhere to the laws of the countiy because under our constitution the courts are subservient to the legislature. There have been decisions by one or two judges in the province of Quebec that they will not obey the law and follow decisions of the court of appeal of Quebec. My point is that by the decision of the court of appeal of the province of Quebec or other final court, the judges are bound, and they must follow, as is the custom, the decision of the court of last resort.
Bill No. 67, to amend the Judges Act, has been standing on the order paper for a long time. I hope that the government will take it up. Parliament has the appointment of judges, and the province has jurisdiction. The federal government is the appointing power, and the provincial authority has to do with regulations and constitutions of provincial courts. There should be some decision given by the Attorney General of Canada or by some other authority with respect to this matter, and I hope that that will be done in the recess.
I also think that a public bill like Bill No. 67, to amend the Judges Act, should be given precedence over these private bills. Bill No. 67 is a public statute and should take precedence over these divorce bills which occupy the time of parliament with the concerns of private citizens. On grounds of public policy I protest against that practice.
Supply-Agriculture


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, I assure the hon. member that I shall bring his remarks to the attention of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Vien in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Production service.
27. Live stock and live stock products, $553,026.
James Garfield Gardiner: Last evening we passed all the items in the general estimates with the exception of No. 27. It will be recalled that under production, a question having to do with the marketing of live stock was raised by the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn) and I asked the committee to consider the questions then brought up under this item of live stock and live stock products. Last night, in view of the fact that the member for Haldimand and some others who are interested in the matter were not present, I asked to have that item stand and we went on and passed the last item under "specials". The items left include 27, live stock and live stock products, under which I had hoped to be able to discuss the question of labour as applied to the raising of live stock, and also the question of shortages in beef, which we have discussed on a number of occasions, and four items under specials, namely, farm rehabilitation, farm assistance, wheat acreage reduction and assistance to improve cheese and cheese factories.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: I presume that under 27 we can follow up the excellent study made by the hon. member for Haldimand yesterday afternoon. I take it that the marketing of beef would come under the board set up in connection with price control.


James Garfield Gardiner: Those are two items
which I shall discuss. There were two or three members on their feet last night when I asked the chairman to have the discussion taken under item 27, and I should like to give those members an opportunity to ask whatever questions they have in mind or make whatever statements they wish to make before I deal with these matters.


James Arthur Ross: The member for
Haldimand covered the subject very well both as regards the difficulty of feeders of beef and from the standpoint of farm labour. There is another point that is disturbing to many producers and feeders, and one which eventually will affect the nation as a whole with regard to foodstuffs. That is, the question as to what regulations have been made with regard to price control for feeding cattle this winter. We know that there was a price crash in June and early July of 31 cents per pound live weight. If a man desires to feed cattle he is now faced with the impossibility almost of procuring efficient farm help. If he makes an outlay for the purchase of feeder cattle this fall and feeds them costly material in the winter-and grain will be in demand, I have no doubt, throughout the north American continent-he will naturally be anxious to know what assurance there will be that he will receive a reasonable remuneration for his labour, the cost of feed and other costs when he comes to market his cattle next spring or towards midsummer. What will be his return for feeding cattle, which is so essential to the food requirements of the nation? I think the minister should make a statement covering that angle.


Mr. WRIGHT:: May I call the attention
of the minister to the matter of establishing a board of live stock commissioners in Canada to go into the whole marketing of live stock. At an earlier date I drew his attention to this particular question and he said that the producers would have to be willing to bear the cost of grading if this commission were appointed. I cannot quite agree with him on that. Grading is important, but it would not of necessity have to be taken up at once. There are a great many other things in connection with the marketing of live stock which such a commission could adjust. I know that from time to time, in different seasons of the year, there is a considerable variation in the price of live stock. There is a variation as between different markets, and there is also to be considered the fact that packers to-day are buying larger and larger quantities of stock direct from producers rather than through the public markets. The public markets are establishing the price which is paid for that product, and I think there is plenty of scope for such a commission even without the matter of grading. The government has signed an agreement with regard to the wheat problem and the result is that we in the west are going to have to reduce the amount of wheat grown there, so that there is only one thing that we can turn to, and that is live stock. In western Canada we shall

Supply-Agriculture
have to produce more live stock if we are to maintain the agricultural economy we have there. A live stock commission appointed at this time could take up the whole problem of the marketing of live stock and live stock products, and this would stabilize the market and have a good effect on production, which is so necessary at this time. I bring this matter again to the attention of the minister and ask his opinion on it.


Mr. HATFIELD:: As the war has shown,
we must change our agricultural policy and use more farm commodities in the manufacturing stage, and I contend that agriculture in Canada is now in that stage. This being so, I would make a few suggestions:
1.	That there be no price ceilings on agricultural products without a floor assuring the cost of production to the farmer.
2.	That all ceilings or floors on agricultural products be approved by the Minister of Agriculture before going into effect.
3.	That two pilot laboratories be erected, one in western Canada and one in eastern Canada, to carry on the research study of the utilization of farm products.
4.	In order to ensure a supply of meat products a ban should be put on the slaughter of calves under one year of age.
5.	To ensure a wool supply for our own needs, there should be a selection made of the ewe lambs for sale. These should be purchased by the government and resold to the farmers on easy terms.
6.	Farmers should be encouraged in localities where sugar beet factories are now located to grow beets to the capacity of these factories. There should also be assistance given to the two cane sugar plants in the maritime provinces to change over from cane to sugar beet and the farmers should be encouraged to produce sugar beets.
7.	The farmers of western Ontario and Manitoba should be encouraged by subsidy to grow corn to ensure a supply to keep the two cornstarch factories, located in Ontario, producing to capacity, so that we would have a supply of starch, glucose and oil by-products from these factories.
8.	A subsidy should be worked out ensuring the same price for dairy butter as for creamery butter, as the number of dairy butter makers will increase owing to lack of transportation.
9.	The price of cheese should be made uniform in every province in Canada. If there is to be a provincial subsidy, it should be in each province with the assistance of the federal department.
10.	A subsidy on fertilizer should be used to assist in the transportation of fertilizer chemicals, thereby ensuring a lower price to all buyers of fertilizer.
11.	There should be more cooperation
between the federal Department of Agriculture and provincial departments of agriculture.	All overlapping should be done
away with.
12.	Grain alcohol plants should be established in western Canada to produce alcohol from wheat and barley for the manufacture of synthetic rubber. I understand that synthetic rubber can be made from wheat at the present prices at a cost of thirty cents a pound, whereas the cost of synthetic rubber from petroleum products would be around forty cents a pound. The processing of synthetic rubber from grain is much quicker, with less expensive plants.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Mr. McCUBBIN:: I should like to say a word to the committee with regard to a situation which is very close to me, coming as I do from one of the best beef cattle raising districts in Ontario. We find ourselves in a very uncertain situation. The minister may say this is not a matter that comes under his department, but the people whom I represent, who are principally farmers, feel that the minister and his department should look after their interests, and they always look to him to do so. I can say also that the minister has been very fair with the farmers of Ontario. We have not always agreed with him, but he has done a good job, and we appreciate what he has done.
As I listened to the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn) last night when he reviewed the cattle situation, and read some of the speeches he made in other years, I thought I might take a few minutes of the time of the committee to deal with the cattle situation as it has varied during the last number of years. I go back to 1910, when Sir Wilfrid Laurier was leading the government and the present Prime Minister was a member of his cabinet. That government was endeavouring to negotiate a trade agreement with the United States for the benefit of the rural people of this country. I was only a boy at that time, but I remember quite well the reciprocity election of 1911, when Sir Wilfrid went down to defeat fighting for the farmers of this country, endeavouring to put through a trade agreement in their

Supply-Agriculture


Mr. EVANS:: Following what has been said by the hon. member for Middlesex West I should like to say a few words about the cattle industry in western Canada. Coming from a constituency composed largely of ranches, and one which produces a great many feeder cattle, I should like to go on record as being in favour of the suggestion offered by the hon. member for Middlesex West, namely that the board step out of the picture and leave a free movement of cattle on the market.
Since the United States trade treaty of 1936 came into operation, the feeder exporter has grown up in the cattle market. During the year throughout western Canada the feeders contract with the ranchers and farmers for the purchase of feeder cattle at different periods of the year. The feeding of cattle has become a yearly occupation, and hundreds of tons of Canadian wheat are being fed to those cattle in western Canada.
Recentfy I had communication from some of those large operators in western Canada with respect to the business of finishing these feeder cattle. When they have had cattle ready to go to the market in July we find the board has stepped in and caused considerable difficulty for the exporter. In fact I know of one large exporter who has two large feeding plants in Alberta, one at Cardston and the other at Picture Butte, who feeds on an average of 25,000 to 35,000 head of cattle a year. These cattle were mostly exported to the United States, but they take up a lot of the slack in the trade in western Canada. While we produce a great many feeder cattle and ship a great many of them to eastern Canada, if we did not have those large dealers operating in western Canada the feeder market would break and the producers in the west would receive a low price for feeder cattle.
I strongly support the argument presented by the hon. member for Middlesex West to the effect that the wartime food corporation should keep off the market, excepting in cases where it is necessary to have more beef for the Canadian people. I agree that we can fill our quota in the United States and supply all the beef needed in Canada. In fact I do
Supply-Agriculture

not agree with those who say there is a shortage of beef in Canada, because I know that the production of live stock has increased since 1936, particularly in western Canada. I believe we have enough beef going onto the market this year to more than supply our Canadian demands. In fact it would be just too bad if we continued to operate as we have done during July, and prohibited cattle flowing to the United States market.
In a report issued to-day by the Department of Agriculture I notice we have shipped only a few more than 4,000 head of beef cattle to the United States in July, while last year in the same month we allowed about 13,000 to cross the line. This year we have more cattle in Canada than we had last year, and if we fool with the quota, through the operations of the food control board, there is the possibility of our quota with the United States being cut down in another year.
I was talking only recently to one of the large feeding operators, and he tells me that if they cannot feed Canadian cattle and are assured that they will be allowed to export at least up to the quota, it is very likely they will pull out of the feeding business in Canada and get their cattle from Mexico. So that there is always the possibility that we may lose our quota. We hope this war is not going to last forever. It will be just too bad for the cattle raisers of Canada if anything should happen to the quota we now enjoy under the United States trade agreement. I strongly urge upon the minister and his officials that they endeavour to have a free movement of cattle on the Canadian market.


Mr. ROSS (Calgary East):: A great deal of uneasiness exists among the stock raisers of western Canada because of the action of the wartime prices and trade board. Last April a story appeared in the press to the effect that restrictions would be placed upon the shipment of cattle to the United States. Under the 1935 trade treaty the United States tariff on Canadian cattle over 700 pounds in weight was cut from 3 cents to lj cents per pound. The United States permitted 250,000 head of cattle to be imported each year, Canada's share being 193,950 head. The stock raisers of western Canada were alarmed over the possibility of our not being allowed to fill that quota. The press carried dispatches to the effect that Mexico was endeavouring to have her quota increased at our expense. If that should happen, the cattle industry of all Canada would suffer.
When these announcements were made last April I received several communications from the west, and I should like to read one or two in order to show the feeling that exists.

The Okotoks United Farmers of Alberta, an organization containing some of the most prominent stock raisers in that province, wired as follows:
April 22, 1942.
Geo. H. Ross, M.P.,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir: We members of Okotoks U.F.A. strongly oppose any restrictions on export shipments of cattle to the United States. A move of this kind by Canada would force United States to enlarge quota of Mexican cattle to the detriment of Canadian producers. As you will see this would have the effect of flooding our market. This in turn would reduce the price, lessen competition among packers and enable them to make greater profits at the expense of cattle raisers. Last year when restrictions were placed on exports of heavy bacon, price dropped immediately three dollars per cwt. The same thing will happen to cattle. This in [DOT] turn would discourage production and be Canada's loss.
Respectfully,
Okotoks United Farmers of Alberta,
J. M. Hutchinson,
Secretary.
For the past sixty years the Lloyds have been prominent stock raisers in Alberta. I received the following letter from Mr. J. E. R. Lloyd.
April 23, 1942.
Dear Mr. Ross:
I observed in the newspaper that the house will soon consiuer a recommendation by Mr. Gordon for some restriction on the export marketing of beef. I, as a life long rancher, am looking to you to see that the proper interests of the producers of cattle are reasonably protected.
The ceiling on beef for sale to the retailers by the packers was fixed on the basis of prices in September and October. Those are the months when beef has been cheapest in the many years I have been ranching. The reason for that is that grass fed cattle are sold in those months and grass fed cattle have cost the producer less than the fed cattle.
Now the packers having a maximum price at which they can sell beef to the local retailers have found that they cannot without loss buy the fed cattle at the prices which prevail by reason of the export market and resell to the local retailers at the ceiling price fixed by the prices and trade board.
In my opinion the remedy for this situation is not to put an embargo on the export of cattle which would have the result of lowering the price which the producer may obtain for beef cattle, but rather to adjust the ceiling fixed by the prices and trade board so that the packers could afford to buy the beef from the ranchers for sale to the local retailers in competition with the export market.
From inquiries I have made I believe the beef now on hand and in sight in Canada is well above normal. The trouble is that the price fixed is too low to keep the beef here for use in Canada.
I have heard that the representatives of the western stock growers and producers association and representatives of the government of Canada are meeting in conference in Winnipeg on

Supply-Agriculture
Saturday, April 25. They may arrive at some satisfactory solution but in the meantime I am urging jmu to use your best influence against an embargo on the export of beef. If we do not fill our quota to the U.S. rve may lose the privilege of that quota and not be able to regain it.
Yours very truly,
J. E. R. Lloyd.
The United States market is of tremendous importance to the stock raisers of Canada. We have	never	been	able	to marketour cattle	satisfactorily	in Great Britain.Our logical market is the United States, and if that market should be lost it would be most unfortunate. When I received these communications I thought of bringing this matter to the attention of the house, but Wartime Food Corporation was formed about that time. I expected that this food corporation would go out on the market and buy cattle. If	it was	thought that	cattle werebeing sent	to the	United	States	in too great
a quantity they could have gone into the stockyards and paid ten cents a pound more and obtained the cattle needed to supply Canada's market. That action would have created harmony and good will among the ranchers of Canada. Any temporary shortage of beef that existed could have been supplied in that way and the United States quota could have been filled later. The additional cost to the treasury, if any, would have been trifling.
But that procedure was not followed. The United States buyer comes to Canada and buys a herd of cattle. He applies for permission to ship those cattle to the United States. Permission is refused; his cattle are seized and he is told he must go home without them. But that is not all. He must wait in Canada until the cattle are sold, and then he is paid for the cattle in Canadian money. He brought into Canada United States currency to buy the cattle, but when they are sold he is paid in Canadian money. But Canadian money is of little use to him here, because he cannot take take it back with him across the line without a permit; and so there is the further aggravation of having to wait a number of days here until he gets a permit. The result is that when he goes back to Seattle or wherever he came from he is going to tell all the stock raisers among his friends and neighbours of the treatment he received in Canada, and in that way we are losing a great many customers that we can ill afford to lose. Not only is the man who comes up here not allowed to take his cattle away, but his neighbours and friends in the city to which he returns are told of the treatment he received, and that is hurtful to our cattle industry. Can the minister give us some assurance that
this will be corrected and that it will not occur in the future?


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member for Lambton-Kent and the hon. member for Haldi-mand last evening raised two questions which have been discussed at some length to-day. The first one had to do with the labour supply for agriculture in different parts of Canada, more particularly in Ontario, and the second had to do with the marketing of beef. I stated last evening that I would attempt to reply to what had been said and give any information I possibly could on those two points when we were discussing this item.
I should like first to deal with the labour situation. I have said on one or two occasions that the time would come in Canadian agriculture when we would be employing perhaps all of the labour in agriculture that we could justify under war conditions. I mean by that that there are three different uses that can be made during the war of any man-power that we have in Canada. First, man-power can be used for the production of food; second, it can be used for the production of war munitions and war equipment; and third, to provide men for the armed forces. It goes without saying that up to a certain point the most important part of the programme in so far as it affects man-power has to do with the first two of these three activities. Being a nation which never is prepared for war until war comes, it follows that we have to provide those things which are necessary for the maintenance of armies at the same time as we are providing the army itself, and in Canada we have been carrying on along that line. I sometimes think we had approached the point I prophesied when we attempted more or less-to freeze labour on the farms last spring.
To indicate our present position to the committee and to others interested in the labour situation in relation to farming, may I place on Hansard a few figures which are based upon the registration made in 1940, and which have been brought up to March 31, 1942. The figures are not official in this sense, that they were made up by officials of our department; that is to say they do not come from the statistics branch and probably could not be proven down to the last man.
The total male population of all ages from 16 up, eligible for work or service, is 3,900,000. Of this number there are 1,511,000 over 45. This leaves approximately 2,400,000 males between the ages of 16 and 45. The number of single men and widowers without children is 1,511,000; single men in the armed forces, 360,000; married men in the armed forces, 104,000; single men farming, 429,000; married men farming, 871,000. In each case I am giving round figures. In other primary indus-
Supply-Agriculture

tries-mining, lumbering and industries of that kind-there are 62,000 single men and 190,000 married men; construction industries, single men, 63,000; married men, 194,000. In all other employment, which includes clerical work, work in munitions plants and factories of all kinds all across Canada and in transportation, there are 597,000 single men and 1,800,000 married men.


Mr. SENN:: Are these figures for April of this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: [DOT] even more than the marketings. One reason is that we have military camps all across Canada, and anyone who has ever been in a military camp or worked in a lumber or railway camp knows that men enjoy beef more than any other meat when they are working at hard1 labour out in the open air, particularly in the summer time. They eat it in a manner which does dispose of a considerable quantity. We are having that experience in Canada at the present time. The best of our beef is going to the military camps. A higher price is being paid for what goes to military camps than anywhere else. The men are being fed on the best we have and are consuming it in great quantities. In addition, there is increased purchasing power. The result is that there has been what is called a shortage, in the sense that there is a greater demand for beef in Canada than even the increased deliveries have been providing for.
It was to deal with that problem that the price board started to do something. Last fall the price board established ceiling prices on a large number of commodities, on practically everything that is on sale in Canada. Among other things they provided ceiling prices on beef-but not on cattle-at the highest rate which existed between September 15 and October 11. It so happens that the prices which then prevailed for beef did make possible a higher cattle price than prevailed at that time. The reason is obvious. That is the period at which cattle are coming off the grass in considerable numbers, the period at which in most years the price is down rather than up as compared with say July. But last year we were in a period of rising prices for cattle, brought about by the condition developing of which I spoke a short time ago, with the result that cattle did not go down to the extent that might have been expected in September, but they were down as compared with what they would have been had the cattle not been coming in in the volume they did. In other words the price probably was a half to three-quarters of a cent lower on cattle than the price prevailing for beef made possible at that time.
We started with that price on beef as the ceiling. In other words the board had said: No one may sell beef at a higher price than that; and they allowed the price of cattle to vary in relation to the price of beef. We went along fairly satisfactorily until March. Some foresaw that there would be difficulty in March, and there was some discussion even as early as January, but the first attempts to grapple with the problem in an effective way were made about the end of February and during March.

There was a condition existing then which has been explained by hon. members this afternoon and which everyone admits. Farmers had purchased cattle last fall and put them into feeding stalls across the country with the intention of selling them on the United States market in the spring or on a Canadian market that would bear a relationship to the United States market. In other words they expected their surplus to go to the United States market. Without going into a discussion of the details of how it was brought about or what happened, all I wish to state is that the market was kept open, during the second quarter of the present year, with the result that over 50,000 head of cattle went over in the first five weeks following April 1. That 50,000 was approximately the quota allowed into the United States in a quarter. After that had happened there were discussions with regard to how we might deal with the problem for the < coming year. Any farmers who had put cattle in feeding lots or stalls last fall had the full benefit of the United States market in April of this year and the early part of May.
A plan was then laid down under which it was hoped to benefit by the experience we have had since September and during last year and to take care of any difficulty which might otherwise arise. Anything done had of necessity to be more or less experimental; nothing of the kind had been tried before. One of the objectives that everyone has in mind is to attempt to deal with it in such a manner as not to interfere with the quota which has been established in the United States for cattle. Another'-and perhaps this has been placed first-is that we sought to retain a sufficient amount of beef in Canada to meet the requirements of our own people. This is in part because we wish to reduce our consumption of pork in Canada in order to be able to supply more bacon to Great Britain than we otherwise would be able to supply. So that in addition to establishing a ceiling price for a commodity that enters greatly into the cost of living, an attempt is being made to retain a position where not too great demands will be made upon pork which the British require, and which we are informed they are even more anxious to have during the coming year than they were during last year.
Having said that I should like to say that there was a certain price level established last year in connection with the marketing of beef, and I will give a few figures to indicate what it was. There was no great change in the price from October to January. For example, the price of good steers on October

Supply-Agriculture
2, was $9.06 per hundred at Toronto. That is for good steers-all these prices are for good steers at Toronto. The last week in October the price was $8.71-that is the average for the week. For the last week in November it was $8.64. For the last week in December it was $8.98 and for the first week in January $9.30. For the last week in February it was $9.75, and for the last week in March $9.87. During that period it will be noted that there was a variation of about a cent a pound. There was very little variation until December, and then an increase of about a cent a pound in January and February. The price in the last week of March was $9.87, still not a very considerable increase, though during the month it was up to 10 cents for one week. In April, taking the last week of the month in each case, the price was S10.69, in May, $11.69, and in June, $12.90. During the week of July 16, which is the last week for which I have the figures here, the price was down to $10.66.
The intention of the food corporation is to take advantage of this experience-and I may say their intention is in line with the recommendations made by the federation of agriculture and others across Canada-and try to establish a price level in the fall of the year which will make it possible to take in feeders in the fall, feed them through the winter and deliver them in the spring. I would ask hon. members to keep in mind what I stated in the beginning, that the price level for beef made possible a higher price for cattle than prevailed last fall, but probably I should also say that the price of cattle during certain days in the month of June was higher than the ceiling price of beef would have permitted. There has been a sliding scale provided for beef for the coming year, beginning at the same level in September as last year but running up to a level which would make it possible to pay an amount equivalent to the extra cost of keeping cattle from the fall of the year until the spring as compared with feeding them on the grass. I would emphasize the fact that this is a ceiling price, not an assured price. This year, however, when there was not an assured price, we had the experience during certain weeks in June of obtaining more for the cattle than any assured price could have given. There is always the possibility that for a limited period of time that or even the reverse may develop under conditions now obtaining. This is guarded against by a proviso which has not been emphasized in any publicity I have seen or during this discussion.
As I said a moment ago, one of the objectives of the price board, the Department of Agriculture and others interested has been to maintain the position we have occupied in the
United States, in relation to our quota. The first part of the arrangement which holds cattle in Canada is the only part that has been in operation so far, and for that reason we have been hearing the criticisms without being in a position to state the advantages which may accrue. I believe the hon. member for Maple Creek said some four thousand cattle had been marketed in the United States during the weeks immediately following July 1, as compared with a considerably larger number last year. But this further fact should be stated, that the food corporation has taken possession of a similar number of cattle, though I have not the exact figures, which they have kept in Canada and for which they have paid what is considered to be the equivalent of the American price. The arrangement is that the cattle exported to the United States and those purchased by this corporation are to be added together, and that until the two make up the total figure of the United States quota, which is 51,720, then the assured price in Canada in relation to cattle being marketed here will be one which will compare favourably with the price for export cattle in the United States. It is considered that under this arrangement farmers who sell during that period-it may not be quite the same farmers, and there may be that criticism

will receive the American price for as great a number of cattle as would have been the case under the conditions which existed previously. That leaves out of consideration the fact that one-third, let us say, of the cattle coming up for the American market are taken by the food corporation, and only two-thirds go to the United States. Leaving that one-third on this market would have a tendency to depress the market during the latter part of the period. The undertaking which has not been emphasized is this, that during that period of time the same corporation is prepared to hold up the price to the ceiling, by providing, either through the purchase or otherwise, that cattle are exported from Canada to the United States until the quota is completely filled. In effect that should have the result, if we have the cattle to market, of placing as many cattle in the United States as would have gone there under a market that was not controlled at all. We have not yet gone far enough or had enough experience to be absolutely sure that it will work out in this way, but that is the intention of those who are attempting to establish the plan at the present time.
The suggestion has been made that there is a falling price, but I think it should be said that it is not the intention of the price board or of the Department of Agriculture
Supply-Agriculture

that the price should keep on falling, so far as ceilings are an indication of price, after we have reached the basic period and reestablished the basic ceiling as of last year. From there on the ceiling price will be a rising price. With that information not distributed as widely as it might have been, I can understand some farmers being stampeded into rushing their cattle to a falling market; but I believe that when the farmers fully understand the situation-and other than the fact that sufficient publicity has not been given to it there is no reason why they should not understand it-the danger would be of the opposite nature, that there might be a tendency to hold back cattle and thus keep down the supply for the time being. But let me repeat that it is not necessary for cattle to remain at the level of last fall in order to be sold under the beef ceiling of last fall. Cattle prices can go considerably higher than they were last fall and still come under the price ceiling for beef then established.
I wanted to make those facts clear, because soon hon. members will be going home to their constituencies and I should like them to understand the arrangement as it now exists in connection with the cattle market.


Charles Robert Evans: There was one matter I intended to bring to the attention of the minister in connection with the feeders. I stated that they contracted their cattle over the year in order to have a steady flow into the yards. The information I get from the west is that these feeders have contracted for cattle for September and October delivery at around 11 and lli cents, but that now they are going to step out of the contracts and lose their deposits because these feeder cattle are down below that level.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am sorry to have to say that the only prices which are out up to the present are the zone prices which were referred to, and they have been established only down to the period from September 14 to December 30; that is, for beef. At that level beef is approximately 3i cents lower than during the period immediately prior to July 12. In reply to the hon. member for Maple Creek I would say that, apart from the reason that people did not have the facts which were available, there was no real reason for making any agreements to deliver since about the third week in June in the expectation of any prices higher than those which I have indicated, because the statement was given out at that time that the policy I am now outlining was the policy which would be followed. I am certain that it was pretty well understood in western Canada, because I took the trouble myself

to go to the offices of the farm organization in Saskatchewan, in the city of Regina, and explain the matter in detail, as I am explaining it now, in the very week in which the announcement was issued. Therefore any deals which were made on that basis since that time would be made with the facts. Of course those made before would be without the facts.
I must admit, too, that there were deals made last year. Cattle were retained in Alberta by United States citizens, and fed in Canada with Canadian feed, on the assumption that the cattle could be sold at a certain price this year, or at whatever prices might be prevailing this year. When their cattle were taken by the corporation they had a grievance, and that grievance has been pretty well satisfied by the action of the food corporation since that time.
Generally speaking, however, I think the men who are buying cattle for feeder lots can be assured that the prices paid for beef will establish a relationship of prices very similar to those which would have had to prevail during this last year in order to make provision for the necessary rise of about 1-J to 2 cents a pound on cattle, as between the fall of the year and the spring of the year, if one were going to feed them. But the basic price from which we must start under the plan is the price of last fall, with the amount added which I indicated a few moments ago.
I believe that is all that is necessary for me to say. If there are any questions, I shall try to answer them.


James Arthur Ross: The minister has given some figures with respect to man-power or labour on the farm. He gave figures as to the numbers frozen on farms and the numbers available in industry. I do not think he proved his point. One of his colleagues, the Minister of National Defence, speaking recently, stated that every man in this country should be put where he was able to produce the most in the interests of the nation, whether in agriculture or otherwise. Then, speaking recently, the Minister of National War Services said that there was in Canada a voluntary enlistment of some 505,000 people. About the same date a return brought down showed that voluntary enlistments from Quebec were only some 75,000. In other words, this means that one great province with a population amounting to about one-third of the total population in Canada has made a voluntary enlistment contribution of approximately one-seventh of the total enlistments.
One of the prairie provinces which practises mass production along agricultural lines has

Supply-Agriculture
the record of the greatest per capita enlistment in the dominion. As a result, they have a grave farm help situation. There is a scarcity of efficient farm help. The Minister of Agriculture has suggested that it will be necessary to move labour so that the country may take care of this condition. I wonder if he would suggest that those young men in the prairie provinces should quit farming and go into the armed forces, young men who can operate farm equipment which can do the work a dozen men used to do less than a generation ago in the production of foodstuffs? Does he suggest that those young men, some of whom may have aged parents who cannot carry on alone, should join the armed forces? Does he suggest that young men of this kind should join the armed forces, and that men from this eastern province, men who are totally untrained and inexperienced in farm labour and farm equipment, or methods of mass production, should take their places? Does he suggest that those young men from that eastern province should assist us in the production of foodstuffs at this time? Is that the policy he is advocating?


James Garfield Gardiner: I was not thinking in terms of any province or any particular area.


James Arthur Ross: What about the
nation?


James Garfield Gardiner: I was thinking more
particularly of the movement of men within a province. I do not think they would be moved very far under the system of which I have been speaking. The fact is that at the present time the Minister of Labour has an agreement with Ontario, an agreement which is to be made the basis of agreements with other provinces. That agreement provides for the movement of labour within Ontario. What I had in mind was that a man may pick apples at one time; he may harvest hay at another time or harvest grain at some other time. Through certain movements of labour it would be possible to take care of labour shortages.
Then, we have taken one further step. An arrangement has been entered into with our United States friends whereby, when their combine outfits get to the Canadian boundary line they may come across, and proceed with their activities without any difficulty. They will not be charged duty on machinery they are using, provided they take it back when they are through with the job.
A further arrangement I had in mind is one now being carried out in Saskatchewan. I refer to the organization of urban centres. As men who come from the west are aware, in harvest time there are very few farmers who
come to the town to do business in the daytime, unless it be to get repairs for implements. The practice was followed in the last war of keeping a skeleton organization in a place of business. That organization was composed chiefly of women. The men go out to work in the harvest fields during the greater part of the week, and on Saturday nights they come to town and carry on their ordinary business. That practice is being worked out again in western Canada. Provincial governments are encouraging it, and I believe Saskatchewan has probably gone farther up to the moment than some of the other provinces, because of the great wheat crop in that province. However, the plan is progressing in all the provinces, and there is the possibility of an agreement being entered into to assist in the financing of that arrangement.
That was the movement I had in mind.
I had not the idea that we would attempt anything in agriculture by way of adjusting any other matters which may concern some people in connection with enlistments.


James Arthur Ross: I thought we were discussing this matter from a national point of view. After all, this is a federal government. If.the minister thinks we should continue along the line that while our woman-folk in one section take over business organization or work of production, whereas in another section of the country our young men are not going into the armed forces, well, I have not much more to say about the matter.


Robert McCubbin: What other section does
the hon. member mean?


James Arthur Ross: I mentioned one of the great provinces, Quebec. Perhaps they operate under a different system from what we do. However, I gave the figures to substantiate what I said. Does that answer the hon. member's question?


Robert McCubbin: Yes.


James Arthur Ross: Very well, then. I am pleased that the minister made the statement he did about the matter of equipment coming across the boundary line from the United States, because I believe that to a great extent that will assist in the harvesting of the crop we have in the west. That is a step in the right direction. But that has very little to do with the man-power situation.
The minister's explanation about the cattle situation still leaves an element of chance in future months for stock feeders. I do not believe this price ceiling will encourage many people to go into a very heavy feeding of cattle during this winter.
Supply-Agriculture

Mr. O'NEILL: I have been pleased to receive the information placed on Hansard by the minister with respect to the price ceiling. It is well known to all of us who know anything about cattle that the cattle industry, especially that part of it in the west, was for a long time a depressed industry. Now that the farmers do have a chance to get a little better price for their beef, the price ceiling is put on. I am quite in agreement that there must be a price ceiling on beef, just the same as a price ceiling on anything else might be necessary. But it seems to me that if there must be a price ceiling, then there should be a price floor below which a buyer could not offer, when purchasing stock. That price floor does not exist. It is impossible for the producer to understand this multiplicity of regulations, and an opportunity is offered to the packer or the buyer to resort to sharp practices in order to obtain cattle at a lower price.
At the present time a P.O.R.-pay on rail -system is being advocated, but the producers in my section of the country are opposed to this. The fact that it now appears that that system will be introduced does not reassure the producer that he will get the price to which he thinks he is entitled. In substantiation of the statement I made a moment ago that the door would be left open for sharp practices on the part of the buyers, a paper published in my district carried an article in its issue of July 10, to the effect that a rancher had dropped 1500 in a cattle deal. According to the article it would appear that a buyer for one of the large packing houses had indqced a cattle rancher to accept a lower price for some of his cattle. I do not know whether he referred to them as beef, but he may have. He claimed that there was a price ceiling on beef, and he induced the rancher to sell his stock for less than he should have. I have written to men in the west who I think would be in a position to give me accurate information, but I have not yet received it. The house will adjourn in two or three days, or probably in less than a week, and should I. get the information I would not be able to do anything about it until next year.


James Garfield Gardiner: That point was raised
by the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. MoCubbin):	I understand that the '
hon. member's suggestion is that the buyers are saying that the price paid on the market for cattle being purchased from the government under this plan is quoted as the buying price for cattle on the market. This matter has been discussed before. I thought the situation had been corrected, but I am not certain that it has. In any event, an attempt

is being made to correct it. The price that should be quoted is the price the government pay for the cattle, that is the United States price, not the price which the government get for the cattle when they sell them to the packing house.


Mark Cecil Senn: How does the farmer know
that the cattle are destined for the United States market? When they are purchased the drover may say they are for the Canadian market, in which event the lower price would prevail.


James Garfield Gardiner: The drover can sell
the cattle on the market at the United States price. He has no right to say that he is selling them to the packer at a lower price. If he does not sell them on the United States market, he sells them to the government at the United States price. That is the price the farmer ought to receive until the United States quota has been filled.
Mr. O'NEILL:	I am glad- the minister
has made that explanation, but it seems to me that he should go a little farther. These price ceilings are tied in with' our financial structure. Whether we agree with them or not, that is the way in which the government is attempting to finance this war. Penalties should be imposed upon those who induce a producer to sell at a lower price by making misrepresentations that the regulations permit only a certain price being paid. If the article to which I referred is correct, this buyer should be forced to return the $500 to the rancher, and told in no uncertain terms that if a repetition of that practice occurred, he would not be in business any longer. Unless the government takes some drastic action, I do not see how it will be able to continue this price system.
The constituency of Kamloops probably raises more than half the sheep raised in British Columbia. The government is asking us to increase the production of wool. There are two ways in which that can be done. One is to save the ewe lambs that would otherwise go to the market, and the other is to stop the inroads made by predatory animals. If the ewe lambs are to be withdrawn from the market, the farmer will have to be paid for the cost of maintaining these lambs beyond the time they would normally be sent to market.
I know the minister will say that the matter of predatory animals is something for the provincial government. However, we should not overlook the fact that the provinces have given up to the dominion many fields of remunerative taxation. When the dominion is asking the provinces to increase the pro-

Supply-Agriculture
duction of wool or of any other product, it should be prepared to assist the provinces. I do not think the provinces can afford to pay more by way of a bounty on predatory animals than they are paying at the present time. Unless the bounty is increased to a point where it will be profitable to hunt these animals, their numbers will not be cut down. There are three bad ones in British Columbia, the cougar, the wolf and the coyote. I mention these things to the minister in the hope that something may be done.


Mr. MacKENZIE (Lambton-Kent):: In
endeavouring to maintain these ceiling prices and be fair both to the consumer and to the raisers of beef, the food corporation has a very difficult task on its hands. At the present time there are two prices for cattle prevailing on the Toronto market. Those who are exporting cattle sell them on the Toronto market. If the corporation requisitions the cattle, it buys them at the export or United States price. But the small farmer who sends cattle into the general market to be sold to the local butchers sells his cattle for the best price he can get. Consequently there are two distinct prices on the Toronto market.
The other question I should like to bring up is in connection with the seasonal drop in the price of cattle which is being maintained by the price ceiling. This takes care of the feeder fairly well, but the grass feeder is under a handicap. This man buys his cattle in the spring, say in May, when the price ceiling is up, puts them on the grass during the summer, and then sells them when the price ceiling is low. I do not see how this man can hold his position against the feeder who markets his cattle at the price-ceiling figure.
As I mentioned last night, intensified farming is largely carried on in southwestern Ontario and the labour problem is acute. We shall have to have a labour organization to handle our sugar beets next year. Perhaps bringing some more of our Japanese friends from the Pacific coast may assist in solving the problem.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Queens):: With regard to the two prices on the Toronto market, does the trader, when he brings his cattle in, have to get an export permit before the board takes the cattle over and pays him on the basis of the United States price?


James Garfield Gardiner: The men who are dealing in cattle for the United States apply for a permit, and the assumption is that they get it if they apply for it. When a man goes out to buy cattle which he intends to ship to the United States, buys cattle in Winnipeg, for example, to ship to the United States, he purchases them on the Winnipeg market, and the government takes the cattle through the
food corporation. They estimate what he would have got for those cattle in Minneapolis, and then pay that price, less the freight. He might have a permit to export them, but it does not necessarily mean that they will be exported. If the cattle were sold for consumption in Winnipeg, the government would have no reason for touching them. I can understand that there may be two prices. There always have been two prices, and there is more than one reason for that. Sometimes cattle are sent in which are not in the pink of condition. Again, there may be difficulty in making up a carload at some particular time. Those cattle may not bring as good a price as a whole carload to go to the United States. Cattle may be brought in to the local market at a time when there are no cattle going to the United States. There are so many reasons that members can guess them for themselves as well as I can.


Percy Ellis Wright: We have a ceiling price but no floor. The only guarantee the producer has that he will receive a price for his live stock is to keep the market scarce, because if he raises a few extra head, prices go down. That should not be the policy of the government-to discourage production. But just as soon as a few extra head of cattle come on the market, the price goes below the ceiling price. That has been the experience in the. past and will be in the future, once the United States quota is filled.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member for Melfort comes from an area where they have one of the best cooperative live stock organizations for marketing live stock to be found anywhere in Canada. They can very easily organize to have cattle or any other live stock sold in different markets. Cattle can be sold in the United States market, through the trade, or through farm organizations, when permits could not be obtained for selling cattle in the United States, which would guarantee the United States price as the floor price so long as the quota is not filled. If the quota is filled, the corporation has undertaken-this has not been explained to the public.-to maintain a floor up to the ceiling price for beef with the proper relationship between the price of cattle and the selling price for beef.


Percy Ellis Wright: What is that? *


James Garfield Gardiner: It will depend upon the place and the time. It will be higher in June, for example, than in September, but there is a relationship between the two which my hon. friend can work out just as closely as I can. There are understandings as to what it ought to be which have been pretty well worked out in the department and in the trade; and if
Supply-Agriculture

at any time the Department of Agriculture considers that a proper relationship is not being maintained, we will certainly represent on behalf of the farmers of this country that the corporation should buy those cattle and send them to the United States until the ceiling price is maintained in Canada. That is not fully understood in Canada. There is only one period when there is not a floor; that is after the United States quota is completely filled, and then there may be a week or two at the end of that period when farmers would be compelled to hold their cattle.


Percy Ellis Wright: I think if publicity were given to the relationship between the ceiling price and the actual price, it would prevent what the hon. member for Kamloops has told us about, namely, buyers going throughout the country and, because the farmers did not know the regulations, deceiving them as to what they should get. I think the government would be well advised to give more publicity to that relationship.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is a difficulty about that. There are so many different kinds of cattle going on the market, and they are marketed under so many different conditions. But the officials of the department know what the relationship ought to be at markets like Winnipeg, Toronto and Calgary, where the situation can be watched very closely. We have men there who can watch it. We expect the corporation itself will look after that. The officials of the department are also keeping a check on it, and an attempt will be made by both to guarantee the ceiling price on cattle as long as there is a market anywhere else for them at a higher price or even at that price.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: We all appreciate the difficulty which the government is encountering in finding men for the armed forces, for the munitions industries and for agriculture. When the Prime Minister spoke in this house on the 24th of March with Reference to the orders in council he brought down he said, as reported at page 1567 of Hansard:
On the other hand, the growing scarcity of labour on the farms and the increasing importance of maintaining, and, indeed, of increasing food production, has been recognized. This has been accomplished by a fundamental alteration of the policy regarding compulsory military training and service where such service touches persons wholly or mainly employed in agriculture.
From what the minister said this afternoon there has been a change in government policy with respect to the calling up of men engaged in agriculture. I have no quarrel with that.

It is a matter of government policy, and the farmers of Canada will have to adjust themselves to whatever changes must be made, but I think the farmers should be notified as soon as possible as to what consideration they are going to be given. Could the minister give any information as to the number of men who have been called from farms in a province like Saskatchewan since the end of March as compared with the numbers called a year ago for the corresponding months? Did the order in council, P.C. 2252, which the Prime Minister brought down, actually make any change in the policy being followed by the Department of National War Services in Saskatchewan?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not the figures for Saskatchewan or any of the other provinces for the period mentioned. The only figure I have is the total number called from farms, or enlisted from farms, into the army and into war services, including both the army and factories making munitions. The total number from farms is 215,000; that is the decrease in population on the farms across Canada as a result of the fact that men have gone from the farms into one or other of the activities. Our own department put out a publication to which I would refer hon. members, which is called "Farm Labour in War Time". It was put out in July in mimeographed form, and hon. members can get copies of it. I would advise them to get this publication. It can give only an estimate, but the estimate is based on facts gathered across Canada with regard to the whole manpower in connection with agriculture. I would suggest that the hon. member read that publication, because it will give more information than I can.


George Hugh Castleden: Does it give figures since last March?


James Garfield Gardiner: I hardly think so. It is based on a survey of farm labour on 5,218 farms in Canada, in February and March, preceding the time when the decision was made. All I can say with regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Mackenzie is that, generally speaking, the boards have been attempting to carry out the spirit of the regulations as they were laid down. I must admit that in some cases, if the information I have is correct, they would probably have leaned toward the side of the army, while in others they might have leaned in the opposite direction. But it is very difficult for boards to handle individual cases in a manner that would satisfy everyone. I get as many complaints from one side as from the other.

Supply-Agriculture


Mr. BOUCHER:: Do these figures give the total enlistments together with the total number of men in the three armed services and factories, separating munitions workers from the men in the forces?


James Garfield Gardiner: That figure is the total reduction of people on farms brought about by enlistments and those going into factories in 1941 as compared with 1940, but it does not include 1939. I went through the volume only hurriedly, but anyone reading it carefully will get a better idea.


Ernest Edward Perley: Does that refer to volunteers, or does it include trainees?


James Garfield Gardiner: It includes all men who have gone from the farms.


Mark Cecil Senn: I have listened with much interest to the minister's statement with regard to the beef situation. His address may be divided into two parts, that dealing with labour and that in regard to the beef situation. I do not intend to say anything further about labour, except that undoubtedly there is a shortage of labour on farms at the present time. That is inevitable. I do not think anyone is to blame for it, but on the other hand I believe and have always believed that-had selective service been brought in immediately after registration, a good many men would have been saved to the farms who are more valuable there than in the armed services, while others might have gone who are not so valuable. I will leave it at that.
I was very much interested in what the minister said about beef. His explanation is, after all, rather involved. I tried to follow it as closely as I could, and I am frank enough to say that I was not altogether convinced, partly because I do not understand some of his arguments, and some of the explanations he made. I am afraid that will be true not only of some other members but more than ever true in the country, particularly among the cattle raisers themselves. His explanation only serves to a greater or less extent to show the muddle that exists at present. It is a muddle that exists at least in the minds of the producers, and in my opinion it is the producers whom we should attempt now to reassure so far as this particular position is concerned.
As a matter of fact, in spite of what the minister may say, I am of the opinion that producer prices are not controlled in the way they should be. If there is going to be a ceiling on carcass prices, there should be some assurance to the producer himself that the price he receives will be based on the ceiling price, or, as the minister says, on the United States or export price. No matter what -the
minister may say-and I am not altogether disputing his words-I am afraid there are two prices in Canada; in fact, I am certain there are. One is based on the export price, and one is based on the domestic price of beef. Try as he may and as the department may, and try as the wartime prices and trade board may and will, so long as drovers are buying cattle and going into the country and offering prices, and until farmers are united in some kind of cooperative organization, -there will be two prices, and this whole situation will not be cleared up until some further action is taken. There are no two ways about it, that although the producers' price is not controlled, neither is the consumers' price controlled at the present time.
I saw a statement in the press not long ago that the wartime prices and trade board were trying to set prices for twenty-nine or thirty different cuts of beef. So far as I understand, that has not been done up to the moment. What takes place is this. The retailer can charge almost any price he likes. I go to him and buy a steak, and I say, "That is a higher price than the price set down for the basic period of last fall." All he has to say to me is, "Well, that is a better quality of beef; it is a better steak than the one you bought last fall." There is no way of getting around it. I do not see how it is possible to set prices for twenty-nine or thirty different cuts, and as far as I can learn they have not been published up to the present time. I am not speaking in a critical way at all. I am only pointing out to the minister what exists, and what I believe exists in Ontario in the minds of the producer. I refer to Ontario particularly because that is the part of the country with which I am best acquainted.
The whole marketing system for cattle is haphazard and confusing to the minds of producers, and this situation is largely because of the action of the wartime prices and trade board. It robs the producer of any feeling of security. I have on more than one occasion pointed out that the farmers have to make their plans a considerable time ahead if they are to raise cattle or any other kind of farm product. They must plan ahead, and under the present system what assurance have they of what the price will be? It only adds to the gamble they are taking. It seems to me that something should be done to assure the farmers and producers that they will get a reasonable price.
The minister tried to explain the matter, but I am frank to say I could not understand how under the present system the farmer is going to have any assurance that if he buys cattle as he did this spring and will want to
Supply-Agriculture

do next fall, he is going to be assured of a fair return when those cattle go on the market. There is need of some assurance further than has been given. Frankly, the minister's explanation was so involved that I do not fully understand it.


Mr. REID:: It is my opinion-and I say this meaning no offence to any hon. member- that we have been wasting a great deal of time this afternoon to no purpose, because the Minister of Agriculture has nothing to do with the price of beef. I would propose to the government that in order to get out of the impasse as far as agricultural prices are concerned there should be set up a ministry of economic warfare, and the men in charge should be deputy ministers so that the minister would be responsible to this house. You can make all the speeches you like to the Minister of Agriculture, but in the final analysis Mr. Gordon is the man. We are making representations to the wrong minister, good as he is, and he is a good minister.


Ernest Edward Perley: I am as anxious to get through as anyone, but I take issue with the hon. member for New Westminster. We have not wasted much time here this afternoon; we have voted already, I think, some thirty items in about three hours. We listened to a very interesting statement from the minister, one that has given us much information. He dealt with the labour question. That was worth while. Much more could be said. The labour situation is becoming so serious that some industries in this country, those not directly concerned with the production of munitions, gold mining for instance, may be closed. I was very much interested in his statement, and I think it was worth while. He dealt with production, giving us much information in that regard, and then dealt with the advisory committee. There have been many worthwhile suggestions made to the minister. I am going to make this further suggestion, that his department is the one that should be in charge of this whole price-fixing set-up as far as agricultural products are concerned, beef and live stock, wheat and dairy products. The price board is not doing the job as I think he would have done it as far as agriculture is concerned. I offer this suggestion, that there should be a reorganization with respect to this price-fixing, and that agricultural products should be under the supervision of the Department of Agriculture.
What has been the reaction of the minister to the recent drop in prices of live stock?


James Garfield Gardiner: I assume the hon. member means cattle?


Ernest Edward Perley: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course farmers always object to prices going down; anybody does. But no one can tell until some time has passed what effect it will have on the marketing of cattle.


James Arthur Ross: As to the question raised by the hon. member for New Westminster about wasting time and having the wrong minister, I would remind him that on July 1 when I was speaking on the budget I asked the Minister of Finance, who I think is the proper minister who has control if there is any control of this price-ceiling set-up, to make a statement of the situation, either he or the Minister of Agriculture. They were both in the house at the time. Therefore I think we are justified in trying to get some information here when we could not get it from the Minister of Finance. I agree with the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. I have always been-


Thomas Reid: And myself.


James Arthur Ross: And the hon. member himself, yes. I have always been unable to discover why we should have the Minister of Agriculture responsible only for production, and one of the greatest agricultural commodities produced, that is wheat, handled by the Department of Trade and Commerce. To me that is not a sensible set-up. The government should make some adjustment, and I would say that the Minister of Agriculture should be responsible for the marketing of our products as well as the production. The present is not a sane, feasible organization at all.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I understand that the
United States minister of agriculture has complete control over prices of agricultural products in that country. Is that not correct?


James Garfield Gardiner: I appreciate very much the confidence hon. members seem to have in the Department of Agriculture and in myself. But I doubt very much if it will get us far to discuss the question here. I had hopes when I started this morning of keeping an appointment to-morrow morning at 9 o'clock, which I am afraid I must give up. But the time has gone by for that, and I am quite prepared to go on with the discussion.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Does the United States
minister of agriculture have control of agricultural prices in that country?


James Garfield Gardiner: He has to a certain
degree.


Mr. FAIR:: What is the cattle population
of Canada at present compared with a year ago?

Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: The figures are not out for the present year. The figure for all cattle in 1941 was 8,806,000; for the previous year, 8,565,000; for the year before that, 8,474,000; and for the year before that, 8,500,000. That is as of June in each year.


James Arthur Ross: In. a return brought
down on April 29 I think it gives the figure for June 1, 1941, as 8,797,000. It shows a decrease of 42,500 since 1937.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are two sets of
figures out in connection with some live stock, depending on how they are taken and where. One is made up by the Department of Agriculture, the other by the Department of Trade and Commerce. These are presumed to be the figures of the Department of Trade and Commerce.


James Arthur Ross: This is a return by
the government on April 29.
Mr. GARDINER.:	Here is a statement
which has a bearing on this matter. It is estimated that cattle particularly beef cattle, are being sold at thirty pounds heavier weight, and that is figured on by some making the calculation, figuring the numbers from that.


Heber Harold Hatfield: May I have an answer
to my question?


James Garfield Gardiner: The United States minister of agriculture has, I think, to give consent in man}'- cases, but I notice that in dealing with some prices not even he has control; the house seems to have control.


Robert Fair: That is the way it should be
here.


George Russell Boucher: The hon. member for New Westminster has pulled out of the woods a live hornets' nest in his statement that a great deal of time has been lost this afternoon. It was lost only to the extent of the inability of the Department of Agriculture to handle a very sore grievance held by the farmers of Canada. Here we have the Minister of Agriculture for the dominion, charged with responsibility for the production of agricultural commodities, limited by the Minister of Trade and Commerce as far as our export market is concerned, admitting that this export market has a great deal to do with better prices for agriculture, yet completely blocked by the action of the dictator of prices, as I would call him; that is, by Mr. Gordon, a man who is not responsible to this House of Commons. I believe the suggestion of the hon. member for New Westminster with regard to a ministry of economic production or economic warfare is something which should be given every consideration by the government.
Let us look at the situation in Canada. We had a price ceiling applied late in the fall when, as everyone knows, prices of agricultural commodities are .probably at their lowest during the entire year. Now, to bolster up that price ceiling we have a subsidy, again governed by the wartime prices and trade board. We have the export market set at one figure and the domestic market at another. We have a price ceiling which seems to have gone entirely out of control, as far as prices to the consumer are concerned, since the retailer must charge and the consumer must pay prices dictated but not controlled by any proper machinery, if machinery could effect any control. All this is going on at a time when commodities, particularly meat, are scarce, on account of exports of dairy cattle from this part of the country. Take a conglomeration like that-I think that is about the only expression I can use to describe it-and how could one expect the control of prices to be satisfactorily administered by a man who is not directly charged with the responsibility of administering production, a man who is not required to come to this house in order to get the benefit or the disadvantage, according to the point of view, of the views of those who have been elected as the people's representatives? In addition, this man is not charged with the responsibility of cooperating with farmers; probably he has not had much experience with farm problems, and so far as I know he may not be readily reached by the representations of farm organizations. When that is summed up, the situation becomes not only preposterous but grotesque. For that reason I feel that at a time like this, even at this late stage of the session and at the risk of delaying the adjournment of this house, we should try to have the Department of Agriculture given much more power in connection with controlling or regulating the actions of the price controller. If that could be done, I think we would have dealt with an important matter concerning one of the most fundamental industries in Canada to-day. We all know that while agricultural production is most necessary, labour is very scarce and prices have been largely neglected.
Take the situation right here in Ottawa at the present time in regard to milk. I give that just as an illustration. To-day the price of milk in Ottawa to the consumer is exactly the same as it was in the days of the depression. Then look at the retail price of beef and see how it compares with the price in depression days. These things are the cause of great discontent; and in war time the morale of the agriculturist, as well as that of the soldier and all the rest of us, must be built up. Those who
Supply-Agriculture

produce agricultural commodities in this country must have a thorough understanding of the man who is in charge of their industry, the man to whom they must make their representations. It does not seem sensible that they should have first to consult the Minister of Agriculture, be sent by him to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and then be told that they must go to Mr. Gordon. This situation is not conducive to peace of mind, nor is it conducive to efficiency.


James Lester Douglas: I wanted to ask the minister a question with reference to this matter of farm labour, which he mentioned a few moments ago. One of the most pressing problems confronting western agriculture to-day, and for the next few weeks, is that of farm labour. There are prospects of a magnificent crop, but a great many farmers are afraid they will not be able to take it off on account of the shortage of farm labour. That would be a tragedy, when feed is needed for cattle and when people in other countries may have to be fed in the event of an allied victory.
Has any approach been made by the minister's department to the defence ministers, to see if it would not be possible to have men released from the armed services in order to help in harvesting and threshing operations? I realize quite well that the defence ministers are not going to take very kindly to this, because it is a great headache to military officers to have to arrange for leave and all that sort of thing. I know that last spring, when leaves were granted so that men might assist in spring seeding, it meant a great deal of work for the officers. On the other hand, however, I know that thousands of acres of land would not have been seeded if the government had not arranged to permit these young men to go home for two weeks or thirty days. I realize, of course, that many of these men cannot be relieved of their duties. I believe, however, that there are many who could. I noticed last fall that many men in the British army were allowed to go into the fields to aid in harvesting the crops. I noticed also that in Russia, in spite of the fact that they were fighting an invading army, some of their men were released for the harvest, because it is still true that an army fights on its stomach and that a nation can resist only if it is fed. After all, to some extent we are the granary of the united nations, and we need to garner not only grain but other food for ourselves, for the people of Great Britain and for our allies.
In many of these training camps there are thousands of young men who have taken part of their training. The training day is fairly short. Men who are well advanced, who have finished
[Mr. Boucher.J
their training quickly, might be released for two weeks or thirty days, and I believe they would find it quite easy to catch up when they came back. Part of each day is devoted to physical training and other things which a man could afford to miss, particularly if he were going to do work which would keep him in excellent physical condition so that he would not be likely to become flabby or soft.
It seems to me that this matter should be discussed seriously. I do not know what the problem is going to amount to. A short time ago the minister said there was not going to be any more labour available. I would go farther and say there is going to be less labour available; that the so-called freezing of men on the farms has not worked out as it was hoped, because ever since last March many men have left the farms to go into the army and for one reason or another. While the minister's suggestions are excellent, in connection with using people from stores and so on, I am afraid many of these people would not be of much use on farms. Here we have thousands of physically fit young men, many of whom came from farms, some of whom are trained to handle mechanical equipment such as tractors, combines and binders. It seems to me sheer folly to have them in one part of Canada, while part of our crop goes to waste in another part. Therefore I would ask the minister whether any representations have been made in this connection to the defence departments?


James Garfield Gardiner: I believe all farm organizations have made representations to the Department of Agriculture, as well as to the military departments. The answer which has been given was the one given to the house a few days ago to the effect that it would be very difficult for the army to arrange fo.r men to go out, say, to harvest hay in one season for two weeks; then immediately following that to go out to harvest crops for another two weeks, and then following that to go out to save some fruit crops, and so on. One has only to recite that procedure to indicate that if the army tried to meet all those requests, the men would not be in training very much of the year. Of course, having said that much, and having taken that position as a matter of policy, the Minister of National Defence went on to say that there would be exceptions. There are men who have had their training and who have not yet been stationed in a particular place. Those men would be entitled to some leave in any event, and those leaves may be lengthened. There are other cases where hardships can be proven at home because of conditions which have developed since the men involved were taken into the army. In

Supply-Agriculture
those cases leave is permitted. There are many cases of that kind, all of which are based upon particular circumstances. But I believe it will be agreed that it would be rather difficult to establish a blanket policy under which military men could go out into a country as widespread as this one, and take care of all the different labour problems which arise in connection with the different types of agriculture we have.
The problem in Great Britain is quite different. Five per cent of their population are on the farms, and when they take people from the other 95 per cent into the armed forces, and permit them to go out and help on the farms, it is understandable that they can do a good job. In a country so widespread as this one, however, even if we followed the same policy we would not get the same results.
Then, may I say a word about this other policy in connection with the organization to do harvesting. I believe most hon. members can recall the time when practically the whole of the crop of western Canada was harvested by just such means. We used to run harvesting excursions from eastern Canada. On those excursions were farm boys, and some from urban centres, who came west before the days when our farms were mechanized as much as they are to-day. Those boys did the harvesting job.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They were young men.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, and they could do a good deal in a day, if they had the will to do it. Then, there were the men in the country towns and villages who had done a considerable amount of manual labour to keep themselves in fair shape, although their jobs may have been clerking in a store, a bank or somewhere else. At the time of the last war we found those men-not only capable but very willing to go out on the farms, and I notice that already in this war some of them have organized themselves and gone out to help with the farming in certain areas. A good many have turned in their money to patriotic funds of different kinds.
These efforts are all to the good, and will go a considerable way toward harvesting the crops. Only a short time ago a delegation waited upon me, and it was clear that they were very much concerned about taking off their hay. About three weeks later a man who had met them, along with me, said to me, "Have you heard any more about the hay?" I said, "No, I have not." "Well", he said, "the hay in that particular district is all in the barns". Sometimes we worry in advance. It will be remembered' that we
used to harvest our crops in the west by beginning in August and ending in November. Recently we have become accustomed to begin in August, if possible, and to end as early as we can in September. We may have to go back to the old method, and stretch it over a longer period of time, in order to do the job completely.
However, in view of the fact that we realize that the labour we have is all the labour we can get, and the further fact that there are only so many people in Canada, and that they are engaged in different activities, I believe we shall get along all right. People in the different communities will organize themselves to do the job of harvesting the crop, and I think they will harvest it.


John Horne Blackmore: Does the minister
think the price of beef on the open market now is being deliberately manipulated down during the months of July, August and September? Does the minister believe it is being managed deliberately, so as to bring it down?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is being deliberately arranged that the price for beef will not be as high in September as it was in June. That is part of the policy. Then, after September it advances back to where it is considered it should have been in June. The present plan is to have a rising scale of prices from September to about June, and then a falling scale until about September again. That plan conforms pretty well with what has happened in past years.


John Horne Blackmore: I believe that perhaps there are good intentions behind the policy, but the difficulty lies at the point mentioned by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent. As the minister knows, there are a great many producers, particularly in western Canada, who do not aim to feed stock during the winter, for beef. They carry the stock through and then turn them on the ranch, preparing their beef for the market in the latter part of August and September. Those men are going to be placed under a serious handicap because of this price arrangement.
There is one further serious aspect of the matter. There is a strong suspicion in the minds of many producers in the west that the packers view with the utmost complacency this fall in price in August and September, so that they may fill their establishments at low prices. This whole procedure militates against the welfare of the farmer or rancher who is producing beef on the ranch. In fairness to the great number of people who produce grass-fed beef, I say that some arrangement should be made for their protection. Has the minister done anything along those lines?
Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: It is difficult to do all that we are asked to do. When prices were threatening to go down in the spring the argument was used that the cattle could be fed much more cheaply on the grass. It was urged by farm organizations-not particularly by the packers-that cattle have been coming off the grass for twenty years at a lower price than they have been going on the market in the spring, the reason being that cattle must sell in the spring at about one and three-quarters to two cents higher than when they are taken off the grass, and feeding in the form of feeders, in order to make it possible to get people to take those cattle and feed them.
Many of the cattle which come off the grass in the fall are ready for market, while many of them are not. They are simply feeders. It is just a question as to which plan would bring the greatest return to the farmer or rancher who has both types. If a man has only finished cattle in September he will find that that has always been a time of low prices, with the possible exception of an occasional year such as last year. The price was higher then than it had been previously. But generally speaking

and the experience of twenty years proves this-the price of beef, and the price of cattle even to a greater extent than beef, has been down at that period of the year. It has been the rising price toward the spring which has taken care of the fact that cattle would not be produced in stall feeding if it were not for the fact that you could get more for them in the spring, taking one year with another. That feeding we expect will go on under this policy. I am not so certain that the rancher will do any better under this plan than he has done under the practices which have been going on in the last twenty years.


John Horne Blackmore: Does the minister
think the rancher will do just as well?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, I think so. That is the intention, and if it is found by experience that it is not turning out in that way, then of course plans are always subject to change.


John Horne Blackmore: The minister gave
us the names of the members of the beef advisory committee and the names of the organizations which had suggested them, a rather impressive list. Has this beef advisory committee any authority, and are its recommendations listened to? Were the regulations put into operation during the last year the result of recommendations of this advisory committee?


James Garfield Gardiner: This beef advisory
committee was not operating last year. There was no price board until September and no food corporation until June of this year, and this is an advisory committee to the food corporation. As has been said before, the price board does not come under my department, and I would hesitate to discuss matters of policy relating to it.


John Horne Blackmore: I should like to add
my voice to those which have protested against the apparent impotency of the Minister of Agriculture with respect to agricultural prices. The Minister of Agriculture should be responsible for agricultural prices and all matters pertaining to agriculture. He should be responsible to this house as the man functioning in that capacity. The first man the wartime prices and trade board should consult with respect to matters pertaining to agriculture should be the Minister of Agriculture. Is that done?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Shaw, who is in
charge of marketing in the Department of Agriculture, and the assistant deputy minister of the department, a former member of this house, are members of the price board representing the Department of Agriculture. The board is made up entirely of officials from departments of the government.


John Horne Blackmore: Is the minister consulted by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) and the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson) with respect to the policy of leaving boys on the farms to do the farm work? Has the minister or any responsible member of his department had anything to do with the drafting of regulations concerning agricultural postponements?


James Garfield Gardiner: I was the minister who set up the Department of National War Services, and I do not know of anything for which I have been criticized more by the members of this house than the fact that I had two departments under my control. While I appreciate the compliments that are being paid me to-day, I would recall that there was considerable criticism of my having control, not only of agriculture but of the calling up of men. I drew up the regulations which form the basis of the present regulations. There have been some changes made since that time. In addition, I am a member of the man-power committee of the cabinet, which is made up of only a part of the cabinet, and I am consulted from time to time with regard to man-power problems.


John Horne Blackmore: When hon. members
were criticizing the minister for holding two positions they must have failed to realize the

Supply-Agriculture
significance of having the Minister of Agriculture in charge of the calling up of boys and determining whether they should be left on the land.


George Hugh Castleden: I should like to add my voice to those who have protested against the calling up of these boys. When the order in council was passed in March it was assumed that it froze men on the farms; I believe "presumed" was the word the Minister of Agriculture used. I know of men who thought when the order in council came out on March 23 that they were to be frozen on the farm, and they assisted in putting in considerable crops. They have now been called up and taken off the farms, and in many cases older and sometimes crippled people are the only ones left to take off the crops. I do not think the seriousness of the labour situation in the west is realized by people in this part of the country. The farmers in the west are considerably alarmed about the situation. If the minister is on the man-power committee of the cabinet I hope he will see that everything possible is done to get assistance to these people. Naturally the farmer prefers to have a man with some experience. A man out of an office who has never done much work on a farm is not as valuable as a man who knows how to handle machinery, how to run a tractor and is accustomed to the labour. He is as good as ten of the other men. If the minister has any influence in this manpower committee I hope he will use it.


Robert Fair: Why should the price of hogs fluctuate on the market when a guaranteed price is paid to the packer?


James Garfield Gardiner: The average weekly prices per 100 pounds, paid on the Toronto market, beginning with January 8, were as follows:
$15 33	$15 18
15 50	15 25
15 27	15 25
15 10	15 21
15 08	15 25
15 18	15 33
15 25	15 35
15 50	15 46
15 35	15 56
15 31	15 60
15 12	15 65
15 15	15 75
15 17	15 82
15 15	
It will be noted that there is not a variation of one cent per pound through the first six months. The only time there is any considerable variation is during the last two weeks in June and the first three weeks in July. As every hon. member knows, that is the time when there is a considerable shortage
of hogs on some markets. Toronto market, with the possible exception of Montreal, has the greatest consumption of hogs and there would be a local reason for rises and falls on that market. However, taking that into consideration the difference has been not more than 70 cents per hundred or about three-quarters of a cent per pound.


Robert Fair: There has always been some mystery about the packing plants, and I imagine it still exists. We have dealt with cattle and hogs, and possibly lambs should get a little attention now. The wool growers of my province are dissatisfied with the price they are receiving for wool. The average price is around 25 cents a pound, while the price in the United States, if my information is correct, is 44 cents a pound. Some of them object to the fact that they receive only an initial payment when the wool is delivered around July 1. Last season they had to wait until February or March to get the remainder of their payments. Could the minister give us an outline of the set-up as far as the handling of wool is concerned?


James Garfield Gardiner: Before the war, wool was handled by dealers across Canada. Much of it was gathered by men who w'ent out with trucks. There was very little grading of it, and I think wool was handled probably to the disadvantage of at least the small producer. Since that time a grading system has been set up, and while it is not giving 100 per cent satisfaction it has improved the situation greatly. The price of wool is very much higher than before the war. It was one of the first products to jump very rapidly in price. It was the first product put under control and to have a ceiling price placed on it, and that was before there was any price board. There was a controller put in charge of wool, and he, again, is not under the Department of Agriculture. He had to do with the industrial handling of wool, largely, as well as the taking in of the raw wool, and is also concerned with clothing for the troops. It was the demand for clothing for the troops which was responsible for the great increase in the price of wool when the war started. All these matters are under the control of the wool controller, who is not under this department.	[DOT]


Robert Fair: The main trouble is that when the price jumped, it did not jump far enough. There was not enough spring in the fleece to put it up where it should have gone. There should not be a difference of 20 cents a pound between the price of wool in Canada and the price in the United States. Our sheep raisers put in quite a lot of work, and I do
Supply-Agriculture

not think they are getting the return to which they are justly entitled. I hope the minister will keep that in mind when dealing with this question in the future.


George Hugh Castleden: What were the wool deliveries for 1940, 1941 and 1942?


James Garfield Gardiner: There was an increase each year, but I have not the figures with me.


George Hugh Castleden: What is the sheep population of Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: The number of sheep in 1941 was 3,550,000; in 1940, 3,452,000, and in 1939, 3,365,000.


George Hugh Castleden: Is it not true that we do not grow 10 per cent of the amount of wool we consume in Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: We grow about 20 per cent.


Mrs. NIELSEN:: I put a question on the order paper to find out what aid the federal government was giving to the provinces to encourage the raising of sheep. What sum has been given to each province?


James Garfield Gardiner: I put that information on Hansard last night. It was to the effect that this government, through arrangements with the provincial governments, has assisted in moving ewes from one place to another place where people may wish to use them for breeding .purposes. We are paying the freight on moving them, and we have arrangements with all the provincial governments.


John Horne Blackmore: What is the price of raw wool in Montana?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is about as much higher than the Canadian price as the hon. member for Battle River stated it to be, and that is largely as a result of tariffs imposed by the United States, also the very considerable consumption of wool in that country, and also certain controls related largely to the demands that are now being made in connection with the war effort.


John Horne Blackmore: Can the minister give us any idea whether it costs more to produce a pound of wool in Montana than in southern Alberta?


James Garfield Gardiner: I would not think it costs any more.


John Horne Blackmore: Then how can any intelligent administrator in Canada justify giving the sheep farmers of southern Alberta a price of 25 cents a pound when his neighbour just across the fence in the United States is getting 44 cents a pound? That cannot possibly be justified.


James Garfield Gardiner: I wish to correct the statement I made a moment ago. My hon. friend, being closely associated with the ranching country, must know that the rates charged for leasing land are very much higher in Montana than in western Canada. That would explain part of the difference in prices but would not account for all of the difference. I do not know whether I should put this into words or not. I think I will because I have been tempted to do it for a long time, and I might as well say it now because I am afraid that I would say it some day anyhow.
We have a great deal of discussion in this house over the reasons for different prices, on farm products particularly, prevailing in the United States as compared with Canada, and we have also a great deal of discussion about what we are going to do when the war is over. I do not think it is possible for the two countries ever to have the same price for wheat, let us say, and that bears on other products as well. In the United States there is a 42 cents duty on wheat going into that country. It is a country with 130,000,000 people. There are all kinds of arguments in favour of doing these things, which we are told ought to be done, in war time rather than waiting until the war is over, but it is not a matter that w'e can deal with in this country by ourselves. It will have to be done by international agreement.


John Horne Blackmore: The astonishing thing is this. We are using in Canada far more wool than we are producing. Therefore, evidently it is not the shortage of consuming power in Canada that causes the price of wool to be low. Then how can the price be possibly justified? I come from a constituency in which there are men producing wool all along the north side of the United States border; men on the south side are producing wool all along the United States border, and prices on the south side are such that the men there are prospering and are feeling jubilant and hopeful with respect to sheep raising, while the men on the north side are not quite sure whether in any given year they can make a go of it. In a country which is supposed to be wanting to increase its wool supply, a country which is able to consume much more wool than it now is producing, I would say that for any man to fix the price of wool in Canada at 25 cents a pound comes as near to lunacy as anything I can conceive of, and the man who sets that price certainly should be invited by the minister to come to Ottawa and have a going over in the Department of Agriculture. I would suggest that the minister take steps at once to see to it that whoever set that price on wool revises his opinion

Supply-Agriculture
and does so soon, because the price of wool in Canada is altogether too low for the wool producers. It costs just as much, I am told, to produce wool in Canada as in the United States; the man producing wool in Canada is entitled to just as much of a return as the man in the United States, and it is the business of this parliament to see that he gets it.


George Russell Boucher: Had the man who set
that price wool in his upper story?


Mr. QUELCH:: What is the production of eggs, and is it as high as the department wants? Last winter circulars were sent to the farmers urging them to increase their flocks, but the price of eggs was so low that the farmers were discouraged from bringing about that increase. I have received letters from the west saying that at present they are getting 12 cents a dozen on case lots. No farmer will be enthusiastic about poultry when prices are allowed to fall to that level. If the government is anxious to bring about production, something should be done to raise the price to a level that will compare with prices of other farm commodities.


James Garfield Gardiner: As I said this afternoon, the farm production of eggs has increased from 226 million dozen to 249 million dozen, and the price has been maintained only by a special arrangement with the British government to take a considerable part of the surplus.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Are there any dried-egg plants in the west?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is one at Winnipeg and one at Saskatoon, and one is being constructed at Edmonton.


Victor Quelch: Did the minister say that the government did not want any further increase?


James Garfield Gardiner: The government will try to find some way of getting all eggs marketed which the farmers produce. We have been doing that ever since the war started and have been able to take care of double the production with increasing prices.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: I understand that a subsidy is allowed on the basis of 3^ cents a dozen to take care of the difference in freight from British Columbia to the point of shipment in Montreal. I do not want to be critical, but I should like to know whether in the event of an increase in cost of production, either in connection with feed or for some other reason, the producer in British Columbia will receive consideration. Will the wartime prices and trade board or whatever board sets the price to Great Britain allow a sufficient leeway, either by way of a subsidy in
connection with freight rates on eggs or by means of a subsidy on the export price to Great Britain, to meet the difference which otherwise the producer will have to take care of? As the minister is aware, in British Columbia at least 90 per cent of our poultry feed is imported from the maritime provinces. This represents an increase in cost of production to the producer. Will that increase be provided for either by an increase in the export price on dried eggs or by means of a subsidy on feed?


James Garfield Gardiner: The subsidy on feed will be continued for the duration of the war. It has been announced that it will be continued indefinitely. The present intention is that it shall be for the duration unless some condition arises in agriculture that makes its continuance inadvisable. As regards the price of eggs, I take it that the point raised by my hon. friend is that it is lower at the coast than it is at Montreal-that is, eggs shipped to Great Britain. The fact is, the price is lower by the amount of the freight. The same subsidy is paid in the one part of Canada as in the other. The basis of the subsidy is 32 cents on eggs at one period and 35 cents at another period. That is the basis of the agreement with Britain, which starts with 28 and 31 cents. I am not sure whether that answers the question.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The point is this. If the cost of production goes up on the Pacific coast-and I am not arguing the question about the justification being in the increase in cost of feed, or if the increase is due to labour or anything else-I should like to know whether there is any provision to take up the slack. The minister quoted certain figures-


James Garfield Gardiner: If I may interrupt the hon. member, speaking from memory I believe the ceiling price is 38 cents. The price which the British government establishes by agreement acts as a floor to the extent that it sets the price for the surplus sent out of the country, and that has an influence on prices in Canada as well. The price board sets the ceiling, and there is no doubt that the board is all the time considering cost increases and changes. In some cases they have made changes, but the tendency of the board is not to look for opportunities to make changes but to maintain ceilings in order to prevent inflation or to prevent wages from going up and prices in general from rising. It does take into consideration increases in cost in certain directions. I am not in a position to say whether the price board will ever increase the price of eggs or insist, so long as it is maintaining ceilings, on maintaining the ceiling
Supply-Agriculture

price of eggs at 38 cents. But so far as this department is concerned, we have negotiated the best agreements we can with Great Britain, and the best arrangement we have been able to make up to the moment has required that we add a subsidy of 3 cents a dozen on the best price we can get from Britain, in order to obtain production of the number of eggs which we think are required to set that market.


George Alexander Cruickshank: There is one point that is not clear to me. The minister mentioned something about surplus. As I understand it, we are not exporting our surplus to Britain. We have been encouraged to produce not a surplus, but our maximum for the British market. As I understand some of the orders in council, there is no limit to the requirement of the British market. What I am trying to point out is that there should be some assurance to poultrymen on the Pacific coast that if their cost of feed goes up, the slack will be taken up either by an increase in price, or by an additional subsidy on freight rates on eggs to the eastern markets, or by an increased subsidy on the cost of feed to the Pacific coast. As I understand the situation, we are now operating under a differential or adverse subsidy of about 2 cents a dozen. The department should say if we are to be protected in that connection. It is all very well to say that it does not come under this heading; but as I see it, representing a rural district, the only heading it comes under is through the Minister of Agriculture. I have no recourse to the wartime prices and trade board.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not quite correct. The hon. gentleman could carry on all this discussion, and can still, on the Minister of Finance's estimates. I cannot answer questions for the price board; it is not under my department. I have tried to accommodate my hon. friend by giving him all the information I can, but the proper minister for him to get information from with regard to the price board is the Minister of Finance. The Chair should so rule.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I take it that as representing an agricultural district the minister will endorse my stand that it should be handled through his department and not the Department of Finance.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special.
29. Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and water storage, $2,000,000.
Ernest Edward Perley: We all understood that the minister was anxious to get away. Now,

since he has missed the boat, maybe we can take a little more time and ask some questions. The discussion, while it may have delayed the minister, has been very interesting. We have taken only seven hours altogether on this department, which I think it is agreed is one of the most important. Agriculture is the chief industry of Canada. I think we have made wonderful progress in passing almost thirty items, involving an amount of around $8,000,000. in seven hours. That is pretty good going, after we have been in Ottawa for about seven months.
During this discussion it has become apparent that we could have made much better progress in the way of getting useful information and have given many suggestions to the minister if, in the early part of the session, as soon as these estimates were brought down, there had been a reference to the agriculture committee, which consists of fifty members. The committee have not done anything yet this session, except in about one short day to pass a bill that the minister was piloting. We made a good job of that and increased the price of wheat. For the rest, without a doubt we wasted our time. If the public could have sat in at the last session when we passed the report-at least I would not say we passed it, but the report was passed through the committee-it would have been very interesting. However, I think the agriculture committee, composed of fifty men, could very profitably have considered these estimates. Having before us the chiefs of the different branches of the department, we could have secured a lot of useful information which we tried to. get, and which, were it not for the fact that we are on the last day or two of the session, we would still try to get. I have taken only about five minutes to-day and about ten minutes last night, and I do not think I can be accused of holding up the business of the house. However, as the minister has stated that he is to stay over, the matter is wide open, and I am going to have something to say with respect to this item.


An hon. MEMBER:: He can catch the
boat yet.


Ernest Edward Perley: No; I understand he has missed the boat, and I do not think that is the first boat he has missed. I think many in western Canada, realizing he has missed it, would say "hurrah".


James Garfield Gardiner: Not many of them.


Ernest Edward Perley: That is not the consensus I get.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member keeps poor company.

Supply-Agriculture


Ernest Edward Perley: With respect to this item there is no detail as there is with respect to others, and therefore we have to go to some other source to get the details. We go to the report of the auditor general. Turning to the index, we are referred to page 53, under the heading, "Prairie Farm Rehabilitation and Water Storage". On page 54 there are the different headings under which the matter is dealt with. We have land utilization, water development and water storage, a total of over $2,000,000, one being $501,000 and the other $1,518,000. It goes on to deal with the purpose for which the vote was provided, and then there is a statement showing the objects of expenditure under the various allotments. There are a number of headings there to which I wish to refer.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Ernest Edward Perley: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose at six o'clock I was referring to the fact that no details are given in the main estimates, and that accordingly we have to look at the auditor general's report in order to get the information. I was referring to some of the items appearing in that report for last year, at pages 54, 55 and 56. On page 54 there is an item of $501,893.18 for land utilization, and another of $1,518,106.82 for water development and water storage. I trust that when the minister replies to one or two questions I am going to ask he will give us a breakdown of these figures. Then on page 55 various other expenditures are set out. Salaries and wages account for a total of $684,668.34; travelling expenses, $140,124.33; equipment and supplies, $165,644.02; lands, buildings and works, $1,244,451.74. These are the main items, and I hope the minister will also give us a breakdown in this connection. Then the auditor general's report goes on to give some details in connection with some of these items, but it is my contention that these details are not sufficient.
I have one little complaint to air to-night with regard to the expenditures made under the direction of the minister, and particularly with regard to water conservation, dug-outs and dams. I have a return here, brought down on June 3, in response to a question I asked as to how many dug-outs had been contracted for and completed in each Saskatchewan constituency during 1941, and also how many water projects other than small dams. The minister smiles; perhaps he has
an idea of what is coming. He and I are neighbours, so to speak, out there in Saskatchewan.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Good neighbours.


Ernest Edward Perley: Good neighbours, certainly. Our constituencies adjoin; the Qu'Appelle valley is the boundary. According to this return he took unto himself, in his constituency, 449 dug-outs, while he gave me only 188.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: That shows the intelligence of the people.


Ernest Edward Perley: That may be so. I am glad the hon. member for Moose Jaw made that remark; he is always sticking out his neck. Let us look at the constituency of Prince Albert and apply his remarks to it. The minister gave the Prime Minister only two dug-outs. Now what does my hon. friend say?


John Gordon Ross: They do not need them there, as the hon. member should know.


Mr. DONNELLY:: How many in mine?


Ernest Edward Perley: Wood Mountain got only 25, but of course we understand that the hon. member expects to go to the other place, and consequently he did not need them. However, the minister did not treat some of his other supporters veiy well. Maple Creek got only 19; Swift Current, 91; Rosetown-Biggar, 50; Kindersley, 55, and North Battleford, 45. The minister was pretty good to Yorkton; he gave it 237, and Mackenzie 335, while the hon. member for Weyburn got 158. Lake Centre got 127. I do not think the minister treated some of us very fairly, especially a good neighbour like myself. However, perhaps he will let us know what is to be his policy next year. We may not need so many dug-outs, since moisture conditions in that province are so good this year.
Then I asked for another return showing how many dams were constructed under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act each year from 1939 to 1941, and particularly on the Qu'Appelle river between Lumsden and the Manitoba boundary. The answer is two, Crooked lake and Round lake, one costing $20,805 and the other $18,625, or a total of $39,430. My complaint in that regard is that these dams cost too much, and I think it would have been much better if they had been built by the people living in that vicinity instead of the contract being given to a man in Regina named South, about whom I can hardly get a line at all. I understand from people who live in that vicinity, however, that they would have liked the contracts for the

Supply-Agriculture

construction of those dams, at about 30 per cent of the cost as shown in this return. These are matters which should be considered.
I asked another question, as to whether any investigation had been made or any survey parties working in the Qu'Appelle river valley and its tributaries east of Lumsden to the Manitoba boundary, and if so, I asked as to the personnel of such parties. The answer was that there have been two such parties working there. I do not know how much that cost, but I am going to ask the minister now to give us the cost of those two survey parties up to date. When I was home in June I was told that, at least one of these parties, two big carloads, had been coming into town every night, staying at the hotel; and the farmers who saw them operating could not figure out what they were supposed to be doing. That was what prompted me to ask this question; and if the cost was at all considerable I think a great deal of the money was wasted. These are some of the things on which I think the minister should make a statement.
This afternoon the question of labour came up. I hold in my hand a return tabled in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Weyburn, giving the number employed in the prairie farm rehabilitation offices in the city of Regina, and the number employed in the field as inspectors, supervisors and so on. The return covers seventeen foolscap pages, and shows that there are something like 300 men in the field as inspectors, supervisors and the like, some of them drawing as much as SI,200 for three months' work. I think the cost of carrying on that work is out of all proportion to what it should be. This afternoon we were told about the labour shortage, and I think the minister would be well advised to turn some of these men into the harvest fields this fall, where I am sure they could do a good job.
There is another item which I should like to bring to the minister's attention, and on which I would ask him to give an explanation. It is found at page 57 of the auditor general's report when, after setting out a lot of the items to which I have referred, as expenditures under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, the auditor general makes this statement:
The audit for the fiscal year 1939-40 disclosed that over $1,300,000 of commitments had been incurred without certificates of the comptroller of the treasury having been secured in the manner provided by sections 26' and 29 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931.


James Garfield Gardiner: For what year is that?


Ernest Edward Perley: For the year 1939-40. This is the last auditor general's report.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the old difficulty.


Ernest Edward Perley: No; it is not exactly the old difficulty.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is the same year, anyway.


Ernest Edward Perley: As the minister has brought up that question, I might point out that I brought this matter to the attention of the house once before when the auditor general had made a similar statement with respect to paying for contracts for posts in community pastures.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not the same thing.


Ernest Edward Perley: Anyway at that time the minister said he was exonerated from any wrong-doing

and of course I am not charging him at all, even now. I appreciate he has a great many men in his department, and is head of a tremendous organization, and there may be a certain reason for this. However, this is the second time a similar statement has appeared in the auditor general's report.


James Garfield Gardiner: If it is the second time it is with regard to the same thing, because it has occurred on only one occasion-in that particular year, 1939-40.


Ernest Edward Perley: If the minister will permit me to read it I shall prove that it has happened twice, because on the other occasion it was for only some 800,000 fence posts.


James Garfield Gardiner: No; but the same complaint was made in the same year as the complaint about the fence posts. It is not the same thing at all.


Ernest Edward Perley: I shall read it to the minister, and he can explain it:
The audit for the fiscal year 1939-40 disclosed that over $1,300,000 of commitments had been incurred without certificates of the comptroller of the treasury having been secured in the manner provided by sections 26 and 29 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act 1931. During the fiscal year 1940-41 a substantial part of these commitments was liquidated and, in general, the branch observed the provisions of the sections above-mentioned.
The words "in general" will be noted. Now there is a complaint that commitments amounting to $1,300,000, half the amount of the estimates, were incurred without certificates of the comptroller of the treasury. Surely that should not continue. The minister has referred to another incident about fence posts. I recall that on that occasion I asked for the correspondence, and I have it now in my office. At that time the minister had written a letter to the auditor general asking him if he would supply a letter so that an explanation could be made if the matter came up in the house. The first letter the

Supply-Agriculture
minister received from the auditor general was not satisfactory, and the minister wrote a second letter asking for another letter from the auditor general. That one was received, and I presume it explained the matter to the satisfaction of the minister.
I draw these points to the attention of the minister and the committee, not with the intention of accusing the minister. All I am asking him to do is to tighten up on the officials in his department and to see that this does not occur again.
I do not propose to speak at great length on this item. So far as conditions in Saskatchewan are concerned, I believe we have arrived at a time when .the minister might make a very great saving by cutting out a great deal of this survey work, and even some of the community pastures. I believe a large amount of money could be saved if the minister would curtail expenditures in that direction.
I am now asking for a breakdown of the item for land utilization, amounting to $501,893, and the amount of $1,518,106 for water development and storage. Then, would he set out what the policy is this year with respect to dug-outs and dams in Saskatchewan? When the matter is under further discussion, I may have some further questions, but at the present time these will be sufficient.


James Garfield Gardiner: I shall first deal with the last-mentioned point, in order that I may discuss it while it is fresh in my mind, because I have not the detailed information before me. The year 1939-40 was the last year in which we followed the policy which had been followed from the beginning under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. It was the policy which was quite generally followed in connection with matters of the kind. I have just forgotten the figures for 1935, but it runs in my mind that applications in 1935 amounted to somewhere in the neighbourhood of 5,000. In any event they were considerably higher than anything which could have been done in that particular year.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That was
the start.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, that was the start. People applied from all parts of the province. It was not anticipated by anyone that anything like the number could be taken care of with the money available.
Then there was another reason why they were not all taken care of, namely the fact that the farmers were required at that time to do their own jobs. They were not allowed to have contractors to come in and do it in a municipality, for example. It was supposed
44561-299J
to be done by the individual farmer, and the only way in which he could be paid was to have it done in that way.
The hon. member for Souris will recall that in his section of Manitoba the idea was developed of having these dug-outs put in by the municipalities with drag-lines. Probably his own municipality was one of the first to undertake that procedure. In the advisory committee, of which the hon. member for Souris was a member, the question was raised of allowing municipalities to organize to assist farmers in having this work done. We agreed in the second year to that procedure. I think it was 1936 in which agreement was given, and in 1937 it was followed up still further until finally the west became pretty well organized on that basis; not only Manitoba, but Saskatchewan and also part of Alberta were organized either on the basis of contractors who would come in with drag-lines- and they were encouraged to come in by municipal councils-or on the basis that the municipalities purchased drag-lines and put them to work digging dug-outs for farmers.
We got into no difficulties at all until 1939. And the only reason why we got into difficulties then was that so many of these out-fits had gone into the work that they cleaned out more dug-outs than we were able to pay for during that year. The policy followed prior to that was the policy of authorizing these dug-outs as they had been inspected by our engineers.


Ernest Edward Perley: To be put in by the farmers
themselves.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, to be put in by
the farmers. That is the way in which we started. Then we went on on that basis, simply passing them as proper locations on which to make dug-outs. They were authorized for construction. Then in 1939, as I said, so many of these outfits got busy on this work, partly because of what I have said and partly because of poor crops, that a great many more dug-outs were dug in that year than we were able to pay for. That is the point to which the auditor general refers.
In the succeeding year we were unable to do any new work, or very little, in any case. As I recall it, probably there were none at all taken out during that year. The whole matter was cleared up during the succeeding season, and we have had no difficulty of that kind since. We simply authorized what we are capable of paying, with the funds we have available, and carried on on that basis.
Therefore, while I have no objection to the hon. member's bringing the matter to the attention of the committee, I would point out that the difficulty in that connection was
Supply-Agriculture

corrected even before the auditor general called it to our attention. We were busy correcting it before he mentioned it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I notice the
auditor general says:
During the fiscal year 1940-41 a substantial part of these commitments were liquidated and, in general, the branch observed the provisions of the sections above mentioned.
Were there at the end of the fiscal year to which this report applies still some of these outstanding amounts?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; I understand they
were all cleaned up. I would not be absolutely certain without going through all the records as to whether there might not have been a few of them which were not completely cleaned up; but-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It was, substantially.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; it was all cleaned up, in so far as it had been a problem. I am told that there is nothing outstanding now; it is all cleared up. One might draw a wrong impression from the information given with regard to the dug-outs in the different constituencies. I am sure that my hon. friend had no intention of indicating that it was because of any personal or political feelings between ourselves that the development had taken place, but in order to indicate that it could not have been such I should like to give a few figures. The total number of dug-outs in different constituencies from the beginning of the plan to March 31, 1941, are as follows:
Qu'Appelle	 430
Weyburn	 1,096
Souris	 853
Melville	 746
Out of that group the hon. member for Qu'Appelle and I might have some reason for complaint when we compare our constituencies
with the others, but when one takes the whole record there is a good reason for this.


Ernest Edward Perley: How many in Wood
Mountain?


James Garfield Gardiner: It should be fairly high,
but as a matter of fact it is only 250 completed.


Ernest Edward Perley: There were no complaints from the hon. member?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I do not recall that there were.


James J. Donnelly: There must be some mistake because I inspected more than 250 myself.


James Garfield Gardiner: There were 650 inspected and applied for.


James J. Donnelly: Are those dug-outs or dams?


James Garfield Gardiner: Dug-outs. Just giving the individual figures does not mean very much. In Wood Mountain there were 422 stock-watering dams completed; in Weyburn there were only 214, and 1,096 dug-outs. If one considers the amount of money put into them, it probably works out about the same. One would also have to take into consideration the fact that in a constituency like Weyburn there would not be as many larger dams as might be found in other constituencies. All these things have to be considered.


Ernest Edward Perley: What are the figures for Moose Jaw?


James Garfield Gardiner: Apart from the water supply project, they would not be particularly high. Moose Jaw has only 283 dug-outs and 104 small stock-watering dams, but there has been a considerable expenditure on water supply. That would figure only as one dam.
I was asked to give the break-down of the figures for 1941-42, the last year for which we have complete figures. They are as follows:
Prairie farm rehabilitation. Headquarters administration-
Ottawa	
$	7,661 63Regina	
41,788	50Economic surveys	
44,035	49Entomological surveys	
6,297	86Administration total	
Cultural experiments and research- "
Administration	
District experimental stations, reclamation stations...
Grass investigations, coverage and range surveys	
Tree planting	
Soil research, soil surveys	
A.I.A.'s, soil drifting, including horticultural development
Cultural work on irrigation projects	
Live stock surveys, sheep development	
$	99,783 48
$	11,883 83
138,255 47 41,386 13 32,715 44 56,743 50 43,446 45 13,810 04 10,453 40
Cultural total	
Land utilization-
Administration	
Construction community pastures	
Pasture management and operation community pastures (Mr. Gardiner.]	-

Supply-Agriculture
I should like to say this in passing, in view of the remarks of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, that the operational costs are all paid by the pastures themselves. There is no cost whatsoever on the government. The only
cost is the original capital cost of buying the pasture. The maintenance cost is paid by the fees of the farmers surrounding these pastures. More figures follow:
Purchase of land	 $	62,310 06
Purchase of bulls	 19,586 37
Reestablishment of farmers	 33,918 11
Seeding purchases, et cetera	 132,307 28
Grass seeding community pastures	 52,593 80
Total land utilization	
Water development, water storage-
Administration	
Small projects	
Large projects	
Water storage	,	
Surveys

Total, water development

Grand total, P.F.R.A


Ernest Edward Perley: That is about $100,000 less than the year before?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not the figures before me, but I think it is about that. The vote has been $2,500,000 for the two years. I was asked to give a distribution of the 1941-42 expenditures by object of expenditure. These are:
Salaries and wages	 $992,238 74
Travelling expenses	 195,528 99
In order to understand these items it must be understood that a considerable part of the work done in connection with water development is engineering work. A farmer may ask the branch to send out an engineer to give him advice as to where and how to construct a dam to take care of his water supply. The department may undertake that expenditure, but there may be no expenditure in connection with the building of the dam. The farmer may do the work himself. The same thing happens in many cases in connection with dug-outs. All the farmer receives is advice, but that advice costs us money because we must send out an engineer and pay his salary and travelling expenses while he is away.
In addition to that, we investigate a great many projects upon which nothing is done. For instance, a farmer thinks he would like to have a water supply developed in a certain place. Engineers go out, and they may report that the soil is such as to make it impossible for the water to be retained. The subsoil may be sandy or the water in some way be drained away, and they advise the department not to go ahead. The same with regard to dams. A dam that is put in gravelly
or sandy subsoil would not retain the water. These investigations are made by the department without cost to the farmer. All he geis is advice, upon which he usually acts.
Other items are as follows:
Postage, telephones, et cetera.. $ 13,568 72
Equipment and supplies	 353,486 99
Feeds	 3,784 39
Lands, buildings and works....	701,498 84
I think the suggestion was made that an item of that size for lands, buildings and works might require explanation. It will be realized in connection with land utilization that we do purchase lands. In some cases we have to purchase lands that make up a small part of a very large pasture. An item of $582,961.79 is included in this $701,498.84 for water development. In connection with water development we have to purchase the site for the large type of dam used for irrigation purposes. We have also to purchase the right of way for ditches that connect the dam with the lands to be irrigated. In connection with projects like those at Yalmarie, Eastend and others we purchase the lands themselves and resell them to the individuals who are settled on them. In other words, we are purchasing lands in many different ways.
In addition to these purchases, there are on the lands themselves the works in connection with the development. Take an operation like that at Eastend, where we built a dam costing in the neighbourhood of from $100,000 to $200,000. It does not take very many expenditures like that to make up this total.
In the Maple Creek area we have a number of smaller dams, also in the Swift Current
Supply-Agriculture

area, and ditches are built to connect the dam with areas located a considerable distance away from the dam itself.
Other items are:
Printing and stationery	
$19,297	28Legal expenses	
1,069	38Rents	
77,220	91Freight	
30,480	37Advertising	
611	99Miscellaneous	
70,716	69
This makes a total of $2,406,503.29.


Ernest Edward Perley: There is quite a considerable increase in some items, but in the first three or four I notice there is a decrease. I have a return here dealing with the dam at Echo lake and another at Last Mountain creek. While on the subject of dams and water conservation, would the minister state the cost of the scheme to get water into the city of Moose Jaw, and how far it has progressed? There has been considerable discussion of that scheme on former occasions. What has been expended so far on the scheme to get water into the city of Moose Jaw?


James Garfield Gardiner: The approximate figure is $500,000. That is what the vote was to begin with.


Ernest Edward Perley: How much has been spent?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is practically all spent.


Ernest Edward Perley: What is the position at the present time?


James Garfield Gardiner: Our general undertaking with the city of Moose Jaw is that we were to put in the equipment; that we would construct the ditch; that we would clean out the basin where the water is to be stored and prove to them or to anyone interested that water could be pumped through this ditch to the basin of Caron, after which the whole project would be turned over to the city of Moose Jaw for operation and maintenance. We had just about accomplished our end of this work when the most unusual cloudburst that has been seen in that area for many years washed out part of the ditch, and we could not continue to fill the basin at Caron with water. Last year we pumped water from the river to the basin at Caron. Then this cloudburst came. We undertook to make repairs, which it was estimated would cost about $20,000. I have not the figures of the actual cost.
We had some difficulty this year with shifting sands in the river. The river is high and the sands covered the intake, with the result that sandy water got into the pumps and affected them. We are having them repaired at the present time. We are also having an

investigation made by a firm of water engineers of Toronto into the intake itself, to learn whether we should reconstruct the intake in the river before attempting to pump any more water, because of the damage that sandy water would do the pumps themselves.


Ernest Edward Perley: What is the estimate of the cost to complete the scheme?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am sorry I am not in a position to say. The cost up to date, including repairs, is considerably higher than the figure I first stated. It would be over $500,000, including the purchase of the land.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Has Moose Jaw agreed to take over the project, or is it to be left on the government's hands?


James Garfield Gardiner: Councils change from
year to year, and one cannot be absolutely certain what the council that will be in office when the work is completed will do, but the understanding is that when the government has pumped water into the Caron basin and indicated that the plan is feasible, the city will take over the plant and operate it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is the water in the basin now?


James Garfield Gardiner: We pumped water into the basin last summer, but the ditch was washed out by a cloudburst. We felt that we were responsible for going ahead until we got the water through, and therefore we made the repairs this spring. Then we experienced this further difficulty I have mentioned of sand getting into the pumping apparatus.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: So far there
is no flow of water coming down there?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not flowing at
present, but it did flow' last summer.


Mr. BENCE:: Was there any difficulty with regard to the ditch holding water?


James Garfield Gardiner: Only the difficulty I
have mentioned. In a country as dry as that had been, the soil would have to be soaked with water before one could be absolutely certain that the ditch would hold. It is seventy miles from the river to the basin. I went there last summer, and the water was then within 4| miles of the basin. Hon. members who know that section know that the part of it which is likely to be found sandy is the south end near the Caron country, and the water was then within 4| miles of the basin. Eventually it did run into the basin, some weeks after I was there.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Into the
basin.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. Water did run
all the way down the ditch, and there were two leaks. We had to puddle clay and put it in to cover up the sand-pits in certain places where the water would leak out, but the opinion of the engineers is that when the ditch is properly seasoned it will carry water down. They are putting water into it, and this would have been an ideal year because there have been heavy rains throughout the whole season. The ditch has been full in some parts from the rain itself without any water having come from the river. If we could have gone right ahead this year instead of having to repair ditches in the early part of the season, then having trouble with the pumps, there is no doubt water would have been there weeks ago.


Ernest Edward Perley: Will it always have to be
a pumping system?


James Garfield Gardiner: The river is 200 or 300
feet below the level of the prairie, and the water has to be pumped.


James Arthur Ross: The people in the
southwestern part of Manitoba appreciate very much the assistance they have been given in the matter of dug-outs, water dams, and service generally. The only complaint is that they did not have more dams and so on. Can the minister explain what the decrease of $500,000 will mean this year from the point of view of community pastures or in other respects? I had to be out of the chamber for a few minutes last night, but to-day I read Hansard and Votes and Proceedings as well. The minister said that item 28 had been passed last night, but I could not find, either in Hansard or in Votes and Proceedings, anything to show that this matter had been dealt with.


James Garfield Gardiner: My memory of what
happened last night is that when we reached item 27 the Chairman called "carried," and I asked him to allow it to stand because of discussions I had had with the member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn). I asked the Chairman to have item 27 stand and proceed with item 28 and then go on to items 32 and 33 and deal with those. My memory is that the Chairman called "carried" for item 28 and then called item S3, and that we discussed item S3 and passed it.


James Arthur Ross: It does not appear in that way in the records.
Mr.. GARDINER:	That is what actually
occurred. I asked him also to consider item 32 but it was so close to time that we did not go on with it.
-Agriculture


George Henry Ross: I	absent for
a few minutest: ^ut from the reading pi Hansard and VaUipand Proceedings I plot find item 28 accVu$ted for in any shapd or form.	^ ^	'	*'


James Garfield Gardiner: check Hansard to the would have noticed it.
end
did not night, or I


James Arthur Ross: May we deal with it
after item 29?


James Garfield Gardiner: If it is agreed that it was not passed, I am prepared to answer the question, but I would hesitate to go back.


James Arthur Ross: Why is it not recorded in Hansard or in Votes and Proceedings? Why does it not appear as having been passed? How is a member to know, if he has been absent?


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Fournier, Hull):: In Votes and Proceedings item 28 does not appear as having been carried.


James Garfield Gardiner: Is it not mentioned in my remarks?


Alphonse Fournier: I have not looked up Hansard.


James Garfield Gardiner: If any hon. member wishes to ask a question on item 28 he can ask it, but I wonder if we could not clean up
item 29.


James Arthur Ross: That would be my suggestion. Did the minister intend to say something about the $500,000?


James Garfield Gardiner: The reduction of $500,000 has to do with water storage. As a matter of fact, it was inserted in the first instance to take care of the Moose Jaw project and some other undertakings of a similar kind. We put in $500,000, and it was all stated in one vote. That' is what it is for, and we will cut down on water storage projects this year rather than on dug-outs and small dams and constructions of that kind.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: I wish the minister would make a statement with regard to control of water at the head of the bay of Fundy, because it affects our marshlands. These estimates provide for enormous expenditures for western Canada. Certainly they are enormous in the eyes of eastern farmers. The members of this house and our people generally are sympathetic when the appropriations are for the benefit of agriculture, and are properly expended. One coming from the east is struck by the fact that of the special agricultural appropriation last year, of which $30,008,000 was spent, the whole was for western Canada
Sup-ply-Agriculture

and none for Nova Scotia or the east. In our province we have a problem which I have at different times brought to the attention of the minister and of the house. The water must be controlled on our marshlands where there is too much,water rather than too little, as is the case in the west. Millions of dollars have been expended for the control of water in the west, while we have had no such expenditures in the east on the part of the federal government. It is the view of the owners of these lands and of the public in Nova Scotia and in New Brunswick that it is essential that there should be a federal appropriation to restore our marshlands at the head of the bay of Fundy.	[DOT]
All those who are acquainted with these marshlands know that they are the most fertile in eastern Canada. They are the lands that attracted early settlers to the head of the bay of Fundy. In recent years part of these marshlands have been reverting to floating bogs, because the farmers have not been able to keep open the main drainage outlets. Large areas are lands flooded by the tides, because the owners have not been able to re-build the dykes. A large body of land near the town of Amherst is reverting to floating bogs, and unless something is done by the federal government to open up the main drainage channels, it might as well be turned over to the migratory birds and abandoned by the farmers. The farmers require these lands as a basis for their crops and to raise beef and dairy cattle.
It would not take a large expenditure, if properly made, to open up these main drainage ditches. I have discussed this matter with the minister, and I felt he was sympathetic to the proposal. Hon. John A. McDonald, Minister of Agriculture, of Nova Scotia, has made extensive surveys and has expressed a willingness to cooperate with the farmers and with the federal authorities in draining and protecting these marshlands, leaving the smaller ditches to the property owners. Unless something is done to assist the farmers in the drainage of these lands and in protecting them from the sea, these lands will revert to the condition they were in when the first settlers came. This would be not only a great loss to the farmers and to the community but a reflection upon the progress of our country and upon the people in that part of Canada.
I regret that there is no appropriation in the main estimates dealing with this situation, but I understand the minister is sympathetic, and I am hopeful that before this session is over he will be able to supplement the statement he has made to-night and do something about this very pressing problem. tMr. P. C. Black.]


James Garfield Gardiner: As the hon. member has said, the problem of the marshlands in the maritime provinces has been under consideration at least since I became Minister of Agriculture and, I think, long before that. At the time I became Minister of Agriculture the department had secured a portion of these marshlands as part of 'the Nappan experimental farm and done the necessary work of draining and reconditioning and fertilizing to get them back into much the state that they were in in the days when the original settlers built the first dykes.


Percy Chapman Black: And these lands have been producing three or more tons per acre of the very best hay.


James Garfield Gardiner: I was going to say I took the trouble when I was in Nova Scotia last summer to reinspect these lands. When I saw them in 1936 the operations were just beginning, and the lands then looked just like any other marshlands where water has been getting in over them. To-day I think those lands are producing as much per acre as any lands in the maritime provinces, perhaps more. As Minister of Agriculture I have been convinced that one of the most worth-while works that I know of anywhere in Canada can be done in that area from the point of view of providing lands on which people can maintain themselves in agriculture. The problem of dealing with them, apart from the experimental work, has always been considered here to be a provincial problem.
I have attempted for three years now to have some money provided to do some work. This year I was turned down three times before I finally gave up. I was turned down in an effort to get money under the war vote on the ground that these lands were required to supply some part of the shortage of food products in the maritime provinces rather than that we should draw upon our surplus elsewhere to feed the people in that area. But it was considered, probably rightly so, not to be an expenditure that ought to be made from money provided for war purposes, the reason being that while the immediate effect might be good from the war point of view, the greater part of the money would be expended to take care of a difficulty that had existed for a long time and that unless someone does something about it, it will be there for a long time to come. It was considered still a provincial responsibility, not sufficiently national to justify an expenditure of money from the treasury of Canada.

Supply-Agriculture
Then I thought we might be able to get it under a vote such as this, but again it was refused on the ground that under the act prairie farm rehabilitation is confined to the drought area of western Canada and that it is not desirable to extend the scope of these activities during the war period, when money is required for so many other purposes.
The third time I attempted to get it under the supplementary estimates which come into the regular estimates under our experimental farms vote. But I was turned down on that, with the provision that I could report to the house that it had been turned down by the treasury board, of which I myself am a member.
I am giving this information to the committee in order to indicate that even ministers are not always able to get the things done that they think ought to be done, or have money spent that they think ought to be spent. I am not certain that I was right in advocating that this money be spent by the federal government. I think it ought to be spent by someone. I do not know any work that could be more usefully done in Canada from the point of view of improving the agriculture of an area than work having to do with the marshlands about the bay of Fundy in both New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
That I think will have to end the matter as far as this session is concerned. It is not in the supplementaries; it is not in these estimates, and I know of no way of having it put in this year. Mos't of those who have discussed the matter believe it to be a provincial responsibility. The province has been sympathetic and would, of course, have been pleased if we had spent the money; probably it would have been prepared to take care of the maintenance or to have had it done by the local organizations; but the government here, and more particularly the treasury board, thought there should be an advance of a different nature made by the province before we should consider making payments out of the treasury of Canada.


Percy Chapman Black: I wish to
express my appreciation of the minister's personal attitude in respect of this matter. If it were required for the western provinces I would expect him as Minister of Agriculture to be successful. He has the reputation of being able to get any appropriation, involving enormous expenditures, needed for the west. But very little is being done for the east. It may be necessary for us in the east, for a short time at least to get an eastern minister of agriculture. But I do not wish to make that change to-night.


An hon. MEMBER:: Leave it over the week-end!


Percy Chapman Black: I believe that some expenditure for improving or restoring these eastern marshlands is at least as important, if not more important, than the work being done under the minister in the prairie provinces. Inasmuch as these eastern marshlands are older lands, the drainage of them and the protection of them from the tide can, in my opinion, be justified to a greater extent than the building of these storage basins in the western provinces. I feel so strongly on this matter, coming from Nova Scotia, that I would be inclined to move that this vote be reduced, in order to test the feeling of the members of this house in regard to the unfair division of these expenditures. The amount appropriated last year for water control in western Canada was $2,500,000; the estimate for this year is $2,000,000, and I would be inclined to move that it be reduced to $1, unless some measure of justice is done the people of eastern Canada. I do not want to reflect upon the minister. He may have done the best he could. He made a straightforward statement to the committee to-night. I believe he made a strong plea to the treasury board, headed by the Minister of Finance, but that is not good enough as far as Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are concerned, and I am not satisfied to allow the present allotments to continue, in view of the expenditures being made for the control of water in western Canada.
There is another reason why this work in the east might be undertaken now. Much of the machinery that is owned or controlled by the Department of Public Works is now idle, and surely some of it could be utilized to open up these main drainage outlets, so that these fertile lands, which attracted the early settlers, will not again become floating bogs, or be covered by the wash of the tides, but that they might be restored to cultivation. The provincial government has promised to assist in the work, but the provincial government does not consider that it should be held entirely responsible, and I agree. I think the main responsibility and obligation should be assumed by the federal government, particularly in view of the fact that it can spend twelve or fifteen million dollars on prairie farm rehabilitation, and many millions on the control of water in the western provinces, while the east has not been able to have a dollar spent on this kind of work.
I want to thank the minister for his statement and for his appreciation of the needs of the marsh owners at the head of the bay of Fundy, but I am not satisfied to allow the matter to remain as it is.

Supply-Agriculture


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I should like to ask one or two questions. The first is with reference to the fact that at the close of almost every fiscal year there are a number of accounts outstanding; that is, a number of farmers who have put in dug-outs or sold land for water development, who have sometimes obligated themselves to oil companies and other concerns for considerable sums of money, in the expectation of being paid by the government, sometimes have had to wait six months or a year for those payments. I can understand, in view of the minister's statement to-night, that in some instances the department spent much more money than was actually contained in the vote, but I should like to ask whether there are any outstanding accounts left or whether all those people to whom money was owing, either for labour or for land, have been paid. The second question is this. I understand that last year, of the $2,500,000 voted, about $2,400,000 was spent. Could the minister tell us how much of that was for administration?


James Garfield Gardiner: I placed the complete figures on Hansard. It all depends on what the hon. member means by "administration". Salaries and wages in connection with administration amount to approximately $73,000, and the total sum for administration is given as $99,000. That includes the salaries of those engineers of whom I was speaking, who go out and do investigational work for farmers. There is no capital expenditure in connection with some of those works, as far as the government is concerned; we give the farmer the engineering free, and he goes ahead and does his own work. There is a good deal of that done, and therefore it is hardly fair to say that all this administration cost should be charged against the actual works which may be carried out. Subject to that, the administration cost was $99,783.48, and the total amount expended was $2,406,503.29.
With regard to the outstanding accounts, I think the memory of the hon. member for Weyburn must be running back to 1940, for that was the year in which the greater part of the difficulty arose, running over from 1939. The big part of it came about in the summer of 1940, and then in 1941 there was a comparatively small amount carried over. For the greater part of last year, however, and for all of this year there has been very little of that. It may be that there was some difficulty in a certain neighbourhood which may have come to the attention of the hon. member for Weyburn or some other hon. member, but the total amount would be very small when compared with our expenditures under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. Under the method we are following now there (Mr. P. C. Black.]
must be money available all the time to cover any authorization. That is the principal reason why we are down about $100,000 in our expenditures last year; there had to be sufficient leeway to make absolutely certain that every account could be paid before the accounts were closed for that financial year. As a result we spent $2,400,000 instead of $2,500,000, and therefore there has always been money available to make the payments. That difficulty would only arise in eases where for some reason or another the treasury was not prepared to pay an account, or where we had not satisfied those making the audits that the expenditure should be made.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I wrote the
minister about some cases last winter. I think some of those accounts have been paid. Would the minister say whether most of the outstanding accounts have been cleared up?


James Garfield Gardiner: There may be an
individual case or two, but they have been practically all paid.


Robert Fair: Who are the members of the
treasury board at the present time?
Mr. GARDINER. Of course the Minister of Finance is a member, with the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Mines and Resources, the Minister of National Revenue, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Agriculture. Then there are alternates who attend when we are absent.


Ernest Edward Perley: What is the amount it is
estimated will be required to complete the Echo lake dam and what will be the total cost when completed?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not just sure
which of those lakes is called Echo lake. Is it the one west of Fort Qu'Appelle?


Ernest Edward Perley: Yes. Then, is anything
being done at Katepwa lake?


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that this
year for the first time Katepwa lake is filled and the dam is overflowing. There has always been a question as to whether or not we should raise that dam. The engineers think we should. Those of us who have had some practical experience with it question that opinion, and I have been responsible for holding up any expenditure on that dam until this year. I am now receiving letters telling me it is too high. The reason why I have taken that action is that on one occasion that dam was raised, and one foot had to be taken off the top of it. On another occasion it was again raised a foot on the advice of engineers, and we found that the lapping of the water around Lebret and Katepwa, and on the other side of the lake, was having the

Supply-A gricul t ure
effect of making the shade trees in those areas fall into the lake, and bringing about other difficulties as well. Accordingly we have left it until another high-water year. I think the high-water year is going to indicate that those of us who thought there would be some danger in putting it up further were correct, and therefore the work may not be done. But if the work is done on Echo lake it will cost $25,000.


Ernest Edward Perley: More?


James Garfield Gardiner: Very little has been done on it up to date.


Ernest Edward Perley: I think the minister's statement agrees with the idea I have in mind. In my view a lot of money is wasted in connection with the building of dams on certain of these lakes. So far as Crooked lake dam was concerned-and I will not refer to it at great length-it was in my opinion a very great mistake. By raising it just seven feet they have flooded hundreds of acres of high land on the Indian reservation. From the report I have I understand they will be able to cut scarcely any hay on the reservation this year, and that is because the level of the lake has been raised.
Will the minister be able to give a report on the surveys to which I have referred in the Qu'Appelle valley? I see that the sum of $2,719 has been expended to the end of May. I believe that includes April and the month of May. When may we expect a report? It is pointed out that the survey is for the purpose of locating and establishing the extent of irrigable areas in the valley.
Before the minister answers I should like to refer to the matter of pastures. I have before me a return in which is set out the number of community pastures established last year, the cost of each, and the fencing costs per mile. This statement shows that there were nine pastures, and that the fencing cost from $301 to $395 per mile. If those are the correct figures, they are out of all proportion. I do not care whether the work was done by contract, by the government br by officials of the department; in my opinion the cost is too great. I have twenty miles of fencing, with cedar posts, carrying a four-wire fence. I know what that cost, and I should like to have the contract of building fences for half the money quoted here. If that is the way in which money has been spent, there is no reason for it at all, and moneys have been very considerably overexpended. No fence in Saskatchewan should cost $395 a mile.


James Garfield Gardiner: With regard to the first matter I would say that surveys are being run up all of the streams flowing into the
44561-300J
Qu'Appelle river, both on the south side and on the north side. I am not certain as to the number which have been run on either side of the river, but the intention is to run surveys for the purpose of locating possible sites for dams. Those dams are to maintain water for two purposes, the first being to take care of possible irrigation for the production of hay and fodder to be used in years of drought, and the other being to feed the lakes below, and any lands which may be irrigated as a result of those lakes having water in them during the summer. The purpose is to feed those lakes throughout the season, rather than have the water all go down in the spring, rush off and leave no water for irrigation later on in the season.
The main reason why the surveys have to be made is that one may look at a location with the naked eye and consider it to be a proper place to put in a dam. After putting a dam in, he may find that his water supply extends back only a few rods, because of the steepness of the basin of the stream at that point. But at some other point a similar dam may be put in, with the result that water would go back half a mile, or even a greater distance. The surveys are being made for the purpose of having information with regard to streams before any work of that kind is undertaken. The surveys are made for the purpose of trying to avoid spending money wastefully. This is the second season this work has been done, and the cost up to date is in the vicinity of the amount indicated.
Then, as to fencing, I agree that there are nine pastures. The cost of fenicing averages from $301 to $395 .per mile. I believe the fence used is a five-strand type; the posts are all creosoted, and most of them have to be shipped a considerable distance. Costs of materials for fences are very high at present. The work is done by the farmers living in the community. If the farmers are not available we sometimes hire other people, and they are paid ordinary rates of pay.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Since the subject of
dug-outs has been mentioned, I should like to say that the farmers in my constituency appreciate very much the practical assistance which has been given to them in this regard. Hon. members .can. scarcely appreciate the difficulties many of these farmers have had in the past when, they have had to haul water several miles at busy seasons of the year. In these days, with the very serious shortage of labour and the need for increased production of hogs and dairy products, this very practical assistance has been a worthwhile contribution.
Supply-Agriculture

On behalf of the large number of farmers in my area who have been given assistance in connection with the construction of dug-outs I should like to express appreciation to the department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marketing service.
2S: Marketing of agricultural products, including temporary appointments that may be required to be made, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act, the amount available for such appointments not to exceed $13,000, $25,000.
James Arthur Ross: It has been already
stated that our present programme calls for the development of 40,000 tone of synthetic rubber. It has been pointed out that some 13,000,000 bushels of wheat manufactured into alcohol would- make this amount of rubber. May I point out that 40,000 tons of synthetic rubber would not begin to take care of the demand) for rubber in- this country at the present time; that is only the programme for the coming year. One hundred pounds of wheat is supposed to make ten pounds of rubber. It has been stated that this rubber may be made, with wheat at 75 cents a bushel net, at a cost of 30 cents a po-und for the rubber. It is recognized that rubber made from gasoline costs 40 cents a pound.
My point is that we must recognize the fact that a great deal of capital assistance has been given by the government to set up industry, chiefly in eastern Canada, for the manufacture of war munitions. It is recognized, too, that there is a great shortage of gasoline in the country to-day. I believe there is the possibility of a great development in the manufacture of rubber through the use of wheat.
My point is tha-t the Minister of Agriculture should use his influence with the Minister of Munitions and Supply, and I am sure the Minister of Mines and Resources who is in his seat would give some assistance. These factories should be established in the prairie provinces, because, if that were done, costs of transportation and other costs in connection with moving the wheat to eastern Canada, a procedure which costs the farmer 14 or 15 cents a bushel, would be saved. The establishment of the industry in western Canada would have the effect of decentralizing industry to some extent. In Manitoba we have large quantities of the cheapest electrical power on the north American continent, and that power would be available in factories of this kind. I trust the minister will keep this in mind, because I believe there is a great future in it. It would provide an outlet for many million bushels of our wheat. We do not know to just what extent

it may be developed, but it may be considerable. What has been done in the way of research?


James Garfield Gardiner: A great deal of research has been carried on in other countries, particularly in the United States. Some research has been carried on 'here under the national research council in cooperation with the officials of our own department. The work has got beyond what might be called the investigational stage; it has reached the experimental stage. A plant is being provided at -Sarnia to make use of bo-th petroleum products and wheat. There are wheat storage elevators in the vicinity as well as petroleum works.	.
The present intention of -the Department of Munitions and Supply is -to operate this plant and prove to their own satisfaction and the satisfaction of everyone else what can be done both with petroleum products and with wheat. As to what it will cost to operate with one or the other of the raw products, I doubt if anyone has any final information. There is a great deal of speculation, but the only information I have is what I have heard in discussion or read in the press and periodicals. I think the general impression is that the capital cost of handling petroleum is higher than that of 'handling wheat, but the difficulty of getting -the materials necessary to provide a plant for the utilization of wheat is perhaps more difficult, copper being one of the materials needed. There are also difficulties in connection with the essential products. I am given to understand-I do not know that this has been proven by anyone-that the actual cost of operation in connection with petroleum products is lower than in connection with wheat products. There are all kinds of figures circulating with regard to the actual cost and with regard to the actual price at which one would have to get the wheat in order to do the job in ordinary times, or even in war time. The fact of the matter is that this plant is now established, and we shall be in a much better position to discuss the matter a year hence than we are now. I have no information that could be called authentic.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will the
minister explain the provision under this item which permits him to spend $13,000 for temporary assistance "notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act"? Is that to engage persons temporarily to go out to secure trade in other countries?


James Garfield Gardiner: It has varied in amount from time to time. We might send a person out on investigational trips in connection with marketing. Some of these men have been sent to south America, some to Great Britain, and

Supply-Agriculture
some to different places in Canada. They are appointed on a temporary basis, not on a permanent basis.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: To secure information as to what products will be acceptable?


James Garfield Gardiner: And to make investigations as to what people in other places require.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special.
30. Prairie Farm Assistance Act, $500,000.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What awards have been paid in each province, and how much has been paid out in each province to the latest date the minister has?


James Garfield Gardiner: I will give both the prairie farm assistance and the prairie farm income in order to avoid answering another question, and the figures I have are up to July 2, 1942. They are:
Prarie farm assistance Awards-
Saskatchewan	 $	57,424
Manitoba	 928
Alberta	 16,184
Total	 $	74,536
Amounts expended-
Saskatchewan	
$11,401,447	24Manitoba	
34,788	66Alberta	
2,817,044	27Total	
$14,253,280	17
That is the highest that has ever been paid since the legislation was brought in.
Prairie farm income Farmers-
Saskatchewan	 $	112,759
Manitoba	 41,003
Alberta	 68,986
Total	 $	222,748
Amounts expended

Saskatchewan	 $ 9,838,182 33
Manitoba	 2,935,688 91
Alberta	 4,908,820 17
Total	 $17,682,691	41
Perhaps I could give the three main totals together:
Wheat acreage reduction.... $31,717,557	56
Prairie farm assistance	14,253,280	17Prairie farm income	
17,682,691	41Total	
$63,653,529 14


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Has the minister the particulars of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, that is the payments made under section 3 and those made under section 4?


Robert Fair: Could the minister put along with those figures the amounts collected under
the one per cent levy?


James Garfield Gardiner: Here are the figures for 1941-42:
Payments made under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act for the year 1941, as at June 30, 1942
Yield category	No. of twps.	Manitoba No. of awards	Amount	
0 -5 (crop failure)					
0 - 4					
4-1- 8	. 2	52	$ 3,170 75	8-1-12	. 31	892	31,310 80	Yield category	No. of twps.	Saskatchewan No. of awards	Amount	$ 34,481 550-5 (crop failure)	. 473	15,305	$5,590,126 91	0 - 4	. 20*	685	187,772 77	4-1 8	. 621	19,770	3,875,799 50	8-1-12	. 648	21,986	1,741,495 08	Yield category	No. of twps.	Alberta No. of awards	Amount	$11,395,194 260-5 (crop failure)	. 207	2,787	$ 893,694 39	0 4	. 16	429	113,740 84	4-1- 8	. 324	7,125	1.314.535 95	8-1-12	. 284	5,926	494,621 85	Total payments	$ 2,816,593 03 $14,246,268 84
Taken in on account of hail, not under crop failure provisions.
Supply-Agriculture

. The amount collected prior to 1941-42 was $5,004,197.19. This year the amount collected from August 1, 1941, to June 30, 1942, which is not a complete year, was $1,387,842.26. The total collected to date is $6,392,039.45.


James J. Donnelly: What was the total paid?


James Garfield Gardiner: The total paid for the whole time was approximately $30,000,000.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: How many payments under P.F.A. are still unpaid in each of the provinces?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are still 1,114 to be paid under P.F.A.


Charles Edward Johnston: By
provinces?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the total.


Victor Quelch: Are these still to be
decided upon or waiting to be paid?


Ernest Edward Perley: Can the minister give the figures by provinces?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are as follows: Outstanding claims-Manitoba Wheat Acreage Reduction-
Not yet passed-Nil.
Paid in part only-107.
Estimated amount yet to be paid-$255,917 (includes $200,000 payable on grass and rye after July 1, 1942.)
Amount paid to date-$4,082,134.60.
Prairie Farm Assistance-
Not yet passed-81.
Passed but not yet paid-29.
Paid in part only-Nil.
Estimated amount yet to be paid-$3,466 (includes provisions for 9 part townships under section 7 (b) now to be paid.)
Amount paid to date-$35,800.10.
Prairie Farm Income-
Not yet passed-1,000.
Passed but not yet paid-102.
Paid in part only-Nil.
Estimated amount yet to be paid-$65,000 (includes provision for 178 late applications for which the approval of the governor in council is being sought.)
Amount paid to date-$2,952,033.35.
Outstanding claims-Saskatchewan Wheat Acreage Reduction-
Not yet passed-516.
Paid in part only-768.
Estimated amount to be paid-$1,487,160 (includes $1,150,000 payable on grass and rye after July 1, 1942.)
Amount paid to date-$18,238,755.50.
Prairie Farm Assistance-
Not yet passed-Nil.
Passed but not paid-111.
Paid in part only-Nil.
Estimated amount yet to be paid-$675,658 (includes provision for several doubtful townships and 96 part townships under section 7 (b) now to be paid.)
Amount paid to date-$11,666,439.18.
IMr. Gardiner.]
Prairie Farm Income-
Not yet passed-330.
Passed but not yet paid-40.
Estimated amount yet to be paid-$450,000 (includes provision for 250 late applications for which approval of the governor in council is being sought.)
Amount paid to date-$10,015,377.47.
The 250 applications referred to in the above table for which the approval of the governor in council is being sought are the group that came in late under prairie farm income, many of them due to our own difficulties rather than any fault of the individuals. We asked them to put in their applications by November 30. We made that request toward the end of October, but we had some delay in getting out the forms on which they were to make application, and I have asked council to consider the payment of these applications on the ground that we are responsible for the delay. That has not yet been assented to. The figures for Alberta follow:
Outstanding claims-Alberta Wheat Acreage Reduction-
Not yet passed-295.
Paid in part only-650.
Estimated amount yet to be paid-$884,097 (includes $650,000 payable on grass and rye after July 1, 1942.)
Amount paid to date-$9,915,620.81.
Prairie Farm Assistance-
Not yet passed-833.
Passed but not yet paid-60.
Paid in part only-Nil.
Estimated amount yet to be paid-$196,889 (includes provision for several doubtful townships and 42 part townships under section 7 (bl now to be paid.)
Amount paid to date-$2,989,455.52.
Prairie Farm Income-
Not yet passed-302.
Passed but not yet paid-Nil.
Paid in part only-Nil.
Estimated amount yet to be paid-$200,000 (includes provision for 395 late applications for which approval of the governor in council is being sought.)
Amount paid to date-$5,142,267.70.


James Lester Douglas: What is the total amount paid under wheat acreage reduction?


James Garfield Gardiner: It would just about
reach $35,000,000 but not run over. All of these amounts are very close to the estimates we made at the beginning of the year.


Victor Quelch: The farmers have derived very great benefit from this act, but we deplore the fact that there has been so much delay in the payment of many of the claims. I realize that the responsibility for that delay does not rest entirely with the department. In many cases it has been on account of the farmer making an incomplete return or an inaccurate return. Nevertheless I feel that much of this

Supply-Agriculture
confusion could be cleared up if we had clear definitions under the terms of which bonuses could be paid.
I have two cases before me. The first is that of a man named Starling who had a total acreage of 1,450, of which 628 acres were under cultivation and he had 148 head of cattle. That man was classified under the definitions as a rancher, and therefore he was deprived of the bonus. Apparently he was classified as a rancher because his cattle exceeded the ratio of one head to every two acres of wheat. In a letter I received from the department this statement appears:
. . . since the act denies the prairie farm assistance payment to any farmer having a production of 3,000 bushels of wheat from a yield of eight bushels to the acre or better, it seemed only reasonable that some limitation should be placed on the income from live stock which a man might receive and still be eligible for award.
That is an entirely different matter. If a man has 3,000 bushels of wheat he has a marketable commodity. But if in a drought year, a year of serious drought, a man has cattle, in all probability they will not be in shape to sell at the end of the year. If the drought destroyed his pasture, his crop, he must receive money from somewhere or another to buy feed before he can ship that stock. The 3,000 bushels of wheat applies only where the yield is over eight bushels to the acre. Surely the same should apply in the definition of a rancher. The clause with regard to the definition of "rancher" should apply only provided the yield is over eight bushels to the acre.


James Garfield Gardiner: It should not be there at all. As a matter of fact, it is not there.


Victor Quelch: The 3,000 bushels?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; the definition of "rancher" which the hon. member is quoting. That has never been adopted. It was put out by some officials, but it was not adopted.


Victor Quelch: I got the definition from a gentleman sitting at the table, Mr. Stevenson.


James Garfield Gardiner: Let me explain the situation. I think it is a most ridiculous thing to put out in connection with this matter, and I have said so. We have legislation; there are regulations under which we are attempting to get farmers to reduce wheat acreage, and that suggested interpretation of the regulations says that the rancher cannot be paid. It is an interpretation put out by the board. The board says that if a man has so many head of cattle in proportion to the wheat he is growing he is a rancher. We are paying him not to grow wheat at all, and then the board says that if he has so many cattle in proportion to
his wheat he is a rancher. I leave it to members from western Canada whether a man under those conditions is a rancher. I live in the central part of Saskatchewan where there are no ranchers. No one would ever call any man living there a rancher. I have not grown wheat for two years because I have been trying to carry out what I have asked others to do, and for anyone to say I am a rancher because I have fifty head of cattle and no wheat is simply ridiculous. It is so ridiculous that I need say no more, but I can guarantee hon. members without further discussion that if there is any way of preventing such an interpretation from being put on the regulation regarding rancher it will be done.


James Arthur Ross: How is the board comprised?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is the board which the house insisted on having charge of the act instead of the minister. It is the prairie farm assistance board.


James Arthur Ross: What is the personnel?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is a board of three. One happens to be Professor Hope; one is Mr. Murchison, of the soldier settlement board, and the other is Mr. Stevenson of my own department. I still say that the interpretation of "rancher" as written into that statement which has been read to the committee to-night is not the regulation and does not describe a rancher as we understand the term in the west or as ranchers were intended to be known when the act was drafted.


James Arthur Ross: When was the board
set up?


James Garfield Gardiner: The second year the
act was in operation. The first year it operated without a board, and the second year this board was put in as a result of a long discussion in the house in which it was claimed that it ought to be under a board instead of under the minister.


Victor Quelch: I agree with the minister
when he says the definition is ridiculous, but apparently it is still the definition that governs.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not the definition
at all and1 it is not in the regulations. I hope I shall not have as much trouble in convincing the house of that as I have in convincing some of the officials, and I say this here to impress my own conviction on others.


Victor Quelch: Then why do people still
receive letters from the department indicating that this definition governs? I have here a letter which states in part:
If it should be considered advisable to redefine a rancher in more exact terms, the best
Supply-Agriculture

way would be to use the above definition with an additional qualifying clause requiring also a given ratio of cultivated land to grazing land. This of course would entail more administration.
Has it been decided to change that definition? Apparently it still governs the payment.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no doubt it will be changed, or a new regulation will be drafted wording it otherwise.


Victor Quelch: And these claims will be reconsidered in the light of the new definition?


James Garfield Gardiner: The payments will be made on the basis on which they were supposed to be made in the first place.


Victor Quelch: There is another point
which has caused a great deal of trouble, I understand, and that is the definition of the single and the double unit, so far as father and son are concerned. I have received many complaints, and I find it hard to understand exactly what does govern the department in arriving at the conclusion whether father and son are one unit or may be regarded as two. I have in mind the case of a man named McGill, who states he owns his own land. He has rented land from an insurance company and lives with his father, and it is said that he uses his father as a curtain. He gets a crop, and he is refused a bonus on the ground that it is a single unit. He points out, however, that there are many farmers around him in exactly the same circumstances who have been paid on the two-unit basis, but he is turned down. How does the department arrive at that decision, as to whether it is double or single?


James Garfield Gardiner: The department depends on the decision made by the board, and that authority was given the board as a result of amendments made in the house on suggestions largely from hon. members. We are compelled by that legislation to take the board's decision in the matter. That decision is based on inspections made, and there are fathers and sons living together where the son is being paid as a farmer who is farming separately from the father. There are other fathers and sons living together where payment is not made because of the circumstances surrounding the case.


Victor Quelch: What would those circumstances be?


James Garfield Gardiner: 
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What would the administration cost be? The year before, there were two estimates for administration, one in the regular estimates and one in the supplementaries. Will this vote cover the whole thing, or will there be something in the supplementaries?


James Garfield Gardiner: The total cost of the fiscal year was $422,459.67; that is, the inspection and office costs and all costs of administration. That is for P.F.A.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Are there
additional administrative costs for operating wheat acreage reduction and prairie farm income? I know the same machinery handles all three.


James Garfield Gardiner: The expense is divided, but the same office handles them all.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What is the total cost for the machinery that handles all three?


James Garfield Gardiner: The figures are as follows:
Wheat acreage reduction... $1,484,008 43
Prairie farm assistance....	413,224 98
Prairie farm income		123,205 77
The total is slightly over $2,000,000.


James J. Donnelly: What is the total amount of money spent?


James Garfield Gardiner: 


James J. Donnelly: About what percentage is that?


James Garfield Gardiner: About 3$ per cent.


Charles Edward Johnston: Is any assistance being given under this act to farmers in irrigated districts who have suffered from drought? They may be in irrigated districts, but they are not using the water.


James Garfield Gardiner: Those with not more than thirty acres under irrigation who are also farming dry land have been given assistance if they happen to be in an area entitled to it.


Charles Edward Johnston: That works quite a hardship on a goodly number of farmers. I have one farmer who has written complaining of that. He had something like 156 acres in crop, eighty acres was irrigated. The farmers in that irrigated district are under

Supply-Agriculture
a decided handicap, especially in view of the shortage of labour, which was not brought about by anything for which they are responsible. The government is now asking labourers to join the army, and many farm labourers are going into industry. There is therefore a shortage. It is very hard to get men. A great deal more labour is required in an irrigated district than in a non-irrigated district. When these farmers have to pay water rates, as high, I think, as a dollar an acre in some instances, the cost is very heavy. It is really an insult to those farmers to ask them to pay the one per cent on their grain toward prairie farm assistance when they have no chance whatever of getting relief under the act unless they have fewer than thirty acres irrigated. That is a rank injustice, because no matter how dry the year may be, no matter how poor the crops, these people are asked to contribute their one per cent, and yet have no chance of ever receiving relief under this act. Unless the government is prepared to give assistance to these farmers on the land which is an irrigated district, they should not be asked to pay the one per cent. I do not think they should be given consideration on the land that is actually irrigated. Certainly, if they have, say 315 acres in crop as this individual had, only eighty acres of which is irrigated, and the average yield of the farm was under eleven bushels and the whole acreage of the township was under eight bushels average they should come under the act. It seems to me unreasonable, just because it happens to be an irrigated district, to expect these farmers to continue to contribute to the prairie farm assistance at the rate of one per cent with no chance of getting relief.


James Garfield Gardiner: That question- has been up for discussion every year I think since we have	had	the	act,	and the	same reasonshave been given each time. I am sorry I shall	have	to	give	the same	answer. ThePrairie Farm Assistance Act was enacted for the purpose of helping th-ose living in drought areas, and who, for no reason for which they were responsible, are unable to maintain themselves from one crop year to another. We were attempting to get away from	the	old	plan	of giving	out relief. Ithink	we	have	succeeded, as	this year has
proven, which had the second poorest crop on the whole in western Canada, and when we had no relief to pay and costs under prairie farm assistance were lower than in similar years when we were paying relief. On the other hand, most of those living on irrigated land, or having a considerable part of their farm irrigated land, have already been assisted by some government. Many
of the irrigation projects either were in the first instance assisted by government in their construction or have been assisted at other times because of difficulties some got into. Many of them have been put there entirely at the cost of .the government. That was done for exactly the same purpose as the other, in order to make it possible for people to live on th-eir land by their own efforts, by using water -provided for them through projects in the construction of which either governments -or large corporations like the Canadian Pacific railway took part. I know -there are some instances in Alberta where that is not true, but in- the greater number that is the situation.
In addition to that, the figures given a few minutes ago indicate that $30,000,000 has been paid out, and $6,000,000 of it has -been collected from farmers, all the farmers, whether they have drawn under it -or whether they have not. This simply means tha-t the other $24,000,000 was collected from people who have no chance whatever of getting any -payment; that is the citizens of Canada generally, because this problem is considered to be a big enough problem to be looked upon as a national one. It is just as reasonable that the man who has water provided to him because of the place in which he lives or of the activities of some other organization should -contribute as the -person, say in Montreal. He has much less right to be asked to assist in a project of this kind than the man who has been taken care of on the irrigated land. It is on that basis that the decision was made.
But we have gone this far. We have said to any man who has irrigated land that we will make allowance up to thirty acres. If that is all he has, we will assume that the thirty acres are not sufficient to keep him, and we will pay on the larger amount.
We have before council at the present time a proposal that this acreage should be raised, but not nearly to the figure mentioned by my hon. friend a moment ago, some eighty acres. No one has suggested that it be raised as high as that.


Charles Edward Johnston: I think the minister is exaggerating the point when he says that these irrigated farmers have just as much right to pay as a man in Montreal.


James Garfield Gardiner: Perhaps I should have said that he has as much right to pay as the farmer in certain districts in Manitoba, such as the Dauphin district, an area that has never had a crop failure.


An hon. MEMBER:: Or Portage la Prairie.
Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, or Gladstone; they have never had a crop failure. I was there and met their council on this point. They asked, "Why should we pay to this thing? We have never had a crop failure and probably never will, we can never draw anything out." I simply said to them what I have said now. I asked if they did not think it was proper that they who have a crop every year should help to maintain settlement in an area which, after all, makes it worth while for them or anyone else to live where they do. I have never heard a word from them since. They accept the situation, as I think most of the farmers of western Canada accept it. If they have conditions under which they can live, they are quite prepared to assist in carrying others over from one crop to another.


Charles Edward Johnston: I think that is exactly the point. I am not objecting to these people having to pay the one per cent when they are able to do so. That is quite proper in connection with people living in northern Manitoba or in the Peace River district of Alberta, people who have never been dried out. They should make a contribution, but here is a case where people are being dried out. It does not make any difference where the drought occurs. If it should occur in northern Manitoba or in the Peace River district, over an area sufficiently large to qualify, then those people would be given assistance under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act; I do not think there is any doubt about that. Here is an area which does qualify, but because these people happen to be in an irrigated district they do not get anything. They have no objection to paying the one per cent, but when the township as a whole goes below eight bushels, they should certainly be entitled to assistance, no matter whether a few quarters or sections in that district escaped.


James Garfield Gardiner: There would be no possibility of getting it by the government, and certainly I would not be able to get it by this house even if I attempted to do so.
I have put up all the arguments the hon. member has put up in order to try to get an acreage increase, and if I have not been able to get that I am quite sure I could not get what the hon. member is suggesting.


Charles Edward Johnston: The Minister of Agriculture is responsible for this, but now he tells us that though there are certain things he wants done, others in his department tell him he cannot have them done.


James Garfield Gardiner: No; that is not a proper way of putting it. A minister comes in and argues a point as to something for which he

thinks he is responsible. He must convince fifteen other ministers, and it is perfectly proper that he should have to do so; that is the only way in which all interests in this country can be protected. I say that I have advanced all the arguments the hon. member is advancing, but that up to the moment I have not been able to convince those other ministers. I am hopeful that I may be able to do so eventually, and I hope no arguments will be advan6ed here that will make it more difficult for me to convince them.


Charles Edward Johnston: Oh, I would not want to use any arguments that would make it harder for the minister in that regard. Perhaps he should get a little tougher with these other ministers, because apparently they do not understand the situation as well as he does. I think the minister sees how unfair it is.


James Garfield Gardiner: To be absolutely candid, I do not see the unfairness of the situation to which the hon. gentleman is referring. I think there should be some limit on the amount of irrigated land that a man has if a payment is to be made.


Charles Edward Johnston: Certainly it should be raised above the thirty bushels, and I think in one of these letters received by this farmer it was indicated that probably it would be raised to forty bushels.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, it has not been raised yet.


Charles Edward Johnston: It has not been, but it is high time that it should be. There is an injustice there which should be corrected as quickly as possible.


Robert Fair: When I was home during the Easter recess I visited the office in Edmonton and was shown around by Mr. Barrie. He went to quite some trouble to show me the whole set-up, and I noticed that he was very crowded there. Perhaps if he had a little more room he would be able to get the bonus payments out with less delay.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have new quarters for him.


Robert Fair: I am glad to hear that. Then I was glad to hear the minister say that the rancher would be put in his proper place. I should like to see the board supplied with pinto ponies, cowboy hats and boots, in order that they might have a better appreciation of the difficulties of the ranchers. However, I am glad this matter is being straightened out.
I want to bring to the attention of the minister the case of a farmer who does some outside work. I have in mind a farmer who has a rural mail route for which he receives

Supply-Agriculture
$400 a year. This work requires parts of two days a week, but because he is receiving that $400 he is not allowed the bonus. I took this matter up with the Edmonton office but was not able to make any headway, and therefore I hope the minister will be able to take some action.
Then there is the case of a father and son working together. I have some cases of this kind in which the inspector has never obtained any information from the interested parties. Apparently he has gone to some of the neighbours and has absolutely refused to take any notice of the statements made by the father and son. If these matters are not cleared up in the near future, I will write the minister or Mr. Stevenson with regard to them. I understand that the dockage is supposed to be deducted from the grain, but I understand that the inspectors did not make this allowance in arriving at the average yield.
Then I should like to know who are the treasury board members in the west, and whether they are responsible for holding up the bonus payments. In several instances I have been told by Mr. Barrie that the claim had been passed and would be paid immediately. Then perhaps two months later I hear from the farmers that they have not received their cheques, and therefore it would appear that the treasury board is responsible for holding up these payments in a number of cases. I should like to see something done to have these payments made more promptly.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not really the treasury board that has representatives out west; it is the comptroller of the treasury, who has representatives in Regina, Edmonton, and Winnipeg, who check these payments. The report which was read to us to-night by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle is one result of their activities.


Charles Edward Johnston: Can they hold up payments indefinitely after the board of review passes them?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; an auditor can hold up any payment until he is satisfied that it should be made.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special.
31. To provide for wheat acreage reduction payments; for administration expenses in connection therewith, and for temporary appointments that may be required notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act, $5,225,000.
Percy Ellis Wright: Last year this vote amounted to $35,000,000. Is this the estimated total for this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: There will be a supplementary estimate brought in this year for about $22,950,000 to cover the actual payments.


Robert Fair: The saving in the wheat acreage reduction would almost pay that extra 20 cents a bushel. Therefore we shall not be much better off after all.


George Hugh Castleden: I should like to ask a question with regard to the regulations. Presuming a man had a wheat acreage reduction of sixty acres but increased his summer-fallow by probably eighty acres and his coarse grains by twenty acres, I believe the means of determining what he would be entitled to was by pro-rating the increase in the summer-fallow?


James Garfield Gardiner: They did that last year, but there will be no pro-rating this year. We pro-rated last year because we averaged 1939 and 1940, but this year it _ is based on 1940 alone. We started out by saying that we were going to take an estimated acreage for 1940. When we did that we had to change our coarse grain acreage accordingly for the different years, and pro-rate that also, and the money had to be paid out on a pro-rated basis. That will not be necessary, in any event for the same reason, this year.


George Hugh Castleden: Those regulations are not included in the regulations which were given the farmers in the first instance. When was that pro-rating adopted by the department, and on what authority?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is right in the regulations, where it is stated that in certain cases you could not take the year 1940, that you had to go back to 1939, add the two together and average them. It was because you had to do this that it was necessary to do the same thing with the coarse grains and summer-fallow, in order to keep your ratios correct, and then the payments had to be made on that basis.


George Hugh Castleden: What will be the basis this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: It has nothing to do with 1939; it is only 1940, and therefore there will be no pro-rating.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special.
32. To provide for assistance to encourage the improvement of cheese and cheese factories, $1,950,000.
George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like to know the meaning of this estimate which has for its purpose the providing of assistance to encourage the improvement of cheese and
Supply-Agriculture

cheese factories. Rightly or wrongly, we think in British Columbia that we have been penalized for the benefit of the cheese industry in Ontario and Quebec. That may be incorrect, but it is our view, and I should like to know what the item in the estimates means.


Mark Cecil Senn: And would the minister make a simple statement as to amount of bonus paid this year, the amount which goes to the cheese factories and what benefit the bonus has been? Has it improved the quality of the cheese?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, it has been improved from around 40 per cent to around 60 per cent. That is payable anywhere in Canada. If the cheese produced is 93 score, one cent is paid; and if it is 94 score, two cents is paid, either in British Columbia or anywhere else in Canada.


Mark Cecil Senn: What proportion of this goes to bonuses, and what proportion to the improvement of factories?


James Garfield Gardiner: About one-tenth.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Is there a grant to factories, or is there a loan, or what is it?


James Garfield Gardiner: A grant is made to the factories amounting to half the cost of putting in the cold storage equipment, or what is known as the curing room. Then, half goes to changing some other equipment, namely the cheese presses, or the circle in which the cheese is made.	.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
243. Departmental administration, $743,650.
Hon. W. P. MULOCK (Postmaster General):: Before hon. members proceed to ask questions, perhaps I might shorten the debate to some extent by making a brief statement, and I do so by reason of the fact that there is a considerable increase in the estimates of this year.


Mr. MacNICOL:: The minister did that last year.


William Pate Mulock: Before entering upon the discussion of the general estimates, may I be permitted to submit some information respecting the postal service? In presenting the post office estimates for consideration in committee, I desire to say, first, that the financial requirements of the dominion in the promotion of our war effort have been given the important place they should occupy in considering the provisions to be made for the postal service during the fiscal year 1942-43.

It is absolutely essential to regard the prosecution of the war as our first consideration, and the responsibility rests no less on the departmental head than on the administrative officers of his department, to see that the estimates reflect only the actual needs, without, however, impairing service. Every effort has been made to keep requests for appropriations at a minimum, and at the same time provide for the essential public services demanded of this department.
The post office is primarily a service organization, the functions of which are necessarily expanding to meet rapidly growing revenue and volume of business. The mails must be moved on time, and provision must be made to that end in respect of personnel, and cost of conveyance; as well as of equipment to carry on the work.
Illustrative of the needs in this respect, may I point out that the 1941-42 gross revenue is 855,477,159, or an increase of about $7,500,000 as compared with 1940-41, or 15 per cent. This is double the increase 1940-41 revenue showed over 1939-40, and it gives a fair indication of the growth in the volume of mail.
In consideration of postal appropriations and expenditures it is necessary to keep in view the fact that from a national point of view the post office as a government utility neither chooses its customers nor controls the extent, time or place that the public may use or not use its service. When the demand comes it cannot be deferred but must be met at once. The post office must render service with all possible speed at the time and place and in whatever volume the public request.
As hon. members of the committee are perhaps aware, expenditures for the transportation of mail by rail, water, air and land represent nearly 46 per cent of the total outlay of the department. Salaries of personnel are almost 43 per cent, without cost-of-living bonus, and slightly over 48 per cent including that item. The remaining 6 per cent covers items such as printing and stationery, equipment and maintenance (including cost of postal equipment formerly supplied by the Department of Public Works but now purchased by the Post Office Department out of the Post Office appropriation); travelling expenses; telegrams and telephones, including the rental of telephones in staff post offices and postal district offices; sundries; publicity; the manufacture of postage stamps; money order forms and postal notes.
Reference has been made to a 15 per cent increase in revenue in the fiscal year which has closed. This, of course, results from

Supply

Post Office
augmented mailing, and in turn involves additional expenditures. It might be well, however, to call attention to the fact that expenditures during the fiscal year 1941-42, when compared with those of 1940-41, show an increase of only slightly over 7 per cent, although revenues, as already stated, increased during the same period to the extent of 15 per cent.
In further reference to the department's financial position I might say that while gross revenue, as stated, increased by $7,500,000, the net revenue-that is the amount on hand after the deductions of postmasters' commissions, including cost-of-living bonus of $122,788.66-increased by $5,610,505; while the net surplus, that is the amount on hand after all expenses of departmental administration had been paid, including cost-of-living bonus of $1,039,366.94, was $4,492,002, as compared with $1,683,692 for the last year and $3,235 for the year before.
These figures are indicative of the department's efforts to operate the postal service in an economical manner.
The post office is regarded as a non-war department, but a state of conflict has repercussions on postal work in no small degree. To mention but one item in. the estimates; mail service by steamboat in 1942-43 must be provided for to the extent of $1,750,000 as against a pre-war figure of $325,000. As explained last year, this increase is on account of the fact that the Post Office Department now pays for the ocean conveyance of mails, subsidies formerly paid by Trade and Commerce, having been discontinued. Mail for Canadian troops overseas, which is constantly increasing, forms a large part of the mail carried across the Atlantic. The carriage of these mails to ports of embarkation also increases the cost of mail service by railway. In other directions as well, the present world conflict has increased the functions and responsibilities of the postal service.
The creation of various government boards and other controlling bodies has greatly augmented the volume of mail which is carried free of postage. The revenue value of this free mail is now close to $3,000,000 per annum. There is close co-operation between the department and the foreign exchange control board' in the administration of regulations promulgated by the board. It is not expedient to deal with this point at length or in detail, but I can assure the committee that valuable service is being rendered by the department in this respect. As the members of the committee are no doubt aware, under the national registration regulations of 1940 each postmaster in
Canada is designated as a deputy registrar for the purpose of registering persons who ivere not registered during the period which ended on August 21, 1940. Under these regulations applications for new certificates on account of changed address, changes in marital status, and replacement of lost or defaced certificates are dealt with by postmasters.
The sale o,f war savings stamps is another matter which should be mentioned. During the fiscal year just closed, post offices in Canada sold almost 49,000,000 of these stamps, providing the government with over $12,250,000 for war expenditures. I cannot too highly commend the whole-hearted cooperation which is being extended by postmasters throughout the length and breadth of this country,, both officially and as private citizens, in furthering the sale of war savings certificates and war loan bonds. I should like to go even further and say that they deserve the undivided1 commendation of this house.
The post office has cooperated very fully with the recently created unemployment insurance commission in the organization stages of the nation-wide set-up for unemployment insurance. As the scheme took form, the department undertook to handle the distribution and sale of unemployment insurance stamps. In the period between July 1, 1941, and March 31, 1942, the department sold on behalf of the commission stamps and metered impressions to the value of $40,000,000.
Similarly the department has cooperated closely with the various war services, particularly the munitions and supply and national war services departments, the oil controller and the wartime prices and trade board. Radio licences to the number of nearly 700,000, representing an amount in excess of $1,500,000, were sold by post offices throughout the dominion during the fiscal year which closed on March 31, 1942. Dominion government annuity business totalling more than $19,500,000 was handled through the same channels during the same period. For sendees such as the above, which are in the nature of general welfare and national policy activities, the post office is sometimes reimbursed in full to the extent previously agreed upon, sometimes in part and sometimes not at all. However, it is in the interests of the government >to utilize postal facilities to assist in such activities because it permits the performance of these tasks at a minimum expense to the federal government as a whole, and the department is happy to render this cooperation. The costs of performing these services are thus kept at a minimum. However, they increase postal expenditures,
Supply-Post Office

and the department is unable to make as good a financial showing as it might otherwise do.
May I for a moment revert to facilities which are essentially postal in nature and call attention to the provision which has been made to meet war-time conditions. A system of personal postal messages has been introduced to facilitate the sending of brief messages between persons in Canada and relatives and friends in enemy occupied countries. An airgraph service has been inaugurated to speed up the sending of messages in the form of letters from relatives and friends in Canada to members of the armed forces in the United Kingdom. This service is being developed further, and arrangements are now being made to widen its scope to provide for airgraph messages in both directions, to and from civilians as well as military personnel.
Arrangements have been made for air letter cards by the use of which messages can be sent by air mail to prisoners of war in Germany and Italy for a fraction of the cost of an ordinary air mail letter. Reduced postage has been arranged for parcels sent to members of the British, Canadian and other allied forces abroad. Free postage has been extended to Canadian soldiers' letters mailed at army post offices in the United Kingdom and in certain other countries where our troops are stationed. In addition to the postage concessions mentioned, redirection charges on parcels addressed to the members . of our forces have been waived.
In conclusion, may I assure the committee that the policy of the Post Office Department continues to be the maximum of service at a reasonable minimum of cost.


Alfred Henry Bence: I am sure we have listened with considerable interest to the statement just made by the Postmaster General (Mr. Mulock). In view of the lead that he has given with respect to discussing matters generally, I propose to say a few words this evening on general matters, and then discuss one particular thing with which I am concerned. First of all, may I say that I take the greatest exception to the continuation of the practice by the Post Office Department of political patronage and party politics as far as certain sections of the department are concerned. I understand that a portion of the department works through the civil service commission, and with that I have no quarrel, but other appointments that are made are purely political. Even though this is considered a peace-time department, the fact

that appointments are made on a political basis harms our war effort and does irreparable harm in many cases.
It has never been my practice to make charges which I could not substantiate. People have pointed out certain instances to me where they felt sure politics were indulged in, but because there was nothing I could pick on to substantiate the charges, I never took them up. However, in connection with appointments made by the department in certain instances, I think it is admitted that political patronage is a governing factor. I know it is in connection with the temporary employees appointed at Christmas time. In Saskatoon, which is my constituency, a number of employees are appointed at Christmas time, and the appointments, subject to the qualification that ex-soldiers shall have the first right to the jobs, must be passed upon by the Liberal executive or the president of the Liberal association.
So far as rural postmasters are concerned, the Post Office Department sends a letter to the Liberal member of parliament for 'the constituency or the defeated Liberal candidate asking for a nomination for postmaster in the vacancy. It may be true that that practice has gone on for many years. I am not saying that it is confined to this administration. But the mere fact that it has gone on in the past is no reason why it should be continued in the future. Look at the position the people of my constituency are in when they see this kind of thing going on, and realize that one of the three defeated Liberal candidates is being asked, say, to nominate a postmaster for the town of Sutherland, in my constituency. I do not know which particular candidate they will pick. In one instance they will pick one, and in another, somebody else. What does the man on the street think about that? He naturally thinks that the same kind of thing is going on in other departments, and you simply cannot talk him out of that opinion.
I have endeavoured to explain the practice in these matters. I understand that the attitude taken by the government is that this practice is confined to peace-time departments, but when the man on the street sees that a particular individual has received an appointment, because he was nominated by the member of parliament or the defeated Liberal candidate for the constituency, and there are other people just as good and perhaps with better qualifications for the position, you cannot convince him that that kind of thing is not going on in other departments. I put that to the committee in as serious a manner as I can, because I am convinced that at a

Supply-Post Office
time like this when we are calling on our people to give everything they have got to the war, sending their sons and daughters into the services and making sacrifices by way of taxation and in countless other ways we should eliminate just as much as we possibly can any question of party politics-and I do not care whether it is a war-time or a peace-time department.
There have been brought down to the house several returns which I could produce in proof of the statements I have made. I shall refer to one in particular, a return which was brought down following a motion made by me on March 11 and passed on March 27 of this year in connection with a man by the name of W. F. Hargarten who was appointed to be postmaster at Bruno, Saskatchewan. The file shows that on June 5, 1940, a letter was addressed by the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Fleming) to Mr. P. T. Coolican, as follows:
Ottawa, Ontario,
June 5, 1940.
Mr. P. T. Coolican,
Post Office Department,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Coolican:
I understand that there is a vacancy in the post office at Bruno, Sask., by the death of the postmaster. Would you be good enough to furnish me with the forms that would be necessary to make a recommendation for the new postmaster.
I remain,
Yours sincerely,
Dr. H. R. Fleming, M.P.
In my remarks I am casting no reflections on any individual member of parliament at all. I am simply speaking of the practice that has grown up. What I take objection to is the continuation of the practice particularly in this time of war, and so far as I am concerned under any circumstances at all, but particularly because we are now at war. I object to any member of parliament or defeated candidate having anything to do with appointments in the Post Office Department or in any other department, particularly at a time like this.


Mr. McCUAIG:: Why do you say the
defeated Liberal candidate?


Alfred Henry Bence: Because that is the fact and the Postmaster General will not deny it.


Duncan Fletcher McCuaig: Why do you not go back a few years and say the defeated Conservative candidate?


Alfred Henry Bence: I do not want to get into a wrangle with the hon. member who apparently wishes to see this practice continued. I would
like to see it wiped out. I do not see why any member or defeated candidate would want to see it continued.


Duncan Fletcher McCuaig: The practice was discontinued and then brought back in 1932.


Alfred Henry Bence: I do not care what happened in the past. I am not interested in ancient history. I am interested in the circumstances of the present. This practice creates a very bad impression in the minds of the public, particularly when we are at war and we are asked to contribute everything we can to the winning of this war. When members on the treasury benches object to criticisms on the ground that we are at war I should think they would be interested in seeing this kind of thing stopped.
In the same return I find a letter written on June 12, 1940, by Mr. P. T. Coolican as follows:
Ottawa, June 12, 1940. Dr. H. R. Fleming, M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Doctor Fleming:
In accordance with the request contained in your letter of the 5th June, I am enclosing an official nomination form on which to make your recommendation of some person suitable for appointment to the position of postmaster at Bruno, Sask.
The District Superintendent of Postal Service, Saskatoon, reports that the postmaster died on the 31st May and that the office was transferred temporarily on that date to Mr. Raymond John Fisher. A copy of Mr. Fisher's application for permanent appointment is attached.
Attached for your information is copy of a letter received from Mr. Tom Meyer, who states that he saw service in France during the last war, also a copy of a letter received from Mr. Geo. B. R. Besant of the Canadian Legion recommending the appointment of Mr. Charles Stroklund, returned soldier.
The usual notice of the vacancy has been sent to the Canadian Legion addressed to Mr. L. J. Chase, Provincial Secretary, Canadian Legion, room 4, New Canada Life building, Regina, Sask.
Yours very truly,
P. T. Coolican,
Assistant Deputy Postmaster General.
Next is a letter written on September 27, 1940, addressed to Mr. P. T. Coolican: Humboldt, Sask.,
September 27, 1940.
Mr. P. T. Coolican,
Assistant Deputy Postmaster General,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Mr. Coolican:
Inclosed please find a nomination for postmaster at Bruno, Sask. I have given very serious consideration to this appointment and after considering this situation from all angles, I find that William Frederick Hargarten is the party that I will nominate for the position.
Supply-Post Office

Mr. Hunter, the district superintendent, will no doubt send you a report. I would like, if possible, to get this post office changed at the very earliest date, because it always causes a certain amount of difficulties when it is hanging fire after the decision has been reached, and the decision has been reached on the advice of responsible parties in the district.
I remain,
Yours sincerely,
H. R. Fleming,
M.P. for Humboldt.
There was enclosed with that letter a nomination form. It is a stereotyped form sent out to members of parliament and defeated Liberal candidates in the last election, although of this latter I have no proof. It sets out certain matters including the statement, "I desire to nominate" so and so.


An hon. MEMBER:: How would you nominate these small postmasters?


Alfred Henry Bence: I will come to that later. In this case there was a recommendation from the man in charge of the postal service at Saskatoon, a man who was entirely out of politics. I say that the whole matter should be handled through the postal service department.


Thomas Reid: Many appointments are made which have no relation to politics at all.


Gordon Graydon: That is in New
Westminster.


Thomas Reid: I defy my hon. friend or any other hon. member to challenge anything that is wrong with New Westminster.


Alfred Henry Bence: I do not know what the hon. member for New Westminster has to be so indignant about.


Thomas Reid: I am not indignant. I was answering the other hon. member.


Alfred Henry Bence: I have the floor. The point is that on September 27, 1940, a letter was addressed by J. H. Hunter, district superintendent, to George C. Avery, with reference to this matter. I will not read the whole letter, which refers to various applicants for the position and, among others, makes mention of the man who received the appointment, William Frederick Hargarten, and another man named Fisher, who happened to be in the post office at the time of the death of the prior incumbent, and who was the acting postmaster for four months.


William Pate Mulock: I should like to know whether the hon. member objects to the appointment of the present postmaster on any ground, or whether he thinks someone else should have had the appointment. If so, I would ask that he read the whole letter.


Alfred Henry Bence: I will read the whole letter.


William Pate Mulock: I should like to know the point the hon. gentleman is trying to make.


Alfred Henry Bence: I know nothing about the circumstances in Humboldt constituency, nor do I know anything about William Frederick Hargarten whom I have never met. I do not know any of the other applicants for the position, but, as the Postmaster General knows, this matter has received a great deal of attention and has created quite a bit of consternation in northern Saskatchewan. I was making my first objection on the ground that apparently this was the manner in which these jobs are filled, by recommendation of the sitting member or of the defeated Liberal candidate. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) has a return which indicates that the same is true in connection with rural routes. There is no question about that.


William Pate Mulock: I beg your pardon, not rural routes.


John Gordon Ross: That is a new one; let us have that one.


Alfred Henry Bence: A return was brought down in the house-


William Pate Mulock: I would ask the hon. member to be kind enough, when he is dealing with the matter, to tell us how long this subject was under investigation before Mr. Hargarten was appointed, whether he was appointed hastily, or whether the matter was very carefully looked into and whether some considerable time had elapsed before the appointment was made.


Alfred Henry Bence: There was not a considerable length of time before the appointment was made, but I will say the appointment was made some time in December, 1940, and the putting into effect of it, or the order which would allow the man to take over the post office was held up until March of this year. Is that what the Postmaster General has in mind? There were representations by certain organizations in northern Saskatchewan, such as veterans' associations and so on. I do not want to discuss the merits of the appointment or of this man in particular, nor do I want to cast aspersions upon him. This matter has caused me a considerable amount of difficulty, and I know it has occasioned the Postmaster General much difficulty also. I will come to that later.
The first point I was making was that this was the continuation of a policy to which I object, and I am entitled as a member, whether I support the government or sit on the opposition side, to rise and protest on that

Supply-Post Office
basis. The letter to which I refer sets out the various persons who had applied for the job, and the point I was coming to was that the district superintendent at Saskatoon seemed to think that the person in the post office at the time of the death of the prior incumbent was qualified for the position. That is the only point, and I will read the paragraph with reference to it. This man's name is Fisher. I quote:
Mr. Fisher seems to have given excellent service, both during the past years as assistant to the late postmaster, and as acting postmaster during the last four months. He is stated to be of a quiet, obliging disposition, steady and reliable in his habits. He was too young for service in the war of 1914-18, and, although the youngest of the applicants, seems likely to be the one whose appointment to the postmastership would give most general satisfaction through the district. It *would be looked upon as a well merited promotion for him.


Mr. STIRLING:: Was the other man a returned man?


Alfred Henry Bence: No. The man who was
appointed was not a returned man. I think I am fair in saying that there was no returned man who was sufficiently qualified to take over the job. There was one man whom the Canadian Legion and the various veterans' organizations recommended, but he did not have sufficient educational qualifications to assume the post. The man who actually got it was William Hargarten, sixty-one years of age. That was his age when he received the appointment, and I was going to ask the Postmaster General a question about that, because I understood that the appointee had to be sixty or under to obtain the position. At any rate, I understand that that was the rule at one time.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What was the
revenue?


Alfred Henry Bence: I do not know, but the
salary is approximately $2,400 a year.


John Ritchie MacNicol: How could they pass up a returned soldier? According to the act as I understand it, a returned soldier should have the position. I presume that if there was not a returned soldier in the immediate vicinity there was one in some adjacent district.


Alfred Henry Bence: I do not know what the
regulations are in the department in that respect. I am not in a position to say. I am giving the facts as I understand them, and the fact is that there was one returned soldier from the district who was recommended by the legion, but he did not have sufficient educational qualifications. I understood that it was confined to selections from the particular district. I was rather surprised when
I read the file to find that they did not go to surrounding communities to pick a returned soldier, but apparently the practice of the department is as I have stated. However, the point I wish to make is this. The Postmaster General referred to the putting into effect of this appointment, which did not come until a year and a half or a year and a quarter after the man had been appointed to the position at Bruno. In the meantime the acting postmaster had carried on. I conducted correspondence with the Postmaster General as a result of representations made to me by veterans' organizations in Saskatoon and northern Saskatchewan. In fact, one of the first communications received by the Postmaster General was a telegram from the joint council of the Canadian Legion, the Army and Navy Veterans' Association and the Canadian Corps, and as a result of the representations made at that time the matter was held up.


William Pate Mulock: What date was that
telegram? .


Alfred Henry Bence: The telegram is dated
December 6, 1940. The purport of the telegram was that they requested that a full investigation be made by the police authorities. As I say, the matter was held up for a considerable time and investigations were made. On March 4, 1941, after this matter had been brought to my attention, I wrote a letter to the Postmaster General as a result of some complaints made to me by the veterans' joint council at Saskatoon that certain telegrams they had sent to him inquiring as to this appointment had not been answered. I referred to the telegrams and asked him if he would give me a review of the situation. He replied stating that the matter was being further investigated. I do not desire to read all these letters-*


William Pate Mulock: I have a recollection, which may be wrong, that I suggested that the hon. member should see the file and go through it himself.


Alfred Henry Bence: Probably I had better read the letters in order that the record will be clear. On March 4, 1941, I wrote to the Postmaster General as follows, from Ottawa: Dear Mr. Mulock,
Re: W. F. Hargarten, postmaster, Bruno, Sask.
The veterans' joint council representing the Canadian Legion, the Army and Navy Veterans and the Canadian Corps association recently communicated with me with respect to this appointment and pointed out that although they had communicated with you by telegrams dated 6, 7 and 9, inquiring as to whether the R.C.M.P. report on this man was favourable they have as yet received no reply.
I should be very much obliged if you would give me a review of the situation.
Supply*-Post Office

The Postmaster General replied to me by letter dated March 8, 1941, as follows:
Dear Mr. Bence,
Re:	W. F. Hargarten, Bruno, Sask.
I am pleased to have your inquiry, under date of March 4, regarding the present situation in the matter of appointment of a postmaster at Bruno, Sask. Your letter seems to reflect an assumption that Mr. Hargarten has been finally appointed to this position, but such is not the ease. Appointment is not complete until transfer of the office has been made, and this, in Mr. Hargarten's ease, has been held up pending full investigation of charges by the veterans' organizations you mention that he is a nazi sympathizer. I might state that the investigation has been in progress for many weeks and it is only fair to Mr. Hargarten to state that it has evoked on his behalf recommendations from many of the highest officials in Saskatchewan's public and church life.
The veterans' organizations to which you refer have not been informed of the contents of the R.C.M.P. reports in this case any more than they would be in any other. R.C.M.P. reports are secret documents and it has been held long before this, by the police officials themselves, that to reveal their contents to unofficial organizations or individuals is not in the public interest. The investigation, in any case, is still proceeding.
As I have stated, Mr. Hargarten's integrity and loyalty have been vouched for in the highest terms by many prominent and dependable people. Pending the result of further inquiries which are being made, however, the matter is in abeyance and you may depend upon it that in whatever decision is finally taken the public interest will be given first consideration.
Yours faithfully,
W. P. Mulock.
I replied to that letter by a letter dated March 15, 1941, as follows:
Dear Mr. Mulock,
Re:	W. F. Hargarten, Bruno, Sask.
I acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 8th instant, and note that Mr. Hargarten's integrity and loyalty have been vouched for in the highest terms by many prominent and dependable people. I also note that the veterans joint council and the various veterans' organizations which it represents have not been informed of the contents of the R.C.M.P. reports, and that it is not the intention of the government to reveal the contents of the reports to these organizations. I would like to know whether or not such reports would be made available for inspection by myself, and if not, whether you would state that there is nothing unfavourable in them as far as this man's alleged connection with subversive organizations is concerned.
By letter of March 20, 1941, the Postmaster General replied as follows:
Dear Mr. Bence,
Re:	Bruno, Sask.
I acknowledge receipt of your letter of March 15 in^ regard to the Bruno, Saskatchewan, post office appointment which is pending.
If you think that any useful purpose can be served I will be glad to discuss the matter fully and show you the whole file, but part of

it I must show you in confidence and ask you to treat it as entirely secret and for your own information. It is my desire to see that no injustice is being done in this appointment.
I would point out that since my last letter, I have received a communication from Doctor B. W. Hargarten, Humboldt, Saskatchewan, a son of W. F. Hargarten, and chairman for the Humboldt district of the provincial campaign committee of the Canadian war services fund, advising me that he had brought this matter to the attention of Brigadier-General A. Ross, asking him to go into the matter in the interests of British justice.
If you decide it is your wish to go through the file and discuss the matter with me, please let me know and I will be glad to arrange an appointment in the near future.
I replied to that on March 29, 1941, as follows:
Dear Mr. Mulock,
I acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 20th instant which was not replied to before this due to my absence from the city.
I spent a short time in Saskatoon recently and was asked to attend a meeting of the joint council of veterans' associations representing, as you know, the Canadian Legion, Canadian Corps, the Army and Navy Veterans, and the Veterans' Security Corps, and they discussed with me their attitude in connection with this matter.
They advised me that they would be entirely satisfied if you would advise themselves or myself that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police reports were entirely favourable to this man as far as any alleged sympathy with the Germans or nazi is concerned.
As far as the second paragraph of your letter is concerned, I hesitate to accept your offer because if the file did show that there was any suggestion that this man had nazi sympathies, I would not want to be in a position of having to keep it to myself.
I am sure that if you can assure me, as I have above indicated, that there is no suggestion of nazi sympathies in the police report, that the matter can be very quickly settled. I would make this suggestion to you, however, that is that if there is any such suggestion in the police report, then it would not be advisable for your department, or for any other department, to take a chance of appointing such a person to a place of public trust.
. Subsequently, I think in March of this year, the appointment was made effective.


John Ritchie MacNicol: After being vacant for two years?


Alfred Henry Bence: The appointment was made in December, 1940, and the postmaster was not allowed to take over the posmastership until March, 1942. A return to an order of the house dated March 11, 1942, was made on March 27. The motion was accepted without reserve. I cannot recall whether the Postmaster General was in the house at the time, but no exception was taken to filing the Royal Canadian Mounted Police reports. I felt, in view of the circumstances and the attitude and state of mind that had developed,

Questions
that possibly in this case the Postmaster General would feel that the police reports should be filed, as was in fact done in connection with a return made to the hon. member for Mackenzie this year. I felt that in view of all the circumstances it would have been the policy of wisdom to have done it in this case and cleared the whole matter up. However, the reports were not filed. Further communications passed between the veterans' organizations and the Postmaster General protesting this appointment. I want to read just two pages and I shall have finished.


William Pate Mulock: Since it is eleven o'clock, and so that there may be no misapprehension about this appointment, I wish the hon. member would be kind enough to read also the report from the Minister of Justice on it.


Alfred Henry Bence: I was coming to that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Eleven o'clock.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, July 27, 1942