1944-02-21

[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to read to the house a telegram which I sent this morning to the President of the United States, a message which, I believe, the house will very warmly approve:
The President,
The White House, Washington.
The people of Canada have learned with feelings of deepest regret of the loss, through enemy action in European waters, of a thousand American soldiers. The sinking of this transport comes all the more as a shock because of the rarity of such losses. The loss of these brave lives is one which has aroused a widespread feeling of sorrow, in which the government and people of Canada share. On behalf of the government, I should like to express to you, and to the people of the United States, our sympathy in this national loss. Linked with our expression of sympathy is an ever-deeper realization of our comradeship-in-arms in the unrelenting effort to save the world as largely as may be possible from the continued inhuman acts of barbarous enemies seeking to dominate the world.
W. L. Mackenzie King.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words to hon. members about the business of the house for to-day and for next week. It was announced last night that this afternoon we would take up the civil estimates of the Department of National Defence and later, the estimates of .the Department of Agriculture. Also it was stated that the house would sit this evening.
There is on the order paper a notice of motion in the name of the Minister of Justice to constitute a select committee of the house to consider and review the defence of Canada regulations. There is another notice of motion in the name of the Minister of National War Services with respect to constituting a committee on radio broadcasting. Hon. members will see in the Votes and Proceedings of yesterday that I gave notice last night to the Clerk of my intention to move for a com-
Wednesday Adjournments

mittee on national war expenditures. Notice of this motion will appear on the order paper on Monday next.
The wish has been generally expressed that we should constitute all committees as rapidly as possible, and I believe it will further the wishes of hon. members if we do not delay any longer than is absolutely necessary in setting up these committees. The select committee on the defence of Canada regulations I would hope might be constituted this afternoon. I suggest that on Monday the house consider the war expenditures committee resolution, also the resolution regarding the committee on radio broadcasting. With respect to war expenditures a desire was expressed by hon. gentlemen opposite to be given an opportunity to debate the third report of the committee presented at the close of last session. Hon members will have noticed that I introduced the other day and the house approved a resolution permitting a discussion of that report. Concurrence in the report will have to be moved, and I should think the best way of proceeding would be to have concurrence moved on Monday and the debate on war expenditures take place on that resolution. I do not wish to restrict hon. members from debating the resolution to set up the committee if they so desire. It might be understood however that, on one or the other motion, whatever hon. members may wish to discuss could be discussed. In that way we would be expediting the business of the house.
Also on Monday the government would like to get one or two more departments into supply, to call an item, so that the estimates of those departments may be taken up on any day.
Hon. members have said that they thought, and I think rightly so, that the proceedings of the house might be expedited if more work were done by committees than has been the case in the past.
With that view the government is in accord. We believe that a good deal of discussion that takes place here in debate might be avoided if some matters were threshed out a little more fully in committees in the first instance. To help to meet that objective, I mentioned when speaking in the debate on the address that at a later stage in.the session I would propose that the house do not sit on Wednesday afternoons but that Wednesday be kept free for members to give special attention to the work of committees.
The government proposes that from now on that the house should sit on Friday evenings unless it otherwise orders, so that in reality the time to be devoted to discussion in the

house, if the procedure I have outlined is carried out, will be the equivalent week by week of what it was during the last session, the difference being that we shall be sitting on Friday evenings instead of on Wednesday afternoons. More should be accomplished as there would be more work done in committees than would otherwise be possible.
One objection that hon. members have to the committees meeting from day to day is the difficulty of their being in two places at the same time, especially in the early part of the session. Toward the end of the session permission has been given committees to sit while the house is sitting, but the proposed procedure will enable members for the most part to give their attention to the work in committees for an entire day in addition to whatever further time may be necessary, thereby obviating the necessity of their being absent from the house when important discussions are taking place.
There is a further reason which I mentioned. I should like to have the house approve the procedure I have referred to because it is absolutely necessary for the government, I mean the cabinet, and in particular the war committee of the cabinet, to have at this stage of the war more time to discuss and very carefully consider the weighty questions that are coming before us not only from week to week but from day to day. Hon. members will realize that at the present time scarcely a day passes that does not bring some unexpected subject for consideration by the government as a whole. Unless the government has opportunity to have unbroken sittings over a considerable length of time

we shall not be in a position to give to some of these measures the careful thought and attention they demand. Members of the government cannot do that in cabinet council and at the same time be present in the house to follow its proceedings. The procedure I have in mind has been framed so as to enable these two objectives to be met, and to be met in a way which will, in the end, I think, expedite the business of parliament and protect the interests of the public.
When the time occupied by sittings has come up before for discussion, reference has been made to the parliament at Westminster. I believe it has been said that in the United Kingdom the House of Commons sits for a much longer time. As a matter of fact, the parliament at Westminster until this year, while holding regular weekly sittings, has sat only three days in the week since the war began. The Prime Minister has announced at the close of the sittings of each week, which has been on a Thursday at 5.30 pm.,

Wednesday Adjournments
when the house will meet in the coming week and which has been usually on the following Tuesday, and has indicated some of the measures that would likely be brought forward in the following week. As I say, during most of the past four years the house has not met until Tuesday, and during that time it has been customary for the house to adjourn on Thursday. This year, I understand, because of special reasons, the house is meeting on Friday as well as on the other three days, but it does not meet until Tuesday.
Another matter I should mention in connection with the sittings at Westminster is that the House of Commons does not sit at night but adjourns at 5.30 p.m.; it has also morning sittings. It meets, I understand, at eleven o'clock in the morning, and adjourns at five-thirty in the afternoon. That has been because of the black-out. I doubt, however, whether hon. members realize that the whole business at Westminster has been carried on with sittings on an average of three days a week, and with only morning and afternoon sittings. I have a compilation of the days of sitting of our parliament and of the British parliament, and I think it will interest hon. members for me to give a tabular comparison of the length of time occupied in the sittings of the British and Canadian houses respectively:
Comparison of length of sitting of the British and Canadian parliaments in the period since the Canadian parliament met after the 1940 elections
Sitting
British parliament-	days
May 21, 1940-Nov. 20, 1940	 62
Canadian parliament (complete session)-
May 16, 1940-Nov. 5, 1940	 61
British parliament (complete session) -
Nov. 21, 1940-Nov. 11, 1941	 113
Canadian parliament (complete session)-
Nov. 7, 1940-Jan. 21, 1942	 105
British parliament-
Nov. 12, 1944-Nov. 10, 1942	 116
Canadian parliament-
Jan. 22, 1942-Jan. 27, 1943	 124
British parliament-
Nov. 11, 1942-Nov. 23, 1943	 122
Canadian parliament-
Jan. 28, 1943-Jan. 26, 1944	 120
It is an interesting fact that in this House of Commons we have actually occupied the same amount of time each year in our discussions over the last four years as the British parliament. Of course, the explanation in part is that at Westminster they have more frequent adjournments and sit fewer days in each week.
I had intended, with the permission of the house, to move this afternoon that when this
house adjourns on Tuesday, the 22nd instant, it stand adjourned until Thursday, the 24th instant, and unless otherwise ordered, when the house adjourns on Tuesday evening it shall stand adjourned until the following Thursday, and that standing order 2 be suspended in relation thereto for the present session.
This is a motion that does not require notice and could be proceeded with at once, but I imagine hon. members may wish to give it a little consideration and I shall not press it today. I shall let it stand as a notice and will move it on Monday next. I do hope that hon. members will find it possible to comply with the wishes of the government in this matter, our wishes being based entirely upon what, after very.careful thought, we believe to be advisable, for the reasons I have mentioned, at this stage of the war, and believe will prove to be of advantage in the expedition of business of this house, and equally of advantage to the country in the understanding of its business and the greater care which it will be possible to give to the all-important problems of our day.


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: With respect to the matter dealt with by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) I should first of all like to say a word on the point he raised touching the war expenditures committee, and, coupled with that, the suggestion he made relating to the motion for concurrence in the three subcommittee reports of the committee, which I believe were contained in the final and third report which he mentioned a moment ago.
I think it would be preferable from every angle if matters relating to the war expenditure committee of last year and the setting up of the committee this year were dealt with in one debate. There is an objection to proceeding otherwise which I think will be sustained by most members of the house. I do not think we should have two debates on war expenditures; they might involve considerable repetition. I should like to point out, in connection with the procedure to be adopted in the setting up of the war expenditures committee and the motion for concurrence, that in order to regularize the proceedings the house might be agreeable to discussing first the motion for concurrence in the reports and agreeing that the debate thereon should be sufficiently wide to cover the setting up of the committee. This could be done immediately after discussion on the motion for concurrence is concluded.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That was my suggestion.
Defence of Canada Regulations


Gordon Graydon: I wish to make that clear. I believe the Prime Minister left it in such a position that either one or the other might be dealt with.
So far as the other matter dealt with by the Prime Minister is concerned, I am pleased that he did not insist on pressing his motion to-day. I thank him for that, because our party are desirous of giving more consideration to the point raised. I think we shall be in a position on Monday to deal with it. There are rather serious and momentous questions involved in connection with the motion proposed by the Prime Minister. I desire not to go farther than that at the moment, except to point out that we do want to give the matter every possible consideration and examine every angle. The proposal is perhaps more far-reaching than appears on the surface. It is our desire that whatever decision is arrived at, at least due consideration will have been given to the problem.



NAVAL SERVICES


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ANGUS L. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence for Naval Services):	I
should like to table certain naval orders dated February 12, 1944. May I say to the hon, member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that the orders contain a provision with respect to transportation similar to that existing in the army orders. When I wrote my hon. friend on February 7 they had not been passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice) moved:
That a select committee of this house, consisting of the following members:-Messrs. Bertrand (Laurier), Black (Yukon), Claxton, Dorion, Dupuis, Ilazen, Hlynka, McKinnon (Kenora-Rainy River), Martin, Maybank, McGeer, Noseworthy, Ross (Calgary), Slaght, Stirling, be appointed to consider and review the defence of Canada regulations (consolidation) 1942, and amendments thereto; with power to send for persons, papers and records; to examine witnesses under oath; and to report their opinions and observations from time to time to the house.
Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, this motion gives the proposed committee power to deal with the defence of Canada regulations only. I suggest that it should be extended to give power to deal also with the questions of naturalization and deportation, which are related to the defence of
fMr. Graj'don.]
Canada regulations. These regulations override naturalization in many respects, and they bring up the question whether or not the people who have been interned under them can be deported after the war.
This is the fifth year in which we have had a special committee of this type. In each of the other years, with the exception of 1942, the committee was given power to deal with naturalization and deportation in addition to the defence of Canada regulations. Last year, as hon. members will recall the motion as originally brought in was restricted, as it is this year, to the defence of Canada regulations. An amendment which was moved extending its scope to include naturalization and deportation was accepted by the government and1 duly passed. What happened after that was this: the committee did not deal with the defence of Canada regulations at all; it dealt only with the two questions of naturalization and deportation. It held seven meetings, and each one of those meetings was devoted to the two questions I have just mentioned. I hold in my hand the Votes and Proceedings of July 23, 1943, in which the hon. members will find the report of the committee. The last paragraph reads as follows:
Your committee is of the opinion that further study should be given to the whole subject of naturalization, deportation and admission to Canada with a view to the revision of the law relating thereto, and recommends, to that end, that a special committee of the house be appointed at the next session of parliament.
Therefore I intend to move that the motion be amended to extend the powers of the committee. In other years the meetings of the defence of Canada regulations committee have been held in camera. I suggest that this year consideration be given by the committee to throwing its sittings open to the press and to the public. It may be necessary to meet in camera when dealing with the regulations, but when dealing with the questions of naturalization and deportation I believe it would be advisable to throw open the doors. It may be advisable also to invite representations from certain of the naturalization judges in Canada. They have had very extensive experience in naturalization, and I think there is a good deal of discontent with the law as it stands at the present time. I believe many of the judges feel that some improvements should be made.
Representations should also be invited from clubs that are interested in the subject. Take, for example, the Canadian clubs of Canada. Two or three years ago they made representations to the committee which was considering the subject; they showed a great deal of interest in the matter, and they should be invited to send representatives.

Defence of Canada Regulations
Naturalization and deportation are of great importance. They become of greater importance as the end of the war draws nearer. I believe they are more important this year than the defence of Canada regulations. Hon. members will be interested to know that four or five times as many persons have been naturalized in Canada as in all of the other parts of the empire put together. Some steps have been taken to meet the situation. As an example, last year it was provided by order in council that an applicant for naturalization must give a year's notice of his intention to apply. It was also provided that the oath of allegiance must be taken in open court rather than before a notary public or a justice of the peace and then mailed to the Department of the Secretary of State. The effect of this change is, of course, to attach more solemnity to the actual giving of citizenship to the new Canadian.
There are further steps that might very well be taken. For example, it has been suggested that there should be naturalization schools, that applicants for citizenship should be given an opportunity to get instruction with regard to our history, our laws, our constitution and so on; that there should be a test to ascertain whether or not they have acquired sufficient knowledge of those subjects to entitle them to citizenship, and that some provision should be made for text books. Then the suggestion has been made that successful applicants should be given an official welcome into citizenship, and I think it would be very well worth while to provide that when our own young Canadians become twenty-one years of age they too should be welcomed into citizenship along with applicants for naturalization who have been granted certificates. Steps such as these would lead to the making of better Canadians, and that should be and I know is the objective of every hon. member of this house.
Another very practical question which arises is the question of dual citizenship, such as we have in the case of the Japanese in Canada. Many of them, we feel, are mentally citizens of both Japan and Canada, and that position should be remedied. When a person becomes a Canadian citizen he should drop his citizenship in any other nation. This present session is the time to bring our naturalization laws up to date. After all, the way a nation looks upon naturalization shows the value it places upon its own citizenship, and also shows the degree to which it will accept the new citizen. If very little importance is attached to naturalization -and I am afraid that has been the view of the average Canadian for many years- then citizenship means very little to the new
citizen, and as a result he is perhaps never really accepted as a Canadian. That condition is entirely wrong. When a man becomes naturalized he should be accepted as a Canadian together with those of us who were born here and whose ancestors have resided here for generations.
So much for the naturalization law. The question of deportation of course has to do with the Immigration Act which, according to my understanding, provides that if a person has lived in Canada for five years and is considered to have Canadian domicile, to all intents and purposes he cannot be deported. We are in this position, that we have in Canada certain nazis whom we had to intern because they were a menace to the state. We also have certain Japanese who have been interned for the same reason; yet under our present immigration laws they cannot be deported after the war. I believe that after the last war an order in council was passed to deal with that situation, but so far nothing of the kind has been done in the present war. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that Canada cannot get rid of these people too soon. There is no reason at all why they should be kept here a day longer than is absolutely necessary. The trouble is that once the war is over they will all choose to remain here. They will not want to go home; why should they? We should make up our minds that they are to go out at the first opportunity, and to do that, amendments must be made to the immigration laws. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black), that the motion be amended by adding after the word "thereto" in the sixth line, the following:
and the law relating to naturalization and to deportation.


Mr. J. W. NOSEWORTHY (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I shall not delay the house long, but I want to support the amendment; and in so doing I should like to direct attention to a statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), that last year the committee concerned itself entirely not with the subject of the original motion but with the subject of this amendment. I would recall also that last year the committee recommended that a committee be set up this year for the purpose of giving further study to the questions of naturalization and deportation.
In supporting this amendment, however, I should like to remind hon. members of the fact that in the spring of 1942 a committee studying these matters made a report, which never came up for discussion in the house, in which attention was directed to the fact that at that time there were in this country certain organizations which had been declared
Defence of Canada Regulations

illegal, and the committee recommended that this ban be lifted. Since that time much has been done in this direction by the government, through the Department of Justice, and I think this would be an appropriate occasion for the minister to tell us just which of those organizations which were formerly considered illegal have been legalized since that time. In the report to which I have referred reference was also made to the confiscation of the property of one of these organizations, the Ukrainian Farmer Labour Temple Association, and I understand that steps have been taken to return some or all of that property. I think this would be a suitable occasion for the house to be informed as to the steps that have been taken in this connection.
A third matter was referred to in that report; that is, the internment camps. From time to time questions were asked with regard to people interned in those camps, and I understand that many have been released in the interval. I have received notices from the department concerning some individual cases about which I have been writing, and I am informed that these internees have been released on certain conditions. I think we should know just what is the present situation in our internment camps and who have been released. Perhaps the minister would care to tell us in some detail just how many are still interned in these camps. Personally I should like to know under what conditions these people were released from the internment camps. These are matters of public concern, and this motion affords an opportunity for the government to give us a report on the steps taken in regard to the defence of Canada regulations up to the present time.
Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two
Mountains) (Translation): Yesterday, in reply to an inquiry I had made about the detention of Mr. Camillien Houde, the hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) laid some documents on the table of the house. However, no mention is made in Hansard of any statement by the Minister of Justice or of the said documents.
Such an omission seems strange to me. Therefore, I request that the documents tabled by the Minister of Justice be recorded in the House of Commons Debates. The minister's reply was as follows:
The hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains asked me on February 15 whether the Department of Justice had received a letter dated January 26. 1944, in which Mr. Camillien Houde requested his release, through an order in council, from an internment camp, and it was added in the question "in view of the fact that his internment was carried out by means of an order in council."

I have found, on looking up the file, that on. January 26 Mr. Houde Wrote to the deputy Minister of Justice a letter, copy of which I am tabling, and which contains this sentence:
That statement of Mr. Houde is not in accordance with the facts. The procedure followed when he was interned was not "through an order in council"; he was interned, as hundreds of other persons, through an order made by the then Minister of Justice under section 21 of the defence of Canada regulations. The matter of his release must be determined in accordance with the procedure laid down in the said regulations.
No case within the purview of the regulations has been dealt with through an order in council and the regulations do not involve such a procedure.
Mr. Speaker, in order that many points relating to this particular case and several others may be cleared up, I shall support the amendment moved by the hon. member.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (MacFod):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the amendment is superfluous, but I am in favour of it. I cannot recall now whether we have before us the exact wording of the motion made last year when the committee was set up. I am informed by one of my colleagues the amendment is made so as to make the motion read in exactly the same terms as last year's motion. I am heartily in favour of that, because as a member of last year's committee I recall our work was not finished, so far as a discussion respecting naturalization, deportation and related matters was concerned. These are big subjects, and their consideration will require a lot of time. Not only are we concerned with our own laws, the subject is often complicated by corresponding laws in other countries.
We shall vote for this amendment. In my view we have reason at least to some extent tc revise the naturalization regulations. I have in mind particularly the fact that naturalization has been refused on account of applicants not being able to read and write English. I agree with what has been said by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) respecting a school of preparation for those to be naturalized. In my view those who seek naturalization should be able to speak and write English, but there should be a dead-line set. I am under the impression there is no provision in the naturalization laws which compels one to be able to read or write English. It would appear that the judges who hear these cases use their own judgment, and that many applications have been refused on this ground. Years ago many persons came to Canada at our invitation and the invitation of those who were sponsoring great immigration movements, and among the number were

Defence of Canada Regulations
mothers and fathers who brought their families. I am sure the older people found the learning of English a laborious task, and in many instances they have not continued their studies to the point where one could say that they can read, write and speak English. They have reared their families, and the members of their families have become good Canadians. Some of them are fighting in this war. Among these older people there are those who feel they would like to become naturalized, and they make their applications. Judges hear their cases, and simply because some of them cannot read or write, their applications are refused and they cannot become naturalized.
If this regulation is to be enforced we should tell people who are coming to this country that if they want to become naturalized they will have to -be able to read and write and understand some of the principles of Canadian citizenship and nationhood. My observations this afternoon are more particularly on behalf of those who have been here for some years. Some of the older people who have raised their families and have contributed to the welfare of our country have applied for old age pensions, and because they have been good Canadians their applications should be granted. In the legal sense however they are not Canadians, with the result that without their naturalization certificates they cannot draw pensions. Their naturalization is not considered favourably because decisions are made against them on the ground that they cannot read and write. To many people this may not be a vital point, but it is vital to some who have been in this country for years and who now desire to become naturalized. If the amendment is accepted, and the committee pursues its work along the lines suggested, I would ask that this matter be considered.


Mr. ANTHONY HLYNKA (VegreviUe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word in support of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) because I believe naturalization and deportation should have been included in the motion.
The hon. member for Macleod (Mr, Han-sell) touched on a matter I have discussed in the house on two earlier occasions, namely, the position of Canadians who have lived here for many years but, because they happen to live in groups and have not had an opportunity of learning either English or French, have been refused naturalization certificates. I represent a constituency in which are found many such pioneers. They are loyal citizens, many of them with sons in the armed forces of Canada. Quite often a son finds that he has to leave behind an unnaturalized
mother or father who would like .to apply for an old age pension. But these old people have not that privilege, because they do not understand the English language. The result is that they have to go on relief. Surely a condition of this kind should be remedied.
For a period of ten years, stretching from 1929 to 1939, the people of Canada suffered a depression. In those years many of our best citizens were unable to earn a living and were forced to accept relief. It so happens that the municipal, provincial and federal governments add up the amounts advanced to relief recipients and when any of these people apply for naturalization certificates they are refused on the ground that they are not good citizens because of certain amounts of debt outstanding against them. These people found themselves in that position through no fault of their own, but rather because of the faulty system under which they have had to exist.
Naturalization certificates should not be refused on this ground. I know of cases where men have been tracked by the police. Charges were laid against them because they had not admitted they had been on relief. They were made criminals and were refused naturalization certificates. All this results in a most unsatisfactory condition. Therefore I should like to support what the hon. member for Vancouver South and the hon. member for Macleod have said.
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): I am not unmindful, Mr. Speaker, of the remarks you made last year when a similar amendment was moved to a motion to set up a committee to inquire into the defence of Canada regulations. It seemed to me last year that it was the desire of the house that the jurisdiction should be extended to permit the examination of naturalization and deportation matters, and Your Honour agreed to permit the amendment to be put to the house. The situation this year appears to be the same. I did not include this particular matter in the motion because it is not something that comes within the scope of the Department of Justice, but my colleagues have no objection to its being included in the matters to be investigated by this committee. If Your Honour has no objection to allowing the amendment to be put, I have no objection to accepting it.
With respect to the matters that have been raised-


Mr. SPEAKER:: The minister is speaking to the amendment now, but if he speaks to the main motion he will close the debate. With regard to the amendment, I wish to point out
Defence of Canada Regulations

to the house what I stated last year when a similar amendment was moved to a similar motion. I pointed out that in the ordinary course the amendment could not be accepted by the Chair because it introduced a subject not relevant to the main motion. I stated then that I could not admit the amendment of my own volition, but the expression of opinion that came from all parts of the house appeared to be that it should be part of the original motion.
My fear then was, and it was exemplified in less than a month after that amendment had been agreed to, that this would be considered a precedent. At the moment I have not the particulars, but my recollection is that an amendment was moved which was foreign to the subject matter of a motion. It was then pointed out to me that I had agreed to an amendment of a similar character. I pointed out then, as I point out to-day, the danger of altering the rules of the house to permit of something foreign being introduced by way of amendment to the subject matter of a motion. I said then, as I say now, that if the house wished to have the amendment made a part of the main motion I would have no, objection, but I now state that the house must not treat it as a precedent for any similar amendment in the future. In that latter instance I took the position that the amendment was not relevant to the main motion and therefore ruled it out of order. The house could pass the amendment at a later date as an instruction to the committee, but as the sense of the house seems to be that it should be passed now, I shall allow it now in order to save time.
If the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


Mr. W. A. TUCKER (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I have just a word or two to say before the minister closes the debate. I want to support what has been said with regard to the rigidity of our naturalization laws which result in excluding some worthy citizens from the possibility of having some comfort in their old age. As has been pointed out, people have come to many districts in western Canada and have worked hard, raised families and made * a considerable contribution to the building of that section of the country. Many of these people did not think about being naturalized until this war commenced. Others did not think of it until hard times came along and in their old age they found they would1 have to apply for old age pensions.
Quite often these people were able to speak English, but when they came before the judge he would ask them, "You are pretty close to

seventy years of age, are you not?" The answer would be "Yes." The next question would be, "When you get to that age you will probably apply for an old age pension?" Then the person being questioned would answer truthfully, "Yes," and his application for naturalization would be declined. There is no appeal from the decision of the judge. If a judge happens to be hostile to such people getting old age pensions; if he happens to be hostile to people of non-English speaking origin being naturalized at this time of war; if he feels he is called upon to protect the public purse or something of that nature, he can make a ruling by virtue of which the application is refused. The result is that a man who may have lived in Canada for most of his life, raised a splendid family and made other contributions to the country, will be deprived of the protection for which this parliament has provided in its old age pension legislation. Consideration should be given to changing the act in some way so that such people will not be absolutely debarred by decisions of the kind. During the last war many people came from countries which were under enemy control. They were unable to be naturalized, but in order to give them, title to their homesteads they received a certificate which was known as form K. Many of them thought that that naturalized them and did not find out otherwise until they came to apply for old age pensions. Then the same question was put to them and they were refused naturalization and were thus unable to get old age pensions.
There are many cases of the kind, but I should like to give you another illustration, that of two old people, a husband- and wife, who are both over seventy years of age. In spite of a real effort the husband has been unable to learn English, although the wife can speak it quite well. They are both good citizens and have made a real contribution by raising a splendid family. Because the husband cannot learn English this woman cannot get an old age pension or become naturalized, and that will be the state of affairs as long as her husband is alive.
I submit that this committee should consider cases like these and try to introduce a certain amount of flexibility to provide for such cases. When the granting of old age pensions is dependent upon the persons being naturalized, some provision should be made to take care of cases like these. In particular there should be some procedure under which the decision of the judge could be reviewed. I have known cases of naturalization having been refused in one district whereas I am quite certain it would have been granted in another district. A man living in one district is refused

Defence of Canada Regulations
a naturalization certificate which he might have obtained if he had lived across the line in another judicial district. There should be some uniformity in regard to these matters.


Mr. DUPUIS:: Just for the purpose of putting the record straight: the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) mentioned that one of the conditions of naturalization was the ability to read and write English. I am sure that he would be ready to rectify that and say, "English or French language."


Mr. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: I must confess that I am not clear now as to where we stand with regard to this matter. I listened to the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) and, after expressing his opinion with regard to the introduction of a subject which fell not under his department but under another, he appeared to be ready to refrain from objecting to this amendment, and I took it that we had government consent to the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green). I then listened to Your Honour, and at the conclusion of your remarks I took it that you were ruling the amendment out of order, subject-


Thomas Vien: No.


Grote Stirling: Oh; the amendment then is now being debated? I merely wish to say that I am in support of it. The committee was called late in the session last year. It did not sit very often. Its entire time was taken up on this matter of naturalization, which I consider is linked with both the defence of Canada regulations and, in a sense, deportations, and I think the three can very well be discussed together. Furthermore, from all sides of Canada there was evidence that the public is deeply interested in this question, and I would say that there is a strong desire that a more uniform method should be adopted in considering whether naturalization should be granted, and the granting of naturalization. To ventilate the matter in this way before a committee of the house will serve a very useful purpose.


Thomas Vien: Let me make it clear. No point of order has been raised by an hon. member with regard to the relevancy of the amendment. If that point of order were raised I would rule the amendment out of order. But the sense of the house seems to be that they wish it to be passed on the main motion, and I am agreeing to. it, on the condition that the house must understand that I will not be bound by this act as a precedent when any similar amendment to a motion is brought before the house.


Mr. G. H. CASTLEDEN (Yorkton):: I wish to say just a few words in connection with this matter. I too have had experiences, similar to those who have spoken with regard to persons who have come to this country and tried to make their contribution. A great deal of misunderstanding has resulted from the lack of information; indeed, I feel that no proper effort has been made .to enable these people, particularly the older ones, to realize to the full what the regulations require in making their citizenship. These people are from different parts of Europe. In my own constituency there are large numbers of Ukrainian people who have made valuable contributions to Canada. They have taken *part in our democratic institutions; they led in respect of voluntary enlistments of Saskatchewan in the early years of the war. They have mixed their blood voluntarily with men of Canadian and British blood in the battle for freedom; they have taken over their duties and responsibilities in respect of municipal institutions, and their names are recorded among the members of the legislature and of this parliament. Many of these people who came to this country and took up homesteads believed, when they received title to their homesteads, that that granted them the right of citizenship. There are instances in which they have found that that is not so; after living for years under the illusion that they were Canadians they found that they were not entitled to all the rights of Canadian citizenship. When these people are making an effort to add their contribution to the rich mosaic which should be Canada, is it not time that we of this house passed legislation to make it possible for Canadian citizenship to be registered on the census records? Surely the time has come when we can be called Canadians, not "British Canadians" or Canadians of some other particular nationality or kind. The time ds long past when we should have welcomed these people and assisted them in adding their contribution to this nation.
Mrs. DORISE W. NIELSEN (North Battle-ford) : May I add one other word in support of what has already been said? It seems to me there is need for the committee to discuss the question of making special provision for the naturalization of those who happen to suffer physical disabilities which make it almost impossible for them to comply with existing regulations. I have in mind a certain case up in my part of the country. In the year 1903 a man and his wife came to Canada from -the Ukraine and brought with them the wife's sister. She was then a young girl, and she was deaf and dumb. In 1905 the man
Defence of Canada Regulations

became naturalized, and so automatically his wife and children became naturalized, but the deaf and dumb sister was not included; she is not a naturalized citizen of Canada. To-day she is seventy-one years of age, and her brother-in-law wants to know if she is eligible for the old age pension. I found out that she had first to become naturalized, and I suggested that he go to the court in North Battleford to see about it. The judge made a ruling that this woman must learn to write. Tor a. woman of seventy-one who has been deaf and dumb all her life to be told that she must learn to write before she can become naturalized seems an absurdity. It appears to me that in cases of physical disabilities of that kind special provision should be made, because in my opinion the contribution of a woman who has been in this country since 1903 gives her the right to the old age pension.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Mr. Speaker-


Thomas Vien: If the minister speaks
now he closes the debate.
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): I do not intend to discuss the many interesting questions which have been suggested as proper matters for the committee to look into. I understand they will be very [DOT]carefully considered and, I hope, reported upon to this house by the committee.
There are one or two questions which were asked with respect to information that I can perhaps give the house at this time.
The hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe) referred to the fact that a statement I tabled yesterday in respect to the question he asked on February 15 did not appear in Hansard; but if the hon. member will look at page 99 of Votes and Proceedings he will find that the statement is there noted.


Mr. LACOMBE (Translation):: The reply
is not recorded in Hansard.
Mr. ST. LAURENT (Translation):	The
reply is recorded on page 99 of the Votes and Proceedings.


Liguori Lacombe: I admit that the reply is recorded in the Votes and Proceedings, but that is not what I said, Mr. Speaker. I said that it was not recorded in Hansard.
(Text)


Mr.   S@: The hon. member
for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) inquired as to what organizations had been deleted from regulation 39C of the defence of Canada regulations. He will find them enumerated in the order in council of October 14, 1943, P.C. 8022, which has already been tabled in

this house. They are: the Ukrainian Labour Farmer Temple Association, the Finnish Organization of Canada, the Finnish Society of Toronto, the Finnish Society, Technocracy Incorporated, Jehovah's Witnesses.
He also inquired as to what had been done about the property of these organizations which had come by virtue of the regulations under the control of the custodian of enemy property. By the same order in council it was provided that-
.	.	. all property, rights and interests in
Canada, or the proceeds thereof, vested in and subject to the control and management of the custodian pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (4) of regulation 39C of the defence of Canada regulations (consolidation) 1942, be released to the organization or person from whom it was received where the name of the organization has been deleted from subparagraph (a) of paragraph (1) of the said regulation 39C.
In order to bring that about in a manner that might be fair to each of these organizations, I understand that the Secretary of State as custodian set up an advisory committee similar to the committees that had been advising the Minister of Justice in respect of the application of the defence of Canada regulations, to assist him in making a proper return or accounting to the person or persons from whom property had been received by him.
The hon. member also inquired as to the number of persons who had been released or were still interned. I am sorry I have not the exact number here. Most of those who have been interned have now been released, and orders for release are constantly being made as the advisory committees make favourable recommendations to the Minister of Justice. Exact information can be prepared in tabulated form and made available to the committee, of which I am glad to note the hon. gentleman is himself to be a member.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Motion as amended agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On t'he orders of the day:
Mr. S. H. KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Pensions and National Health. Will he tell the house whether it is intended, before the close of the present fiscal year, to introduce legislation providing a statutory basis for the payment of allowances to widows of veterans of the last war?
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health): No decision has yet been arrived at.

Supply-National Defence

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Normal services-
176.	Grants to military associations and institutes as detailed in the estimates, $10,575.


Gordon Graydon: I do not know whether the minister had in mind making a special statement in connection with these estimates. If he has, I shall be glad to give way to him.


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: I had not intended making any statement. Eaoh item and its purpose is quite familiat to the committee. These items cover the functions of the department in peace time, and the estimated expenditures, except in one case, are slightly below those of last year.


Gordon Graydon: Has there been any increase in this vote?


James Layton Ralston: Some of the institutes have become dormant because of war conditions and we have found that there was no necessity for even providing for the grant. No payments have yet been made under the 1943-44 vote, although accounts are generally presented near the end of the fiscal year. Many of the associations have ceased activities entirely, and unless they can show activities that are regarded as substantially in the interests of the war effort, payments are not made.


Gordon Graydon: I suppose a large number of these people are overseas in the armed forces?


James Layton Ralston: That is quite right.


Grote Stirling: Judging by the amount not required last year I take it that some of these are not continuing this year.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is quite right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
177.	Miscellaneous maintenance and adjustments (war of 1914-1918), $22,770.
Gordon Graydon: What will be covered by temporary assistance, which will be found at page 129 in the details of services? I note that vote 177 covers temporary assistance amounting to $6,820; cost of living bonus and other pay-list items, 8555; an item for the purchase and erection of headstones in Canada, $13,500, and sundries amounting to $1,895. Perhaps the minister will give us some additional information.


James Layton Ralston: As its name indicates, this is a composite item. The principal activities under it are connected with war graves in Canada, to which are related the expenditures my hon. friend has mentioned in connection with headstones in Canada, the activities of the Canadian war museum, and payments for temporary assistance. The payments are to Mr. Reiffenstein, the secretary of the war museum, $2,400, and Mr. Salmon, handyman, $1,080. The payment to Colonel Osborne, secretary of the war graves commission, is $1,500. Provision is included this year for a museum assistant, the amount being $1,600. That makes $6,580, and there is an amount of $240 for casual labour. The additional museum assistant is necessary because of the considerable interest that is taken in the war museum. Something like 44,000 people saw the exhibit last year, and the secretary has been busy a good deal of the time taking visitors through the institution. It is thought therefore the expenditure for the assistant is justified.


Gordon Graydon: What is the extent of the war graves commission's work so far as it affects the operations in this war?


James Layton Ralston: There is no expenditure here in connection with operations in this war These headstones are all for burials in Canada. I think I am right in that. Deaths in England may be included-I am not sure about that- but I think it would be only deaths in Canada.


Gordon Graydon: What about the attention being given to the cemeteries in Sicily, Italy and North Africa?


James Layton Ralston: The cemeteries in Sicily and Italy are a purely service activity at the present time, and come under the department. The cemetery at Agira was built by the Royal Canadian Engineers and is being maintained by the army there. It will not be taken over by the imperial war graves commission until some time later, when activities cease there. As my hon. friend knows, the imperial war graves commission gets contributions from Canada.


Gordon Graydon: Have we a representative on the imperial war graves commission?


James Layton Ralston: Colonel Simson is on the imperial war graves commission, or is liaison officer with them. I should say also that Colonel H. C. Osborne, who is here, is secretary-general of the imperial war graves commission (Canada).


Grote Stirling: A little while ago I was approached by someone who asked me what steps should be taken with regard to a relative
Supply-National Defence

of his who had not received a medal to which he was alleged to be entitled! He did not know what he should do to get it. I told him to give me the information in detail and I would pass it on. In a case such as that, what steps are taken?


James Layton Ralston: The application ought to be made direct to the department. The adjutant-general deals with it and passes it on to the records branch of the department. Is the hon. member referring to a medal of this war?


Grote Stirling: No. I take it it was the first great war.


James Layton Ralston: If my hon. friend will give me the name I shall see to it at once.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Normal services-[DOT]
178.	Battlefields memorials, $5,700.
Mr. COLDWELL:: I notice there are two small salaries here. What is being done with regard to these battlefields memorials? They are not accessible to us at the moment. Is a skeleton organization maintained?


James Layton Ralston: The amount expended so far from the 1943-44 vote is S3,300, although the vote was S5.700. We make a contribution of SI,500 toward the salary of Colonel Osborne and $720 to his assistant. They keep in touch with the imperial war graves commission. We make provision for personnel in occupied countries to be paid when they can be paid. We have not been able to pay them this year, but we have paid out altogether $3,300.


Major James William Coldwell: You will have some obligations to meet at the end of this war.


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Gordon Graydon: I know the minister will be guarded in his reply to the question I am about to ask. Has the minister any information as to whether or not the Vimy memorial is still intact?


James Layton Ralston: I have no official information about it, no. I have reason to think it is. The Vimy caretaking personnel is scattered in occupied countries. We know the caretaker and the assistant caretaker are in an internment camp. They have been in the employ of the commission for approximately twenty years. We are making provision here in case they should find their way to Great Britain in order that we may be able to look after them.


Gordon Graydon: You put aside their payments?


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
	;
Pensions and other benefits-
179.	Civil pensions-Robert Allen, $269.52.
Howard Charles Green: Will the minister tell the committee what protection there is for a member of the reserve army who is injured while carrying on his military duties? There seems to be some concern about that question. In these days men of the reserve army are getting far more training than they did before the war, and they are dealing with many types of weapons. In some cases they are getting battle training, and apparently there are many accidents. My understanding is that there must be a court of inquiry where a man is hurt. The report is referred to the brigade and eventually to Ottawa. In some cases men are not allowed any compensation at all. In all cases there is a long delay. I have been told that at best all they can get is hospital treatment and reserve army pay. The suggestion has been made to me that when they are in hospital or w'hile they are laid up, the least they should get is active service pay and allowances for themselves and -their dependents, or there should be some scheme similar to workmen's compensation to protect them. Will the minister tell us what the situation is in that respect?


James Layton Ralston: I remember a case in New Brunswick. I am under the impression that such provision is made in these cases, and that the personnel are pensionable if the accident is attributable to service. I shall look into the matter. It really does not come under this item. My hon. friend may ask me about it later. I shall furnish the information to him. It really comes under the department of my colleague, the Minister of Pensions and National Health. I am quite satisfied they are provided for in case of accident occurring in training. I shall tell my hon. friend what are the provisions.


Gordon Graydon: The various items are
composed of pensions which would not ordinarily go through, I presume, and fur which some good reason has been advanced.


James Layton Ralston: That is so. They are
civilian employees.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
18Ji. Civil pensions-Mrs. Alice Smuek, $480.
Gordon Graydon: None of these are new
items, are they? They were passed last year and are the same this year?


James Layton Ralston: The first one relates to
an accident which occurred in 1916. The pension has been paid ever since. The last one

Supply-National Defence
relates to an accident which occurred in 1935. They have all been voted for a number of
years.


Mr. COLD WELL:: I think these are old
pensioners. Has anything been done to assist them?


James Layton Ralston: No; these are civilian employees who were not pensioned.


Major James William Coldwell: They are not pensioned employees, but they have had long service; is that right?


James Layton Ralston: They have had long
civilian service and are paid compensation on account of accidents.


Major James William Coldwell: Compassionate?


James Layton Ralston: As a matter of grace.


Major James William Coldwell: In view of the increase in the cost of living, has any adjustment been made to assist them? These pensions are very small; two of them are less than what is paid under the Old Age Pension Act. I wondered if any consideration had been given to granting these old employees-I take it they are old employees-something to assist them in view of the increase in the cost of living.


James Layton Ralston: No. Take, for instance,
the Allen case. That accident occurred in 1916; the Pettipas accident in 1916. My hon. friend will realize that the dollar is worth more now than it was then. I do not think there is any doubt about that, as far as purchasing power is concerned. The Walker case occurred in 1927, the Townsend case in 1917, the Mountain case in 1926 and the Smuck case in 1935. To answer my hon. friend directly, no consideration has been given to making any change.


Major James William Coldwell: I hoped we had reached a more generous spirit in this war than in the last.


Gordon Graydon: Has consideration been
given by the treasury board to the question of cost-of-living bonuses for pensioners?


James Layton Ralston: There has been consideration given; that is all I can say to my hon. friend. I do not like to speak for that august body.


Gordon Graydon: I fancy it is more
popular not to be its champion. I understand that.


Mr. MacNICOL:: This is the last item of these particular estimates, and I should like to ask the minister a question. I do not expect an answer now; it will take some time to get the information, but would he later on advise
the committee where in the auditor general's report I can find the details as to the names and so on of the persons referred to in these various items, and the amount in each case?


James Layton Ralston: I shall find that out.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I want to congratulate the government and the particular officials responsible for again giving the house such explicit reports as are now contained in the public accounts. I wish also to thank the hon. member for Temiscouata who first brought the matter up in this house and requested that greater information be given. I supported his request, and I believe the hon. member for York-Sunbury also asked that the information be full and complete. I just cannot see in the public accounts the exact details of these items, however, and I should like to have that later.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: I notice that last year and again this year the contribution to cadet corps comes under the war appropriation. Will the minister tell the committee why that has been done?


James Layton Ralston: Because that was regarded distinctly as a war activity.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I was just wondering if it was considered that this grant would not be continued after the war. It seems to me it should be part of the civil estimates, and I do not quite understand why it should be dealt with in this way-


James Layton Ralston: That is the answer.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: -unless it was very much enlarged.


James Layton Ralston: By the same reasoning the fact that active army pay and allowances and engineering services were taken out of the civil estimates and put under the war appropriation might indicate to my hon. friend, if he were suspicious, that we were not going to have any active army or engineering services after the war, but that is not the case. I assure him that the cadet services have been put under the war appropriation in order that they might receive recognition as part of our war activities.
Perhaps the committee would permit me to refer to something I said yesterday which I should like to elaborate, because I am afraid the way Hansard has it-and I am sure Hansard has it the way I said it, because Hansard does not generally make mistakes-a wrong impression might be given. I was speaking in reply to the hon. member for St. Paul's, as to the activities we were carrying on to see that at the time of their discharge men were
Supply-National Defence

given information with regard to what were their rights. At page 624 of Hansard I said:
My hon. friend is quite right in saying that when a man gets out of the army he does not know where to go next. He expects somebody to send for him, and they are apt to send for him after the papers have been signed and he has gone away.
I do not want that to be taken as a statement of the picture as we have it now. That is a statement of the situation we have done everything we can to cure. I want the committee to realize that my colleague the Minister of Pensions and National Health and I both feel that it just is not good enough to send for a man after his papers have been signed and he has gone away. What we want is to see that the officers of both departments try to give the man all the information in plenty of time, so that he may know exactly what are his rights, as far as we can help him to do so, and what are the possibilities of getting employment or getting pension or getting treatment, under the regulations.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I thank the minister for his statement. The reason I brought up the question was that I felt in the past there had not been sufficient contact between pensions and national health and national defence in regard to this matter, and I am glad to hear that this situation is being corrected.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: I can assure my hon. friend that we are working together closely now.


James Layton Ralston: The Minister of Pensions and National Health tells me that in addition to being interviewed each man is given by his paymaster a little slip which has been prepared, indicating the rehabilitation benefits for men of all three services. What I was trying to deal with, however, was what I regarded as the army's obligation not only to see that pensions and national health does what has been arranged, but also to see that we did our own job before the man went out of the army altogether.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Administration service-
1. Departmental administration, $130,406.
Mr. PERLEY:: I think it is customary for the minister to make a general statement before any discussion takes place on his estimates. Is he going to follow that procedure to-day?


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: I had not intended to make any

extensive statement, Mr. Chairman, I think it will be remembered that I did not do so (last year) and I do not recall what I did the year before. I should like to call attention to the fact, however, that the estimates for this year are almost identical with those of last year. They are some slight changes, but not to any great extent.


Mr. SENN:: Except for one item.


James Garfield Gardiner: I presume the one item to which my hon. friend refers is the wheat acreage reduction. Even last year the estimates did not show the amount to be paid out under wheat acreage reduction; that was provided in the legislation itself. I should like to say, however, that the decision has been reached this year not to continue wheat acreage reduction, so that while the amount is shown in the estimates in exactly the same way as it was shown last year, when we indicated that some $26,000,000 would be paid out for this purpose, this year I shall indicate to the committee that no amount beyond what is shown in these estimates is expected to be paid out under this item. In other words there are some payments that will have to be made after the end of this fiscal year, and they will come out of this amount.
In addition there are expenditures made by the department of Agriculture out of the war appropriation, which of course are not shown in these estimates. If at all possible I should like hon. members to confine their discussion to the estimates now before the committee. There may be overlapping in some cases, which may require that the same questions be answered twice, but I think we can give more intelligent answers if we stay pretty close to these estimates while we are discussing them. The other matters can be fully discussed when the other items are under consideration by the committee. Apart from this I have nothing in particular to say at this time.


Mark Cecil Senn: I wish the minister would elaborate a little on the connection between the war estimates and these civil estimates. After all, under the war appropriation a number of boards have been set up which are connected closely with the department of Agriculture, and it is difficult to know exactly when we are referring to the one and when to the other. Could the minister let us know a little more definitely the relationship between these estimates? There are a number of these boards; it is not necessary for me to mention them. If the minister does not wish us to go into the war estimates at all, he might explain the situation a little more fully, so that we may know just where we stand.

Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: One board which has been in existence ever since the war started is the agricultural supplies board. It is true that the officials of that board are officials of the Department of Agriculture. We shall be discussing personnel in connection with these estimates, and that personnel will be found on those boards, or connected with them. But the expenditures actually made in connection with the different agreements made with Britain are amounts provided under the War Measures Act, and I think we would discuss those at another time to better advantage than we can while these estimates are before the committee.
Under the agricultural supplies board comes the bacon board, now known as the meat board. For the first three years of the war it was known as the bacon board, but the name has since been changed. Then we have the dairy products board, and the special products board, all of which operate under the agricultural supplies board, and with funds provided out of the war vote. The only other board about which we might speak in that connection is the food board, which has as its chairman the Deputy Minister of Agriculture. The food board, however, carries on its activities with funds provided from other sources. The officials in the Department of Agriculture naturally have the information respecting these other matters. They may not have it with them when we are discussing these items, but to the extent that questions are asked, the answers to which may be necessary for a reasonable discussion of the estimates, we shall try to answer. I hope, however, that there will not be an extensive discussion on the other items until we reach them.


Mark Cecil Senn: The minister of course in his department assumes responsibility for what is done by these different boards.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Mark Cecil Senn: And to a very great extent the Department of Agriculture is responsible for the information supplied to those boards, and upon which they render their decisions.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Mark Cecil Senn: So that I cannot understand how some overlapping could be avoided.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: I should like to ask a question with respect to the food board. The minister may decide that my question would more properly relate to the agricultural supplies board. I have in mind the conference held last fall, under the supervision of the agricultural supplies board, to decide upon the various amounts of agricultural productions for 1944. I believe it was decided at that conference that Canada in 1944 should not increase her wheat acreage production, but should endeavour to maintain the acreage she had in 1943. At the same time our neighbours to the south in the United States were asked to increase their wheat acreage production in 1944 by at least twenty-four per cent. When one considers that the four major wheat exporting countries, according to estimates published, used approximated *
464.000.	000 bushels of wheat for feeding live stock in 1942, on account of the shortage of usual feeding supplies, one wonders at this condition. I believe it is agreed among our experts that if we have a dry season in western Canada the best cereal crop is wheat, , and that we would have much better success in attempting to grow wheat, even if used for feeding purposes, than in attempting to grow oats or barley.
Our own wheat, storage has been greatly decreased. In fact, figures for the past year show that the decrease is approximately twenty-five per cent. While a year ago the wheat storage was more than 463,000,000 bushels, the present storage is only 348,000,000. At the same time our storage supplies of coarse grains have increased by twenty-three per cent from more than 61,000,000 bushels to
75.000.	000. As I have pointed out, the United States have asked for an increase. On January 1, 1943, they had in storage about 268,000,000 bushels of wheat and on January 1 of this year that amount had been reduced to 92,000,-
000.	Only a few days ago in the house the Minister of Trade and Commerce announced a sale of 175,000,000 bushels of wheat to the United States, for the current year 1944. It must be clear to anyone that there will be a very small carry-over of wheat this year, either in the United States or in Canada.
Moreover, the last issue of the Economic Annalist, published in February, 1944, and reaching my desk in to-day's mail, points out that-
The conference of the united nation's relief and rehabilitation administration which took place at Atlantic city during the latter part of November, 1943, was the second important international gathering held in the United States during world war II. The first, the conference on food and agriculture had already established a working basis for close and continued collaboration among all the united nations. In setting up the UNRRA, the united nations agreed to bring relief to victims of war immediately upon liberation of the countries enslaved by the enemy. According to the estimates, total import requirements for Europe from all sources will amount to over 45 million tons of foodstuff, feeds, oils, fat, chemicals, fertilizers, rubber, wood, paper, hides, leather, clothing, coal, metals, minerals, machinery,
Supply-Agriculture

vehicles, seeds, drugs and hospital supplies. One of Canada's major contributions will be food-especially wheat.
In the same issue Doctor Black summarizes his analysis of food production by saying that-
If labour is short as at present, we should get our calories so far as possible from cereals.
I do not like to take issue with the able experts on the board, or with the gentlemen before the minister to-day. It does seem to me however that in view of these facts, when our western wheat producers can produce wheat under natural land and climate condition much more easily than they can produce anything else, they should now be asked to increase their wheat acreage. In view of the weather conditions in these winter months it would not appear to me that we will have anything like as much precipitation or moisture in 1944 as we had in the last two years. I should like to have a more complete statement from the minister. I do not know what his personal views are about the present situation, but our producers are preparing for their spring operations, and any information they could get would be useful at this time. If the minister believes some change should be made, the producers should be told. If there is any reason why they should not increase their acreage, he should tell us why, because it must be apparent to all that the production could be used both for the winning of the war and for the feeding of people in the overrun countries immediately after the war.
My namesake, the hon. member for Moose Jaw, pointed out about a year ago that before the end of the next year we might easily have a shortage of cereals in North America. Judging from these figures I should think his prediction might not be far wrong.


James Garfield Gardiner: The statement made respecting the facts related to the conference are pretty much as indicated by the hon. member. The acreage under wheat in 1943 was 17,488,000 acres. The objective for 1944 is 17,500,000, or 100 per cent of the 1943 figure. The production figure for 1943 is the actual acreage we had in that year. The figures for oats are 17,405,000 acres for 1943 and 16,377,000 for 1944. For barley the figure is approximately the same; the 1944 acreage is 101 per cent of the 1943. For mixed grains the figure is 120 per cent of the 1943 acreage; for rye, 87 per cent, and for corn, 153 per cent. For hay and clover we are asking the same, and also for alfalfa.
Those are the figures with regard to wheat and feed grains and forage crops. We are asking approximately thie same for all import-

ant crops. Corn for husking is not a big crop in Canada. There were 257,000 acres in this crop in 1943 and we are asking for 303,000 acres in 1944. While that is up 53 per cent it does not represent a considerable acreage. In answering the question asked by the hon. member if I were confining my discussion of grains largely to the first three items, I think I shall have pretty well covered the picture. The wheat and oats and barley acreages will be approximately the same as far as this country is concerned. The wheat acreage will be 100 per cent of the 1043 acreage; the oat acreage, 106 per cent, and the barley, 101 per cent. Those are the main crops we utilize for feeding purposes.
The suggestion has been made that at a conference held in the United States certain decisions were reached. An agreement has been signed by the four exporting nations, namely, Australia, the Argentine, the United States and Canada together with Britain. That agreement was signed some time ago and was announced through the press. Under it certain provisions were made for the establishment of price levels toward the end of the war and as to acreages in the different countries. The most important feature of the acreage agreement is the one which relates to wheat acreage reduction. We were parties to that agreement; we signed it at the time.
Since that time there have developed some changes in Canada and the United States which have perhaps made it necessary in certain areas to depart from a strict interpretation of the terms of the agreement. It is possible that this is true in the United' States. If I recall correctly, in the United States they asked their farmers to increase their acreage in wheat and feed grains by some 14,000,000 acres. In some places that has been interpreted as an expressed desire on the part of the United States government that the wheat acreage should be increased by 14,000,000. As I understand it, the intention in the United States was that
14,000,000 more acres of land should be seeded this year in order to provide feed for live stock. In so far as the growing of wheat to be used to provide food for human beings is concerned, I assume that they are following very much the idea contained in the agreement signed two or three years ago.
As the hon. member for Souris has stated, it is true in certain sections of western Canada that as many if not more pounds of feed can be grown in a dry area by seeding wheat rather than oats or barley. I think I can say that is true from experience. I do not think any objection would be taken-I suppose it would not make very much difference if we did take objection-to farmers seeding wheat.

Certainly no serious objection would be taken to the seeding of wheat as a substitute for barley for feeding purposes. That was the intention of the United States request to their farmers-to get more feed for live stock.
However, that is not what was in our minds when we discussed the matter in the conference. What was in our minds was whether we required more wheat for the purpose of providing flour with which to feed human beings. The hon. member for Souris has said that it is stated that the greatest contribution Canada is to make under U.N.R.R.A. is to supply wheat, but that contribution is to be only 25,000,000 bushels. Anyone looking at the figures of wheat supplies in Canada or wheat production will realize just what little effect one way or another the provision of
25,000,000 bushels of wheat would have upon our supply. At the time these discussions were being carried on we had 604,000,000 bushels carried over from preceding years. That represents about two years of average crops. At that time we had another crop which was being marketed and which is still being marketed. Therefore it was not considered wise when we had about three years' supply of wheat on hand to say to people this year that they should seed a greater acreage of wheat than they had last year. As a matter of fact, we asked them to seed the same acreage as they had last year. In so far as we have been able to study the statistics that come before us from time to time, we have not seen any reason up to date for changing that position. We thought it wise that our farmers should not seed more acreage this year for the production of wheat to be marketed for human consumption than they had seeded in 1943.
The question of feed is a different matter. We are asking our people to seed approximately a million more acres in oats, and we are asking them to seed approximately the same acreage in barley, or just a little more. We believe that with the carryover we have in the country at the present time our position will be well taken care of if our people follow these directions for 1944.


George Hugh Castleden: Will there be a carryover if we supply the United States with what they require in feed and wheat?


James Garfield Gardiner: The other day the
Minister of Trade and Commerce pointed out that the United States were prepared to take
175,000,000 bushels of wheat if we could get the shipping facilities to take it to them. Up to date no transportation organization has been able to assure us that facilities can be supplied to handle 175,000,000 bushels. It will be 100-41
Supply-Agriculture
apparent that 175,000,000 bushels, plus, the
25,000,000 bushels spoken of a moment ago, total only 200,000,000 bushels, or one-third of what we carried into this crop year. Assuming that we have a poor crop next year-no one in the west ever assumes that until we actually have it; we always assume we are going to have a fair crop-the figures might look different next fall, but they certainly would not look sufficiently different to put us in the position of being short of feed in Canada.


James Arthur Ross: That carryover already has been greatly reduced.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is being reduced by certain wheat that is being shipped out.


George Hugh Castleden: Will the European market be larger than it was?


James Garfield Gardiner: We are hoping it will, but we are, of course, not the only suppliers of that market.


George Hugh Castleden: Could the minister give the committee any figures with regard to the world picture of production-stocks, and probable demand?


James Garfield Gardiner: The best information which can be had under war conditions is that there is no indication from crop conditions throughout the world this year that there is any pending shortage of grain. Of course we all know that, with armies moving, weather is not the only thing which counts.


Gordon Graydon: We are now dealing with the first item, within the purview of which, naturally, may be discussed the general ramifications of the Department of Agriculture.
I have no desire at the moment to take the time of the committee with any general observations in connection with the matter. I rise for the single purpose of pointing out that during the last session of parliament, in the discussion of the agriculture estimates, there was 'brought to the minister's attention a matter which merits a little more consideration than the estimates would indicate it has received. I do not suppose that in many years as much interest has been shown in any suggestion respecting a vote in the house as there was in the suggestion last year that half a million dollars should be put aside for research laboratories and facilities for agricultural research in Canada. Many communications were received from agricultural sections regarding suggestions for the expenditure of this money in research for the benefit of agriculture. There is a feeling throughout the country that agriculture has not been able to

Supply-Agriculture

keep abreast with other lines of industry in regard to improvements and development. It is all very well to say that urban industry looks after its own research. Industry is in a very much better position to look after its own research than agriculture is. First of all, manufacturing industry is much more concentrated. Then, much of the money expended for this purpose is set aside by large concerns having their own research facilities. Further, the advantages of this research are sooner or later extended to branches of industry which perhaps are less fortunately placed. So far as the farmer is concerned he is not organized to the same extent to do that. It may be that in the future there will be some organization of a nature which will enable the farmer to make his contribution in a collective way to the advancement of research facilities, but for the moment that does not seem possible, at any rate on a very large scale. So that it becomes pretty definitely the obligation of the government to see that research facilities, laboratories or whatever may be needed, are provided through government assistance.
I noticed that last year a good deal of interest was taken in, and much support given to, the suggestion that a sufficiently large sum of money be set aside for this purpose. In the debate, which took place much nearer the end of the session than the present debate, many hon. members representing agricultural constituencies rose to express approval of the suggestion which was made. But as I look through the items of the estimates, both in the war appropriation measure and in the civil estimates which are now before us, I have not been able to find anything of a satisfactory or comprehensive nature with respect to any advance so far as those science services are concerned under which, I assume, the vote would occur. I notice a paragraph in the speech from the throne which says that "provision will be made to expand research activities." I have not a great hope that the speech from the throne, when it is brought down to earth, will look quite as attractive as when it remained up in the skies, in the clouds. Nevertheless I urge the minister and the government not to let the session pass without a substantial amount of money being set aside for agricultural research purposes. We must not under any circumstances fly in the face of agricultural opinion, which is insisting, in a way that agriculture seldom insists, upon this action. I want to summon every bit of emphasis I can to impress upon the minister the importance of his dealing with this matter. There may be a ray of hope in the paragraph of 
the speech from the throne which calls for an expansion of research activities. If that expansion covers other lines of activity as well as agriculture, I think agriculture should be given the very top place.
I leave the matter with the minister this afternoon. I was unable to discover in the details of the estimates where this vote is to be found. For that reason I rise on the general item in. order that the minister may be apprised of this urgent necessity. I do not think a day's delay should be countenanced in seeing to it that this most important contribution by the government to agriculture is made. It may be that the government does not want to go as far as was suggested in the session last year, but in my opinion not only is it justified in going that far but, if necessary, should go farther. The government must recognize that for many years the need has existed for this move to be made. It is strange that the governments of to-day and of yesterday have not recognized the urgent and essential nature of such provision for our agricultural populations. I am ready to lend every possible encouragement to the government in seeing to it that research for agriculture is not neglected, but that proper provision is made for it during this session.


James Garfield Gardiner: The paragraph following item 32, namely, "appropriation not required for 1944-45, 8200,000", is the item which was placed in the supplementary estimates last year to provide for certain research work and the putting in of pilot plants relative to research in connection with agriculture. That item was only partly spent last year. Provision was made for the expenditure of some of it, but the expenditure is not yet completed. It may be necessary to bring down supplementaries later on to cover the expenditures which will be made this year in that connection. But on page 44 of the estimates there appears, under "trade and commerce", item 358, "expanded research on the utilization of farm crops, 8325,000", one of two items under "national research council". That
8325,000,	together with what is expended under the other item when we come to deal with it in supplementaries, will make up a total somewhere between $325,000 and the $500,000 which has been spoken of.


Gordon Graydon: Is that the carrying out of the provision in the speech from the throne?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; that is the intention, and I will explain why it is found where it is. Some years ago-I have not the exact date, but it was long before my time in Ottawa-the research council was set up. The objective which I understand that those who

Supply-Agriculture
set it up had in mind was to bring all research under one national research council. That organization was supposed to have taken over a great deal of the research work which previously had been carried' on in the Department of Agriculture, and all research work generally that had been carried on by the different departments of government, and considerable new research work was added to its activities.
There has always been a certain amount of discussion as to whether agricultural research can be as successfully carried on in an organization of that kind as it would be under a purely agricultural set-up. I was not present in the committee last year when the matter was discussed and it was recommended that half a million dollars be expended on research in connection with agricultural products, and I am therefore not in a position to say what views hon. members expressed on that question. Finally, however, 8200,000 was put in the agriculture estimates last year, and in the meantime a committee was appointed which was composed of persons right across Canada, under the chairmanship of the president of the university of Alberta, and of which the hon. member for Moose Jaw* (Mr. Ross) served as a member. They made certain recommendations as to how moneys voted for this purpose might be expended, or on what works they might be used.
Out of these discussions there has grown this vote which is placed in the Department of Trade and Commerce under national research council for the purpose of doing research work in connection with farm products to determine exactly what is stated here-"research on the utilization of farm crops." On the question whether there should be additional amounts in the estimates of the Department of Agriculture to carry on some more practical work in connection with the development of ideas found by research, that is something which perhaps the members of the committee might wish to discuss, but any money voted for that particular purpose would have to be voted this session in the supplementary estimates.


Gordon Graydon: The reasons why I expected to find the vote in the estimates for agriculture were very well grounded, and that was the plan or scheme which was suggested by the hon. member for Moose Jaw, who brought up the question last year and was strongly supported by many members of the committee. The idea was to have a chain of laboratories across Canada for the purpose of doing this agricultural work. It had not occurred to me, but perhaps the minister, on consideration, may have felt that the vote could be more effectively spent by utilizing it through the research council.
I am not sure that the government's judgment on that point was very good. I am rather inclined to think that agriculture, at least as I understand from the general leanings, would like to have had, not only the amount here but whatever extended vote might be required, for work to be carried on through their own operations and within their own field. The minister will see why that should be, and I would point out that perhaps, in a reconsideration of the whole research field, that might be done.


George Hugh Castleden: There are a few general remarks I wish to make on agriculture. When the minister, with much gusto, proclaims that the farmer finds himself in a splendid position, and tries to create the impression that everything is well with agriculture, I think we should remember that it has only been in the fifth year of the war that the farmer's return for his labour has begun to show any proper relation to his cost of production.
The farmer in this country is to be complimented upon the work he has done. The production figures for Canada are figures to which we can point with pride and satisfaction, and the fact that labour shortages have existed only reveals the extent to which the older people have taken on the burden of producing food for our men as well as for the civilian population in this time of stress. If, however, we visited the farm homes across Canada we would find the people living in those homes not as well cared for as one would suppose they would be, looking over the slight increases in the farmer's income over the past year.
For twelve years, in most parts of Canada, this industry has suffered from a depression from which it will take years and years to recover. For the past twelve years there have existed in Canada conditions that should not exist in any country. In New Brunswick there are farmers who delivered barrels of potatoes containing over three bushels and sold them at twenty cents a barrel, and in many cases they could not sell their potatoes even at that price. Over long periods of depression agriculture finds itself in the position where it has constantly to meet debt costs, production costs and taxation, and these are not cancelled at the end of each year but are carried on indefinitely so that there has been irreparable loss which years of prices above parity will not offset.
The figures placed1 on the record the other evening by the hon. member for Melfort showed the extent to which farmers and farming communities have lost equity in their homes. Farm homes which were previously the property of the men who did the work have been taken over by the mortgage companies, and in far too many cases these people will
Supply-Agriculture

continue renting from the mortgage companies and will remain from now on tenants on their land. These losses can never be restored.
We must remember that our prosperity to-day is the result of a world conflict. The prices which we receive now are due to the fact that in Canada we have a market and that there are unusual circumstances at the present time. This machinery of ours, the system under which we operate, works all right in war time, but we are paying the price to keep the machinery working. There is the blood of our young men, the flower of our youth, which is being sacrificed from day to day, and which makes possible war, and the prices received at this time.
Agricultural prosperity is the very basis of national prosperity. We have not recognized that in the past. The Canadian wheat market has lagged for some time far behind the markets of the world; it was only in the fall of 1943 that we saw the Canadian markets catching up with those in the United States, and then the government stepped in and by order in council closed the grain exchange on wheat and prevented the farmer from receiving the value he might have obtained from the sale of his product.
It seems to me what we need in this whole set-up of agriculture itself and all those industries which are dependent upon it, is a new outlook, a new purpose. The purpose has to be the welfare of the producers and consumers who make up the majority of the population of our country. The basis upon which we should judge the success of the Department of Agriculture should be the living conditions of those engaged in that industry. If we were to use that as the basis of our judgment of the Department of Agriculture there is no doubt as to the verdict. It has failed entirely. If it is to be judged by the standard of living of the operators of the grain exchanges, those who run and operate the packing houses, the millers, the finance and mortgage loan companies, the bank directors and machine companies, then we can say that the agricultural industry of Canada has been a great success. The farmer who produces the product has no control at all of the price at which it shall be sold. The grain exchange, which was permitted to operate for years in the city of Winnipeg, dictated to him the price he was to receive for his toil. The milling industries, closely interlocked with the banking and financial interests of this country through directorships, received the product of his toil, sold it to the consumers east and west, placed a price on bread to the baker, and the consumers paid their price for the farmer's product. The con-
(Mr. Castleden.]
sumer and the producer should be working together in cooperative organizations, interlocked with wholesale cooperatives, to see that each got his proper share of the toil of the other, to exchange their toil on equitable terms and not allow those in the middle to clean up.
The farmer who raises stock must hand his product over to the packers and they control the prices. Recently a group of farmers in western Canada had a large quantity of feed cattle-cows in this case-ready for the market. They were told that there was no price on the market, no market there. The impression was created among those people that there was no room in the packing plants for those cattle. But we find that the packing companies were around offering seven and a half cents a pound for them. There must have been room somewhere. The packers tried to create the idea that there was a scarcity of room in the pack

g plants, or that there were no facilities for transportation, or something like that, but all the time there was a below-market price being offered by the packing companies. That seems to point to the fact that there is need of some control somewhere. Apparently they can create surpluses when they are required, and all kinds of excuses can be used.
The milk producers find themselves in the same position when they try to sell dairy' products to the large private monopolistic organizations that handle dairy products in the cities. The fruit producers found, although they did organize a cooperative in the Okanagan valley, that when they came to sell their products there was only one avenue through which to sell them and at a low price, in most cases a price below the cost of production. When the consumer comes to buy that commodity in the market the price is at the top. The same thing applies to farm machinery. When the agricultural producer goes to buy anything in the way of farm machinery he finds that apparently there is an agreement between companies with regard to prices. These things should not be. When it comes to repairs the price continues to rise year after year. Apparently there is no control, no price ceiling. The farmers should have cooperative organizations whereby they could manufacture their own farm machinery and own their own factories. That seems to be about the only solution.
When the farmer requires financial aid he has to go to the bank or the mortgage company. When wheat is at S2 a bushel money i3 loose. The farmer may' borrow a couple of thousand dollars and believes he will need only 1,000 bushels of wheat to pay off the debt.

Supply-Agriculture
But he finds when he comes to pay off the debt a few years later, that the price has gone away down. Instead of 1,000 bushels taking care of the debt he finds he has to grow 5,000, 6,000 or 8,000 bushels. Interest rates are away beyond what they should be. Mortgage and loan companies make him sign agreements containing clauses that are almost criminal. Legal fees are permitted which are disgraceful. The farmer finds himself constantly in debt. There are clauses in the agreement which make it almost impossible for him to meet his obligations, and foreclosure is usually the ultimate result.
When war broke out the government froze the price of commodities at one level and left the farmer's cost of production away higher than the price at which the commodity had to be sold. The farmer, realizing how he was the victim of so much exploitation, organized cooperatives in an attempt to solve the problem. Large groups organized cooperatively and said, we must enter into the purchasing field and control the sale of our commodities; we must have something to do with the sale of our products. The first thing they found was that it was opposed in almost every direction. The history of the Saskatchewan Cooperative Wheat Pool is a record of attempts by farmers to solve this problem in the marketing field in a cooperative way. They attempted to sell their products and return the actual sale of the products to those who produced them, so that all would share equally in the fruit of the toil. However, they found there were regulations set up against them. The grain board decided to step into the field. Storage facilities were required. Government regulations soon stepped in and prevented the farmer from delivering his grain to his own elevator at his own point. He was told there was a shortage of cars when he wanted to sell his grain to his own pool elevator. He was told: "You cannot sell your wheat to your own elevator. Since your elevator is filled you have to sell to those other line elevator companies. We will not permit you-"


James Garfield Gardiner: He did not have to sell it at all.


George Hugh Castleden: "We will not permit you to sell it there because thp elevator space is used up."


James Garfield Gardiner: He did not have to sell it; the government took it over at an advance.


George Hugh Castleden: He still has to deliver the grain to the line elevators.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Is there not a shortage of cars?


George Hugh Castleden: Why should that distribution be used to militate against the farmers cooperative organization?


John Gordon Ross: It has not.


George Hugh Castleden: Why did they not allocate the cars in proportion to the business which these companies did in 1938, 1939 and 1940?


John Gordon Ross: They received their fair share.


George Hugh Castleden: No, they did not. If you look over the records you will find that during the past year, instead of the cooperative business increasing as it should have year by year, and as it had done since 1935, the percentage of grain handled by the Saskatchewan pool elevator companies has gradually decreased. That decrease has taken place since the wheat board regulations came in, and the regulations with regard to the allotment of cars were put into force. Had the normal trend of business continued its upward graph their increase should have been almost sixty per cent of grain handled in 1943.


James Garfield Gardiner: The distribution is based on 1938-39.


George Hugh Castleden: Are they getting cars on that rating?


James Garfield Gardiner: At the present time, yes.


George Hugh Castleden: No. That is what they were informed was going to happen last July, but suddenly an emergency situation developed. The government said:	We must have
six million bushels out right away, the railway companies will take it wherever they can; and the car allotment cycle was all broken up. Then they said they were going to use the 1938-39 basis, and apparently the allotment committee has ceased to function. They are permitting the railway officials at each point to distribute cars as they see fit. We are told that the thing is to be handled on a quota basis, and that the quota system has been put in operation. But, though they fixed quotas for various points throughout the west, we find that cars are not available at these points even to fill those quotas. However, f believe this comes under the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and I can deal with it when his estimates are before the committee.
It seems to me that through government boards the advantage has always been given to the ordinary grain trade, to the line elevator companies and the milling companies which have their elevators buying grain at country points. It seems that assistance is always given to the operators of large businesses on the
Supply-Agriculture

grain exchange. The same thing appears to be true in the packing industry. There is a iloor placed under beef and pork, but there is no floor placed under cattle or hogs, which are what the farmer has to sell. If we could have an independent investigation of what has been happening in the meat packing industry in Canada; if we could ascertain the facts in regard to costs, processing, the returns to the packing firms-which in recent years have been amalgamating so that there are fewer and fewer companies in the business-and so on we would find out things that would shock every producer and consumer in this country. If the department and the government were operating in the interests of the producer and consumer they would curtail the activities of those who are exploiting the producers of this land1. Apparently the government is not only condoning the actions of these people; in its legislation and regulations it appears to aid and abet and legalize their operations. The result has been quite a rapid deterioration of the rural areas across this dominion, these small rural places which were the centre o( good living in this country. What is required is the establishment of parity prices, not only for the duration of the war and six months after, but for three or four years ahead at a time. There should be proper producer representation on the marketing boards. We should not have the government pick out some people they want to have representing the producers; we should have the producers themselves meet democratically and select from their own organizations those who would represent their point of view and their interests on these boards.
_ think one of the most effective contributions that could be made by the government to assist agriculture at this time would be the setting up of government or cooperative abattoirs throughout the country, where large surpluses of meat could be properly processed and held in storage, so that a large bank of food might be built up for the years of world scarcity which must necessarily follow this war; for the longer the war lasts the greater will be the need for such relief.
We should have the establishment on a cooperative basis of credit corporations and marketing and processing plants for each branch of agriculture, and assistance should be given those farmers who have endeavoured to organize their own cooperative farm machinery plants.
Governmental machinery should be set up for the proper estimation of the world supply and the world production. We know that in Argentine and other parts of the world cattle
{Mr. Castleden.]
production is being increased to an extent almost equal to the increase that has taken place in Canada. A long-range view must be taken of the possible world requirements and world production, in order to see what may be Canada's part in supplying the world with the food it is going to require.
I believe we should also take into consideration the nutritional standards and needs of this country of ours. Recent surveys made by service organizations and clubs throughout the country reveal some shocking conditions in regard to the nutrition of our people. Surely a country which can produce in one year ten times more wheat than it can eat should not be a land in which malnutrition and want prevail. What is wrong with this country of ours, when in almost every city we had thousands of people in need of food? Just before the war we found that in a place like Saint John, New Brunswick, there was considerable want and privation because the people were unable to obtain the food they required, while within a hundred miles of that city farmers growing potatoes could not get rid of them at fifteen or twenty cents for a three-bushel barrel. When we see things like that we realize that there must be something wrong with the distribution of foodstuffs in this country. There seems to be no purpose at all, no definite aim in connection with providing our people with the things they require. It seems to be a matter of enterprise, saying, "Well, let us get control of the food and we will deliver it if there is money in it. If we cannot get our price the people will not eat. If the people cannot pay for it or if we cannot . get our profit from both the producer and the consumer, then they can do without".
In regard to the matter of research, government assistance in this connection is long overdue, but there is something more needed. For far too long the benefits of the work done by the research laboratories of this and other countries have not been made available to the people themselves. Some private concern gets hold of the patent rights to a particular process and holds it up, saying, "Well, if it is going to interfere with our own industry we shall not let it be used". In other words, if synthetic rubber is going to interfere with rubber business, stop it; if the making of alcohol is going to interfere with the oil business, do not make the process available except at our price. But there are countries that are making progress along this line, and Canada had better wake up. There are countries where the benefits of science and research are being made available to the people as a whole. There, are countries that are beginning

Supply-Agriculture
to use their natural resources for the benefit of all the people, where the concern of the department of agriculture and other government departments is the welfare of the people and not the profits of the few. We should be setting our house in order now'.
The experience of those people who laboured so hard for so many years, only to see their homes deteriorating and their equities disappearing, has created bitterness and resentment against those who have been responsible for the policies of this dominion in the past. A few promises made at election time or a few increases in prices every four years are not going to allay their fears or restore their faith in those who have been responsible for the policies of this country for so many years. The agriculturists of Canada have lost faith. It is plain that there must be a new purpose and new concern on the part of those who govern. The interests and welfare of those who w'ork on the land must be considered before the interests of a few privileged people.
Increased tenancy across this land must be stopped. The w'elfare of agriculture is too closely linked up with the economy, health and social welfare of the people of Canada to be longer neglected. We have to stop the exploitation of those who to-day, apparently assisted by government regulations, are able to make themselves affluent at the expense and the toil of the producers in agriculture across this land.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Before we commence a detailed discussion of the items I should like to bring to the attention of the minister two telegrams received from my own constituency, because they indicate that out there conditions in respect to the marketing of live stock are far from satisfactory.
The first of these telegrams is dated at Lethbridge, Alberta, February 16, and states:
Our information indicates could conservative!}' expect 1275 to 1375 for lambs f.o.b. Choice fed lambs selling St. Paul 16 cents less duty two fifty freight one dollar add exchange 125. Our price now eleven cents and orders light only a few ewes moving at five cents which is ruinous. Cow situation materially improved but offering price for top steers has slipped to 1150 on instructions from Toronto heavy steers very draggy. Feed grain situation deteriorating rapidly due to heavy movement east and United States will be shipping grain back here before fall or else live stock will be liquidated. Government meddling seems to have no end but chaos. If moisture conditions do not improve beyond reasonable hope western stock men face a major disaster as result of this grain policy.
This is signed by C. O. Asplund, for the Lethbridge stock feeders' association.
I have another telegram which reached me this morning. It is dated at Magrath, Alberta, February 17, and is as follows:
Lambs selling two dollars hundred less than last yeaf little demand approximately twenty five thousand Welling Magrath and Spring Coulee lambs heavy should have gone weeks ago no buyers for fat ewes at any price serious situation heavy steers wanted last year this year small cattle wanted choice steers difficult to sell at lower price demand for cows slightly improved no hay oats or barley obtainable wheat prices out of line with live stock prices.
This is signed by E. Pingarie Tanner and Mayor H. Tilston Jones, president of the board of trade.
I have had this matter of selling finished live stock before parliament now for several days. I believe I first mentioned it on February 7. A few days ago the minister dealt with the matter in a rather optimistic manner, indicating that all was well. I point out that if we are to maintain our food production at a standard which will provide plenty for our people, and enable us to contribute as we ought to the rehabilitation of the conquered countries, certainly we must have more intelligence prevailing in the Department of Agriculture than has prevailed thus far in connection with live stock.
I do not know just what is the matter. I hate to think there is neglect or stupidity. I hate to think there is lack of vision; but certainly there is something dreadfully wrong, when we realize that there are 25,000 lambs in Welling, Magrath and Spring Coulee, just three places in my constituency, and that those lambs cannot be moved, although they should have gone long ago. When one thinks of the loss occasioned to feeders who have to keep that live stock in their corrals, awaiting sales, one realizes the extent to which public confidence is being destroyed.
In Canada we have a strange situation. We have had meatless Tuesdays for I do not know how long. We have had meat rationing, and people have been led to believe that there is a shortage. Now look at this! What are we to gather from a situation of this kind? I find myself utterly at a loss to understand. I have not discussed the question of sheep sales on other occasions, but have confined my remarks t.o beef. It seems to me that these two telegrams indicate a serious situation.
Another condition has evidently developed in western Canada as a result of what appeared to be a wise provision, namely, that of sending a quantity of our surplus grain to tihe east. I presume, for reasons which no one would have been expected to foresee, shortages have developed. We find one telegram complaining that they are unable to buy hay, oats or barley, to keep their cattle in good condition. That telegram comes from an area in which vast quantities of
Supply-Agriculture

oats, wheat and barley are produced. Yet the grain has been moved out to the extent that they are now unable to buy it, and a serious condition has developed.
Before taking my seat I wish to discuss one other question, namely, that related to the beet sugar industry in Canada. I find myself completely confounded by the lack of interest in the welfare of our country manifested by many people in high places, so far as sugar production is concerned. I pointed out in 1936, and again in 1937, 1938 and 1939 what ought to be done in Canada in connection with sugar. * But there was a number of wise smart Alecks who thought they knew all about it, and would not listen to anyone, in the belief that we had plenty of sugar. Now we see the position we are in! Sugar rationed painfully! Only five or six days ago the sugar controller announced that we might expect a worse condition, so far as sugar supplies are concerned, in 1944 and 1945. How can men who will allow conditions like that lay claim to having ordinary intelligence?
On behalf of the beet growers in western Canada requests have been made for a rebate of part of the excise tax levied against them, so as to enable them to cover the additional labour costs, trucking and other expenses which have grown out of the war. Thus far we have not had a word from the government. The Minister of Agriculture has not condescended to give us any information in the matter, and the Minister of Finance maintains a strict silence.
Mr. . GARDINER:	The Minister of
Finance had intended at the opening of today's sitting to make a statement with respect to sugar. However, other matters intervened. He had to leave the chamber, and upon leaving he asked me if I would stand aside at eight o'clock long enough to permit him to make that statement. He will be here at eight o'clock to make it.


John Horne Blackmore: I certainly appreciate that, because I am disturbed with regard to this matter. In Canada we are able to produce sugar of a very high quality, and at a very low price. There is no reason in the world why the people of this country should be short of sugar or should have to pay a high price for it. As I pointed out to the house in 1941, in 1937 the Canadian sugar factory at Raymond received less than four cents a pound for its sugar, and at that price made substantial profits for itself and the farmers. When hon. members compare four cents a pound with the price we have 
been paying for sugar, not only in 1937 but in subsequent years, they will realize that something is terribly wrong. Somebody is mismanaging the whole show. I am glad the minister announced that something is going to be done and I hope the rebate is to be given.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say what was to be done; I said an announcement would be made.


John Horne Blackmore: I hope the announcement will indicate that the people in charge of the sugar affairs of Canada do not intend to penalize the Canadian people and make them go short of sugar when we can produce it in great abundance. I wished to bring these two matters to the attention of the minister and let him comment upon them as he sees fit. I do not think I shall say anything more at the present time.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I have one or two observations to make in connection with what was said a little while ago* by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) about research. It is well understood that the prosperity of agriculture and of industry is dependent upon the prosperity of each other. One hundred years ago four-fifths of the products of the farm were used by man; at the present time I understand only about one-third of these products are consumed by the people. Perhaps that is one of our difficulties to-day. We must get more people back on the farms and consume more.
I should like to point out that the chemical industry of the United States invests between two and four per cent of its receipts from sales in research. Agriculture in that country invests only one-seventh of one per cent of its revenue. That is an interesting comparison. In 1938 an act of congress established four regional laboratories in the United States which were to consider the problem of the industrial utilization of agricultural surpluses, by-products and waste products. The discoveries were to become the property of the nation under the general service patent regulations. I mention that only to indicate that the amount of money proposed to be spent by the minister on research is quite small. The results of such research affect not only the farmer but also the industrial worker in the city.


John Gordon Ross: I should like to refer to some of the remarks of the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden). As I remember, his first statement was that Canada had lagged far behind the rest of the world in the price of wheat.


George Hugh Castleden: I said that the Winnipeg grain exchange had1 lagged behind.

Supply-Agriculture


John Gordon Ross: At any rate, that our price of wheat had lagged behind the rest of the world. A moment later the hon. member mentioned the price of wheat in the United States. I admit that the price of wheat in Canada is lower than the price in the United States, but it has been higher than in any other country during all the time the hon. member was speaking of.


James Garfield Gardiner: Except Great Britain.


John Gordon Ross: Except in Great
Britain where it has been subsidized quite heavily.


George Hugh Castleden: I suppose European
conditions would be satisfactory to the hon. member? I was just talking about the western hemisphere.


John Gordon Ross: No doubt the
hon. member does not remember what I say in this house at times, but last year I endeavoured to set out what I thought was the position in regard to the world grain situation. One of my hon. friends across the floor of the house mentioned that to-day and said I was about right in what I said last year. I am a little more careful about statements I make in regard to grain and farming and I think I know a little more about those things than my hon. friend. He has made some of the wildest statements in regard to all these things. Many such statements are made from the other side, or at least from that corner. The other day the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) put a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, as reported on page 302 of Hansard, of February 9. He said:
I want to remind the Minister of Trade and Commerce that about fifty-four per cent of the 1942 crop was sold by the farmers on the open market, and that they will get no benefit out of the participation certificates, or any increased price for that wheat.
One would think the bon. member for Weyburn knew what he was talking about when he said that, but that is not the fact. I doubt if my hon. friend knows more about the actual figures than I do, but I should like to make a prediction and I think it will be as true as any I ever made. I would say that there was under forty per cent of the 1942 crop sold on the open market and over sixty per cent sold to the wheat board. The farmers will get participation certificates on that sixty per cent or more sold to the wheat board. That is considerably different from fifty-four per cent.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: That is the
information the chairman of the wheat board gave the agriculture committee last year.. The hon. member was a member of that committee.


John Gordon Ross: I do not remember the chairman of the wheat board giving any such information as my hon. friend says he did. I do not think anyone has given the information he is speaking of. The wheat was not delivered at that time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The 1942 crop.


John Gordon Ross: The 1942-43 crop; that is the 1942 crop. Every time the minister's estimates come up we have criticism year after year by my hon. friends. They have always criticized the policies brought down by the Minister of Agriculture. If they will go back and consider the position of agriculture in years gone by when different policies were brought down by the then Minister of Agriculture they will find that the present minister has been dead right all the time. When he brought down his policy of subsidizing the growing of coarse grains in western Canada my hon. friend and others criticized him sharply, but where would this country have been if he had not brought down such a policy and emphasized the growing of coarse grains for the feeding of live stock?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Who criticized that?


John Gordon Ross: Members on that side of the house; many of them.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No.


John Gordon Ross: Just look at Hansard. The hon. member for Yorkton has criticized the wheat board, but let me say that that board has done a remarkable job in handling the wheat of this country. The same can be said for our railway companies.


George Hugh Castleden: A good job for the line elevator companies.


John Gordon Ross: My hon. friend does not know the difference between the line elevator companies and the Winnipeg grain exchange. A moment ago he said that the Winnipeg grain exchange set the price of wheat. The Winnipeg grain exchange is simply a trading place for traders to get together and if; has nothing to do with setting the price of wheat. It is the traders who come there who set the price of wheat when they trade one against the other. No one can set the price of wheat in this country when there is an open market. If we get into the position where we have the policies in force which my hon. friends want to put into force, they will be able to set the price of wheat and then-I was going to say, "God help the farmer if they ever do."
At six oclock the committee took recess.

650	COMMONS
Excess Profits-Charitable Institutions
After Recess
The committee' resumed at eight o'clock.
Progress reported.



EXCESS PROFITS


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: There are two brief statements which I think I should make to the house. The first is in respect of charitable donations.
The house will recall that on January 31 I made a statement indicating the government's intention to introduce at the time of the budget a measure limiting the tax advantage which may be obtained by a business concern making contributions to charitable organizations. I announced at that time that in respect of contributions subscribed after January 31, 1944, the tax advantage obtainable by a business concerned, whether corporate or otherwise, should not be greater than that obtained by a comparable business not subject to tax at the 100 per cent rate.
In the meantime I have received many representations from various organizations asking for clarification and expressing great concern over the possible effect of this proposed amendment on their ability to secure the funds needed to carry on their activities. As^ a result of these representations, and the quite widespread comment on this subject in the press and elsewhere, I should like to make a further statement on the matter.
First of all I should like to explain more fully and restate to the house the facts of the present situation relating to tax deductions in respect of charitable contributions which, to the government, seemed clearly to call for some safeguarding measure.


Gordon Graydon: Is this only in connection with excess profits tax?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Gordon Graydon: Not income tax?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Oh, that is right; it only affects business concerns. I think I had better not interject anything; it is quite clear.
The present law allows a business concern as a deduction in computing profits subject to tax an amount not exceeding 5 per cent of its income which has been paid by way of donation within the tax year to any charitable organization in Canada operated exclusively as such and not for the benefit of private gain or profit of any person. As a result of allowing this deduction in computing profits for tax !Mr. J. G. Ross.]
purposes, the government forgoes collecting tax which would otherwise be due. In effect, then, the government can be said to be subsidizing charitable activities. Before the war, when the corporation income tax rate was 15 per cent, the government relinquished 15 cents of tax revenue on every dollar contributed to charity by the ordinary industrial corporation. To-day, when the minimum tax payable by corporations is 40 per cent, the government gives up at least 40 cents in tax for every dollar of charitable contributions made by the corporations. The minimum tax advantage to-day in making contributions to charity is more than two and one-half times greater than it was pre-war. It can scarcely be argued, then, I think, that the government incentive towards charitable giving is ungenerous or that the importance of maintaining the flow' of donations is overlooked. It is true, of course, that the heavy weight of taxation, both on business concerns and individuals, leaves fewer dollars to devote towards charity, but while the weight of taxation has increased the incentive towards giving has likewise increased.
I have just referred to the case where a company is paying a 40 per cent tax rate. No problem can be said to exist in this situation. In making a contribution towards charity of, say, $100, the company' is parting with $60 of shareholder money. The situation which gives rise to the problem, however, is where the business concern is paying tax at the rate of 100 per cent on excess profits. In this situation a contribution to charity reduces the company's tax bill by exactly the same amount. Under these circumstances the company which ostensibly makes a donation to charity is doing so entirely at the expense of the treasury. The company, of course, loses its right to a subsequent 20 per cent refund on the amount contributed. In the light of this situation it is easy to understand the statement which I made in the house on January 31 that business concerns are being solicited on a wholesale scale to make unusually large contributions to various nonprofit organizations.
I think I need do no more than mention this situation in order for the house to see the necessity for some safeguarding provision beyond -that now obtaining in the law. Otherwise the way is open for an abuse of the privileges in the law which could result in a very serious diversion of public funds into channels which, while extremely desirable in themselves, can in the war period scarcely be regarded as of an urgency equal to that of finding funds to finance the war.

Excess Profits-Charitable Institutions
For the reasons I have just stated the government does not feel it can depart from the general principle of the proposed limitation on the tax advantage to be secured by business concerns in making charitable contributions. The government is willing, however, to make a modification which I think effectively removes any possible criticism of the proposed restriction. The modification is intended to enable business concerns to continue without loss of tax advantage, the level of charitable giving which they had established prior to the coming into force of the 100 per cent excess profits tax rate.
I wish, therefore, to announce that the limitation of tax advantage which I proposed on January 31, 1944, will not affect any business whose total contributions in any year are not above the average of its donations in its last two fiscal years ending before July 1. 1942, which was the date when the 100 per cent excess rate came into effect.	'
For example, if a company made charitable contributions totalling $8,000 in one of these two years and $12,000 in the other, its average annual contribution for the two years would be $10,000. It will then be allowed to continue to receive the full tax advantage on $10,000 of contributions in fiscal periods ending after January 31, 1944.
The proposed limitation which I announced on January 31 will apply, however, when contributions made are above the average established by the record of 1940 and 1941, as referred to in what I have said. That is. the limitation will apply to that portion of the amount of contributions not subscribed on or before January 31, 1944, which results in the total amount contributed in the tax year of the business being in excess of the average amount contributed in the last two fiscal years of the business concern ending before July 1, 1942.
The present five per cent limitation with respect to the total volume of deductions allowed will, of course, continue to operate.


Gordon Graydon: In other words, this means, prior to the time the tax w'ent on, you are taking the previous two fiscal years as your base?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right,


Gordon Graydon: And upon that base you are making your average so far as charitable welfare donations are concerned?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, yes. It goes further than that, though. I do not want to muddy the waters by impromptu explanations of what I have said, because every word has to 100-42J
be weighed. That base is taken, and if the donation is kept within that base, the full tax advantage is obtained in respect of the donation, just as the law has been up to now; but for any excess, the tax advantage is limited to 40 per cent of the donation.


Gordon Graydon: The balance, then, comes under the same category as the minister's statement indicated to the house some weeks ago?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right.


Gordon Graydon: It is difficult to assess the exact amount of the advantage or modification which the minister has mentioned. I should not like to express myself with respect to that at the moment. At any rate it is not debatable, and I have no intention of doing more than simply making an observation with respect to it. But I am glad he has made an announcement, for the sake of many of the institutions that have been in touch, I know, with the minister and with hon. members generally, and have felt pretty keenly and severely changes which were being made, because I fancy that, apart altogether from the position in which they found themselves, the fact that it came very quickly upon them involved them in a good deal of difficulty in making their adjustments. I am hopeful that, if the minister finds that this is not a sufficient amount by way of modification, he will not close the door entirely against any adjustment which might conceivably require to be made.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I feel that this is the final notice of budget modifications in this regard. I think there has to be some finality about it, and I feel that this is the final notification.



PRODUCTION OF SUGAR BEETS-MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

James Lorimer Ilsley: There is one other matter. During the past few weeks, the government has received representations from various parts of the country regarding sugar beets, and the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) has also drawn the matter to the attention of the house on several recent occasions. Sugar concerns both the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Finance, and I wish it to be understood that I am speaking also on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner).
The representations -to the government have been along two lines. On the one hand there have been requests for additional dominion

Sugar Beets-Mr. Ilsley

assistance. On the other hand the government has been asked to give, not additional assistance, but assurance that the present price structure will be maintained until the 1944 crop has been marketed.
It will be recalled that during the past two years substantial assistance has been given to the sugar beet industry by way of reductions in the excise tax. The first reduction of half a cent a pound was made in the budget of 1942, and a further reduction of half a cent by order in council, effective September, 1943. These reductions added directly to the price received by growers for their sugar beets, the increase in two shears amounting to approximately twenty-five per cent.
In Alberta and Manitoba higher prices resulted in a substantial increase in acreage. In Alberta, plantings in . 1943 were the largest on record, and there is every reason to believe that if weather conditions had been normal at harvest, the crop would have taxed the capacity of the two factories in that province. Unfortunately, there was considerable spoilage, the loss being estimated at around fifteen per cent. In Manitoba, acreage was slightly less than the year before, but in spite of some loss at harvest there was a record yield.
In Ontario, the situation was quite different. The increased price, which was supplemented by assistance from the Ontario government of fifty-five cents per ton, failed to stimulate plantings. Instead, acreage declined from over
20,000	acres in 1942 to less than 10,000 in 1943. Farmers preferred to raise other crops requiring less labour.
I am bringing these facts to the attention of the house because they illustrate some of the considerations which must weigh with the government in arriving at a decision in this matter. For some time the government has been encouraging the production of soy-beans and white beans, crops which are needed urgently, but which in Ontario compete with sugar beets. This is one of the reasons for the decline in sugar beet production in that province. The hon. member for Lethbridge also spoke of sugar beet growers turning to other crops in Alberta. The point I wish to make is that at this stage in our war effort a choice must be made between alternative uses of land and labour, taking into consideration the relative importance of the various products.
I might also add that even though, as some believe and as is probably true, the world outlook for sugar is less favourable now than a year ago, this does not necessarily mean that Canada should divert land and labour to the production of sugar beets in an effort to offset a possible decline in imported supplies
[Air. Ilsley.]
if there are other equally or even more important uses to which these resources can be put.
The experience last year illustrates the variation between conditions in various parts of Canada. In the West, prices were sufficiently attractive to stimulate maximum plantings and should continue to be fairly satisfactory; in Ontario, the existing price level, plus the provincial subsidy, had little effect so far as can be ascertained.
After careful consideration the government has therefore come to the conclusion that it would be inadvisable to increase dominion assistance on beet sugar. Provincial governments have always taken a special interest in sugar beets, and of course I do not know whether they intend giving additional assistance to their growers.
As I said at the outset, some growers have asked for assurance that prices will not be lower during the 1944 crop year. In order to remove any fears that the government might reduce returns on sugar by altering the excise tax, I may say that the government does not intend to propose any increase in this particular tax in the forthcoming budget, nor does it intend revoking the order in council by which the latest half-cent reduction was effected, at least before the 1944 sugar beet crop has been marketed.
The dominion government, through the sugar administrator, controls the importation and sale of cane sugar, and, as additional assurance, I am in a position to say that on the basis of our present commitments and prospects there is no danger of a reduction in the price of sugar within the period during which the 1944 crop is being marketed.
I hope that this statement will provide the necessary degree of certainty as to price levels during the coming year.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: Are steps being taken by the government to reopen the sugar factory at Halifax? The Acadia Sugar Company has been closed for two years. This matter has been brought up in the house from time to time by the member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor), and it means a great-deal to the province of Nova Scotia as well as to the sugar supply in Canada.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It would not increase the supply of sugar in Canada by a pound. I am not aware of the authority under which the -refinery at Halifax was closed or whether it was by governmental direction at all, but so far as I know no steps are being taken to open it. However, I will make inquiries and inform my hon. friend if I find that any change is planned.



IS, 1944

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Agriculture
Mr. ADAMSON:: What is the present
subsidy on sugar in Ontario?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Last year it was fifty-five cents a ton.


Agar Rodney Adamson: And this year?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know.


Agar Rodney Adamson: It has not come down yet?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think so.

The house resumed in committee of supply.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

John Gordon Ross: At six o'clock I was endeavouring to answer one or two remarks of the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden) in the speech he made prior to my rising. He was speaking of the wheat board and the way they had handled the wheat crop of the western farmer. I said I thought, and I am sure I am right, that the wheat board had done an excellent job this year in handling Canada's wheat and also all grains for the farmers not only of western Canada but also of eastern Canada and far western Canada. It must be remembered that, following the policy laid down by the Minister of Agriculture of subsidizing the shipment of grain to eastern Canada and to British Columbia for the feeding of live stock a year ago, besides all exports to the old country and to the United States, the wheat board and the railway companies were able to move some fifty-eight million bushels of grain for feed to other parts of Canada from the west. This year, from the 1st- of August, the start of the crop year, to the end of December there has been moved forty-five million bushels, or seventy-six per cent of the total movement of last year. When one considers that millions of bushels are being shipped to the United States, great credit is due not only to the wheat board but to the railway companies and the railwaymen for handling the grain in the way they have done throughout the past year or two. They have had to do this while moving thousands of troops from one end of the country to the other and thousands of civilian passengers besides millions of tons of freight needed for the war. The record made by the wheat board and the railways of this country has never been surpassed, and I think they should be given credit instead of being criticized by the hon. member and others.
The hon. gentleman spoke of the government taking over wheat and not allowing the price to go up. Surely he knows better than that; he knows that was not the case. He knows
that when the government took over the wheat they first of all set a price of SI 231 a bushel for all wheat that was in the hands of the board from 1940, 1941 and 1942 crops, and intimated that a participation certificate would be paid on that basis, less cost of handling that grain. Up to the point of taking over at a price of SI .234 none of that wheat is to compete with wheat of successive years. That wheat goes as lend-lease or is sold for feed or shipped to some of our allies and does not compete in any way with the crop of 1943. The crop of 1943 was taken over at SI.25 a bushel advance price and a participation certificate to the farmer, so that when the wheat is finally sold, whatever price is received for it by the government will be returned to the farmer by the participation certificate, the difference between SI .25 and whatever price the government gets for that wheat.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Why did you not do it four years ago?


John Gordon Ross: We have always done it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: You have never done it.


John Gordon Ross: There was always a participation certificate, and we have always told the farmer that if he sold through the wheat board he would get the participation certificate. We have not done as my hon. friends have done-gone and told the farmers that they would never get anything for it. We told them they would get something for it and they are going to get something for it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Why did you not close the grain exchange?


John Gordon Ross: The Minister of Trade and Commerce stated in the house the other day that the wheat now being sold to the United States was being sold at an advance, and the figures he gave are equivalent to from sixteen to twenty-two cents a bushel over SI .25. These were the figures he gave, from S1.41 to $1.47 for No. 1 northern. Each year the policy of the Minister of Agriculture has been criticized in this house, but it has paid dividends to the allies in this war. Year by year he has arranged matters so that the farmers of Canada could produce more food, and that food could not only be sold to the people of Canada but be shipped overseas for the use of our allies. He asked for meats and dairy products mainly. He asked the western farmer to cut down the growing of wheat, to increase the growing of coarse grains in order that the western farmer and the eastern farmer could produce more meat
Supply-Agriculture

and dairy products. How successful that policy has been is again shown by the very criticisms that come from hon. members of this house. That is why we are unable to handle all the cattle, hogs and sheep that are coming on the market. It is a physical impossibility to handle them, unless you can get sufficient shipping to take the stuff out of the country as it passes through the packing plants.
I am a farmer, and I do not believe that anybody ought to rise in his place in this house and try to make out that the packers are nothing but robbers. The farmers have done a great job in producing live stock, and the packers and the men employed by the packers have done a great job in handling live stock during the war.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister said it was on account of the packing plants that they could not ship.


John Gordon Ross: My hon. friend is babbling away again. The hon. member for Yorlcton then went on to try to prove that the farmer was paying excess prices for prac-ticalfy everything that he had to buy, and that his position was not getting better, as the Minister of Agriculture said it was.


George Hugh Castleden: I did not say that.


John Gordon Ross: The hon. member intimated that. Let me say this: My hon. friend should have read the pamphlet that was quoted this afternoon by the hon. member from Souris, the Economic Annalist. The first paragraph reads:
Preliminary figures make it possible to access the trends of prices and production in 1943. The index of wholesale prices advanced 4'3 points over that of 1942 or 4'5 per cent. The urban cost of living index was 1*6 points higher. The cost of farm family living rose i-3 points. Wholesale prices of Canadian farm products averaged 13-4 points or 16-2 per cent higher than in 1942. The index of prices of field products was 15-1 points or 22'7 per cent higher and that of animal products was 8-0 points or 9-8 per cent higher than a year earlier. .	.	. The total index of Canadian
farm product prices was 104'6 in December. It will be observed that this is 2-1 points above the index of wholesale prices of all commodities.


George Hugh Castleden: What was it in June?


John Gordon Ross: What was it ten years ago? What is the use of saying that?


George Hugh Castleden: What was it in June?


John Gordon Ross: As a farmer I buy .and sell.


George Hugh Castleden: What?
{Mr. J. G. Ross.]


John Gordon Ross: I buy the things the farmer has to buy and I sell the things the farmer has to sell. Let me tell my hon. friend this, that there is nothing in the Dominion of Canada that has risen more in prices in the last two years than farm products.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Farm machinery has.


John Gordon Ross: Farm machinery has not. Farm products have risen higher than anything during this war. When this war began I was producing hogs and getting seven cents a pound for them. Take a look at the figures to-day and see what you are getting. Take the figures for cattle and compare them with what they were at the beginning of the war. Take a look at the figures for grains, butter, cheese, every product that the farmer has to raise in this country. The price has gone up farther in comparison with that of anything else in this country, and it is to the credit of the Minister of Agriculture and this government that that has happened.
My hon. friends rise in their places in this house day after day and paint a picture of fear and trembling as to what will happen when this war is over. I am not a bit afraid of what is going to happen when the war is over; not a bit. People have short memories. Many of them think there was a great depression after the last war. There was no such thing. After the last war there were twelve years of the most prosperous times that the world has ever seen; twelve years, and most of it under a Liberal regime in this country.


Gordon Graydon: In spite of a Liberal regime.


John Gordon Ross: Most of it under a Liberal regime. My hon. friend, if he were a farmer, would know that when a Liberal regime is in power he gets good prices for his products and the reverse is true when the Liberals are out of power.


Gordon Graydon: I live in a town just like my hon. friend.


John Gordon Ross: There were reasons for that prosperity after the last war, and the same reasons will hold good after this one. The men who have gone from Canada to the army, navy and air force have received a much better education than any of us in this house ever received. They have been taught to take responsibility. They have seen much more of the world than most of us have seen, and they are coming back when this war is over to take charge of this country and run it as it

Supply-Agriculture
should be run. I am not a bit afraid of our young people coming back here, and I hope they will take charge and run this dominion as it ought to be run. After the last war there was prosperity. Why? Because Great Britain and the United States made some billions of dollars available to the countries in Europe for the purchase of food products and raw material to rehabilitate themselves. That started the prosperity. Then during the last war many new processes and new inventions were developed which were put into commercial use after the war. These things in commercial use created more buying power, more distribution of wealth, and that pros-, perity continued for twelve years. We know now that when this war is over there will not bo a few billions but hundreds of billions of dollars of credits made available by the united nations in ordered to rehabilitate the unfortunate countries of the world. We know also that science and invention have worked out new processes and inventions in this war a hundredfold compared with the last w'ar. I am satisfied that when this war is over we shall have prosperity for at least twenty-five years. But you must have a policy to help it along.
After the last war we had trouble with wheat. We had been asked to place every available acre in wheat during the last war, and the farmers in western Canada based their economy on wheat. When the war was over there was apparently more wheat than could properly be handled in the world wheat trade at that time. After this war it is going to be not only wheat but cattle, hogs, sheep, butter, cheese, eggs and poultry, and practically every farm product that one can think of, barley, oats, rye, flax. We are going to have a surplus of every one of them in this country when the war is over, because we have all of these commodities at the peak of production. What are we going to do with them when the war is over? What is the solution? If this government and other governments do not agree to follow out the Atlantic charter, do not agree to drop tariffs altogether, and allow trade to flow freely from one country to another, then there will eventually be chaos and trouble in the world. But if we will follow sound Liberal policy when this war is over, then prosperity can continue throughout the world and everyone can have more of the world's goods.
The leader of the opposition, the hon. member for Peel, spoke of the discussion that took place last year in regard to research laboratories. I was very glad to note that everyone in the house agreed with the suggestion made at that time that we should go farther into agricultural research in this country, and I am pleased to see that this year the government has increased the amount of money available for that purpose. I agree with the hon. member for Peel, however, that this amount is not large enough even yet. After parliament adjourned I had an opportunity of going to the United States and being shown through one of the large laboratories set up by the government of that country. Of course it had to handle a great many more products than would be handled in any one of our regional laboratories.


Gordon Graydon: Might I ask where that was?


John Gordon Ross: This one was at Albany, California; and the hon. member will realize that with the varied production on the west coast of the United States, they have many more matters to deal with than we would have in any single section of Canada, since their products range all the way from practically tropical fruits to the things grown in the temperate zone. This laboratory cost something in the neighbourhood of a million dollars, while the equipment cost something like half a million dollars. Of course we would not have to expend that amount of money, but if we desired to put up a proper laboratory we would have to spend more than two or three hundred thousand dollars.
A great deal of this work in Canada has been done in the past by the research council, by universities throughout the country and by the Department of Agriculture at its experimental farms. A good deal of research work can be carried on in that way, but if you are really going to get down to the business of research in agricultural products you must locate one laboratory somewhere to get started with, and there is a very good reason for that. In this laboratory you will have different branches, with men working on different products. In order to run it economically and well you will require, above all these different departments, an analytical branch with highly trained men and very intricate machines which cost a great deal of money. Therefore, in order that all the different branches may get the benefit of these highly trained technical men and these machines, it is necessary that the work be carried on in one laboratory. That organization should not be part of the research council here; it should be separate and apart, for
Supply-Agriculture

agricultural research. We must see to it that the newest types of machines are purchased for this laboratory, and I would suggest that before the remainder of the $200,000 runs out on March 31, the minister should see if he cannot purchase some of the machines that are needed, and at least we shall get that far along. Then we can use the money which is to be voted this year, and possibly more in the supplementary estimates, to carry research work farther.	.


Gordon Graydon: Are these machines readily available?


John Gordon Ross: I am. not so sure of that. I do not know. I should think some of them would be hard to get, but I am sure some machines and some equipment could be procured now. No doubt some of the more intricate machines will be very difficult to obtain until after the war.


Mark Cecil Senn: May I ask the hon. member if he has any knowledge whatever of the workings of the National Chemurgic Society. Has he made any study of the work of that society?
,Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw): I have read some of their pamphlets dealing with the set-up of the laboratories which have been established in Washington, but I have not attended any of the conventions of the National Chemurgic Society. The work of these laboratories has been considerably changed since the beginning of the war. When they were first started they were intended to work on agricultural products, to find new uses for them; but since the war a large part of their work has been in connection with the dehydration, freezing and packaging of goods in order that they may be used during the war.
M.r. WOOD:	I should like to supplement
the remarks of the hon. member for Moose Jaw. I wish to thank him for his most vigorous speech in defence of the cause of the farmer. I believe that if farming is to retain its rightful place in this country we need more people with faith in that branch of industry, rather than people who are always crying about it. After all, farming is not an easy job; it takes strong, virile men, men with ambition, men who are prepared to pit their physical energies against all the elements. Farming is only for capable people, so that we expect to have sharing in the joys of agriculture only those of our citizens who. are ambitious and physically able to do a hard job.
However, this is not really what I intended to say. I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Yorkton, who complained

because farm, prices in the United States were so much higher than in Canada. Well, you know, it is only human to magnify fault and belittle virtue, and sometimes distant pastures seem green. Let us analyse the situation for a moment. Only about three weeks ago I happened to have a farmer from Michigan in my stable, looking at the hogs I was producing, and I asked what he was getting for hogs in his state. He told me he was being paid $13.90 at his farm, live weight. Well, I was getting close to $13 for my hogs, live weight, and he had to pay a good deal more for his feed than I did. We have had the advantage of the subsidy of $4.50 on freight from the west, and we have had the benefit of the price ceiling, which they do not have in the United States. This man was paying almost fifty per cent more for his feed than- I was paying, so that when the hon. member for Yorkton makes a statement of the kind he did he should at least qualify it by pointing out the different conditions that exist. Farmers in the United States may be receiving more for some of their products, but it is costing them far more to produce those commodities than it costs in Canada, due to our price control policy.
There is another thing I should like to bring to the attention of the committee. In consequence of this unpopular control policy which was inflicted upon us, let us see what is happening. I notice a question was asked by the hon. member for Mackenzie as to the public debt of Canada. The farmers to some extent are responsible for the payment of that debt. The answer to the hon. member's question, as it appears at page 574 of Hansard, shows that on March 31, 1943 the per capita public debt of Canada was $523.44.
I hold in my hand a statement from the Herald Tribune of New York. This issue of February 14 sets out the gross public debt and guaranteed obligations in the United States. The figure is $183 billion, or a per capita debt of $1,410, when spread over their population of 130 million. That is their debt, compared with ours of only $523.44. Our debt will probably increase to some extent, but I am prepared to say that the per capita debt of the Canadian farmer, in so far as his contribution to the total amount is concerned,-is only one-half the load carried by farmers in .the United States.
Does that mean anything to the hon. member for Yorkton? I think he would show a great deal more wisdom if, when analysing these economic questions he would lay both sides of the question before the people, instead of trying to show only those things he wished to show, or attempting to have the people believe only those things he wishes them to believe.

Supply-Agriculture
In his analysis he leaves out important facts which have contributed to the general welfare of the people of Canada.
This evening I intend to discuss these estimates at somewhat greater length than I have in the past. First I would draw the attention of the committee to some newspaper clippings I sometimes tear out of a local newspaper, the Olobe and Mail. I used to take it regularly, and even now I read it occasionally. I got a copy this morning before I had breakfast, because I do not like to read it after I have had a full meal.


Gordon Graydon: That shows the hon. member's poor judgment; do not blame the Globe and Mail.


Mr. WOOD:: I will give my judgment of the hon. member in a moment or two. This Winnipeg dispatch states:
Farm Mortgages being Cleared Up
Prosperity among farmers is reflected in the number of mortgages, some of them of many years standing, that are being retired. . . . The Manitoba Farm Loans Association announces that farmers are clearing their holdings faster than ever before, and in this respect the record for the year was about fifty per cent better than for the previous year.


James Arthur Ross: That is where they have had good government for twenty years.


George Ernest Wood: Here is another newspaper clipping which is headed "Farm incomes at high level", and states that farm incomes in 1943 totalled $1,397 million, or almost double what it was at the beginning of the war. That is about five times as much as it was when the party of hon. members opposite had put us in the last depths of degradation and poverty in 1932, as a consequence of their judgment.
I have before me another short item bearing date of February 16, and headed "Farm income from milk up $28 million in 1943." I am not saying the farmers are getting too much, but I do share the view of the hon. member for Moose Jaw who has said that in consequence of policies in force to-day we are making rapid progress, and going ahead probably just as fast as any other country.
In 1932-and I hate to mention this, but I believe I must do so, following the interjection of the hon. member for Peel-I sold pork for $3.25 a hundredweight. To-day I can get as much for one pig as I got for six of them in those days. Of course we know that at that time prices were lower in Canada than they had ever been. One would have to go back to the time of Queen Elizabeth to find a parallel.
In 1930, when the Liberal government was turned out of office, our trade stood fifth
among the nations of the world. That is, there were only four nations which had a greater volume of trade than did Canada. In 1932 we had gone down to seventh place, and we stayed there until 1935, when a Liberal government was returned to power. Some may say that that was a period of world depression. True, there was a world-wide depression; but it was only incidental that Canada belonged to that same world both before and during the depression, and that she was shoved down from fifth to seventh place in consequence of policies in force at that time?


Gordon Graydon: Is the hon. member sure of his facts?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; certainly he is.


Gordon Graydon: I would like to challenge that.


George Ernest Wood: The hon. member has the same source that I had from which to get his information.
In 1935 we stood seventh among the trading nations of the world. By the time war broke out in 1939 we were back to fifth place, and to-day we stand fourth.


James Garfield Gardiner: Third.


Mark Cecil Senn: First.


James Arthur Ross: Yes; make it first.


Gordon Graydon: Be generous.


George Ernest Wood: There never was a time when the people of Canada exported as much as they did in 1943. The export trade for January is $64 million higher than it was in the preceding month. My only regret is that so much of that has had to be trading in weapons of destruction, and human slaughter machinery. We do not gloat over that kind of trade.
The fact remains, however, that in 1943 we shipped $775 million worth of agricultural products. That is, we are one of the nations which has been in a position to feed itself, and at the same time sell food products to the value I have mentioned. And on top of that, as Madame Chiang Kai-shek said, we have made the greatest contribution per capita in munitions that has been made by any of the united nations-as well as in our manpower. These things do not happen by accident.


Gordon Graydon: That was an afterthought.


George Ernest Wood: They result, of course, from some of the unfortunate regulations to which we have been committed. But we as Liberals believe we should share the happiness and enjoyments of our country in times of peace with the great masses of our people and by the
Supply-Agriculture

same token, in time of distress, when 775,000 of our boys are regimented into fighting for your liberty and mine, we should share with them some of the burdens and hardships they are asked to bear.


Mr. BOUCHER:: "Regimentation" is a good word to use.


George Ernest Wood: Exactly. When a soldier goes to war he expects regimentation. I think that we civilians should accept with better grace than some of the opposition have the restrictions that have been put upon us. I hope that six months after the war they will be as few as possible and we can get back again where under honest Liberal policies we can carry on with as little a measure of restriction as possible.


Gordon Graydon: You should not have sounded that last unhappy note. Otherwise your speech was pretty good.


Mr. WRIGHT:: I do not propose to make an omnibus speech at this time and try to cover the number of subjects hon. members who have preceded me have tried to cover. I was rather amazed to hear the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Wood) try to explain that during the ten years before this war it was only the Progressive Conservative party that had created hard times. I think most of us who were farmers during the period between the two wars remember that there was a lot of hard times.
Before taking up the subject with which I wish to deal, I should like to say a few words in reply to the hon. member for Moose law (Mr. Ross). I judged from his remarks that the prosperity the farmer is enjoying at the present time-he is enjoying a certain amount-a great deal more than he has done for a long time is due entirely to the Department of Agriculture and the Minister of Agriculture.


John Gordon Ross: A good part of it.


Percy Ellis Wright: I have an idea that there was a war on and that had considerable to do with the present position of agriculture. The same Minister of Agriculture was in power from 1935 to 1939, four years during which we did not have a war and during which, as I remember, agriculture was not too prosperous. The hon. member also stated that the twelve years after the last war were the most prosperous as far as agriculture was concerned.


John Gordon Ross: As far as the whole country was concerned.


Percy Ellis Wright: I served four years in the last war. I came back from overseas, took up land in western Canada and bought my

seed wheat in 1920 for $2.60 a bushel, and in 1921 when the Liberal government were in power I got 67 cents a bushel for my wheat.


James Garfield Gardiner: There was no Liberal government in power in 1921. Mr. Meighen was in power all through 1921.


Percy Ellis Wright: They were in power shortly after that and prices did not increase very much.


James Garfield Gardiner: Prices went up.


Percy Ellis Wright: I sold my wheat at the same price in 1922 when they were in power.
The matter I wanted to discuss was in connection with the price of grass and clover seeds. This year the special products marketing board has taken over the complete marketing of grass and clover seeds, all domestic requirements being handled through that board. The result is not very satisfactory as far as the producers of clover seed is concerned. Last fall when the board took over the marketing of these seeds they intimated to the cooperatives and to the buyers of grass seed that they should give the farmers participation certificates. Some of the buyers complied with this request, but there were others who did not.
The price received by the growers of alfalfa seed-I am dealing with alfalfa seed more particularly, but I think my remarks apply equally well to red clover and alsike seed- last year in the district from which I come was thirty-eight cents a pound for No. 1 commercial seed, and forty cents a pound for No. 1 registered seed, when they were marketed through the cooperative. Last year the ceiling price on alfalfa seed was thirty-seven cents a pound, but there was no restriction as far as export was concerned. Out of a total crop of some 4,500,000 pounds of alfalfa seed, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 2.000,000 pounds were exported. The additional price received on export balanced the domestic price and gave to the producer approximately thirty-eight cents a pound for No. 1 commercial seed.
This year the government has taken over the export of seed and has established certain prices. According to a return tabled yesterday on the motion of the hon. member for York East (Mr. McGregor), the export price is 34J cents a pound. According to information which I have, approximately ten per cent of the crop available in Canada this year will be exported. If these figures are correct, and I believe they are approximately correct, it means that this year the producer of alfalfa seed will receive at the farm only from thirty

Supply-Agriculture
to thirty-one cents a pound for the grade of seed for which he received thirty-eight cents a pound last year.
I realize why the government has taken the step it has this year. Last year a large proportion of our seed was exported, and in the spring of the year we found that we did not have enough to meet our domestic requirements. The result was that we had to use a lot of second and third grade seed. I imagine that it was to prevent the same thing occurring this year that the government has taken over the whole crop and is controlling export. However, I do not see why the producer of alfalfa seed should bear the brunt of this action. He is facing a loss of from eight to ten cents a pound.
In almost every other case where the government have acted in a like manner a subsidy has been paid to the producer to give him something near the price he would receive had he been allowed to use the export market. I understand that the government are sending most of their exports to Great Britain. If they were using the United States market they could get a much better price than 34i cents a pound. I have no objection to the government supplying the British market because I think that is as it should be, but I do not think the producers of alfalfa and clover seeds should be asked to take a rap of that kind. A subsidy should be paid to these growers which would give them a price which would approximate what they received last year for their seed.
The growing of alfalfa seed is a hazardous business because it is only once out of every three years that you get a reasonable crop, and sometimes not that. When one considers the hazards and cost of production a price of thirty^eight cents a pound is not unfair. If the figures which have been tabled are correct I would think that the prices received this year will not be such as to encourage men continuing in the production of seed. I happen to represent a district which produces probably more alfalfa seed than any other place in the Dominion of Canada, and I know that because of the cost of production and other hazards the acreage has been reduced during the last two or three years. Encouragement must be given to these people to continue in production because this seed is essential to agriculture in eastern Canada and in other parts of the world. There is a real demand for alfalfa seed outside Canada, one which we will be able to supply if we encourage our producers. I should like the minister to make a statement as to the situation with regard to clover seed and grass seed at the present time,
and what the producer can likely expect to get as a return on his participation certificates if the prices are realized.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I did not intend to make any extended remarks. I had one or two questions I wanted to ask the minister; but I do want to refer to one or two things said by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross). The hon. member for Moose Jaw takes the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden) to task for referring to the Winnipeg grain exchange as setting prices. Well, the hon. member for Moose Jaw ought to know something about the grain exchange. I think he had a good deal to do with some of the grain brokerage firms in days gone by, and probably got to know something about the grain exchange.


Gordon Graydon: Surely not!


John Ritchie MacNicol: Was the hon. member for Moose Jaw a grain broker?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I believe so, although he always tells the committee he was a farmer.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I always heard him say that.


Gordon Graydon: I thought he grew sunflower seeds.


An hon. MEMBER:: Maybe he did more farming the farmer.


John Gordon Ross: That is mere talk without any knowledge. I was never a broker in my life. I was always a farmer.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Well, the hon. member spent a lot of time in a grain brokerage office.


John Gordon Ross: I may have done that, and the hon. member might have learned more about the business if he had.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I know a lot of farmers who were "broken" after coming in contact with the hon. member's brokerage office. One of the things that the hon. member for Moose Jaw and the Minister -of Agriculture like to do when they rise in their places is to twit those of us who are not farmers with not being farmers, yet daring to discuss agriculture. I make no apology for not being a farmer. The committee may be interested to know that the Minister of Agriculture is not really a farmer either. He supports a farm; he does not make the farm support him.


James Garfield Gardiner: The farm would support me better than anything you have ever done supports you.
Supply-Agriculture


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He was a schoolteacher who got into politics and then decided he would do better if he had a farm, in order to be able to call himself a farmer. He has been able to support a farm as a very expensive hobby rather than make a living at it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I got to be a schoolteacher by farming.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: And he got to be a farmer like he is now by being a politician and a very good one.


John Gordon Ross: The hon. member had better get a farm.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Well, I do lot intend to try to "kid" the public that I im a farmer.


John Gordon Ross: No; you would not get away with it.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The Minister of Agriculture or the hon. member for Moose Jaw have not fooled very many people. The hon. member for Moose Jaw took exception to the statement which I made regarding the fact that about fifty-four per cent of the 1942 crop was sold by the farmers on the open market. I want to refer the hon. member to the report of the Canadian wheat board for the crop year 1941-42, the year which ended July 31, 1942.


John Gordon Ross: That is the 1941 crop.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: 1941-42.


John Gordon Ross: The 1941 crop.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The crop year ended July 31, 1942. On page 4 I find this statement:
Of the total marketings of 227-9 million bushels in the west during the crop year 1941-42, producers delivered 100 million bushels to the board, or about 44 per cent of their marketings. In the previous crop year producers delivered 395 million bushels to the wheat board out of total marketings of 456 million bushels.


George Russell Boucher: You were in the right church but the wrong pew.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In other words, the figure was actually lower, but I had in mind that the producer delivered forty-six per cent. As a matter of fact, he. delivered only forty-four per cent to the wheat board that year.


John Gordon Ross: That is the 1941 crop. The hon. member said 1942.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I say that fifty-six per cent was sold in the open market for the crop year 1941-42.


John Gordon Ross: No, 1941.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Let the hon member hold his horses a minute.


John Gordon Ross: Let the hon. member for Weyburn hold his horses for a minute.


George Russell Boucher: As I say, he was in the right church but the wrong pew.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The figures on page 4 show what the board price was during that year and what the cash price was on the Winnipeg exchange, and the fact that the market price was higher than the board price accounted, of course, for the fact that fifty-six per cent of the wheat that year was sold on the open market rather than to the board. The fact remains that, while we have not the figures for the 1943 crop, or the 1942-43 crop, the market price during a good part of that year was higher than the board price. The hon. member for Moose Jaw thinks it is probably sixty per cent. I imagine he will find that the figure is much lower.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have the exact figures in my pocket, and they are more than sixty per cent.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the minister has the figures I should be very glad to have them.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not permitted to give the exact ones, but they are more than sixty per cent.


Ernest Edward Perley: When are we to get the report?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It will be very late.


Gordon Graydon: Surely; it is "not in the national interest".


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As I have said, in the 1941-42 crop year the farmers who sold fifty-six per cent of their wheat on the open market did not receive any participation certificates; and unless the government and the wheat board make some change in policy and revise their arrangements, those people will not get any of the benefit of the subsequent increase in price. Whatever the hon. member for Moose Jaw may argue about 1941 or 1942 does not alter the cogency of the argument that for all of that fifty-six

Supply-Agriculture
per cent of the crop which was sold on the open market, the people who sold it will not get any of the benefit of the increase in price. The hon. member for Moose Jaw is entirely wrong when he says that the members of this group went out and told people they would not get anything on their participation certificates.


John Gordon Ross: Did I say "the members" from that group? I said "your people."


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Well, I do not know whom the hon. member means by "our people." I cannot tell what all "our people" said.


John Gordon Ross: Your machine.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I can speak only for myself.


George Russell Boucher: There are just two
machines in Saskatchewan.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, three. You people have one, too.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: At any rate,
I never went travelling around the province with P.F.R.A. and P.F.A.A. inspectors accompanying me on my travels.


John Gordon Ross: Neither did1 I.
But I went around to see that the farmers in my district got a proper deal.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I did not
know that was your duty.
.Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw) :	You will learn
after you have 'been here for a while what a member should1 do for his constituency.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am sure the committee will be interested to know that a Liberal member of parliament considers that the inspectors hired by the Minister of Agriculture are so incompetent that they cannot give the farmers of his constituency a square deal unless he travels with them to see that they do give his farmers a square deal.


John Gordon Ross: I never travelled with any inspector.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It certainly
would be a new fo-rm of government.
I wish to support those who have suggested to the minister that there is need1 of a great deal more money being spent on research into the use of agricultural products for industrial purposes. All of us supported last year the hon. member for Moose Jaw, who, I think, did a real service to the house and to the country in bringing this matter to the attention of the house on many occasions, and, I think, has made a thorough study of the question.
I was surprised when I saw that, of the $200,,000 that had been voted, not all had been spent. I imagine, of course, the minister will have the explanation-and I should think the explanation is reasonable-that it is very difficult to get machinery for pilot plants, and to procure the proper laboratory equipment. For this reason there can be no serious criticism, because in war time, naturally, war plants have priority. But I believe the government should, in the hope that they can get the equipment, make a much larger appropriation than is now proposed. The figures stated by the minister as being expenditures by his department and the Department of Trade and Commerce are somewhere between $400,000 and $500,000. It is a mere bagatelle compared with what has to be done. We are spending millions in other fields.


James Garfield Gardiner: I should make myself
clear on that point. No part of the $200,000 voted in these estimates is to be carried into the next year. If any amount is supplied it will have to be brought down as a supplementary estimate.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes. But I think the minister will agree, as most members of the committee will, that if the government were to bring down an estimate for ten times what is now provided it would not be a bit too much. From three to five million dollars is not a large amount of money considering the tremendous era that chemurgy and the use of synthetics open up for both farming and industry in western Canada. I am hoping therefore that, especially as we come closer to the end of the war, the government will be prepared either to vote large sums of money to go into research work itself or to make grants to the cooperatives, for instance, who would be only too anxious to take up research along these lines. I had the privilege of attending a meeting with the hon. member for Regina. City (Mr. McNiven) in Saskatoon a year ago last fall, called by the cooperative organizations in Saskatchewan. They were studying the feasibility of going into the making of synthetic alcohol from wheat, and had they been able to get a substantial grant from the government the cooperatives in Saskatchewan would have been prepared to invest considerable sums of money in research along the lines I have suggested. If the government itself does not feel like undertaking research on such a large scale, I suggest that it might be prepared to grant assistance to some of the cooperatives and the farmer organizations, who I am sure would be ready to do this work.
In regard to departmental administration, I notice in the auditor general's report, page A9, expenses of the Minister of Agriculture
Supply-Agriculture

amounting to $2,661.42. I should like the minister to break that down and give us an idea as to how much is travelling expenses and so on. The reason why I ask this has no reference particularly to the Minister of Agriculture. I ask the question because there is a matter I have been wanting to raise for several years during the war, namely the fact that in every department there is a vote of $2,000 to every cabinet minister for a car. Originally, I understand, cars and chauffeurs w'ere supplied to cabinet ministers, but that practice was discontinued, and in lieu of that the ministers were given $2,000. During this war time some of the ministers do not drive cars. Indeed, many of us have put our cars away, and so have some of the cabinet ministers. I doubt very much, therefore, whether that grant is still necessary. I have no objection if the government wants to add the $2,000 to a minister's salary because I am not suggesting that we should take anything away from them, but in my opinion a grant of $2,000 for a car is a rather unnecessary expenditure at a time when we are talking to people about economy.
The $2,000 for a car also raises a very deli-' cate question which the minister himself placed before (he house the other day when speaking on a question of privilege. As reported at page 423 of Hansard he said:
This leaves the ear which is at headquarters in Regina, No. 20456, and which is placed at my disposal when I am in the province. I drove this car to the constituency, used it i.n certain occasions while there and drove it back to Regina later. I paid for my own gasoline while it was out, as I always do. The government did not pay for any gasoline in any car used for political purposes during that election, and no one of the cars listed above excepting 20456 -was used for political purposes to my knowledge.
It seems to me that to make a grant of $2,000 to cabinet ministers for a car, then place another car at the minister's disposal while he is in the province, and then have estimated expenses of $2,600, makes a considerable amount for travelling expenses at a time when we are talking about cutting down expenditures.
I wish the minister would enlarge on the statement he made with reference to grain crops during the coming crop year. I was not quick enough to catch the figures he gave, but he wanted the same amount of wheat acreage and 102 per cent of barley and 106 per cent of oats.


James Garfield Gardiner: 101 per cent of barley and 106 per cent of oats.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: How does he propose to get that acreage? What are his plans to get the farmers to sow approximately
*MY. T, O. Douglas.]
the acreage he wants? The reason why I put this matter before the minister is that my impression, after going over a considerable part of the province of Saskatchewan this fall, is that ever since we have had the announcement of the new price there is every indication that a good many farmers will go back to increased wheat production. I wondered what the minister had in mind in order to keep the farmers growing the amount of coarse grain he wants them to produce for the purpose of raising live stock and also supplying feed to eastern Canada where the farmers may raise the live stock which we have pledged ourselves to produce for Great Britain.
I noticed, in the brief which the federation of agriculture presented to the government a week or two ago, that one of the things they asked the government to do was to make a statement as early as possible with reference to the price which would be paid this fall for coarse grain. I think that is important. I do not believe that even the subsidy of fifteen cents a bushel on barley and ten cents on oats will be enough to persuade the farmer to sow coarse grains as against wheat, even with the delivery quota on wheat.


James Garfield Gardiner: The ten cents on oats and fifteen cents on barley are not a subsidy. The plan by which that ten cents on oats and fifteen cents on barley is raised is this. We sell a certain proportion of oats and barley in the United States and a certain amount in the eastern part of Canada; the amount obtained for both lots of grain is'pooled, so to speak, and we guarantee that there will be ten cents earned on what we sell to the United States in order to be spread over all oats sold. The same is true of barley. But at the same time a participation certificate is given which will net the farmer more if the grain is sold for more; that is to say, the price plus the ten cents and fifteen cents constitute the floor return, but any additional price for which it is sold the farmer will also get.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I understood that, but while I know that this has to do with the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in view of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture is charged with production and with the task of getting the kind of production he thinks is most necessary for the war effort, it seems to me that the government ought to make some announcement in the not far distant future as to what prices will obtain for coarse grains; that is the initial price plus whatever price will come from this fund, and then of course the participation certificate. I think if the government would make an announcement of a floor price and what it is likely to be, whether



IS, 1944

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Agriculture
it- will be the same as last year or better, and make it before the farmer starts to seed, the minister is more likely to get the acreage announced this afternoon than he will otherwise.
There is one other point. The minister has made no announcement-at least not while I was here; I came in a moment or two late; I was called away while he was speaking-as to whether or not the wheat acreage bnous is to be dropped
James Garfield Gardiner: I announced it while the hon. member was out of the chamber.
Mr. DOUGLAS CVVeyburn): If we may judge by the estimates it is to be dropped, which means a drop of about $28,000,000. The wheat acreage reduction bonus was paid to the farmer mainly to encourage him to go into the growing of coarse grains, and also to summer-fallow. But it was also paid in lieu of the fact that from that time on there was to be a restriction as to how much wheat he could sell. That is, he was to be allowed to sell only sixty-five per cent of his basic acreage. It was a compensation. It was not a bonus in the sense of a gift or a subsidy. It was a compensation to him because, instead of being able to sell all of his wheat, or even all of his basic acreage, he could now sell only sixty-five per cent of his basic acreage. It seems to me if the government are going to drop the wheat acreage reduction bonus and thereby reduce the agricultural income by roughly $28,000,000, they ought to give consideration to announcing to the farmer that they will take all of his basic acreage, that they will take all the full quota and that it will be based on his entire 1940 acreage or whatever the minister considers to be a fair basic acreage. It seems to me that to continue to take only sixty-five per cent of his basic acreage and to remove the wheat acreage reduction bonus looks very much as though the government have given the farmer a $1.25 price with one hand and have taken away the $28,000,000 compensation from him with the other hand. I ask the minister to give some thought to that.


Mr. WEIR:: This general item gives one an opportunity to say a few words of a general nature with respect to the estimates of the Department of Agriculture. From the -observations made so far it is readily apparent that there is not the same degree of criticism from members of the house with respect to agriculture as has been the case on previous occasions. I believe that bears out the statement that has already been made in this debate to the effect that the policies of the Department of Agriculture, particularly during
this period of war and leading up to it, have been sound. I believe that when the history . of this period is written, so far as agriculture in this country is concerned, those who are fair-minded will admit that the minister's approach to the general agricultural problems from one end of the country to the other has been sound.
Mr. GR.AY DON: That shows the influence of John Bracken.


William Gilbert Weir: In every instance where it has been necessary to deal with specific problems and specific products these problems and products have been dealt with in a reasonable manner. May I point out that at the outbreak of the war all the facilities in this country were jammed full of wheat. Facilities were tied up; there was no apparent place to which to move the wheat, and at the time the sensible thing seemed to be to turn our production from wheat to some other form of production. A demand was undoubtedly coming for live stock products. The minister announced his policy in that regard. I recall that I looked up some figures at one time-I think it was three years ago-with respect to the general feed situation on the North American continent. I found that from the point of view of feeding units per animal unit on the north American continent the tendency was to show a lessening of feed supplies. Now, with the greatly increased live stock production on the north American continent that situation has developed to a much greater extent than any of us thought possible at that time. Therefore the development which has taken place in that regard and the policies carried out by the department have proven to be sound.
I wish to say a word with respect to a matter that is of particular interest at this time, namely research. I notice that my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, immediately jumped into the debate to make a speech on the necessity of agricultural research. That is all right; that is to be expected; but I am bound to say that I think all hon. members who have taken part in this debate to-night have failed to recognize the research activities that have been earned on by the Department of Agriculture over a long period of time. If they look at the estimates tabled they will find that we have experimental farms, which are largely research, one might say almost entirely so. Science services are largely research. and even under the prairie farm rehabilitation vote there is a great deal of research work undertaken.
That brings me to say one other word with respect to the prairie farm rehabi'itation
Supply-Agriculture

organization. I come back to the very fine speech made a few days ago by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNieol) on reclamation policies for western Canada. I think he might have included in that address some of the wonderful work that has been done under our experimental farm system and under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. I have before me a rough statement which indicates that the number of large projects undertaken in water conservation in the western provinces amount to 64; dug-outs, 14,108; irrigation projects, 785; or a total of all projects of 18,278. I asked the official who gave me this information particularly about the community pastures, and as to the number of live stock that might be provided for in those community pastures. The estimate given was fifty thousand head. I know that in the section of the country from which I come the live stock population would not have increased nearly to the extent it has had it not been for the work done in water conservation, and particularly the development of those small dug-outs on the various farms. I think that applies to a large part of Saskatchewan as well. It certainly applies to a large part of Manitoba. Therefore, hand in hand with the government's policy has been the work carried on under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, particularly with respect to the development of water supplies.
May I return to the question of research? Last year officials of the Department of Agriculture appeared before the agriculture committee and outlined some of the research developments undertaken by the department. I am prepared to say here to-night that I do not think the officials of the Department of Agriculture have been given sufficient credit for the research activities they have carried on. Much of their activity has been linked in with the national research council, and I fear that some of the credit has gone there that more properly could have been directed to the Department of Agriculture. Be that as it may, it is all directed in the proper way. In addition to the matter of research, I do not think anyone connected with the government can start out a research policy and have it completely divorced from the research activities of other similar bodies under other institutes in different parts of the country. We have a vast variety of conditions throughout Canada. All of [DOT] our agricultural colleges and universities are carrying on certain types of research work, particularly applicable to their own communities. That is research work. We hope it may be continued and linked together.
In the discussions taking place to-night it seems that most hon. members in speaking of
[Mr. Weir.l
research have in mind a vastly expanded programme, a programme that will undertake the processing of agricultural products for nonedible purposes and try to develop new uses for them, new methods of preserving them and taking care of them, and perhaps the introduction of new varieties and things of that kind. That is all to the good; and we hope that the minister's efforts in this regard may be fully carried out. I point out in passing that we have a very creditable system of agricultural research activities being carried on at the present time. I recall, looking back over the reports that were secured last year, some of the developments that have taken place during the period of war which, as in many other instances, has given an impetus to things of this kind.
I point particularly to the developments that have taken place in connection with the drying of eggs, a completely new operation which was not carried on in this country to any great extent before the demand of war forced it upon us. That is a brand new development which may completely revolutionize the poultry industry of Canada. The same can be said for the dehydration of fruits and vegetables, particularly potatoes and things of that kind, and the evaporation of milk. All these things mean increased use of agricultural products, and their wider distribution. If our activities can continue along these and other lines, I am sure Canada stands to gain much from research work of this sort.
I want to go on and say a word or two with regard to the speech delivered this afternoon by the hon. member for Yorkton. I do not know what impression he intended to leave with the committee, but I am bound to say that the impression I was given was one of absolute pessimism as far as agriculture in his part of the country was concerned, and I do not believe that is right. If that is the sort of argument he puts forward with respect to conditions in his part of the country, it is no wonder his people are dissatisfied and complaining about matters in general. I do not live so very far from his constituency, when one considers ithe country as a whole, and I am bound to say that the situation in Manitoba is not like that he pictured here this afternoon. In this connection may I refer for a moment to figures recently released showing the cash income of ithe farmers of Canada in 1943. The figure given is 81,396-6 million dollars, the highest on record as far as the agricultural income of this country is concerned. That income is given by provinces, but I shall not take time to place those figures upon record. That was the cash

Supply-*Agriculture
income of agriculture, without any of the bonuses that have been paid through government subsidies or otherwise. Just here I should like to ask the minister if he would be good enough to place on record the various bonuses that have been paid on agricultural products through the various government agencies, for any convenient period of time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Has the hon. member the percentage that represents of the total national income?
' Mr. WEIR: No; I do not think that is relevant. Again, when the hon. member goes ahead to argue about parity prices in the same breath, I do not think it is fair to take individual items in an attempt to establish parity prices. I believe that when you take individual items you fail to recognize changed production conditions, the introduction of new varieties and things of that kind. But I point out that even in regard to that feature, and having regard to the argument of many hon. members that the parity period is the average for the period from 1926 to 1929, while unfortunately my figures only go up to 1942, still they show that receipts from the sale of farm products for that year, on an index basis, were 112-2. In Manitoba along they were 124-2.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What was the cost of living index?


William Gilbert Weir: I can say to my hon. friend that every major agricultural product with the single exception of wheat is at parity or better at the present, time, and that the increase in the prices of agricultural commodities has been in advance of the increase in the cost of living.
I want to go one step farther, having particularly in mind the observations of the hon. member for Yorkton. I hold in my hand a statement, applicable to Manitoba only, dealing with the Winnipeg division of the Canadian farm loan board, showing that first mortgages in arrears on April 1, 1941, totalled: $99,500; on the same date in 1943 such mortgages in arrears totalled only $43,200, while on February 1, 1944, that total had dropped to $14,300. Second mortgages in arrears on April 1, 1941, totalled $149,500; on April 1, 1943, they amounted to $30,100, and on February 1,	1944, they
amounted to $8,500. Moreover, there were only ninety-seven first mortgages in arrears as at February 1, 1044, of which thirty-one were for less than $50, twenty-seven for between $50 and $100, and fifteen for more than $200. At the same date there were forty-four second mortgages in arrears, of which seven were for less than $50, ten for from $50 to $100 and
twelve for more than $200. Between April 1, and' December 1, 1943, 260 first mortgages had been fully repaid, and during the month of January alone there were two mortgages repaid in full for every day of the month including Sundays. I also looked at the record of the land titles offices. I am. sorry that only goes up to 1942, but it shows a continuous improvement in the number of mortgages discharged through those offices in the province of Manitoba. These include mortgages on farms as well as on business and residential property, and the total number so discharged between 1939 and 1942 was 18,367. So that I cannot stand quietly by and ignore a speech such as that made this afternoon by the hon. member for Yorkton, leaving such an impression as he left, while I know the facts as they are shown in the statements I have presented this evening.
Mr. ROSS* (Souris): For years they have had a different government in Manitoba from the one they have had in Saskatchewan.


William Gilbert Weir: But you did not do very
much toward helping that government in Manitoba.


James Arthur Ross: Did you?


William Gilbert Weir: Why not?


James Arthur Ross: I am, always willing
to reason it out.


William Gilbert Weir: There is another feature which my hon. friends appear to like to play up. They try to make the people believe they are the sole supporters of the cooperative movement in this country. As I standi here to-night I take second place to no one in my sympathy for and interest in the cooperative movement. But I suggest to my hon. friends that this movement is not built on a dollars and cents policy alone, or on any advantages it may obtain, from governments or otherwise as compared with other kinds of business. The cooperative movement is more than a business; it is a sentimental affiliation as well. There is an attachment to it; it is a mode of doing business which is entirely different from the ordinary method; but I point out that while hon. gentlemen in the far corner attempt to take credit for their interest in the cooperative movement, that movement has progressed in this country on a very sound and sensible basis, and has done so under the so-called capitalist party system of government. What more does the cooperative movement need in that regard? 1 look back to the time following 1921 when there was established in the Department of Agriculture here a cooperative branch. The men affiliated with that
Supply-Agriculture

branch have constantly given encouragement and assistance to the cooperative movement, and have done much to help build it up to the point it has reached at the present time. So that I hope the time will soon come when our hon. friends will no longer attempt to say they are the only people interested in the cooperative movement.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is the hon. member in favour of charging the cooperative movement income tax?


William Gilbert Weir: That is not part of the discussion at the present time. Is my hon. friend in favour of that?
The hon.. member for Yorkton referred to the farm implement business, and I thought he tried to make out that on account of the unduly high prices of farm implements the farmers of Canada were being exploited. He failed to say that the farm implement business, as does all business in Canada, operates under a price ceiling, and that there has been no increase in prices of agricultural implements during the time of war. I will go this far with my hon. friend and say to him that I believe there is a more economical method of retailing agricultural implements than now obtains. From that I hope the cooperative movement can develop something more economical in merchandising procedure.
Here again, however, I say to the hon. member for Yorkton that if he will go back to the report of 'the farm implements inquiry of 1936, he will find the record shows that the greatest reason for the increase in prices of farm implements was that of increased labour cost.
I want to go one step farther. The hon. member for Melfort by way of interjection referred to his coming back after the last war and buying wheat for seeding purposes. He said that at that time he paid something over $2 a bushel for it, but had to sell it for sixty cents. That just shows how loosely figures are handled. I am not saying he did not have some misfortune with his crop; probably it was frozen or damaged. But I have the fact noted here, and I am bound to say it, that I have before me the average prices by months, and by the year for both 1921, 1922 and other years. I find the lowest price of wheat in the 1922-23 crop year was 99-9 cents a bushel. I realize, of course, that that is basis Fort William-[DOT]


An hon. MEMBER:: And No. 1.


William Gilbert Weir: No doubt the hon. member would be selling at a local point, and he may have had low-grade wheat. But I am
	-
saying to him that he left the impression, so far as the majority of members in the house were concerned, that the Fort William price of wheat for the year was sixty cents a bushel.


Percy Ellis Wright: No, no.


William Gilbert Weir: I have the floor, and I am just saying what the impression would be to a man who did not know what it meant.


Percy Ellis Wright: I rise to a question of privilege. The hon. member has stated that I had quoted the Fort William price. I was quoting the price at my local point, with respect to wheat sold in the fall of 1920 at my own station. That price was $2.57 a bushel. The price of No. 3 wheat in the fall of 1921 was sixty-seven cents a bushel at that station.	.


William Gilbert Weir: My hon. friend says it was sixty cents a bushel. I leave it to hon. members to figure out w'hat they thought the price was set at. I admitted to my hon. friend that perhaps he was quoting the local price, but I am saying that the impression he left in the minds of the majority of members in the house was that he was talking about the Fort William price.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon.
member cannot speak for the majority.


Percy Ellis Wright: And I did not say sixty cents; I said sixty-seven cents.


William Gilbert Weir: Then my hearing is faulty, and I regret it. One could go on and say much more with respect to the policy of the Department of Agriculture, and at a later time I hope to have an opportunity to do so.
Before taking my seat, however, I should like to suggest to the minister some of the possibilities of recent new developments in the field of agriculture. Particularly in Manitoba we have seen a wide diversification in respect of such crops as black-eyed rape, soya beans, sunflowers and, of course, corn, which has been grown with considerable success in southern Manitoba for some time. I believe all those crops have a future, and I am hoping further attention will be given to them.
The main point, however, with respect to such crops as sunflowers and, to some extent, rape seed, is the development of what are known as expelling plants, so that the oil may be extracted more readily. These are bulky products, and it seems unfortunate they have to be moved to eastern Canada for further processing. Having regard to post-war development and to the need for such products, I suggest to the minister that there should be greater diversification in the form of local

S apply

Agriculture
industries in western Canada, and that particular attention should be given to processing plants for these new crops. I think further that the present situation in respect of the meat and live stock industry affords opportunity for the establishing of a general policy which would have for its purpose the development of quick-freezing plants, and other improvements of that kind, so that our products could be utilized to greater extent locally, and further processed. I believe the west needs something of that kind as much as it needs anything, and I am hoping the minister will use his influence to see that in any research activities consideration might be given to offering further assistance in the development of local processing plants for specialized crops in western Canada.


Ernest Edward Perley: Madam Chairman-


Mr. BRYCE:: Madam Chairman-


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mrs. Cassel-man):: I saw the hon. member for Qu'Appelle.


Ernest Edward Perley: The ladies generally see me. To-day when the item was first called I suggested that the minister might facilitate matters by making a general statement covering most of the items in a general way. He did not see fit to do so, but I think he will now agree with me that it would have been better if that course had been followed1-with the exception, of course, of those estimates contained in the war appropriation measure.
I would say the discussion has got almost out of bounds. We have heard members from different parts of Canada discussing almost everything one could imagine. One would have thought that part of the time we were discussing the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce, because we heard a great deal about wheat shipments, wheat prices, wheat board activities, participation certificates, the international food conference, and matters of that kind. One could have gained the impression that two or three departments were before the committee at one time. I will agree that there are some parts of the Departs ment of Trade and Commerce which might better be handled- by the Department of Agriculture-and in saying that I believe I am paying the Minister of Agriculture a compliment. I refer particularly to the production of grains, and their marketing on the domestic markets. Possibly some time in the not too distant future we shall see a consolidation of those two departments.
This evening we listened to one or two stirring speeches. The hon. member for Moose Jaw came to the rescue of the minister. He seems to be the pinch-hitter, so to speak, for the minister, and the Minister of Agriculture
seems to be the pinch-hitter for the government. Whenever the government needs to have a speech of that kind delivered, he is generally the one called upon to make it. The hon. member for Moose Jaw, together with the hon. member for Macdonald came to the rescue of the minister, but there is not very much to reply to in what they said.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw referred to the fact that a price of $1.25 a bushel had been set in September. He said that that was a pretty good price, and I agree, but it might well have been set much earlier. That price could have been set in July. The government had all the information as to what was likely to happen, they knew they were going to do it, and they could have saved some of the discussion that has taken place to-night in connection with the farmer delivering to the open market had they set the price in July. If that had been done, all the 1943 crop would have gone to the wheat board. The hon. member for Moose Jaw came to the defence of the packing plants, and he tried to give credit to the Minister of Agriculture for the increase in prices. He said that these advances were due to the policies of the minister. However, I think he has been answered by some of the hon. members to my extreme right who mentioned the fact that the war had brought about this condition. No matter who was Minister of Agriculture, we would be getting better prices for our farm products to-day. I think the farmer should be given credit for the way in which he has changed his methods of production, his system of farming so to speak, in order to meet the need.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw was most encouraging when he forecast that there would be . prosperity for the next twenty-five years. I hope he is right and perhaps he can see farther into the future than most of us. But if we have that prosperity I am afraid he will not be around to give credit to the present government. Before many years we shall have another government and, if we have the prosperity he forecasts, it will be some other government that will get the credit.
The hon. member for Macdonald made a very good speech, with much of- which I agree. I do not take a back seat to anyone as far as farming experience is concerned. I started out in 1900, and in 1906 my brother and I produced 65,000 bushels of grain. We have not done that very often since, but that was a good production for that time. We were forced to build an elevator in order to accommodate our crop, and we got into that business. I learned a lot about the elevator business from 1906 on. I might say also that along with many other farmers in the west I made a few trades; I bought a few
Supply-Agriculture

ms
options. At times I traded in a certain office with which the hon. member for Moose Jaw was connected for a time. There were lots of brokers in those days and many farmers gained a lot of experience.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Was the hon. member for Moose Jaw a broker?


Ernest Edward Perley: I leave that for him to answer. The hon. member for Macdonald made some very sound statements. To-day the farmers in the west are better off financially than they were three or four years ago. I know that from my own experience. I am not a calamity howler; I do not believe in standing up and giving the people of Canada the impression that the farmers are all down and out. But our farmers should have had better prices years ago, better even than what has been received this last year. I have maintained right along that we should have a broader basis for all farm products. I do not want to repeat, but I do think the farmers are entitled to a better price.
The initial price of $1.25 a bushel could easily have been made $1.40. The hon. member for Moose Jaw referred to what has happened within the last three or four days. We understand that 175,000,000 bushels of wheat are going to the United States at a price considerably above the initial price. Then we know what the British farmer is receiving for his grain. So that I say that our farmers are justified in asking for a better price. All they want is a square deal. We should be getting a parity price. As the hon. member for Macdonald says, we are getting parity prices for everything but wheat. Give us a parity price and we shall be fairly well satisfied, but give us that price for a term of years, not just for one year.
Both hon. members referred to the benefits derived from the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. I should like to ask who initiated that legislation, who made those benefits possible in Saskatchewan? The hon. member for Moose Jaw cannot recall, but I think the hon. member for Macdonald will because he was sitting back here somewhere when that act went through this house. The Minister of Pensions 8nd National Health, the hon. member for Wood Mountain and other hon. members will recall the opposition there was at that time to the bill. That legislation was passed to create water storage and furnish supplies of water to parts of Saskatchewan which were what one might call deserts. I take considerable credit for the fact that that legislation was initiated by the government I had the honour to support from 1930 to 1935.
We are supposed to be discussing the minister's estimates in a general way, but we seem

to have got far afield. I would not have been so far afield had it not been for the two or three speeches we have heard. I have been waiting to hear thd minister give a reply to the one or two speeches which seem to have caused so much irritation on the part of the two hon. members. These estimates are practically the same as we had last year. There is a reduction of about $43,000 in the main estimates, and then when the specials come down there will be a reduction of $28,000,000. This reduction has been referred to already. The minister has stated that in th6 agriculture part of the war appropriation there is a provision which he does not want to have discussed while we are discussing the main estimates.
Later on, supplementary estimates will be brought down. It is possible the minister may be going out to Saskatchewan during the Easter recess, or he may have occasion to go a little sooner if certain developments out there require his presence. I understand that certain things have been suggested in the Saskatchewan legislature and that there is to be a rebate or write-off of the seed grain debts where they have been paid to the extent of $4,000,000. There will have to be supplementary estimates to take care of that, as well as other items about which we do not know.
The speech from the throne referred to certain measures that will be introduced in connection with floor prices. There is no question that the Minister of Agriculture will play a very important part in any legislation dealing with agricultural matters, and in this respect he can have a considerable say to ensure that justice is done as far as having a price somewhere near parity, or a just price, the floor price. There are 138.700 farmers in Saskatchewan-the third largest number of any province in the dominion. All our Saskatchewan farmers want, as I have said, is a square deal. They have not had their proper proportion of the national farm income. If they can be assured of it by the establishing of a floor price, and it is on a parity basis, I think it will be fairly well received, provided that it extends over a term of years so that they will have the assurance of some security.
Much has been said about cooperative organizations. The hon. member for Macdonald became quite heated in his remarks on this subject in reply to members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party. I do not find any fault with them on this score; I think they are on sound ground when they plead for fair treatment of all cooperative organizations. We have some in Saskatchewan. I think all credit and assistance possible should be extended by the government to these organizations if they are

Supply-Agriculture
properly operated. Having some knowledge of their accomplishments, I say that they have been marvellous, and any government should give them all possible assistance to carry on that sort of work. Nobody has more experience of the workings of this kind of organization as it pertains to agriculture than the farmers themselves, and on behalf of our
138,000	Saskatchewan producers, a great -many of whom belong to cooperative organizations, I make a special plea that they be given every assistance possible, and hope that the minister will be just in that respect.
-It is also my hope that the minister will give consideration to setting up a board of live stock commissioners. The time has arrived when such a body could do a lot of good. It should, of course, include proper representation of the producers, because no one knows better than they do what is just and proper in these matters. Such a- board could do a lot for the marketing of live stock products at the present time. We need enlarged markets; we want to create a demand for agricultural products, including the expansion of the home market. I believe a live stock marketing board could do much in that direction.
I believe it was the hon. member for Macdonald who referred this evening to diversified farming. We have to consider some policy which will diversify farming operations in western Canada. There is great room for it. Many more people could be gjven employment and established on farms if the system were more diversified. I need only cite my own case. Last year we had only two men on our farm: a farmer and his son operating a combine harvesting fifteen or sixteen thousand bushels of grain. Do you not think that, by a system whereunder other products than grain were grown there, many more people could be employed, real farm homes established, and adequate facilities for farm life created, with lasting benefits to agriculture? It -is something to kee-p in mind.
There are other matters which can be discussed later, item by item, but I have one short reference to make at this time. Last year-the hon. member for Macdonald might listen to this-the agriculture committee met long after the house opened; we heard from a good many chairmen of boards and officials of departments; and we western members were asked to give way to the eastern members. They said they had heard too much about the west, about wheat and other grain, and they blamed this condition on two or three C.C.F. members of the committee and myself in particular. They said "Forget about wheat and so on this year and let us
have a chance." We did it, and did it gracefully, but I will say that we had to come to their rescue quite often to keep the thing going properly. With all due respect to the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn) who is sitting in front of me, we knew as much about eastern farmers' problems-producing the same products that they do in eastern Canada-as the eastern members themselves. However, we had a very interesting time, because we heard such a variety of witnesses and evidence. We drew a report on July 16, 19 and 20, and then we did not have the courage to rise and move its adoption, although we had advocated many of the things which have been advocated here to-night, such as research laboratories and so on.


William Gilbert Weir: The minister must have read the report, then.


Ernest Edward Perley: Maybe he did, but the chairman of the committee did not have the courage to rise in his place and move that it be adopted.


John Gordon Ross: That was not the only report which was not moved.


Ernest Edward Perley: That just shows you.


John Gordon Ross: What is the point?


Ernest Edward Perley: What is the use of members going to work for two or three months and drawing up a report, leaving it until the last day or two, and then not moving the adoption of the result of all that work? What is the use of taking up our time?


John Gordon Ross: You learn something. You just admitted that you learned a lot.


Ernest Edward Perley: The chairman did not even move the adoption of the recommendations. I have the report in my hand; it contains several sections.	I myself moved three
amendments of the report. Two of them were turned down and not put in the report, but the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce have adopted them


Gordon Graydon: They knew a good thing when they saw it.


John Gordon Ross: The hon. member knew what was coming up.


Ernest Edward Perley: Therefore I hope the Minister of Agriculture will insist on this committee getting to work in good time. We can gather much more information similar to what we had last year, carry on from there, and do some useful work.
Supply-Agriculture

To get back to these estimates: the details of the items on page 4 are given on pages 54. 55 and 56 and pages following. I grant that there is not much change since last year except under "special"; but if you examine these pages you will see a large item, for travelling expenses, set out at the end of each section. For example, "publicity and extension, travelling expenses, $5,000"; "departmental administration, travelling expenses, $8,000"; "science service, travelling expenses, $900"; "animal and poultry pathology, travelling expenses, $4,000"; "bacteriology and dairy research, travelling expenses, SI ,300' ; "botany and plant pathology, travelling expenses, $15,500". In one division, namely entomology, travelling expenses are shown as over $39,000. I contend that in every branch the travelling expenses are absolutely out of all reason and could be curtailed to a very considerable extent.
I have the auditor general's report here and the figures with. regard to the P.F,R.A. are illuminating. It gives the number of men employed, field men, and so on. In one branch there are 281 and in another branch 300, and the expenses run from $300 to $1,800, besides salaries.


Mr. McNIVEN:: Many are part-time men.


Ernest Edward Perley: Nevertheless they draw expenses running from $300 to $1,800 a year. I submit that that branch could be cut in two, especially when, as the minister says, they will not have the wheat acreage bonus this year.


James Garfield Gardiner: Is the hon. member
referring to the P.F.R.A. or the prairie farm assistance?


Ernest Edward Perley: It gives P.F.R.A. and
prairie farm assistance.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member gave the P.F.R.A. alone. The figures sound large for that particular activity.


Ernest Edward Perley: I can get them in a
minute.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think it is about right for prairie farm assistance.


James Arthur Ross: It is the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act.


Ernest Edward Perley: That is the one with 281
and the expenses are given. Then there is the wheat acreage reduction outfit. They have a large expense account running from $300 to $2,000. In my opinion these are branches that could be considerably cut down in their expenses. That is one great saving the minister could make. I do not want to take up more time, but when the estimates are called item
[Mr. Perley.l
by item I shall have something to say. In the meantime I think the minister should answer some of the questions that have been put to him to-night.


William Scottie Bryce: I am not a parliamentarian
but a dirt farmer. I am not familiar with the rules of the house and I want to take this opportunity, while the discussion is broad, to say what I have to say. Listening to some of the bon. gentlemen who have already spoken, I was reminded of the fact that I am an immigrant to this country. I read' a book that brought me to this country, and when I heard the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) I thought he was the author. Then when I heard the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Wood)
I thought the book might have come from Ontario. But when my hon. friend the member for Macdonald (Mr. Weir) rises in his place and says the same things, I know it was the Liberal party.


James Garfield Gardiner: Are you sorry you are here?


Mr. AVEIR:: You didma go back.


William Scottie Bryce: I never made enough to go
back.
I have tried many times to become better acquainted with the Minister of Agriculture, and in fact on one occasion I drove 200 miles to make his acquaintance and to ask him some questions, but I had to be satisfied with a shake of his hand. He expressed his sorrow that he could not spend any more time with me. In the house a few days ago the Minister of Agriculture talked about how well off we were in Canada-in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and other provinces engaged in mixed farming. I should like to call the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to a few facts. I could take steers I sold in Winnipeg for Ilf cents a pound and send them to St. Paul and make $35 dollars more on each of them. I could run steers to St. Paul for seventy cents a hundred and the exchange in my money would pay the duty.
Talking about cattle, I want to ask the minister why he always argues that I do not need a spread in feeding my steers. When I buy a steer I want a spread on it. I want a two cent spread to enable me to break even. To take simple figures, we will say that the feeder market is ten cents. If I buy a steer of 700 lbs. at ten cents, that is $70. I have to put 300 pounds on his back before I can put him back on the market, and that will take me 180 days. I do not know whether other farmers can do better than that, but that is the best I can do. That steer will eat two tons of hay which, at $7.50

Supply-Agriculture
a ton, means $15 added to the $70. When I take that animal home he will eat five pounds of chop a day, and when I put him away he will have increased that to fifteen pounds a day. However, suppose we strike a happy medium and say ten pounds a day; that means he will eat 1,800 pounds of chop. I can get $1.25 per 100 pounds for my grain at the elevator and another twenty-five cents to crush it and handle it. That comes to $1.50, so that you have to add another $27. To keep him in good shape and put a good shine on his coat I have to give him oil cake meal, and he will use fifty pounds in those 180 days. He will need bone-meal and salt. Put on $1 for that and the steer has cost me $114.25. If I sell him on a twelve cent market at Winnipeg I will get $120. I have only $5.75 left for transportation, commission, insurance, labour and depreciation on my buildings. I want to ask the minister how that can be done without a spread. I can buy cattle in the spring at ten cents and sell at ten cents - and make more money feeding them grass, because I do not feed them inside. I want the minister to answer these questions.
I want to say something about hogs too. In the new regulations we are to get $27.45 for select hogs, $3 premium paid by the government. On a "B-l" hog we will get $26.45, a $2 premium. We are to get S23.45 for a "B-2" hog, which is a dollar reduction. I should like to know why there should be this dollar reduction. A "B-l" hog is a light hog, a hog that the packer is willing to pay more money for because when you go into a restaurant and ask for pork chops you do not get them off a 200-pound hog, you get them off a hog dressing around 120 to 135 pounds. If this is a penalty or a fine to the farmer for selling a light hog, why put it into the pocket of the packer? Why not give it to the Red Cross? A "B-2" hog will bring $23.45; a "C-l", $22.95; a "D-l", $22.45. These five grades can go into the export trade, or at least a part of them. There are eight different grades from the producer to the packer. There are twenty-four grades from the packer to the meat board, and from the meat board to the British food ministry there are two grades "A" and "B". If the hog that I produce is fit for export bacon I should get that export bacon price for it. The way it stands to-day it is to the advantage of the packer, not the farmer.
I should like to make another comparison. There is only an imaginary line between Manitoba and that portion of the United States situated to the south of it. The United States farmer raises hogs and sells them at from 200 to 300 weight. His hogs average 250 pounds. We have all these penalties on
this side of the line. If I get a hog up to 200 pounds, I can put from two and a half to three pounds a day on him. He will make very rapid gains at this weight. The United States farmer is paid $26.90 for his hog, and he has the extra weight. If you follow this hog along you will find that it could go to the same packing company as the Canadian hog and they are both sold to the British market at the same price. Because of the way grading is set up now, only about thirty per cent are select hogs. This new grading puts a penalty on the average producer. I am not satisfied with the new system. The hon. minister knows that. I have made quite a study of this problem. The man who grades a hog has only six seconds in which to do it. He has to satisfy himself that it is twenty-nine inches from the hip bone to the shoulder bone, that there is no more than two inches of fat on the shoulder. There has to be no more than one and a half inches on the loin and a little less on the hips. These hogs pass steadily before the grader. I have timed them repeatedly and the time is six seconds. I claim that is one of the reasons why when I send a lot of hogs in and the returns come back I get nine or ten selects, and from the very same boar and the same brood sows I get only two the next time. There is something wrong with the system. I have spoken to one of the big packers about it. He says that if he cannot kill 500 hogs an hour he will shut down his plant, Let us get two graders in there and give the farmer a square deal.
Another serious grievance that I should like to mention is the price of grain. There is a subsidy on grain. When a man is feeding his own grain he does not get that. I should like the Minister of Agriculture to do something about that, because unless that position is cleared up there will be fewer hogs by October. I know throughout my own settlement people are not going to feed the grain. It is at a good price, and they will not feed it to the hogs when they can get the price for it. I know arrangements have been made whereby a man who is feeding hogs can go and get the bonus back, but the man who produces the grain is not getting the benefit of that.
The hon. member for Macdonald spoke about the experimental farms. I have received quite a lot of benefit from them, but there is one thing I should like to say here. If those experimental farms could be brought more in line with the conditions that the average farmer has to face in producing his hogs they would be more educational. Hogs are raised by the agricultural college in Winnipeg, but they are pampered hogs. You
Supply-Agriculture

could not work in the field all day and give hogs care like that. If we had conditions on these experimental farms similar to. those on the average farm a better comparison could be made. I had the pleasure of taking one of my constituents around the agricultural college. I said to him, "How would you like this, or what would you do with it?" He said: "The wife and I would move in right away." The conditions to which I have referred must be improved so that they will be of some benefit to the rank and file in the country.
I should like to say to the hon. members who have spoken that I have not been one of fortune's favoured few since I came to this country. I sold hogs in some of these good years for S2.65 a hundred. I sold steers for two and a half cents a hundred.


Mr. GRANT:: The Tories were in then.


William Scottie Bryce: You are all tarred with the one brush. I sold butterfat for twelve cents a pound. If we wanted a packet of matches we sent two dozen eggs to the store. Do not forget that. We had twelve years of that.


Mr. McCUBBIN:: I was very much interested in the remarks made by the hon. member for Selkirk, a Scotsman with a Scotch tongue. I know he knows something about cattle, because I come from a Scotch constituency. These people came out from Scotland many years ago and settled in what I think is the best riding in Ontario, that of West Middlesex. There we have some of the best cattle feeders in the Dominion of Canada. In the little village of Ailsa Craig, near where I live, there were more cattle shipped out in the old days than anywhere else in Canada with the exception of the city of Calgary, Alberta. The coming of the trucks interfered with that shipment and we have not been able to keep up that record for that point. After listening to the remarks made by my hon. friend with respect to cattle and the feeding of cattle, I say in all sincerity that a Scotch farmer knows how to feed steers. I think the hon. member for Selkirk knows something about it. I agree with the hon. member that it is impossible for feeders to go out and buy cattle unless there is some spread, though the producer who fattens that steer is all right with the prices we are receiving to-day. In the district from which I come, however, where the producers depend upon the feeders to buy up these stockers in the fall, feed them during the winter and sell them in the spring or summer, we believe there must be a spread. At the present time the spread is not as great as it should be, TMr. Bryce. |
but the feeders of cattle in my district are going ahead., believing that they will receive a good price for their product during the coming summer.
I must admit that there is a little consternation at the present time among the cattle feeders and those who have steers to sell, because the packing houses in Toronto, where we in western Ontario sell our steers, have sort of lain down and are not buying. The drovers who buy cattle from the farmers and ship to the Toronto market are having difficulty in selling their cattle; as one of the commission men claimed, if the offerings were light, say, only two hundred head of cattle, the prices would remain just the same. On that market there seems to be a tendency on the part of the packers-I may not be right in this, though I believe I am-to reduce the price of cattle. Hon. members may wonder why I say that. Well, the government has told us that if the packers reduce the price below the floor price, then the producer or feeder can send in his cattle to be slaughtered and the government will take care of it. I quote what the secretary of the meat board said last year to the committee on agriculture: "We are giving some consideration to one system which might be adopted, based upon the fact that on almost every main market there are public slaughter houses. If a producer of cattle felt that the prices offered by the packers were not fair, under this system we would be prepared to have these cattle slaughtered at these public slaughter houses." That is something we in western Ontario fear. We feel that the packer to-day is endeavouring to force the producer or feeder to send his cattle in so that they may be slaughtered on a rail-grading basis, and that is one thing we do not want. The cattlemen of my district, at any rate, will not stand for that. We will not have the rail-grading of cattle, and I hope and trust that at the proper time the government will step in and see that this is not made necessaiy. I have every faith that this will be done.
There is one thing in connection with the shipment of cattle to the stock yards that has often bothered me, and perhaps the minister can enlighten me in this regard. When a drover ships cattle there is condemnation insurance kept off the price. I think that insurance varies in different parts of Canada, but it runs into several hundred thousand dollars every year. The producers had nothing to say about that; the condemnation insurance is collected under an agreement between the packers and drovers which dates back to 1910 and which is still in effect. In Ontario the rate is twenty cents a head on steers and fifty cents on cows, while in the west it is



[Stage Direction]
Supply-Agriculture
one-half of one per cent. In the United States there is no condemnation insurance. I should like to know if the packers ever gave an accounting of that money, which came out of the drovers and producers in the first place. Perhaps the minister can explain that to me.
I am completely in agreement with what has been said regarding the movement of cattle across the line into the United States. No one could be more in favour of that than I am. I am a free trader; I believe in the free movement of goods from Canada to the United States and back again. I hope the day is not too far distant when our cattle may once more move across that line to the stockyards and packing-houses in Chicago, St. Paul, Buffalo and other cities.
Mr. WARD:: And not only cattle.


Robert McCubbin: No; at the moment I am only referring to cattle, but it applies to other products as well. At the present time, however, that may not be possible; if we need the meat in Canada, or if the mother country needs it, we are in duty bound to send it where it is needed. I think it is the feeling of all Canadian cattlemen that if Britain needs the meat they are willing to take their loss and send it over there. But again I express the hope that the day may not be too far distant when our cattle will move freely across the line once more.
One thing to which we in the eastern part of Canada object strenuously is the freight bonus paid to the packer on dressed meat coming from the west. We in Ontario feel very much incensed about this, when our own stockyards and packing houses are not able to take care of the cattle coming on to the markets here. We feel that this bonus should be removed. It was taken off once, but was restored later on. I believe that no class of people in this country have done a better job than has been done by the farmers. They are always willing to do their part. I will admit that in the early days of the war prices were not as good as they should have been, but now those prices have reached a level where I believe most of the people are satisfied. I realize that we are all human and that we like to get the highest possible prices for our farm products, but I feel that the majority of Canadian farmers are satisfied. There may be some inequalities, but they will be looked after.
In southwestern Ontario, from which I come, we are getting more and more into diversified farming, and there is one product on which we are now counting a great deal. I refer to the growing of turnips, which is being done by a great many farmers in that district. We are able to ship them under permit across 100-43
the line, but I think a great deal could be done to increase the market in the United States. I believe an educational programme should be carried on throughout the length and breadth of both Canada and the United States to promote the consumption of -turnips, because I feel that this product offers a great future for many Canadian farmers. The same may be said of beans and other products, of course; but if you go to the United States and ask some of the leading people there, they will tell you they have never tasted turnips. If you go to Philadelphia, AVashington or New York you will find that turnips are not even on the menus of the leading hotels, so that I believe a great deal could be done by way of an educational programme in regard to certain of these farm products. I want to repeat in all sincerity that no group in Canada is more willing to do its part, under great difficulties through lack of help, than Canadian farmers, who will do everything possible to see that this war is brought to a successful conclusion.


James Garfield Gardiner: A few moments ago the hon. member for Qu'Appelle made some reference to the expense accounts of officials of my department, and the hon. member for Wey-burn made some references to my own expense account. I desire to give the same explanation in connection with the expense accounts of the minister and those of the inspectors and officials of the department. As hon. members know, this country extends from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and in each province there is a considerable agricultural area. As long as I could satisfy the Prime Minister of this country that I ought to remain as Minister of Agriculture I could hold down the position much more easily by remaining here and simply administering the department from my office. But I venture to say that while there has been criticism to-night of some things that have or have not been done in the department, if I had been in the Department of Agriculture-as I have been for eight years -and had never gone out through this country in order to learn at first hand what the problems of the farmers are, there would have been a great deal more criticism than there has been up to the present time. That is the only explanation I wish to make in connection with the expense accounts, so far as my own expense account is concerned. Incidentally, it has been throughout those whole eight years one of the highest expense accounts among ministers of the government, and I am rather proud of that fact. The nature of the department requires that from time to time I visit all of the activities which have been spoken about to-night, and concerning some of which some kind things have been said.

Supply-Agriculture

For example, the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act administration is scattered throughout the southern part of the three prairie provinces. Many of the activities connected with fruit production are carried out in British Columbia, in the maritime provinces or in the southern part of Ontario. Activities in connection with stock raising, generally, are carried on throughout the whole length and breadth of the Dominion of Canada. Anyone who desires to become familiar at first hand with the problems of the farmers, and the people who deal with them, must of necessity from time to time and, indeed, quite often more than once in a year, visit the different parts of Canada to understand the problems confronting the farmers in the different seasons of the year. Therefore I make no apology whatsoever for having an expense account of $2,600 for 1942.
Having said that, may I add that there is no inspector in the Department of Agriculture who is inspecting agricultural activities throughout the rural areas who would be worth his salt if he did not have a high expense account. His work is to travel, and if he does not travel and see what is going on on the farms throughout the country, and make his inspections at first hand, then I say he is not doing the job for which he was employed. Generally speaking, a good man on the road spends at least as much on his expense account as he receives in salary-and quite often he is required to spend more than that. So that I make no apologies for the expense accounts found in the estimates for this year. I only compare them with what has been spent in preceding years under all governments, in provinces as well as in the dominion, and I suggest that our expense account will compare favourably with those for similar work, no matter where that work is carried on.
There has been some discussion to-night with regard to hogs. The hon. member for Moose Jaw and the hon. member for Macdonald called attention to the fact that it is very easy to make statements respecting one's personal experiences, or based upon statements heard here and there throughout the country, and it is possible to make the complaints sound plausible. But when one gets down to actual statistics having to do with the matter under discussion he sometimes finds a picture very different from that which the general statement would lead one to believe.
For example, a few moments ago the hon. member for Selkirk left the impression that a great many hogs grading other than "A" and "B-l" entered into the export of bacon
IMr. Gardiner.!
and hams from Canada. I have in my hand the last statement which came out dealing with the preceding week in connection with the marketing of hogs, and it is a statement which would be borne out by any week one might wish to choose throughout the year. This is what it says:
Hog marketings eased off somewhat in the week ended February 12, showing a decrease of approximately 10,000 head below the previous week; nevertheless the increase over the same week last year was more than 125,000 head.
That is, we are down 10,000 in the week ending February 12, as compared with the previous week; 'but we are up 12)5,000 head as compared writh the same week in the preceding year. The statistical statement continues:
In the week ended February 12, exporting plants slaughtered 224,763 head


William Scottie Bryce: Is it not a fact that "B-3's" and "C-l's" can go into export bacon?


James Garfield Gardiner: "B-3's" may, but not
"C-l's". The fact that they can go in is not proving that they do go in.


William Scottie Bryce: Where do the hogs go?


James Garfield Gardiner: If my hon. friend will read the agreement which was made with Great Britain he will find that if "B-3's" do go in they do not bring the same price, either to the packer or to anyone else.


William Scottie Bryce: Is it not a fact that when a carload of hogs is graded at shipboard they pick out one or two bales and that satisfies the inspector that it is export bacon?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have only five minutes and perhaps my hon. friend will permit me to answer the question. I have not the privilege of being a Scotsman although my ancestors came from Scotland, but I think any Scotsman coming from Scotland will know that no inspector is going to take every bale out of a shipload and make individual inspection. If he did that, the bacon, would never get out of the country.
With regard to cattle, my hon. friend says that he needs a margin in order to produce steers during the winter time. I am not going to argue that question with him, but I should like to tel! him that there is not ten per cent of the beef produced in this country that is produced in commercial, feed lots or from cattle purchased from someone in the manner described by the hon. member for Selkirk and converted into beef.


William Scottie Bryce: Then I can sell my grain.


James Garfield Gardiner: Ninety per cent of the beef produced in this country is produced by people who breed live stock, who raise their own grain to feed to that live stock. What I have said since the beginning of the war' and what I continue to say is that we are not going to get a proper policy upon which to handle ninety per cent of the beef produced in this country if that policy is based upon the needs of the people who undertake the commercial feeding of cattle. My hon. friends across the way try to leave the impression that I am just a poor schoolteacher who never farmed.
Supply-Agriculture


James Arthur Ross: Not a poor school teacher.


James Garfield Gardiner: I can go into the Moose Jaw or Regina market and buy a steer in competition with any hon. member over there and pay at least one cent a pound more than he can afford to pay if he is a commercial feeder. I can take that steer to my farm and feed my own grain and make more money than he can. That is the reason why commercial feeders are not able to buy cattle on the market under the present condition. They are not able to get them because the farmer, the man who produces his own live stock, the man who produces his own grain, the man who carries the whole operation right through, can do the job at a lesser cost and make more money than the chap who goes into it in the other way. He can buy a few steers and put them in with his own and take the cattle away from the commercial feeder.
I know there are fellows who live outside large cities like Winnipeg who pride themselves upon being farmers, but they spend most of their time in Winnipeg sitting on boards of one kind or another. They boast considerably about what they are able to do. Probably they can go on to the market and buy some of the poorer fed cattlfe, cattle which are well bred but which were not fed before they were sent in; they can pick them up at a low price and freeze out the farmer in the country who sent them in and who did not know just exactly what he was doing. They can take them out, buy some grain, feed them, take them back in and make some profit. But one reason why that is becoming less possible is that we have our inspectors and our agronomists going around the country advising farmers how to finish their stock, how to feed them, how to put them on the market in the proper form.
Some of our hon. friends who are connected with farm organizations would be doing a better job for the farmer if they were to advocate the setting up of local markets into which a farmer could go to purchase cattle before they are ppt on trains and shipped hundreds of miles to a central market. After reaching the central market they are then shipped fifty, sixty or 100 miles to be finished, and the shipping costs and the cost of feeding are added before the cattle get back on the market again. Markets should be organized in different areas so that the farmer who has not sufficient grain to finish all the cattle he has can take them to that market in order that some neighbouring farmer who has the grain may buy them and feed them.
{Mr. Gardiner.]
The next time my estimates come up I am going to place on Hamard a letter written by a farmer in my constituency which I read in a newspaper a short time ago. I am not sure but that he was a Scotsman. He said that he could give some lessons on feeding to some farmers who talk like some hon. members in this house who talk about farming. He knew they w'ould be very helpful. For instance, he said that he raised and fed two pigs for $25, and sold them for $25 each. Then he says that he takes steers, just the same as my hon. friend said he did, weighs them, weighs the feed, feeds them and puts 200 pounds on them in less than six months.


William Scottie Bryce: I said 300 pounds.


James Garfield Gardiner: After he had fed the steers he made 81.25 a bushel on his oats. I would rather listen to stories of that kind than listen to the kind of stories we have heard to-night coming from men who claim they know all about feeding live stock, men who spend their time going around the country telling farmers how they ought to run their farms and how hard up all the farmers are. I would rather listen to farmers who are home farming. They have spent their time feeding cattle and feeding hogs and growing grain with which to feed them, and then they have seen to it that they are marketed at the! proper time and thus have secured the highest possible returns for them.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, February 21, 1944
The house, met at three o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That when the house adjourns on Tuesday, the 22nd instant, it stand adjourned until Thursday, the 24th instant; and, unless otherwise ordered, when the house adjourns on Tuesday evenings, it stand adjourned until the following Thursday, and that standing order 2 be suspended in relation thereto for the present session.


Gordon Graydon: When the Prime Minister mentioned on Friday his intention of introducing this motion I was of the opinion that, under

Wednesday Adjournments
the rules of the house, the motion was one that required the usual notice, and subsequent inquiries, I think, have substantiated that view. The Prime Minister, however, was good enough in any event to allow the matter to stand over until to-day for discussion.
The question raised by this motion is one that goes perhaps a little farther than its phraseology would indicate. So far as our party is concerned, we are opposing the motion, and we do so after very careful consideration of its merits and demerits. May I indicate some of the reasons why we have arrived at that conclusion.
I think it will be readily apparent that there is need in this house for a better division of the average private member's time. If our party were of the opinion that this motion would in some way contribute to that end. we should be of course more inclined to give it favourable consideration; but when it is proposed that we should suspend sittings on Wednesday, many points naturally occur to one's mind as to the advisability of such a change. In the first place, I believe that Wednesday will be generally regarded by the members of the house, putting it on a comparative basis, as a particularly active parliamentary day. Coming in the middle of the week, it is a day on which the business of the house is usually given great care and attention, and that is not to reflect upon any other day on which we sit. It does seem to me that to take Wednesday out of the week, as this motion would do, even for the express purpose indicated by the Prime Minister, namely, to enable the committees to meet instead of the house, would be a backward rather than a forward step, if we have in mind the expedition of the work of the House of Commons.
In support of that contention, when we speak of the committees utilizing Wednesday for their sittings while the sittings of the house itself are suspended, I would point out that for years-I do not know whether there is any special1 reason for it-the committees in the main have not made use of their Mondays and Fridays to the full. While therefore that is the situation it does seem to me that there is a very strong argument against taking away one of the principal days of our sittings and utilizing it for committee work until at least the committees have found that the time allotted to their operations, from Monday until Friday night, has been entirely filled. That, I think, is one of the matters which the government ought to consider seriously before suspension of these sittings takes place.
There is another reason which must not be lost sight of, although I do not place
special emphasis upon it. Since the government has asked private members to suspend the initiation of such matters as are normally introduced by them, it is not in the public interest to take away another three hours of an important day in the week when private members can have these deliberations.
Nor is it sufficient for the Prime Minister to indicate in introducing this motion that we are getting three hours' on Friday evening. That is hardly in accordance with the fact., and although I know the Prime Minister was not making a special point of it, I want to clear it up in case it is in anybody's mind. There is no justification for our not sitting on Friday night, because that period is always available, according to the rules, for the house to sit. That is to say, we do not depart from any custom when we sit on Friday nights, and it should be our regular habit to do so, particularly in time of war. So that what we are really doing is taking three hours off our regular weekly sessions, st a time when, I believe, the public expect this parliament to give a full week's attention to a full week's job. For these reasons I trust the Prime Minister and the government will reconsider this proposal.
I now come to a consideration which is important from the point of view of the government, but not of parliament. We may as well face the fact that one of the main reasons why the suspension of Wednesday afternoon sittings is sponsored by the government is that the cabinet finds itself at certain times very much overworked. I am not going to dwell upon that, but I suggest, before the Prime Minister decides we should give up these important three hours, that he might well give thought to a reorganization of his ministry. I say this in the most kindly and friendly spirit. I notice two ministers applauding; I hope the Prime Minister does not see either of them, for I am bound to say that I do not think the work of the cabinet ministers is very equitably divided, if we on this side are in any position to judge. I am not reflecting on any cabinet minister, but there are some ministers who work very hard and others who do not have any more, to say the least, than enough work to do. That being the view, I believe, of parliament and the country, it seems to me that some way should be found whereby the cabinet's work could be so apportioned that it could spare enough men io handle Wednesday afternoon sittings to the satisfaction of the house, the government and the public.
Here is another strange thing. Last year seven parliamentary assistants were appointed, and we were asked to vote money for the
IFednesday Adjournments

purpose. My understanding was that this step was taken to relieve ministers in their parliamentary work. It was stated quite freely, I believe, in this chamber, that these men were not to be simply glorified deputy ministers, but were to be parliamentary assistants, as their title implies. Some very good men have been appointed, and I do not intend to criticize any of them. What I do criticize is the system under which they are operating. We have not noticed that to any great extent they have taken the places of ministers, except on very rare occasions, in debates in the house. Seldom does it happen that ministers are not here just as they were before, answering questions. It seems strange therefore that if pressure of work on the cabinet is the reason for suspending Wednesday afternoon sittings, the change was not proposed before these parliamentary .assistants were appointed. On this point I come back to the question of distribution of work in the cabinet. I do not want to make any reflection on the Minister of Justice, or to contrast his work witli that of the Minister of Agriculture. But it has always been an open question to us why, for instance, the Minister of Justice should have a parliamentary assistant. If he needs one I have no objection; both he and his parliamentary assistant are held in very high esteem and regard in this house. Anything I say is directed against the system rather than against those who hold the positions. But there does not seem to be much argument about this, that if the Minister of Justice needs a parliamentary assistant, the Minister of Agriculture, who has a tremendous burden to carry, should also have one. I mention this so that the whole problem of the distribution of government work may engage the attention of the Prime Minister from now on.
Further, if Wednesday is set aside as a day for committee meetings only, there arise such questions as provision of rooms and staff for the committees, and whether the committees will sit all through the week. More particularly this point must be in the minds of hon. members. Before the special committee on rules and procedure have held more than two sittings, this announcement is made. It seems to me that the government might have referred to that committee the question of Wednesday afternoon sittings in order that we might have expert advice as to how it would fit in with the general scheme of changes in rules and procedure which may be recommended to the house.
If a better system of expedition and dispatch in the work of the house can be devised, I am all in favour of it, and so is our party. We have called incessantly for a better system whereby the work of the chamber may be

facilitated, but it does not seem to me that the taking away of some of the time of the house in the middle of the week is the right way to achieve this laudable object. And, having in mind that so far as the house is concerned Wednesday is one of our active days in legislation, I express my own views and the views of the party which I lead in this house as opposed to the adoption of the motion of the Prime Minister.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, this is one occasion on which I am sorry I shall not be able to support the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon). I am rather in favour of the motion. Personally I find, as I think every other hon. member finds, that if I do my work properly a parliamentary session is a tremendous grind. I have often told my constituents that if a member of parliament is to do his work as it should be done he can be the busiest man in the world; or, on the other hand, if he does not want to do his work properly he can be the laziest man in the world. I am under the impression that there should be a complete change in the hours of parliamentary sittings. Sometimes it is hard for us to break away from. custom, but I should be delighted to learn that the committee being set up to consider the rules of procedure was to review the matter of the sitting hours, in order that, we might facilitate the business of the house and also facilitate the work of members of parliament. We meet at three o'clock in the afternoon and sit until eleven o'clock at night. Some may regard that as a short day because it involves only six hours, but many of the provincial legislatures sit only in the afternoon. When I tell some of my people that we sit at night, they are quite surprised. When I tell them further that one gets down here at nine o'clock in the morning, or thereabouts, and looks after his correspondence, then goes into a committee at ten or eleven o'clock and stays there until one, then attends the sittings of the house beginning at three o'clock and again at eight o'clock, that seems like a pretty good day's work. Before I am here very long I begin to feel the effects of that work.
I do not believe we should have to sit so late at night in order that hon. members may properly represent their constituencies in this house. I am sure we all want to facilitate the business, but at the same time we want to retain our health, and there is something in that. I believe we should let up a little on these hours. Therefore I am in favour of the motion to do away with the Wednesday sitting. It does not necessarily follow that this will help us very much, because I know that the

Wednesday Adjournments
committees will sit that day, but they may meet ia the morning and afternoon and still leave us Wednesday evening free.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, there are a good many reasons,
I think, why the motion of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) should be supported by the house; most of them have been given already. We fear, however, that if we do not sit on Wednesday that day may not be utilized as well as it might be. At the present time Mondays and Fridays are off days; usually we try to avoid taking votes on those days, because many hon. members who live in the vicinity of Ottawa go home for the week-end. If we had another day, Wednesday, without a sitting of the house, my colleagues fear that we would be simply prolonging the session and not utilizing that day so as to get the most out of it. Personally I must confess that I would welcome being relieved of house duties on Wednesday. I agree with the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) that those of us who have very heavy correspondence, who are trying to operate something of a major political movement, without facilities and from one small room under this roof, would from that point of view welcome an additional day.
With the position of the government I think every hon. member of this house must have a great deal of sympathy. I often wonder how the ministers manage to attend the meetings of cabinet council, which must be a great strain upon them, and at the same time attend in the house as frequently and as assiduously as they do. I agree with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) that hon. members who last year supported the proposal to appoint parliamentary assistants hoped that these assistants would relieve the ministers of constant attendance in the house, and would be able to speak for them on more occasions than they have in the past year.
Our fear, sir, is that this day may not be utilized in the manner in which it ought to be utilized, and for that reason some have grave doubts as to the wisdom of the proposal now made by the Prime Minister.


Mr. J. S. ROY (Gaspe):: It is not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to argue the wisdom of the motion of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), or to discuss the question of facilitating the work of the cabinet or of hon. members who are serving on committees. I should like to submit that if our sittings must be suspended one day during the week, it might be more practicable and more advantageous to hon. members if that day were Friday. As the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) has just pointed out, many hon.
members go home on Friday for the week-end and, since half the membership of the house does not serve on committees, to suspend the sitting on Friday would give those hon. members a chance to go home and look after their business during the week-end. I submit that Friday would be a better day than Wednesday.
I shall not move any amendment to the motion of the Prime Minister, but if my suggestion is approved by the house I hope the government will agree to it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Mr. Speaker, on April 20, 1943, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) introduced his motion to appoint parliamentary assistants to the ministers, and I opposed that motion as best I could. I was satisfied at that time that I was right, and I am now doubly satisfied, because the Prime Minister has to come along with this motion notwithstanding the fact that, as my leader has said, we have appointed six parliamentary assistants. I do not want these parliamentary assistants to feel that anything I am about to say is intended as a reflection on them, for they were perhaps the best the Prime Minister could have selected from his side of the house, and my remarks have no reference to them or the work they have been doing. Personally I could not see why any red-blooded minister would want to be bothered with a parliamentary assistant. In this regard I am happy to hold up the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), as a shining example to other members of the cabinet. Last year when the Prime Minister introduced his motion for appointment of parliamentary assistants he said, at page 2346 of Hansard of April 20 of that year:
I need not elaborate upon the necessity of securing assistance for the ministers of the defence departments, of the Department of Munitions and Supply,, the Department of Labour and the Department of Agriculture.
But the little Napoleon from the west does not need a parliamentary assistant, and I doubt if any minister in the cabinet has a more responsible or more difficult job to handle. I congratulate him upon his ability to handle his department. I have said that he is a little Napoleon; I might have said as well that he is a walking dynamo, and I congratulate the government upon having in the cabinet a man with the capacity of the Minister of Agriculture. I do not want anyone to think I am supporting what he does; I am speaking of his ability in handling his department.
I can picture a minister having a parliamentary assistant come to him for information. The minister will tell his assistant what to say in the house, and must take the responsi-
Wednesday Adjournments

bility for what is to be said. Naturally this takes the time of the minister. He would be much better occupied in attending to some other business. I never could see why, in this country of merely 12,000,000 people, and with its nineteen or twenty ministers-more I believe than we ever had before-parliamentary assistants were required. I was opposed to the whole business, because it was a useless expense to the country.


Mr. McIVOR:: Mr. Speaker-


John Ritchie MacNicol: Order. Will the hon. member remain in his seat? I had begun to say that I was for many years a business man; I was connected with big business for many years, and I ought to know something about how to run a business. It would seem that the Prime Minister now finds he has to cut out Wednesday sittings. What will happen? Many members do not come to Ottawa until Tuesday night. Under the new arrangement there will be no necessity for them to come until Wednesday night. Then, many of them go back on Thursday, and the result will be that they will be in Ottawa one day in the week. If it is necessary that we have more time for committee work, why not take the whole of Wednesday night and Friday night for committees?


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: I do not want to work every night.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I realize the Prime
Minister wants to have more time. Those two nights are available, and I should think he could use them for committees.
What do we find? In the list before us are some fourteen parliamentary committees, and I think the country ought to know just what those committees are. First there is the committee on privileges and elections. Well, it may meet once in a session, but I doubt if it meets at all. The next is the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. Railways are not being built any more, so that that committee is likely to sit only infrequently.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It has not sat for several sessions.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The hon. member for York-Sunbury says it has not sat for several sessions. That crosses that out, so far as work goes. The next is the committee on miscellaneous private bills. What time does that take which would interfere with the House of Commons?


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is just a matter of considering divorce bills.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And divorces are handled by the other house. The next is the committee on banking and commerce. This year that committee may have a good deal to do, because of the revision of the Bank Act. So far in the list that is the first committee which will have anything to do.
The next is the public accounts committee. I do not know whether that is the same as the committee of which the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver) is chairman. If not, then the public accounts committee has nothing to do. I realize of course that the other committee about which I have spoken has much to do.
The committee on agriculture and colonization, next on the list, I presume has much work to do, although I do not know. The committee on standing orders would need to sit only about once a month. Then, what is done by the committee on marine and fisheries?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Nothing.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Surely the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Bertrand) is capable of looking after that business.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It should meet, but it never does.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Then there is the committee on mines, forests and waters. Again these matters are under the control of a very able minister, the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar)- and I pat him on the back as being one who does not require a parliamentary assistant.
The next is the committee on industrial and international relations; is it meeting any more? I have been in the house for years, and for a long time I have not noted any sittings of that committee.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Eight
years ago.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The committee on debates -has that anything to do? The committee on printing-well, what does the printing committee have to do? The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) smiles. I must tell him right now I was most surprised that he accepted a parliamentary assistant. I thought he was a big, strong, red-blooded man, and could quite easily take care of his department by himself. I am sorry I was disappointed.
The next is the committee on the library of parliament. Has it anything to do? Then, the committee on the restaurant. I do not suppose it has much to do. The committee on railways and shipping-

Wednesday Adjournments


Richard Burpee Hanson: It has a lot to do.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It does not do much. Then the committee on the revision of standing orders. I presume that was the special committee appointed this year. Then the committee on The Dominion Elections Act. That committee has little to do; I hope our work will not take long.
The last on the list is the committee on reconstruction, which is now meeting. Out of that list of committees, how many are going to meet on Wednesdays, occupying the whole of thdt day?
I should like to support the Prime Minister, because he has a terrific job. I have no desire to add to his burdens; rather I would have them lessened. How'ever I cannot see how the turning over of Wednesdays to the meeting of committees would relieve the congestion in parliament. I should like to see my own work lessened. I represent a large industrial riding, and I have a heavy correspondence. Rarely do I get away from these buildings until twelve o'clock at night. I am in my seat every sitting day, and I find that all my time is occupied. Certainly I should like to have more time to myself, but I am satisfied that the proposed arrangement for Wednesdays would not help me. In fact I would be afraid it would lengthen days which are now altogether too long.
The house knows where I stand, and I shall vote against the proposal.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Speaker, I do not question the right of the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) to speak; but from a sign I thought he gave me I concluded that he had finished his remarks. However, in that I was mistaken.
I do not agree with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) when he says Wednesday is the most important day in the house.


Gordon Graydon: I did not say that.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Perhaps I am wrong. To my mind Friday is the most important day, because, with the Tuesday-and-Thursday men at home, we get some business done. The leaving of Wednesdays for committees is a good suggestion, but to those in charge of making arrangements for committees I would say they should see to it that every hon. member is on a committee, so that no one may be idle. I believe the suggestion with regard to Wednesdays is wise, because no hon. member wishes to sit in committee when the house is sitting. Every hon. member who speaks in the house is worth hearing, no matter from which side he may speak. For these reasons 1 support the proposal.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that I am opposed to this motion to suspend Wednesday sittings of the house for the present session. As has been so well pointed out. the passing of this motion would mean that there would be only two days in the week which would be available from the private members' point of view. As is known, many eastern members go home on Thursday evening or Friday morning and come back on Monday evening, and some understanding seems to have grown up in the house that important votes and important discussions will not take place except from Tuesday to Thursday inclusive of each week. If we do not sit on Wednesdays we shall have only two days for important matters.
The Prime Minister has pointed out that the sessions are strenuous for the cabinet ministers who must attend cabinet meetings and do their parliamentary work as well. I understand that when the parliamentary assistants were appointed a year ago it was done to relieve the ministers of much of their work in the house I agree with some of the remarks that have been made as to there being no necessity for some of these parliamentary assistants, although I think others of them were quite necessary.
I am convinced that this proposed arrangement will lengthen the session of parliament. I am one of the many who come from a considerable distance to attend the sessions. We are forced to stay in Ottawa over the long week-ends. We are faced with the expense of keeping up our homes in our constituencies. The cost of living in Ottawa is high, and we are not allowed to make deductions on our income tax returns for living expenses when we are away from home, as is permitted some of these dollar a year men who advise the government.


An hon. MEMBER:: And the ministers.


James Arthur Ross: Never mind the ministers just now. I think all in all that the motion of the Prime Minister is a most unfair one. Private members are just as anxious as the government that we get on with the business of the country, but we are faced with the fact that our rights as private members are being whittled down. We cannot challenge the answers given to questions asked on the orders of the day; we must accept those dnswers as given. The other day my namesake, the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Ross), a supporter of this government, was referring to the labour order, and is reported to have said at page 365 of Hansard:
The government is run by a bureaucracy, the members are nothing and I frankly admit it. If the order had gone through the house, it would have been better prepared.

Wednesday Adjournments

The hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Gorman) is reported on the same page to have said:
The members of parliament are dead guinea pigs. I have never been consulted or called in on these matters. I admit there are powers behind the government. I think most of them are necessary, but I cannot see why the members should not be consulted.
Both those members are supporters of this government.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is dead.


James Arthur Ross: That may be. On
many occasions the Prime Minister has set forth his great respect for parliamentary traditions. I am satisfied that the people of this country have great respect for the worth-while traditions of parliament, but I must confess that during the past few years under this regime parliament has fallen into disrepute in the minds of many of the people across this country. I think we should be careful not to allow further progress to be made in this respect. Just the other day the Prime Minister rose in his place and pointed out the trend that had taken place in connection with the formation of new groups. He stated that we were simply repeating what had happened in France, I would remind him that all this has taken place under his leadership and with so-called Canadian unity.
One hon, member pointed out this afternoon that he finds the long hours he has to put in on his parliamentary duties a strain on his health. T would point out that our men overseas must work much longer hours and under more difficult conditions than we do in this country. They should be considered when we think of ourselves in these times of stress and strain. In a period of war we must all make many sacrifices, but since coming here in 1940 it has become apparent to me that if present conditions continue we shall have a state of affairs in Canada under which only the very wealthy or those who have no substantial incomes or businesses will be able to come here as members of parliament. The average business man or farmer could not afford to make this sacrifice in ordinary times, but as I say we must all be prepared to sacrifice to the limit during war time.
I am opposed to the motion., because I do not think it is in the interests of the country. It will certainly lengthen, the session and not help us with our legislative programme. *
Mrs. DORISE W. NIELSEN (North Battle-ford) :	Mr. Speaker, with all due respect I
suggest that perhaps we are wasting the time of the house by continuing this debate. I think we would be very sensible to fall in with the idea suggested by the Prime Minister. We should support his motion and see how it works

out. If after a time the committees should feel that their work was progressing satisfactorily, we could resume our sittings on Wednesdays.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Before the Prime Minister closes the debate I should like to ask him a . question. Is it his hope that by taking Wednesdays he will be able to accomplish more on Fridays by retaining the membership of the house on those days? We might as well face the situation and admit that Friday is usually a lost day, except for the discussion of agriculture estimates. My observation over a long period of years is that all that takes place is a debate between the Minister of Agriculture and the western members opposing the administration, and it really is a lost day.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Nothing
much is decided in those debates, and I have listened to them for twenty years. It is "wheat, wheat, *wheat," and what the government did not do that they should have done; and for the most part I say it is a lost day. If the Prime Minister entertains that hope, then we may have some trading offset for the loss of Wednesdays, but I think it is a faint hope. I believe these week-enders w'ill still go out on the four o'clock train on Fridays.
Mr. CRUICKSHAtNK: Thursdays.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Let us be fair. I sometimes have to go home myself, and that is what happens. If that could be remedied; if those members would remain here on Fridays and that day could be made a real parliamentary day, then there would be some offset for the loss of Wednesdays. Otherwise I fear the Prime Minister is going to defeat the object he has in mind; Wednesday afternoons will be a loss in the work of the session, and we shall not be any further ahead.
W7ith reference to the cabinet ministers attending the house on Wednesdays, I should like to say that I have sat over here and watched the cabinet ministers. I do not want to say anything derogatory about them, but after the orders of the day are completed those gentlemen scurry out of the chamber like rabbits to their warrens. At times I have seen not more than two cabinet ministers in the two rows of front benches. There may be a good reason for this, but the fact is that cabinet ministers spend more time out of the chamber than they spend in it. I think this is against the Prime Minister's contention that he should have Wednesday afternoons for cabinet consultations.

Wednesday Adjournments
The Prime Minister said that this will speed up committee meetings, but over a long period of years my observation is that the committees do a tremendous volume of work under high pressure and tension for a limited period of time, usually beginning about the middle of the session. During the early part of the session they do not meet. How many standing committees have already met this session? So far as I know, not one of them. Some of the special committees have met. The committee on the rules has had two meetings-very good meetings, I would say.


An hon. MEMBER:: You were on that committee.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes; perhaps that is why they were good. But none of the other committees has done any work yet, because there has been no work for them to do. Why have we not had the Bank Act before the banking and commerce committee? I suppose there is a good reason for that. I know that my good friend the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. McGeer) is loaded with ammunition and is going gunning on that occasion. On the whole I think we are going to lose, on balance, by adopting this motion, and I should like the Prime Minister to give a better reason than he has given before I can convince myself that I should vote for the motion.


Mr. W. F. RICKARD (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that I should make my position clear on this motion. I am not particularly opposed to the motion, because I have every sympathy with the cabinet ministers in the work they are doing; but as has been already pointed out, parliamentary assistants have been appointed who we thought were going to take some of the burden from the shoulders of the cabinet ministers.
As far as the general committees are concerned, it has been the custom since I have been in the house for them not to begin to meet until the middle or latter part of the session. I understand that it is the special committees that will meet on Wednesdays, and anyone who looks over the membership of this house must know that a great many members are not members of any special committee. The brains of this house are not all concentrated in a few people. I think every hon. member has his part to play and something to contribute, and I do not see why every member of the house could not be put on one of the special committees. Take the committee on reconstruction and rehabilitation. Probably no one is more interested in that committee than the farmer members, but there are only four 100-441
farmers on that committee out of a membership of thirty-five. It seems to me that that is hardly a fair distribution.
Some of us who are not members of special committees will have nothing to do if the house does not sit on Wednesdays, except perhaps our ordinary work. We might of course devote the time to something of educative value, but so far as the work of this house is concerned we shall have nothing to do. If it were going to shorten the work of parliament I would be all in favour of the motion, but personally I cannot see it that way.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I agree that we are spending a little too much time in discussing the motion. I think it would be much better to take a vote now7 and let the members decide what they want. For myself I am not in favour of prolonging this debate. I wish to warn the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), however, that the adoption of the motion is not going to facilitate very much the work of the house, by having the committees sit on Wednesdays. What the Prime Minister needs to do is to appoint one of his ministers, who may not have so much to do as some of the others, to organize the work of the house and of the committees so that as many committees and as many private members as possible will be working every day. No one wants to be sitting around this house without something to do. Personally I have plenty to do whether the house or the committees are sitting or not, but I can understand that others may not have enough to do. The work of the session should be so arranged, and it should be someone's responsibility to so arrange it, that after a committee is appointed it should be set expeditiously to work and continue at its work until it has completed rvhatever piece of legislation is referred to it.
I support the motion and I hope that we can soon get on with the work of the house.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think this motion will have the effect of either aiding the government or shortening the session. On the contrary I think it will tremendously increase the length of the sessions. I think it will do other things as well.
The three most important committees of this house, in view of the speech from the throne and the possibility of new legislation, are the social security committee, the reconstruction committee, and the banking and commerce committee. If we have all Wednesday for the social security committee to sit, I am quite certain that every individual in Canada with his own pet theory on health or security
Wednesday Adjournments

or social planning or some other panacea will wish to be heard before that committee, and a tremendous amount of irrelevant and extraneous information will be put before the committee, so that when the committee gets down to its work of making a report and perhaps helping to draft legislation, there will be such a volume of material before it, and so much of it, with all due respect, quite useless, that we shall not be serving the country as well. I believe that to get a committee functioning properly there should be a sense of urgency pervading it; but if this motion goes through we shall be inclined to sit back and say, "We have all Wednesday", and people will come before us and present everything. That is why I oppose this motion.
Last year the house spent over a month in the debate on the speech from the throne, and approximately a month on the budget. Fortunately this year the debate on the speech 1 from the throne has ended. But I suggest that the government might limit the debates on the address and on the budget so that the house will retain its function as a deliberative and legislative assembly, and so that we shall not have members speaking for certain special and local interests in order to get their speeches on Hansard.
I think this motion will lengthen the sessions, will not make the committees more efficient, and will not assist the government in the efficient prosecution of this country's war effort.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this motion because, contrary to what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) expects, I think its tendency, if adopted, will be to lengthen the session, and that has serious repercussions for those of us who live a long distance away from Ottawa. The other day the Prime Minister referred to the fact that in Great Britain parliament for a great part of the session sits from Tuesday to Thursday. But in Britain the distances are so short that a member can go home over the week-end and mingle with his constituents and come back on Tuesday with something of the point of view of the people he represents. We are in a totally different position because of the vast distances in Canada. We are here five or six months of the year, and those of us who live a long distance from our constituents seldom can get back home during the session and get their point of view and discuss their personal problems which they want us to bring before the House of Commons.
I do not think Wednesdays should be taken away. It is true the Prime Minister says

that we have three hours on Friday night, but I think we should have that time anyway, and I think we should do committee work on Saturday, so as to allow members to get away by June or July. Last year it was the 2nd of August before I left the city, and many other members were a day or two later than that. That is a long time to be out of touch with the people whom one represents.
The second point is this. I have every sympathy with the main contention of the Prime Minister, that the cabinet ought to have more time. I agree with that, but some other arrangement could be made. I suggest that on one day of the week, either Thursday or Friday, or whatever days the government may choose, the war committee of the cabinet could meet, and that day could be devoted exclusively to estimates or other matters concerning departments whose ministers are not on the war committee of the cabinet; ministers who are on that committee could be represented by their parliamentary assistants. This would give one day of each week to the war committee of the cabinet for the discussion of matters which they are called upon to consider in carrying the great burden which each of us recognizes they are called upon to bear.


Ernest Edward Perley: I am in accord with the views expressed by one or two hon. members who have spoken before me, especially those from the west. From my experience, a great deal of time is wasted, and it is a mistake to cut out Wednesdays. The last speaker referred to committees. If on Wednesday six or seven committees are meeting, you will have the whips running around 'and there will be great difficulty getting quorums together, because certain members are on two or three committees. Many of us are on two committees, and last year I found it difficult when attending one committee in which I was interested to find time to attend another committee meeting which I should like to have attended.
It is very unfair to members west of Fort William to ask us to forgo Wednesday sittings, because they never get a chance to go home. We used to sit on Friday nights, and as hon. members will recall, one or two ministers generally opened up their estimates earlier in the session than others and took advantage of that night. In that way we have accomplished a good deal. It would have been a good thing if many of the members who are present now had been in the house on Friday night last, because we had a very informative discussion and obtained much information which I am afraid half the members who were absent will not take the time to read. In my

Wednesday Adjournments
opinion it would prolong the session to adopt this motion and it is not fair to keep the western members here six and seven months. In the 1942 session we were here nearly seven months and last year about six months. From that point of view I am opposed to the motion.


Joseph William Noseworthy: There are just two points I wish to discuss for a moment. First of all, I intend to follow the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) in this vote, and in view of the peculiar circumstances under which I was elected I should explain that statement. I am voting against this motion because, from my short experience in the house, during which time I have served on a number of committees, I am not satisfied that the work in any committee on which I have served warrants a suspension of the work of the house in favour of committees. Most of the reports of these committees are tabled in this house but few if any of them are ever brought to the house for consideration. If the estimates or other matters are passed on to committees, the majority of the members of the house will have no opportunity of discussing them.
The second point on which I wish to protest is this. Suggestions have been made in this house that members, particularly from the Toronto area, are accustomed to absenting themselves from the house on Mondays and Fridays. I would ask hon. members to look over the house this afternoon. If they do they will find that practically every member from Toronto and the Toronto area is in his place. I want that made quite clear. Because we come from Toronto or the Toronto area does not by any means indicate that we are not here in our places on Monday or Friday.


Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: I am glad there is sufficient elbow room in this group to permit us to disagree with one another. Personally I am in favour of the motion presented by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). I do not,think it is going to extend the session five minutes, for the simple reason that we have not been sitting on Wednesday nights, nor have we been sitting on Friday nights. The proposal before us definitely states that we shall sit on Friday nights.
The reason, however, why I am in favour of the motion is that I am anything but satisfied with the way the committee work is conducted, and I refer particularly to the special committees. We have the reconstruction cofnmittee, the social security committee, and the committee on war expenditures. The work being carried on by these committees is
just as important as, if not more important than, the business of this house, because these committees are actually planning the future of Canada, giving the house guidance as to the legislation that will go through. My experience in the past two years, so far as committees are concerned, has been this. You leave a stenographer at eleven o'clock or at ten-thirty and rush to a committee with a file full of papers which you have not had a chance to read. Then you sit in and listen to a presentation from the manufacturers' association, the chamber of commerce or some other organization with a battery of experts, and the committee is doing nothing but listening. The chairman is watching the clock to see when twelve-thirty arrives so as to announce the adjournment of the committee and then you bundle your file under your arm and go back to your office and before you get .a chance to read it you meet someone else. That is not satisfactory.
My conception of the motion which the Prime Minister proposes is that we shall set aside Wednesday specifically for that committee work, and then it will be the responsibility of the chairmen of committees to see that their work is so organized that these committees will meet from ten in the morning until any hour in the evening necessary for them to complete their business. If the time is utilized in that way I think it will be a step in the right direction. But the responsibility will rest on the government side of the house to see to it that the chairmen of the respective committees so organize the work as to give those on the committees an opportunity of properly preparing their case, analysing the evidence, and getting some understanding of the deliberations of the committees.
I am in favour of the motion on the understanding that that time be properly utilized and the committee work be properly organized so that the committees may be in a better position to advise the house with respect to the matters that they are called upon to consider.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I want to thank the hon. member for York South (Mr.. Noseworthy) for what he has said, and L also agree with some other hon. members who have spoken. There are one or two points I wish to put forward. If we sit from now on, through March, April, May and June, that will give us nineteen weeks, and if we have one meeting of a committee each week, that will be nineteen meetings. I do not know of any committee which has nineteen meetings. If we have two meetings a week,
Wednesday Adjournments

that provides thirty-eight mornings when these matters can be discussed. I think it would be a great mistake to cease to sit on Wednesdays. It is true that Wednesday evening is free, and this gives the private member a little time to do necessary work. I shall have to oppose the Prime Minister's motion.


George Hugh Castleden: In opposing this motion I wish to point out that the debates on the speech from the throne and on the budget usually include a number of forty-minute speeches. These debates generally take place at the beginning of the session. The committees begin their sittings and occupy a good deal of the time of most hon. members in the latter part of the session. In July, when the estimates are brought down and discussed, the house finds it possible to sit in the mornings from eleven to one o'clock, in the afternoons from three to six o'clock, and frequently, towards the end of the session, as late as midnight or one o'clock in the morning. Thus far this session we have been sitting about twenty-four hours a week; last week we sat, I believe, twenty-seven hours. It seems to me that we should be able to sit now, at the very least, six hours a day for five days a week and three hours on Saturday, and try to get our work finished.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We used to sit all night. How about that?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker-


Thomas Vien: I would remind hon. members that if the Prime Minister speaks now he will close the debate.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: First of all,
may I say to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) that he was quite right when he directed the attention of the house to the fact that I was under the impression on Friday last that this motion, being one which related to the procedure of the house, did not require notice. The rule is that where the motion relates to the time of the sittings of the house it does not require any notice; but the interpretation of the word "time" is to hours rather than days, and, this motion having to do with day sittings, required notice in advance. I am sorry that I made the slip which I did at the time, but I am pleased my hon. friends have accepted my explanation with regard to it.
May I at once thank hon. members who have spoken in support of the motion. I am deeply appreciative of their having taken cognizance of the reasons which I gave when, on
IMr. Douglas G. Ross.]
two previous occasions, I spoke of the desirability of this change; I am very grateful to them for their support.
I notice that I was supported in the matter by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell), who is closely associated with the leader of the Social Credit party. I was a little surprised that the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross), who followed him, should have taken occasion to bring him-of all members- to task on the score that at a time of war we should all be prepared to make an equal sacrifice. I assume my hon. friend was not aware that the hon. member for Macleod had lost a son in this war, and in that regard has suffered a greater sacrifice-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why bring that in?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -than many others. I have a right to speak, as well as hon. gentlemen opposite, and if one of their number undertakes to take an hon. member of this house to task on any score of war service, it is part, of my duty to point out where it becomes necessary for purposes of the record that the hon. member referred to has suffered no light sacrifice in respect to the war.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, on a
question of privilege-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have the floor.


James Arthur Ross: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I think the remarks of the Prime Minister are quite uncalled for. I had not the slightest thought of any personal attack on the hon. member.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should certainly not have drawn the attention of the house to the fact if the hon. member had not made a specific reference in replying to the hon. member for Macleod, in respect to equality of sacrifice at this time of war. I wish to say to my hon. friend from; Macleod, and to some four or five other hon. members who have also lost their sons in this war, that I desire to take advantage of this moment to extend to each and every one of them the sympathy of this house in the supreme sacrifices which have been made by a member of their respective families-a sacrifice which is very real to themselves. I hope that hereafter hon. members will not make references of the kind without fully considering their bearing.
To the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) I would say that I am glad to reply immediately to his question, whether I Believe that more would be accomplished in the long run by the house sitting on Friday night and

Wednesday Adjournments
giving up the sitting on Wednesday afternoon and having the Wednesday free to be devoted entirely, if hon. members so desire, to the work of committees. I certainly do, and I made that statement previously when I spoke on this matter. I cannot see why this house should not accomplish more by having two sessions on Friday than by having one afternoon session on Wednesday and one afternoon session on Friday with all of Wednesdays left free for attendance by hon. members upon committees. The time, in hours of sitting, as has been pointed out, will be the equivalent, but I believe that more will be accomplished by virtue of the longer continuous sittings with extra time in addition for committees.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunfoury):: I had in
mind the absence of so many on Fridays.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has touched a point which I am glad he brought up. He has in mind the absence at certain times of a number of members. I ask him what this house is here for, whether it is here to get through business or to accommodate members who wish to be absent one day and present another? I am not the keeper of the consciences of hon. gentlemen in this house. If a member is not sufficiently interested to attend the different sittings of the house, that is his affair and the concern of his constituents; it is not the affair of the government. The government's concern is to try to get through all the business we possibly can. To ask that we should consider arranging the business of the house so as to accommodate those who wish to be absent part of the time instead of being present all the time is to prefer a perfectly unreasonable request.
May I say again that I hope the public at least do not believe that the amount of work which is accomplished in this parliament is to be estimated by the amount of talk, the amount of discussion. As a matter of fact, one of the hopes I cherish is that, having Wednesdays free, some hon. members at least will take advantage of that day to prepare themselves for debates which they expect may follow later on and will thereby be able the better to express themselves in a few words, instead, as so often happens, of getting their first knowledge of a matter which is being discussed when it comes up upon the orders of the day.
If hon. members will stop for a moment to consider how the parliament at Westminster conducts its affairs, they will realize that it is an absurdity to talk about the work of this parliament being dependent upon the number of hon. members that are in the house from day to day. I take it that every hon. member knows that in the British House of Commons
they have seating capacity for something like 400 members, and that there are 615 members returned to the House of Commons. It would be just as reasonable to suggest that no meeting of the British House of Commons should be held to discuss important matters until the whole 615 members could be brought into the chamber. But Britain has realized that what counts is not talk but argument and the importance and the weight of argument, and that the important thing to accomplish in parliament is the business of the country, and to expedite the business which parliament has been summoned to consider. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why this house on different occasions has got through so much business on a Friday evening [DOT]-because there have not been present others than those who were really interested in the matters under discussion. I think that disposes sufficiently of the matter of attendance in the house.
As to committees, if there can be an organization of the committee work in a way which will make it more effective, the government will be only too happy to lend itself to further that particular end. I ask hon. members, has there been a session of this parliament at any time when the work has been better organized than it has been from the beginning of this session up to this moment, and when more has been accomplished in an equivalent period of time? I say there has not been; and I believe that if hon. members will cooperate with the government in its work, much more in the way of expedition can be attained.


Gordon Graydon: Better put in a good word for the opposition on that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am coming to the opposition in a moment.


Gordon Graydon: We will be ready for you.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And I tell my hon. friend right now that one of the questions I intend to ask him in a moment is whether or not his leader is a part of the opposition. I want him to answer that question.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If you want cooperation from the opposition you had better drop that line.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may tell my hon. friend from York-Sunbury that I shall have a word to say about cooperation, too, before I am through. This house is not going to be run in the interests of opposing groups who wish to embarrass the government rather than cooperate with and help the government. It is not going to be carried on very long in that way; I can tell my hon. friend that right now.
Wednesday Adjournments


Richard Burpee Hanson: That was your attitude from 1930 to 1935, wasn't it?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This is the real opposition.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Now just keep quiet.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me come to the real question. I have spoken twice in the house on this matter; if that had not been the case, I would have taken a different attitude now. I have told hon. members quite frankly that at this time of wrar, with the great issues that are facing the government and the world and the tremendous responsibilities that are on the shoulders of the government in dealing from day to day with these vast problems, the government needs more time to devote to the careful study and consideration of war problems than it has when parliament is in session, with the sessions carried on as they have been in the past. I made that very clear both times I spoke, but I noticed that this afternoon most hon. gentlemen carefully avoided that side of the question. It was not the government that was being considered in any particular, though I would impress upon this house again that the government has the responsibility of carrying on the war effort of this country at this time. In turn each hon. member who has risen has for the most part spoken about what would suit his particular convenience. Well, it is very human for all of us to think about ourselves first, but I do submit that at a time of war such as this, when hon. members know the responsibility that is upon the government, it is very little to ask that when we are dealing with these questions the government should receive consideration, perhaps in the first instance, in the matter of the business of the house.
Perhaps I can say what I have to say pretty much in this word. Since the beginning of this war the prime minister of Britain has told the House of Commons what time he felt the government required to conduct the business of the country in a time of war, and he has arranged the sittings of the Commons accordingly. Mr. Chamberlain did that; Mr. Churchill has done it. Each of these prime ministers told the House of Commons in Britain that at a time of war the responsibility on the government was so great with regard to the questions which the government alone could consider if it was to deal with them properly in an executive way, or deal with them efficiently when coming before the House of Commons, that the government needed so much time; and, as I pointed out here, since the beginning of the war the House

of Commons in Britain has sat an average of only three days a week. That is, the House of Commons in Britain has found it necessary to sit only three days a week, not that committees may sit or that others may do this or that, but that the prime minister and his colleagues and those who have to do with the executive part of the work of carrying on the war may have opportunity adequately to discuss the great questions that are before,them, and have the necessary time for consultation. If the prime minister of Great Britain has found it necessary to say this to the Commons and the Commons has accepted his word, I think I might claim that, having undertaken to see if possible that this government will carry on until the end of the war, my colleagues and I are entitled to the consideration of this house in the matter of the conditions under which we are to carry on.
I do not want hon. members of this house to forget that, enjoying the confidence of this country as we do; having had it from all sides, from the opposition as well as from the press of this country practically with one voice, that we should continue to carry on until this war is over, I believe we are entitled to have our request immediately met when we say to hon. gentlemen opposite that we need an extra afternoon to confer on the great questions that are coming to us day by day. If we cannot get that cooperation, then we shall have to consider what our responsibility is. I must say that what has taken place this afternoon has not made me believe any more strongly than I did hitherto in the cooperation we can expect from hon. gentlemen opposite. I hope the citizens of this country will take today's Hansard and read the debate that has taken place this afternoon-


Gordon Graydon: So do we.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -and see how many hon. gentlemen opposite have spoken in terms of what is needed on account of the war effort of this country at this time, and how many have dealt with petty politics which they thought would be helpful to them and obstructive to the government.
There was some talk about parliamentary assistants. Again hon. gentlemen seem to take the point of view that the service of a parliamentary assistant is to be measured only by the number of times his voice is heard in the House of Commons. Well, it only shows how completely lacking is their appreciation of what the duties of a minister and his assistant are, even to assert anything of that kind. A parliamentary assistant is busy from morning to night dealing with matters with which the minister is concerned, just as are the officials of his department. To suggest that his service

6S9
Wednesday Adjournments
to the country is to be measured by the number of times he appears in the house, or to say that he must be here instead of the minister, is entirely to mistake the purposes for which he has been appointed. And may I add that instead of reducing the number of parliamentary assistants I am going to find it necessary very soon to add to the number, just because the work that is on the shoulders of some of the ministers is becoming so much heavier at this time than it has been heretofore. I think I am entitled to say to hon. members of this house that they must remember that we are now in the fifth year of war, and that those of us who compose the government, particularly those who are on the war committee of the cabinet, have had over four very heavy years in dealing with these questions. Our position is not made any easier or our burden any lighter by the fact we know of circumstances affecting the future now hanging over our heads and the heads of others in similar positions the like of which have never before hung over the heads of members of any ministries in the world.
These matters cannot be dealt with lightly. Take the position this very day, this very week; and when I speak of myself I speak for my colleagues asvwell. I began my work at nine o'clock this morning, trying to deal with some matters that are of immediate importance, trying to consult officials of the departments over which I preside, trying to make sure that at least some acknowledgment was made of some of the most important letters; I had to be in the cabinet council with my colleagues at twelve o'clock, and we were kept there until a quarter to three this afternoon. I had then to be in this house at three o'clock to debate the present motion. One of the questions we were discussing in cabinet council to-day was a question on which we are expected to give Great Britain an answer by Thursday of this week. It is a very, very important question, which we could not settle in the two and a half hours we met to-day, a large part of which time was devoted to a discussion of it. When I say that the government needs time to consider some of these matters, so that it can have an uninterrupted sitting of the necessary duration without feeling that its members must jump up in the next five minutes and rush off to be in the House of Commons to answer questions, I think I am entitled to have my word in that respect accepted.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why not dispense with parliament altogether? You have pretty nearly done it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, I think parliament could veiy well dispense with my hon. friend.
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury:) I venture to suggest to my right hon. friend that this country would not agree with him.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend is fond of talking about dispensing with many things, but I want to tell him that when he makes remarks of this kind he must expect to get back what is coming to him. .


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not worrying about anything the Prime Minister may say. I leave it to the people of this country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I come back to the position of the British parliament. There the ministers have their parliamentary secretaries, their financial secretaries, and many more assistants than our ministers have. It is true that they have many more important matters with which to deal, but the decisions that have to be made there are not more important relatively. The weight of responsibility is not any less, and I wish to say now to the house as Prime Minister of this country that it is not possible for the government of Canada at this time of war; knowing what lies immediately before the Canadian people and our armies in the field, to give the time required to the consideration of those problems which are coming up before us, the time which they should have, and which the interests of the country and of the war demand, unless we find it possible to have more time for continuous consultation while parliament is in session. I can think of no way in which that end can be achieved which would be less of a handicap to anyone than that of taking Wednesday afternoons for that purpose, and resuming the practice of having sittings of the house on Friday nights.
When my hon. friend interrupted me, I was speaking on some of the matters which we have to consider and how time is taken up in unexpected ways. Something has been said in the house about the wages control order. On ' Wednesday of this week the government is to meet with representatives of some of the railway brotherhoods, and I understand is to hear their representations, on this and other matters. Can my colleagues be excused from that? If they are absent, then there is comment on the fact that the government is not as respectful as it should be to the railway brotherhoods.
On Friday of this week we have an engagement to meet with representatives of the Dominion Trades and Labour Congress. After that we have a meeting with representatives of the Catholic Syndicates, to discuss also with them matters pertaining to the wage
Wednesday Adjournments

order. I hope that all my colleagues will be present with me at both these meetings. This will take most of the entire morning, and past the hour at which the cabinet meets. This is all apart from ordinary business which we have to take up independently.
Reference has been made to the absence at times of ministers from the house. Hon. members when they look up and see a minister absent ask, "Why is he absent?" The likelihood is that he is meeting with a delegation which has been waiting for days to see him, or conferring with regard to some of these matters which have to be left to the government, and which the cabinet has to decide.
I repeat that we are asking this house to give the government what it feels is necessary by way of time to consider matters which relate to the war, and other important matters which are coming up. And I am quite prepared to have a vote taken, if hon. members feel after what I have already said that they wish to vote on the matter.
Now I come to what my hon. friend has said. At the beginning of his remarks-and I am referring to the leader of the opposition- he referred to "our party" as opposing this motion. "Our party is opposing the motion," he said. "Our party-what I wish to know is, and what I want the house to know, and the country also to know, is whether his party means the Progressive Conservative party; and if it does mean the Progressive Conservative party whether Mr. John Bracken, as leader of the Progressive Conservative party, is taking the attitude that he will not cooperate with the leader of the government in helping to get the time necessary for the government to deal with matters pertaining to the war. I ask my hon. friend that question now. When he speaks about "our party" does he include in t&at statement Mr. Bracken, who is leader of the Progressive Conservative party?


Gordon Graydon: If the Prime Minister wishes me to make a speech, when he has finished I am going to do it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Answer yes or no to the question.


Gordon Graydon: The Prime Minister has no right to ask a question about what I am going to reply to him when he finishes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: You cannot. My hon. friend has spoken already and he has exhausted his right. He has not answered the question yet.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let him answer now, whether when he speaks about "our party" he included Mr. Bracken?


Gordon Graydon: I object to being abused in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister has lost his temper this afternoon, and I wish him to calm down a bit before he loses it further. As to this question of asking me yres or no, I am not under cross-examination with respect to that matter and I do not propose to be put under cross-examination. More than that, the Prime Minister has raised one straw man after another to be knocked down this afternoon, and he cannot do it this time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, all my hon. friend has said will be read with interest.


Gordon Graydon: I hope it will be.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And I am very glad it is all on the record, because anyone looking at that record will see how the leader of the opposition sidestepped and carefully avoided answering the question as to whether Mr. Bracken and his party is attempting to cooperate in this house.


Gordon Graydon: You have not asked the question yourself yet.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This comes back to what I said at the opening of the session. We have to discover whether we are going to let hon. members opposite change the character of the parliamentary institutions in our country by having one office in the House of Commons for the leader of the opposition, and another for the leader of the party in opposition in some mysterious place far away. In this matter the country has a right to know where Mr. Bracken, as leader of the Progressive Conservative party, stands.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He is upstairs.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What I wish to emphasize is this, and it should, I think, be remembered, that in stating that the government would seek to carry on until this war is over, the steps necessary to that end, I expected to take with the cooperation of leaders of all parties.


Gordon Graydon: You wish us to agree with everything?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, I never expected that.


Gordon Graydon: We have facilitated the work of the house as it has never been facilitated in years before.

Wednesday Adjournments


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would my hon.
friend please sit down?


Gordon Graydon: Thank you!


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And may I say to my hon. friend, as leader of the opposition, and certain of his followers, that he would be much better to address the Chair when he is speaking.


Gordon Graydon: Y'ou did not address the Chair yourself.


Richard Burpee Hanson: When you put the question.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have been addressing the Chair all along.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You did not address the Chair when you put the question-when you insulted me.


Thomas Vien: Order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Coming.back to what I said on the address, this procedure was first proposed in the debate on the speech from the throne. A few days ago I made a further reference to it at some considerable length. I showed hon. members, by statistics which are now recorded in Hansard, that the sittings of this house for the last four years had equalled in number the sittings of the British parliament. We had actually given as much time, given as many hours in the year, as the British parliament had given. I repeat, the British government has found it necessary, in the administration of the government of the country in a time of war, to shorten somewhat the proceedings of the House of Commons and parliament, and to be accorded by the house a longer time in which they might fulfil their great responsibilities. And so I appeal again this afternoon to the house to give this government that opportunity, and I leave it to the house to decide whether we shall be given it or not.



WAR EXPENDITURES


Mr. HUGHES CLEAVER (Halton) moved:: That the third report of the special committee on war expenditures, presented to the house on January 26, 1944, be now concurred in.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask my hon. friend whether the second and fourth reports are also to be included for concurrence?


Hughes Cleaver: I was just going to ask, Mr. Speaker, before making any remarks in support of the motion that the scope of the present debate should be clarified. A discussion took place on Friday, and I understand that the intention was to ask for the leave of the house to discuss concurrence not only in the third report but in the other three reports which have been tabled, and discuss also at the same time the motion of the Prime Minister to set up the committee this year.


Thomas Vien: That would require the leave of the house.


Gordon Graydon: In order to clarify the matter, may I say that I think the Prime Minister and I are both somewhat responsible because I am quite sure that he did not understand when I raised the question the other day that the third report was only part of the report of the war expenditures committee. My understanding, and I take it that it would be his, was that the motion would include all the reports of all the subcommittees of the war expenditures committee, and my suggestion to him and to the hon. member for Halton was that concurrence be moved in all the reports brought down by the war expenditures committee, that we should discuss them first, that a debate with respect to the whole matter of war expenditures should come within the scope of the motion, and that, having dealt with that, we should then proceed to deal with the Prime Minister's motion to set up the war expenditures committee this year. My sole object was to avoid repetition and to save time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that I had understood, when he asked about the third report, that the one report which hon. gentlemen opposite wished to discuss was the one which had to do with the Shipshaw development and power; that was the third report. However, I have since learned that there were other reports which were tabled at the same time. So far as the
[Mr. Mackenzie KincJ
government are concerned we are perfectly willing to have all the reports discussed that were tabled on the last day of the last session.


Gordon Graydon: To regularize matters perhaps the hon. member would amend his motion.


Major James William Coldwell: When I suggested originally that this report should be dealt with this session I had in mind that we would deal with the whole report of the war expenditures committee, and certainly not with only one part of that report. I must take my share of the responsibility for not being sufficiently alert when the motion was made and included only the third report. I think there was a misunderstanding. It is unusual to discuss just one subcommittee's report without discussing the whole report of the war expenditures committee.


Hughes Cleaver: I would ask, Mr. Speaker, for leave of the house to amend the motion to include all the reports.


Thomas Vien: The standing order requiring notice will also have to be suspended. Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon'. member shall have leave to amend his motion to read that the first, second, third, fourth and fifth reports of the special committee on war expenditures be concurred in?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to the fact that the first report was agreed to during the last session of parliament, on July 19, 1943. It simply asked that certain powers be conferred on the committee, to keep a record of its proceedings, and so forth.


Thomas Vien: The third report was presented last session and the house resolved that it be considered this session. The proper procedure would be that the reports presented last session should now be presented to the house in order to take them out of the last session, and then concurrence moved. Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon. member for Halton shall have leave to amend his motion accordingly, that the second, third, fourth and fifth reports of the special war expenditures committee be now concurred in?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Hughes Cleaver: The committee on war expenditures, as the house will recall, was not set up until July 17 of last year. The committee was immediately convened. We held three meetings of the main committee between the 17th and the 24th of July when the house adjourned'. The committee did not meet in August. Most members

War Expenditures-Mr. Cleaver
had been away from their ridings for many months and required to return to them. The committee, however, reconvened in September and worked continuously through the fall until the middle of November, and it reconvened again a week before the house opened, for the purpose of completing its reports. During this period the main committee and its various subcommittees held ninety-seven meetings at Ottawa in addition to many visits to war plants across Canada.
During the recess our meetings were exceptionally well attended this time, and I think it is only fitting that I should now pay a well-deserved tribute to the members of the committee and to the committee staff for the loyal and efficient way in which they carried on their duties and for the substantial results achieved.
Members of the house will have noticed from our reports that subcommittee No. 1 reported on shipbuilding, both as to cargo and the shipbuilding programme and as to naval vessels. Subcommittees Nos. 2 and 3 were grouped together for the aluminum inquiry. That was an exceptionally heavy inquiry and the committee thought it wise to assign that work jointly to those two subcommittees. Subcommittee No. 4 made the inquiry into the supply of agricultural implements and brought in a report with respect to that subject.
While the committee worked very diligently and lost no time, from the time it was appointed, and worked continuously throughout the fall, much of the work which we should have done has not yet been completed, and we are consequently much pleased that the house has taken notice of our fifth report, which was a recommendation that the committee this year should be set up as promptly as possible on the opening of the session.
Since most of our meetings have been in camera, the work of the committee has received little publicity, and I think it is only fair, only right that I should say that the war expenditures committee, much maligned as it is by some of our daily press, has saved many millions for Canada's war effort. This saving has been effected both directly and indirectly. A reference to the reports will disclose many of the direct savings that have been brought about, but in addition to the direct savings the indirect influence, I am convinced, is quite as important.
I believe it is commonly agreed now that the very fact that a war expenditure committee is sitting and is vigilantly watching government expenditures has a most salutary effect. While no major scandal has occurred in connection with Canada's war effort, and we are all very proud of that fact, yet many
mistakes have been made-honest mistakes. War is wasteful. I will say this, however, that whenever mistakes have been made and whenever waste has occurred the mistakes have been remedied and the waste checked as soon as it was brought to the attention of the minister in question; and in the few instances where actual wrongdoing has occurred the wrongdoers have been punished.
Quite recently one of the Toronto dailies criticized the war expenditures committee for referring, through the minister, to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, criminal charges for investigation and for prosecution if prosecution proved to be justified. I was amazed to read that editorial because, speaking for myself and, I believe, for every member of the house, I do not know of any other way in which a crime, even though connected with the war effort, should be treated than by reference to the R.C.M.P. for investigation and to our criminal courts for punishment if crime actually was committed.
During the last year the committee followed its established practice of holding most of its meetings in camera. We have already had debates in three previous sessions of this house with reference to the practice of holding most of the meetings in camera, and the merits both for and against such meetings have been fully discussed in these debates. In Great Britain, as hon. members know, all meetings of the war expenditures committee are held in camera. In Great Britain also the subcommittees have not even the power to hold any of their meetings otherwise than in camera. In Canada, while the committee has full power to decide itself on the type of meetings to be held, our practice in the main has also been to hold most of our meetings in camera.
As to our subcommittees, we have not tied their hands, and every subcommittee that has been appointed by any war expenditures committee since 1941 has had the fullest power to decide whether its meetings shall be held publicly or in camera. In view of the fact that our Canadian practice as well as the British practice is so well established, I had hoped that there would be no further discussion about the matter. However, in listening to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) in his opening speech this session, I became fully aware of the fact that the point must be argued all over again.
May I call attention to the actual words used by the leader of the opposition. They are quite expressive though perhaps not too dignified, and I just wonder if, when the leader of the opposition uttered those words, he fully appreciated the fact that he was speaking to the British House of Commons in regard to their conduct of war expenditures-

War Expenditures-Mr. Cleaver


Mr. HOMUTH:: They are not running
Canada.


Hughes Cleaver: -and in an equal degree, speaking to our own House of Commons in regard to our own war expenditures.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Oh, nonsense!


Hughes Cleaver: Those are his words.
Mr. GRAYDON-:	There is not quite a
difference, of course!


Hughes Cleaver: The hon. member says, "Nonsense". That is the hon. member's own opinion. If he thinks it is nonsense I am very much encouraged to go on in the same train of thought. These are the words, Hansard, page 26:
It is about time that the lid was blown off these in-camera sessions of the war expenditures committee. It is little short of a national disgrace that the people of Canada should not know something about the investigations of these contracts. I am opposed to the whole system of pulling down the blinds, closing the shutters and locking the doors when public contracts are being investigated.
\ ou will notice that the leader of the opposition has accused the war expenditures' committee of this House of Commons of acting in a manner which constitutes a national disgrace. These words demand a frank answer, and I welcome the opportunity of giving it. I say that no one knows better than the leader of the opposition, the Toronto Globe and Mail and the others who are carrying on this agitation against in-camera sessions of the war expenditures committee, the reasons why they are carrying on that agitation. They know there are good and sufficient reasons for the meetings being held in camera, and I shall be pleased to enumerate them a little later on.
I suggest that this whole campaign, led by the Toronto Globe and Mail, is politically inspired, is harmful to Canada's war morale, and is without any foundation in fact.
We are accused of having something tc hide. That is assigned as the reasons for the in-camera hearings. We have nothing to hide, and what is more, we could not hide it if we wanted to. Every fact brought out in a meeting of the war expenditures committee is brought out with a member or two of the opposition sitting right there and listening to it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And with his mouth sealed.


Hughes Cleaver: Now, while it is true that the meetings are in camera, and while my hon. friend from York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) says, "and with his mouth sealed", I would like to give you an illustration which perhaps
[Mr. Cleaver.J
answers that statement about the mouths being sealed. I say with every confidence that every word of evidence given in any sitting of a war expenditures committee is known within a few hours to the Tory board of strategy.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down.


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


An hon. MEMBER:: A question of privilege.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: A question of privilege. I do not like taking privileges with him because I do not like his brand of politics anyway. But the hon. member has made an insinuation against the Conservative members of these committees, that they have broken confidences. Now the hon. member had better prove his statement or withdraw it. He is not going to get away with that.


Hughes Cleaver: If my hon. friend had just been patient I was proceeding to prove my statement. I am prepared to prove it.


Percy Chapman Black: As a member of the war expenditures committee, I wish to take exception to the statement of the hon. member for Halton. I was opposed to these in camera sittings, but the majority of the members of the committee decided on in camera sittings, and I complied with their request. And no one, not even m3' colleagues, my associates in this house, has had access to the evidence as far as I am concerned, and no one outside the house has had access to it. I ask the hon. member to withdraw his accusation.


George Russell Boucher: I, too, rise to a point of privilege.


Thomas Vien: Is it the same point of
privilege?


George Russell Boucher: Yes. But I might base it on different facts. As a member of the war expenditures committee of last year I sat under similar circumstances when the committee was sitting in camera. I made the request that copies of the evidence taken from day to day bo handed to hon. members, and that was declined. As a member of the committee I call it an infringement of mj- honour as a citizen of Canada to have it inferred that I, sitting in camera, would break a confidence and bring to a board of strategy of any party or even to my colleagues in the House of Commons anything that I am in honour bound to keep within the precincts of my own conscience. I do ask the hon. member for Halton immediately to retract the accusation he has made.


Hughes Cleaver: I am obliged to the hon. member who has just taken his seat for joining the procession, but I would remind him of this one thing-

War Expenditures-Mr. Cleaver


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
question of privilege. I ask the hon. member to withdraw without any qualifications whatever the statement he made. I ask it as my right as a member; not that it matters much, as far as his mentality is concerned.


Thomas Vien: I was not im the chair, and did not hear the statement. I would be glad to know what the statement was.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In effect,
he said, Mr. Speaker, that members of the committee-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If I can
inform Mr. Speaker of what took place-and I do not want any pack of wolves over there howling at me-may I direct to Your Honour's attention the allegation to which exception has been taken. It was to this effect: the hon. member for Halton has stated in express terms that all the evidence or most of the evidence taken before these committee meetings held in camera had been communicated by the members of the committee from this party to the board of strategy of the Tory party.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
what he said.


Hughes Cleaver: If I may be permitted-I have the exact text of what I said and the proof of what I said. The hon. member for Carleton was one member who sat on our committee, and eventually the information reached the public accounts committee, and he was very active in prosecuting it.


Thomas Vien: Will you give me an idea what the statement was?


Hughes Cleaver: Every fact brought out at war expenditures meetings can be known to the Tory board of strategy, and they are quick to take advantage of anything which they think should be publicized'; and I am prepared to prove right now that they did take advantage-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. The hon. member did not use those words. The hon. member made the statement that there were members of the opposition on those committees and that everything that was done at those committees was known within a few hours to the Tory board of strategy; and I want him to withdraw those insinuations. If he says those are not the words, let us read Hansard back.


Thomas Vien: I suggest that the hon. member continue his speech. I shall see what Hansard has stated and I shall deal with it later.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I do not like to object to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but at the same time the hon. member did make his statement in very clear words. I think Hansard should read them, and I think they should be withdrawn at once.


Thomas Vien: If I see the statement as it was given I shall be in a position then to say whether or not the statement was made as stated, but until I get the report of the exact word I cannot do so.


Hughes Cleaver: With your permission, and so that there shall not be another fifteen-minute interruption-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Do not
cast any more slurs.


Hughes Cleaver: -I should like to ask for the privilege of reading the next page or page and a half of my text.
Just a little over a year ago, subcommittee No. 1, when making an inspection at an aircraft plant in Montreal, unearthed an expenditure made by the company which the company obviously planned over the years to charge to excess profits, and wrongly so. The hon. member for Carleton was present at that meeting. The matter was referred to the commissioner of taxation and was caught in time to prevent loss to the treasury. The Conservative members of the subcommittee did not appreciate the fact that the matter was caught in time. The officials in question were by them called before the public accounts inquiry, and while our Conservative friends did not achieve the political advantage which they had hoped for out of the incident, yet it did serve this useful purpose: it proved beyond any doubt that evidence given before the committee, even though in camera, cannot be hidden, and that if anything occurs in the way of evidence of a questionable nature it can be and it has been brought before the public accounts committee.


George Russell Boucher: Again I rise to a point of privilege. The hon. member for Halton has stated what the Conservative members hoped for, which is far beyond his mental capacity to state, and I ask that he immediately withdraw it.


Hughes Cleaver: The very fact that our hearings are held in camera and that the witnesses are not subjected to trial by press and press headlines leads to the greatest possible frankness and greatly assists the committee in pursuing its work. From the incident I have just related I can assure hon. members that if any evidence comes out in the war expenditures committee that is of

War Expenditures-Mr. Cleaver
particular interest, there is not the slightest danger of its being hidden. In the light of past experience we have nothing to fear from bashful reticence on the part of the opposition if anything comes up which they think will advance their political fortunes.
With apologies to the house I should like to outline briefly why the British war expenditures committee as well as our own committee have found that better work is done when the meetings are held in camera. In the first place there is much information brought out which, if disclosed, would give either aid or comfort to the enemy, and at the time you are taking evidence in regard to war contracts you never know when a witness is going to blurt out something which would have that result. In the second place we have found that witnesses, when giving evidence as to contentious matters or matters where honest mistakes have occurred, become very reticent and practically "freeze up" if the meetings are open to the public. They know in advance that the meeting is going to be in camera and that they are not going to be subjected to trial by the press, so they frankly tell the story. Some people may question that; some may say the witnesses should have more courage, and so on. However, we must face up to the fact that this state of affairs does exist; and if we want to do a thorough job as a war expenditures committee; if we want to acquire all the evidence we need as to contentious matters or matters in which mistakes have been made, we simply must hold our meetings in camera. In the third place-and this reason applies to all members of the house-in public meetings hon. members are prone to make speeches. When we are engaged in serious, hard work as a committee the same progress is not made if hon. members are making speeches in order to get in the headlines.
For these reasons we believe we achieve better results by having our meetings in camera. We know we get no publicity; we get nothing but hard work and results.


An hon. MEMBER:: And abuse.


Hughes Cleaver: Speaking of abuse, when we made that decision some three years ago we had two choices before us. We had to choose between doing a good job, knowing in advance that we would be criticized, or doing a mediocre job and escaping criticism. The great majority of the members of that committee, and they were not all Liberals, chose the hard road but the right road.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: And everyone else was wrong.


Hughes Cleaver: Well, I have not the confidence that my hon. friend has, but he has a right to his opinion. Just here I should like to remind hon. members once more why the war expenditures committee was set up in the first place. It was distinctly understood by all parties in this house that the committee was not to be a propaganda committee or a scandal-hunting committee, but that its sole duty would be to search for economies in order to help Canada's war effort.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: There is one question I should like to ask the hon. member who has been on the committee for a long time and has acted as chairman for the last two years. Has that committee as it is now constituted any power to report such wrongdoing as may come to its notice to the membership of the House of Commons?


Hughes Cleaver: Well, my hon. friend can read the order of reference as well as I can, but on several occasions I have heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) indicate that if the war expenditures committee found any wrongdoing we were at liberty, and it was our duty, to report the matter either to the House of Commons or to the public accounts committee. Last year we were given the further right to make confidential reports to the Prime Minister if any wrongdoing should be discovered which in the public interest should not be disclosed.


John George Diefenbaker: Has there been any change in the powers of the committee since it
was first set up?


Hughes Cleaver: I trust, Mr. Speaker, that this time will not be charged against me, but I believe I can find the reference for my hon. friend. The only change of which I am aware was the change requested in the report tabled on July 19, 1943, paragraph 5 of which reads as follows:
In cases where consideration of national security precludes the publishing of certain recommendations and of the arguments upon which they are based, to address a memorandum to the Prime Minister for the consideration of the war cabinet, providing that the committee shall, whenever it has exercised such powers, report the fact as soon as possible to the house.
As I understand the British practice, it is this. If any matter arises which for reasons of security should not be tabled as a house report, a confidential report is made to the Prime Minister for consideration by the war cabinet. The war expenditures committee must notify the house, however, that it has made such confidential report, though not indicating the contents of it. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that in requesting this additional

War Expenditures-Mr. Cleaver
power the committee adopted exactly the wording that is contained in the reference to the British war expenditures committee.
When the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) asked this question I was about to say that another reason for setting up the committee on war expenditures was to permit private members of the House of Commons actively to take part in Canada's war effort, and to make a contribution to that effort. If hon. members will be good enough to read the debate which took place in the spring of 1941 I think they will find the answers to most of the charges-in my opinion unfair charges, though other hon. members may not agree with me-which are now being levelled by some of the daily newspapers and some members of the opposition with respect to the functioning of the war expenditures committee. I would suggest to my hon. friends of the opposition that if they want the lid blown off, as their leader mentioned the other day, or if they want fireworks, there is another committee to which they should go rather than the war expenditures committee. It is quite true that the fear of losing the war has passed, and that we can confidently look forward to final victory. But I suggest to yourself, Mr. Speaker, and to the house, that the 'need for economy in the war effort is just as great as it ever was, and that if there are any members who must indulge in fireworks, and who must regale themselves with charges about $400 rugs, which never did exist, and with other pieces of fiction, they can satisfy this desire for public stunting before the public accounts committee.
But why harm the war expenditures committee, a serious-minded committee which was set up for the express purpose of saving money in this country's war effort? Why attempt to hamper them in their work by putting on a demonstration of that kind?
Just to-day the Toronto Globe and Mail published a very misleading editorial in which they soundly criticize the committee upon its shipbuilding report. I should like to take the time of the house for a moment to refer briefly to our shipbuilding report. Late in 1940 Great Britain, on account of the submarine menace, needed cargo vessels very badly. Representatives from the British government came to this country and surveyed the possibility of building cargo vessels in Canada. For fifteen years prior to the war no steel cargo vessel had been built in this country, and we had little in the way of shipbuilding facilities.
As a result of that survey the British representatives found three firms in Canada with possibilities. Prices were negotiated with
those firms. The final agreement was that $1,859,000 was to be spent for cargo vessels to be built on the Pacific coast, and $1,784,000 for cargo vessels to be built in the St. Lawrence. The shipping problem became progressively worse, and in April, 1941, an order in council was passed authorizing the incorporation of Wartime Merchant Shipping Limited. Canada then branched out on an aggressive policy of cargo shipbuilding. We had only three suitable yards. The industry was expanded to the greatest possible extent; new yards were built, and contracts were awarded to eleven shipyards in Canada. The prices in these yards were agreed upon as the prices which had been negotiated by the British representatives. The result was that by the end of 1943 Canada had built and delivered 232 cargo vessels, in addition to something over 400 naval ships.
In September, 1943, Sir Oliver Lyttelton, British Minister of Production, told a press conference that Canada was launching ships, exclusive of the larger types of war ships, to an extent equal to the volume of launchings by Great Britain. Ships were urgently needed. We had little in the way of shipbuilding facilities; we had little in the way of trained personnel, but we did produce the ships.
What about the cost? Some of the daily press and some of our hon. friends in the opposition are commencing entirely to forget the emergency, and to criticize the costs? Well, what about those costs? All of the original contracts were negotiated and signed at the price which had been arranged by the British delegation. That is the first item on cost,


Mr. McGREGOR:: Was that carried out at the price the hon. member mentioned a fow moments ago, both on the Pacific coast and on the St. Lawrence?


Hughes Cleaver: The answer is yes. I will not get into an argument with my hon. friend.


Robert Henry McGregor: You bet you will not- but you will.


Hughes Cleaver: The answer is yes.


Robert Henry McGregor: You will I


Hughes Cleaver: These prices proved to be much too generous. Canadian shipbuilding firms and Canadian workmen apparently were more efficient and better producers than the British thought they could be. In the fall of 1942 subcommittee No. 1 visited a number of the shipbuilding yards, and checked production and production costs in those yards. We found that, in our opinion, their profits were too substantial.

War Expenditures-Mr. Cleaver
Your committee on war expenditures made an interim report in that regard. I now read from page 94 of the minutes of proceedings of the committee on war expenditures. This is dated January 27, 1943, and dealing with 1942 states the following with respect to shipbuilding :
The subcommittee has heard the evidence of departmental officials and has visited many of the shipbuilding yards engaged in the construction of naval as well as cargo ships hut has not completed its inquiry into this subject and consequently makes no general report at this time with respect to it.
Then follow the recommendations, and we did make a recommendation in a general way in regard to profits. Paragraph 3 at page 95 in the same report states:
As a result of its investigations to date the subcommittee makes the following recommendations. . . .
3. That as soon as company financial statements are available for the year 1942 a special study should be made of profits, accelerated depreciation and corporate taxation. The question of excess profits and accelerated depreciation has caused the subcommittee considerable concern.
That does not sound as if the committee is pulling its punches, as the Globe and Mail suggests. The recommendation goes on to say:
Very substantial profits are being earned in some instances far in excess of normal profits. . . .
Some months afterward-


George Russell Boucher: Would the minister continue reading that recommendation?


Mr.   OLEAYER@: My hon. friend may read the entire report, running into many pages, if he wishes to do so. I have read the part I require for the purpose of making my point. If my hon. friend wishes to add anything, he is within his rights in doing so.
Profits made by these companies were too high, and subsequently all the shipbuilding contracts with respect to cargo vessels were renegotiated. They were renegotiated back to the date of the first cargo vessel built in Canada, and at a saving of between $30,000,000 and $40,000,000 on the ships already built.


Percy Chapman Black: I think the hon. member will agree we were not furnished with a full statement of accelerated depreciation with respect to cargo ships, at the time of our inquiry during the last year.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member has been interrupted considerably. If any questions are to be asked, his consent is necessary.


Hughes Cleaver: Subcommittee No. 1 completed its investigation into the shipbuilding programme, and tabled its report on the 26th of last month. I refer hon. members to that report and ask them to read all of it. It is not long, and I should like to read into the record one paragraph with respect to cost to show that we did bring to the attention of the public in the fullest possible way exactly what had happened. I read from page 140 of the committee's minutes of proceedings as follows:
The original contracts for cargo ships were for a fixed price but when it was found that a ship could be built cheaper than anticipated renegotiation of contracts was undertaken. At the time renegotiation commenced about eighty ships had been delivered and about forty-five more were in various stages of construction. A flat fee of $50,900 for each North Sands ship was agreed upon and as to shipbuilding firms performing additional services, certain additional allowances were negotiated. This, it was reported to your committee, resulted in a reduction of approximately $300,000 per ship. These renegotiated contracts wen; made retroactive and were effective back to the date of the first ship, with a resulting reduction in cost of between thirty and forty million dollars.
It is all very *well for my hon. friends of the opposition to say now that we wrere too generous in the prices allowed for these ships, but I would remind them that we had not yards, that we had not constructed a steel cargo vessel in the fifteen years prior to the outbreak of the war. We knew nothing of what it would cost to build these ships, but we did know one thing-we needed ships. What did this government do? Mr. H. R. MacMillan was appointed the head of the shipping company, and I challenge hon. members to give the name of any other man who would have done a better job of heading up this merchant shipbuilding company. He was an aggressive man, and he carried his aggressiveness and his insistence that we have ships almost to the point of ruthlessness. But we got the ships.
There are other points I should like to cover which -were referred to inferentially in the editorial in the Globe and Mail. The suggestion was made in that editorial that we were trying to conceal facts, that we had not produced evidence in regard to the cost of some naval vessel and that we had not produced comparative costs as between the government-owned yard and a privately owned shipyard. I take it that the editorial refers to two motions moved by the hon. member for York East (Mr. McGregor) in the subcommittee. They were negatived and I am told that only the hon. member voted for them. They were then brought before the
FEBRUARY 21, 1944	[DOT]
War Expenditures-Mr. Cleaver
main committee. The first motion appears on page 17 of the minutes of proceedings of the committee, and I quote:
Hr. McGregor moved in amendment to the report that schedules submitted as part of the evidence and relating to figures quoted in the report (para, (e) "cost") at the bottom of page 8, be incorporated in the report.
That motion was defeated by the committee. I am told that those figures were given to the *committee in confidence. Many times the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) has indicated to this house that it is not in the public interest to disclose contract prices with respect to ships. In order to leave the correct impression you must give considerable qualifying material because no two yards do the same amount of work on a ship and without the qualifying material a correct impression *cannot be given. My first reason as to why the motion was defeated would be that the figures were given to us in confidence. The next objection to releasing the figures was that they had been compiled by company auditors and were not subject to an independent audit. We had no assurance that the two sets of figures were properly comparable because *different firms of auditors have different ' methods of setting up head office costs, [DOT]weighting overhead and the like. That was the second reason why the motion was defeated. I might state also that the hon. member's confrere on the subcommittee did not support his motion. The next amendment moved bv the hon. member reads:
Mr. McGregor moved that paragraph 2 on page 13, entitled "Tribal class destroyer" be amended by adding further information including cost of construction in Canada as compared with cost in other countries.
This government has never to my knowledge given comparative costs in the countries of any of our allies, and certainly no war expenditures committee should hand out such costs even though they had them. Another objection to complying with that motion, which was defeated, was that Canada had not yet delivered one destroyer of the Tribal class. We had no costs of construction; all we had were estimates. There is another factor to be considered. It is most unfair to hand out costs of constructing the first ship or the first plane or the first intricate article of any description. Members of the house know that the first Hurricane plane built in Canada cost four times what the last one built in Canada did.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member's time
has expired.


Major James William Coldwell: Go ahead and finish.


Thomas Vien: Only with unanimous consent.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Thomas Vien: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: Are the figures
given by the hon. member with regard to aircraft correct, that is, that the last aircraft cost one-quarter what the first one did?


Hughes Cleaver: That is common knowledge. I have seen a return tabled in this
house.


John George Diefenbaker: I have not seen anything like that.


Hughes Cleaver: I will say that it is substantially correct. I do not think I should give the house the actual figures, but I do say that the statement I have made that the first plane cost four times as much as the last one is correct within the matter of a few hundred dollars.


John George Diefenbaker: Did the committee have evidence on that?


Hughes Cleaver: No, that evidence was not before the committee.
I should like to conclude with just one thought. The work on the war expenditures committee was interesting, but it was hard. Members of the committee spent two or three or four months of their time between two long sessions and they made real personal sacrifices. I would hope that in this debate on the setting up of the committee we might lose perhaps a little of the spirit of the arena and retain more of the spirit of the workshop. With practically no exception every member of the committee cooperated to the fullest extent. I never asked any member of the committee, be he Conservative, Social Credit or Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, to perform a task which was not willingly and efficiently performed. I would ask hon. members, especially those who were not on the committee, to keep before them the reasons why the committee was set up. It was not a propaganda committee and it was never intended to be such. It was not a scandalhunting committee. Our sole job was to look for economies and try to save money in carrying out this country's war effort.


Thomas Vien: I have received a transcript of the statement made by the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Cleaver). It is as follows:
Now, while it is true that the meetings are in camera, and while my hon. friend from Yorlc-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) says, "and with his mouth sealed", I would like to give you an

War Expenditures-Mr. Cleaver
illustration which perhaps answers that statement about the mouths being sealed. I say with every confidence that every word of evidence given in any sitting of a war expenditures committee is known within a few hours to the Tory board of strategy.
The hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth) and the hon. member for Carle ton (Mr. Boucher) have denied that, as members of the committee. It seems to me an imputation against the honour of these gentlemen w'hieh I must ask the hon. member to withdraw7.


Hughes Cleaver: Mr. Speaker, in so far as it may be construed as any imputation against any hon. member I unreservedly withdraw that statement. But I would like to state-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Mr. Speaker, his withdrawal should be without any qualification whatsoever.


Hughes Cleaver: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I am unduly encroaching on the time of the house. I would like to state that the reason I made the statement was-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: No. Mr. Speaker. All he has to do is withdraw what he said.


Thomas Vien: I think the hon. gentleman should be allowed to finish his sentence.


Hughes Cleaver: The only reason I made the reference I did was to assure the public of Canada that notwithstanding the fact that these meetings are in camera, if any wrongdoing is discovered it will be brought to light.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I ask the hon. member to withdraw that last statement. He is imputing something against the honour of the members of that committee, and I ask him to withdraw.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member in the first instance made his withdrawal, and so far is any hon. member of the house is concerned, he withdrew his statement absolutely. I do not see any imputation in the latter part of his statement.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, for reasons that I shall give I want to oppose concurrence in the report of the war expenditures committee now before the house. I do this because the conclusions, at least in the matter of my criticisms of the aluminum agreements, are borne out neither by the evidence itself nor by the body of the

report submitted to this house. The subcommittee dealing with the Aluminum Company of Canada finds that none of the allegations I made in this house is substantiated by the facts. I will endeavour to show, and I believe I can show, on the contrary, that the main allegations not only were substantiated by evidence placed before the subcommittee but are in fact in the main confirmed by the report itself.
To the extent that I erred, I erred in important respects in understating the case. Only in one particular would I modify what I said about the agreements last session, and that is when I said that the labour conditions in the plant were both scandalous and inhuman. What I would say now, after having seen the conditions in the plant, is that the labour relations of the corporation have been and are bad.
My allegations fall under several main headings. First, I stated that the aluminum group had, and continues to have, a monopoly in the production of this important metal in Canada. The New Oxford dictionary defines "monopoly" as "the exclusive possession of the trade in some commodity." Now for forty years the aluminum group has been the sole producer of raw aluminum in Canada, and it has had the exclusive possession of the trade in this commodity. There is no question then that my allegation, that the Aluminum Company of Canada was and is a monopoly, is proven conclusively.
The report takes refuge in the hope that there might be future competition in this metal in Canada. This is as improbable as it is irrelevant. The fact is that there is a monopoly and we ignore it at our peril. Yet the report says that none of my allegations is substantiated.
As to future competition, the huge tax and other concessions given the company during this period of war have enabled it to tighten its strangle-hold upon this vital metal. It has acquired, as the report clearly shows, vastly expanded modern plant and equipment, alt fully paid for out of war production, and a power plant three-fifths paid for to enable it to produce the cheapest electrical power in North America. The report tries to minimize these advantages by suggesting future competition from plastics or from secondary aluminum. As to plastics, they will probably enter many fields; but without a knowledge of comparative costs and relative uses no intelligent appraisal can be made, and neither the evidence nor the report attempts any such appraisal.
As to the competition from secondary aluminum, raw aluminum must be made before scrap aluminum is possible. There is no second-

War Expenditures-Mr. Coldwell
ary aluminum industry in Canada, and if they were, scrap aluminum, I am advised, could be used only for low-grade castings. It is therefore not a competitor with the virgin metal.
I said that restrictive clauses were included in the power contracts. The report confirms this, but explains that they had never been used. The fact is that they were there, and this, in my opinion, was a sufficient deterrent to any possible competitor, particularly in the earlier years of the company's history and development.
In the Shawinigan power contract, to which I specifically referred, the clause remained until December, 1943, after the subcommittee had adjourned; yet the report concludes that none of my allegations was substantiated.
I said last session that our minister at Washington had been counsel for the Aluminum Company of Canada up to the time the agreements between the governments and the company were made. That was admitted in this house. I said, too, that he was still vicepresident and director of the parent company, Aluminium Limited. This was confirmed last session; yet the report declares that none of my allegations is substantiated.
I said, too, that the aluminum group had paid many millions for the water rights which had been alienated in the province of Quebec twenty-six years before for $40,000. The evidence and the report confirm it; yet the report states that none of my allegations is substantiated.
I said that Aluminium Limited, the parent or holding company, was an important member of an international cartel, the organization of which was arranged in Canada. I said that this cartel was formed to establish a production quota and to fix buying prices. This was amply confirmed by the evidence. I stated that Aluminium Limited was set up in 1928 and that the Aluminum Company of America transferred to the new Canadian company all its foreign holdings. I alleged that the share capital of the new company was distributed to the shareholders of the Aluminum Company of America as stock dividends. That was admitted in the evidence, which also shows that in 1939, the latest year for which We have records, the officers and directors and their immediate families, together with the important Mellon interests, held fifty-six per cent of the share capital of the United States company and over fifty-one per cent of the share capital of Aluminium Limited, the owner of the Aluminum Company of Canada. The president and five of the six directors are United States citizens; yet the report says that none of my allegations is substantiated.
As to the cartel itself, the Alliance Aluminum Company of Basle, Switzerland, the report now before this house confirms everything I said about it. Let the report now before the house speak for itself in this regard. This is what it says:
An agreement was entered into to limit the production of the members of the group.
The group which form Alliance Limited, the cartel.
In addition, an agreement was reached as to the price at which the group would purchase aluminum from its members; Aluminium Limited Subscribed approximately 28 per cent of the total stock. The other members were the aluminum producers of Great Britain, Germany, France, Italy and Switzerland.
Later, the report mow before the house adds that the Alliance corporation, the cartel, is still in existence. Aluminium Limited carries its shares in the cartel on its own books at the present time as an asset. The German nazi-controlled interest is still there and its shares are apparently unaffected. The report says, and the evidence amply confirms the statement, that this cartel set a world-buying price; yet the report draws the remarkable conclusion that prices were unaffected by this cartel and declares again that none of my allegations, including my charge that Aluminium Limited was a partner in a world cartel, was substantiated.
To-day at noon in the city of Toronto, speaking before the Canadian club, the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Turgeon) said this:
International cartels which control markets and rob the people of legitimate benefits of inventions must be ruthlessly destroved by government.
The same afternoon we are asked to concur in a report which attempts to whitewash one of the largest cartels in the world. Now, whatever miracles of production the aluminum group has accomplished, with united nations funds, since 1940, my statement that they jeopardized the war efforts of the united nations still stands. They restricted production before the war while Germany's domestic production greatly expanded. Under a cartel agreement the Aluminum Company of Canada supplied Japan with large quantities of metal, enabling her to destroy Chinese cities. In 1940 and 1941 our nations gathered aluminum pots and pans while our Chinese allies and our own kin paid with their blood the price of the cartel agreements. High prices and scarcity quotas are the ways of these irresponsible privately-owned cartels. They are above governments; they are above human suffering, and they conclude private treaties for their own advancement among their own members; and the Aluminum Company of Canada,

War Expenditures-Mr. Coldwell
through its parent company, Aluminium Limited, and the aluminum interests of nazi Germany are, as I said, at this moment fellow-members of the aluminum cartel. The report says so, and then, extraordinarily enough, goes on to declare that none of my allegations is substantiated.
Next, I said that the price of aluminum to the united nations is exorbitant and completely out of line with production costs. I alleged that in 1937 the cost was at least as low as 8-943 cents a pound. The report confirms this figure. The Price Waterhouse figures establish the cost in 1939 at 8-31 cents a pound. This was a figure which, I cannot understand quite why, was omitted from the report; and may I say that that figure is higher than one would have expected with the greatly increased output of the new and more modern facilities. But of course we had to accept Price Waterhouse figures throughout, in the absence of any other auditor. Let us remember that Price Waterho-use, an internationally famous auditing firm, has been declared guilty of gross negligence by a United States commission in connection with the auditing of the financial operations of another internationally known firm. I do not propose to elaborate this; but I have the data, the official report of the securities exchange commission, Washington, under my hand. I was not aware of this until recently, or I would have been still more insistent that the committee in its deliberations engage independent auditing advice. Be that as it may, the cost of producing aluminum at Arvida in 1939 was, according to Price Waterhouse, 8-31 cents a pound. The evidence shows that Great Britain that year paid twenty cents a pound for it. There were no advertising or selling costs to be added, so that the profit in that year was apparently 140 per cent of the cost price. Yet my allegation that prices were exorbitant is included among those declared to be entirely without foundation.
In the war contracts the company was protected against increases in costs by an escalator clause whereby the price rose in proportion to increased costs of transportation, labour and so on. In 1942, according to the auditors, the cost had risen to 11-56 cents a pound, with, as I said before, a vastly increased output of aluminum. The selling price that year was 21 cents a pound, a mark-up of 9-44 cents a pound.


Mr. HOWE:: Is my hon. friend quoting the findings of the committee?


Major James William Coldwell: I am quoting the findings of the committee.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I must say I do not know what the findings of the committee were, but I know that the cost of bauxite delivered at Arvida was about 8 cents, to begin with.


Major James William Coldwell: I am talking of the costs which were given by Price Waterhouse and the witneses. The mark-up included 5-44 cents a pound special depreciation. The government allows this sum to be set aside from the profits to create the new facilities. Thus the company is given under the contracts, whether deliveries of aluminum are made or not-the cancellation clause in it- $164,000,000.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Who gives them that?


Major James William Coldwell: Just a moment. The minister will hear what I say about it in a moment. This, as I say, is profit; for it would have been taxable but for the order in council of December 31, 1942. Indeed, if it were not profit there could be no special depreciation. Yet, in spite of what I have called this great gift, through the rebate of taxation, of $164,000,000, and not $154,000,000 as I had stated last session, the report again declares that none of my allegations is substantiated.
Let us remember that in June, 1939, this house passed the Defence Purchases, Profits Control and Financing Act. True, certain manufacturers would have none of it and it has long since been repealed by order in council, but this house sought to limit war profits to five per cent of the capital employed. The capital employed in 1939 by the Aluminum Company of Canada was given in evidence as $26,000,000, and on that basis that year its net earnings would be fifty-seven per cent on the capital employed. It was given in evidence that in 1942, excluding profits rebated as special depreciation, these net profits amounted to 21-9 per cent of cost. This is enormous on an output of some
300,000	metric tons. Yet again it said in the report that none of my allegations is substantiated.
In the same break-down of ingot costs, given in the report for 1942 placed before the committee, the cost before interest and taxes, but including special depreciation, which, as I have stated, must be derived from additional profit, was given as 17 cents a pound. The average price to the United Kingdom was given as 21-01 cents a pound. The profit on the United Kingdom contracts before taxes, not already rebated under special depreciation clause, was 3-75 cents a pound. However, the profit on the United Kingdom contract

War Expenditures-Mr. Coldwell
was 2-75 cents a pound or sixteen per cent, after all taxes were paid and the special depreciation allowed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Are these Price Waterhouse figures?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, the figure I have used was given by Price Waterhouse.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is not your interpretation of them?


Major James William Coldwell: No, I am taking these figures directly from the break-down which will be found as part of the committee's report, on page 112. On this basis the public pays for the plant extensions during the war-
, An hon. MEMBER: What public?


Major James William Coldwell: The public engaged in the war against the fascist and nazi aggressors and the Japanese imperialists; that is the public who pay for it. The public grant rebates, special depreciation and allow for income and all other taxes, and then the company makes for its owners a further profit of nearly sixteen per cent, or, to be exact, 15-93 per cent of the ingot cost. Even the attempt of witnesses to minimize the extent of the profits still showed an enormous return to the owners of the Aluminum Company of Canada; that is to its owner, the Aluminium Limited; yet the committee declares that none of my allegations is substantiated.
The prospectus of the company, placed in evidence and available to any member of the committee who wishes to obtain a copy, states that at the end of the war the company's new plant facilities will have no funded debt; all extensions will be paid for during the war, whether the governments take the amount of aluminum contracted for or not, and this was confirmed in the evidence and is confirmed by the report. I said last session that the company took no financial risk in regard to these new facilities. The evidence confirms this; yet the report charges that none of my allegations is substantiated.
In the report much is made of the cost of carrying Shipshaw and the Arvida facilities by the company, should we encounter a post-war depression, which I submit the committee report implies will be inevitable. But the company's own prospectus, placed in evidence, has this to say:
Facilities being brought into production are financed partly out of earnings and partly out of the aid of various allied governments on the principle that such facilities should be substantially self-liquidating in the period of the war.
Later, the prospectus adds these words:
Many unprejudiced authorities also believe that the age of light metals is just beginning. If it is not, we will have unneeded facilities which we can either demolish without loss or hold for eventualities, and a business of prewar dimensions -which alw-ays managed to earn a profit for its shareholders.
That is the opinion of the company itself. In other words, it is a case of "heads we win, tails you lose". The chairman of the war contracts depreciation board told us that there tvas veiy likely to be a post-war value in connection with Shipshaw as a power project, altogether aside from the production of aluminum. Yet the report, in order to defend the vast concessions made to the company, tries to. say that they may have little or no value, and upon that assumption declares that another of my allegations is not substantiated.
As to Shipshaw, this power development was planned as long ago as 1925, when aluminum production was neither as important nor as voluminous as in recent years, particularly during this war period.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Where is the evidence of that? Was that before the committee?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, that was given in
evidence; I was just going to say that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then you are referring to the evidence which was given before the committee.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, I am.


Gordon Graydon: Can you do that?


Richard Burpee Hanson: If the hon. member can do it, everybody can.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This was a private discussion between members of the committee. I do not know about it, and no one in the house other than members of the committee knows about it.


Major James William Coldwell: I think the minister should know; and may I just say this to the house-


Thomas Vien: I would ask hon. members to address the Chair. I cannot hear what is being said when there is a general discussion going on.
Mr. COLDW'ELL: I submit that I have used the figures and the evidence given to the committee and quoted in the report before the house. I have also, in a very few particulars, referred to the evidence which was given in the committee. That evidence was given not in secret but in camera, and there is a very well defined rule that evidence given in

War Expenditures-Mr. Coldwell
camera is not given in secret, that a member has to be guided by his own conscience as to what he will subsequently divulge. I want that to be clearly understood, because that is the difference between secrecy and in camera.


Hughes Cleaver: Mr. Speaker, I would ask for a ruling of the Chair on that point. I recall that a year ago, and, I believe, prior to that, objection was taken to this being done, and I would ask for a ruling on the matter of evidence given in that committee being quoted in the house. As I recall them, the previous rulings were that the only evidence taken in camera which could be used in debate in this house was evidence which the committee had released and incorporated in its report. To the extent that the hon. member has referred to evidence released in the report, I would say he is quite within the rules; but in quoting from evidence taken in camera which has not been released by the committee, I submit he has gone beyond the rules.
Mr. HOWE*: I do not think anyone in this house objects to the evidence being taken in camera, for reasons which I think are sound, but once all the evidence is in I see no great objection to discussing the evidence as a whole. However, I do think every hon. member should know what the evidence is.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Mr.   IIOWE@: My hon. friend is telling me of evidence given before the committee which seems to be incredible. That evidence may have been given; I have no way of knowing whether it was or was not. I can hardly credit it, but nevertheless I do think that if hon. members are to rise in their places in this house and quote evidence given to the committee, we should have an opportunity of checking that evidence.


Gordon Graydon: You think it should be tabled, in other words?	[DOT]


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, I think so; and I would suggest to the chairman of the committee that he move to have the evidence in this particular case tabled in the house.


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have before me an amendment in the words which the minister has just used, that this evidence be tabled; and had I not given way to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), by this time that amendment would have been before the house.


Major James William Coldwell: May I speak to the point of order?


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister has washed that out pretty well.
[Mt. Coldwell. 1


Major James William Coldwell: Oh, no, not yet. I am giving my understanding of the committee's work, and the evidence which was received.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think every man should
have a chance. The hon:. member has said he was quoting evidence; now he says he is giving his understanding of it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Which is
quite different.


Major James William Coldwell: May I say this, that we have a report before the house which is based on evidence taken before the committee. Am I to have my lips sealed, when the whole of that inquiry was directed against statements I made in the house? No, sir; I contend I have a perfect right to refer to this evidence as the committee in its report has done. I have referred to nothing that in any way will interfere with the security of Canada, nor have I referred to anything which would be of benefit to any enemy of our country or to any competitor of this company. I contend, as I am discussing a report based on certain evidence, that my lips cannot be sealed in this house in regard to evidence of the description to which I have been referring.


Hughes Cleaver: If the hon. member is
through with his remarks in regard to the point of order, I as chairman of the subcommittee should like to speak to it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon.
member has already spoken to it.


Hughes Cleaver: The point of order is
raised by the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe).


Richard Burpee Hanson: He did
not raise a point of order.


Hughes Cleaver: He suggested that the
evidence taken in camera before the war expenditures committee should now be tabled. In the first place I suggest that every hon. member of the house knew, by notice on the order paper, that this report would be under debate, and I suggest that proper notice should have been given to the house, and that the house cannot entertain the motion as suggested by the Minister of Munitions and Supply, without proper notice.


Gordon Graydon: He did not make a
motion; he just made a suggestion.


Hughes Cleaver: I call to the attention of the minister one thing, that this evidence was taken before the war expenditures committee, and was given by the witnesses on the understanding that the evidence was being taken in camera.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But not in secret.

War Expenditures-Mr. Coldwell


Hughes Cleaver: And as chairman of the
committee I cannot take the responsibility for saying that I will waive any in camera ruling, or waive the protection which we had. It should be dealt with by the house only, and only the house can deal with it. And it should not be dealt with, except by notice.


Thomas Vien: When the hon. member
for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) was speaking, I was debating in my mind the position with respect to the remarks he was making concerning the evidence. I was deliberating whether I should call his attention to the fact that the evidence of the committee has not been tabled in the house. Therefore, when reference is made to evidence it should be made only in the proper way, namely, by a specific reference to that evidence-which, in this instance, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar could not do, because the evidence is not tabled.
The other question I was deliberating was as to the references he made respecting his information as to things which happened in the committee. That appeared to me to be relevant, but I would say that the hon. member cannot refer particularly to any particular item where evidence has been given in camera, with the distinction the hon. member has placed upon it. Yet the fact is that it was taken in camera, as suggested by the hon. member for Halton, simply because they could not get the evidence unless it was given in camera. Therefore consideration should be given to that.
But as I listened to the hon. member I was convinced he had transgressed paragraph 568 in the third edition of Beauchesne's "Parliamentary Rules and Forms", where it states:
Until the report and evidence have been laid upon the table, it is irregular to refer to them in debate, or to put questions in reference to the proceedings of the committee.
Then it points out in paragraph 569:
That when the evidence is before the house it may be debated at length, but members will not be permitted to discuss the conduct or language of members of the committee, except so far as it appears on the record.
My conclusion, therefore, is that as long as the hon. member is referring in general terms to his interpretation of the evidence given in committee, he is entitled to do so. But he is mot entitled to discuss the evidence seriatim and in detail, as it was given before the committee, for the reason that it is not before the house.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I shall abide by your ruling, as I invariably do, and I shall refrain from referring specifically to the [DOT]evidence. But may I say this, that the few 100-45
pieces of evidence to which I have referred are not included in the report now before the house, and have been very carefully documented from public records. I know the pages from which every statement I have made comes, and each one of them can be documented and corroborated.
But I was going to say that in 1925-and this is a matter also of public record1-the engineer employed by the company at that time, when transmission was far less efficient than now, said that power could be shipped to eastern Ontario and the United States economically from the Shipshaw falls. And Mr. Morris P. Davidson, the commissioner of the New York state power authority confirmed this with me in conversation that I had with him as lately as January 15 of this year, namely, that longdistance transmission of cheap power is economically feasible, as proven in our own country, so I am advised, where power is transmitted to Toronto from Montreal, via Hull, a distance of-I have not measured it- about some three hundred miles.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Why did the hon. member not lay that evidence before the committee?


Major James William Coldwell: I did lay it before the committee. I told the committee upon my return from New York, and I remember one of the members objecting to my having information that other members of the committee did not have. I said I had been so advised when I was there on January 15. And may I say that that power used in Toronto, and supplied from the source I have mentioned, gives Toronto to-day very cheap power indeed.
As to Shipshaw's creating new unusable power, may I point out that in 1939, when there were 400,000 workers unemployed in this country, a large number of whom were in Quebec, that province of Quebec had a surplus of power of only thirteen per cent. Yet the report bemoans the fact that we should have this great new source of power available, one which I contend ought to be used for rural electrification and for industry after the war, and again states that, none of my allegations is substantiated.
In conclusion, I wish to make it abundantly clear, as I said at the outset of the inquiry before the subcommittee-if I may refer just this once to anything that happened there- my criticisms are not for one moment directed against the administrators, the technicians and the workers who planned and executed this marvellous project. This, though, in my opinion they could have done equally well for the people and for the government of Canada. On the contrary I have nothing but the highest praise for the industrial miracle



War Expenditures-Mr. Coldwell
they accomplished. And my high hope is that we may, as a Canadian people, through our democratic institutions and for our people devote equal energies and equal abilities to the development of our country in the postwar years.
My criticisms have been, and are directed against the financial interests in the background who, as I said, were in a position to hold a pistol at the heads of the united nations in their extremity. I have been told, for example, that the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe), the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) and the metals controller all wanted to see this project started early in the autumn of 1940, a year after the outbreak of war when Britain was being heavily bombarded from the air and needed aluminum to make planes. But the company refused a fifty per cent write-off offered on Shipshaw, so that it was not started until April, 1941.
The committee in some particulars relied upon and quoted extensively from a decision of a United States district court, as is indicated by the report. But that decision did not concern itself with economic realities but with definitions of company control embodied in existing United States law. The court failed to take into account several common holders of stock in both companies. Furthermore, the decision is under appeal and would have been decided by now but for the fact-this will appear curious to Canadians-that the supreme court of the United States cannot get a quorum together to hear the appeal. Why? Too many of the judges are disqualified because of their participation in earlier indictments of the Aluminum Company of America. Thus for this house to rely on this decision of a lower court in a foreign country, no matter how friendly the country may be, would be to say the least most remarkable.
I,	therefore, say without reservation that all my major statements regarding this project were amply confirmed by the witnesses appearing on behalf of the oompany and the government. Indeed, I would say to hon. members of this house that if they will take the trouble to read the report now before the house they will find that it confirms those statements. Yet the same report says that none of my allegations is substantiated. To vote concurrence in a report so obviously designed to whitewash the deal and the company would be in my opinion to do violence to one's own intelligence. Surely, Mr. [DOT] Speaker, this house dare not approve the report submitted to it on behalf of the war expenditures committee.


Joseph Henry Harris: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling):
That all the words in the said motion after the word "reports" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"Be not now concurred in but that the house instructs that the evidence upon which the said reports are founded be tabled and that consideration of the reports be postponed until the house has had sufficient opportunity to study the said evidence."
The situation which has arisen in the house to-night is of a kind that has arisen not only in this honourable chamber but in the main committee from its very inception and in the subcommittees from the time they convened. I expected that we would hear this afternoon from the chairman of the committee a resume of some of the work accomplished, but all we are asked for is concurrence in a report based upon evidence which I doubt one member out of three in this house has gone over or is in a position to cast an intelligent vote on. Hon. members are being asked to decide on a very serious matter, one of the most important matters that have come before this House of Commons by way of committee.
When we first thought of having a war expenditures committee each and every hon. member believed that he was going to have an opportunity to be of some service to his country and to help out with the war effort. How well I remember when three short years ago we were told before we went into the committee room that politics would be left right at the door, that they would not enter into the deliberations on war expenditures. How well I remember the same day after this profession of faith was made that hon. members voted down on a straight party basis one, two, three, four, five, six different motions that I had the pleasure of putting forward to the committee. The whole gamut of the evidence offered in those first few days was of a kind that would have given us a change to examine into war expenditures, but I think the resume of abuse, as I would call it, of the opposition groups that came from the chairman is an indication of how the committee conducted itself.
Why is it necessary to malign the members of the opposition who tried to do a job? Why is it necessary to put an interpretation on these in camera meetings which will not permit us to discuss even among our fellow members what occurred in the committee? The subcommittees themselves were quite free to decide whether or not they should sit in the open, but the subcommittees were constituted by the main committee in camera. After that

War Expenditures-Mr. Harris (Danforth)
they could get their own members to agree to sitting in open session, if that was possible. But what actually happened? Let me take some of the time of the house to read what happened when a subcommittee did resolve to sit in open session. I quote:
Thursday, August 7, 1941.
Members present: Messrs. Graham, Gladstone, Harris, Hansell, O'Neill, Picard, and Sissons

seven.
Mr. Harris read into the record a letter from the chairman, Mr. R. T. Graham, addressed to himself, and also expressed his disapproval of the committee sitting in camera.
The chairman replied to Mr. Harris, assuring him that he would, with the other members of the committee, consider the points raised by Mr. Harris. The chairman then invited all members of the committee individually to express their opinion on the question of open or in camera meetings. All members of the committee replied, expressing their views on the question raised by Mr. Harris.
Mr. Hansell moved, seconded by Mr. Harris -That this morning's sitting be regarded as open and that anything considered to be of a delicate character be kept off the record.
On the question being put, Mr. Harris asked for a recorded vote; the names being taken doira were as follows: Yeas, Messrs. Gladstone, Harris, Hansell, and Picard-four; Naes, Messrs. O'Neill, and Sissons-two.
The motion passed in the affirmative.
Then the chairman adjourned the meeting forthwith. That motion passed at 12.02 p.m., and the chairman adjourned the committee at 12.05 p.m. He refused any discussion on the motion to adjourn, walked out and left the committee. AVhen the committee next met we found ourselves again in camera. Is that any evidence that the members of the subcommittee were permitted to sit not in camera? It is just the reverse. Then I quote from the proceedings of the next meeting.


Hughes Cleaver: May I have the page number?


Joseph Henry Harris: Page 11.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I call attention to the fact that my hon. friend is reading, I understand, from the minutes of a committee meeting held in camera, minutes which have not been tabled.


Joseph Henry Harris: No.


Gordon Graydon: It has been tabled.


Joseph Henry Harris: Let me make it abundantly clear that at no time did I serve on a committee sitting in camera. I attended no secret meetings, no camera meetings. Everything I have been able to do on behalf of the committee was done wide open, and without any cost whatsoever to the country, not even the per diem allowance or anything 100-45*
of that kind. It was done as a war service, and I was hoping that would be the attitude the others would take.
Again, two weeks later, on August 22, 1941, I moved that the evidence be printed so that we would have it on the table. That was ruled out of order.
Again, we thought that our subcommittee should have the selection of its chairman. That was ruled out, was defeated on a division, six for the motion and ten against-another party division.
We asked for an increase in the minority representation. That was defeated on a straight party vote of fourteen to four.
We had another situation where one hon. member supporting the government moved, on July 17, 1942, that we sit through with the same industry in 1942 as we had done in 1941. That carried, seven yeas, six nays. Yet in spite of that the committee adjourned until September 3.


Hughes Cleaver: May I have the page number of your quotation, please?


Joseph Henry Harris: July 17, 1942, is the date. You will find the page number in the evidence.
Again, we had our friend the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) asking that the committee be open unless otherwise ordered by the committee or by the subcommittee. That motion was negatived.
Throughout the entire proceedings of this war expenditures committee there has been a definite move to keep the evidence away from the members of this house. The only committee that was able to give to the members of this house any evidence of any consequence was subcommittee No. 2. The rest just consisted of reports which came down to this house, and the net result is that this chamber now finds itself in a position of having to vote on a motion by the chairman for concurrence, and the members do not know what they are voting on. Hon. gentlemen opposite will just answer to the whip's call, with the net result that the government will carry the motion for concurrence and some of their members will find themselves embarrassed by concurring in something which they know nought of.
What emphasizes the situation more is the fact that on page xiv of the proceedings of January there is a reference to certain irregularities alleged before this house in connection with No. 2 shell filling plant at Pickering. The chairman of the committee is here and I do not need to take time to read it. The chair-
708	COMMONS
War Expenditures-Mr. Harris (Danforth)
man stated that the committee was recalled for the consideration of its reports to the house and so on and eventually he ruled that the matter be referred to the minister. So that in the light of that decision-


Hughes Cleaver: On a point of order, the hon. member who has the floor has made a direct statement. He says that when the McGregor charges as to No. 2 shell filling plant at Pickering were brought up-then he mumbled some words and then-


Joseph Henry Harris: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. member to withdraw the word "mumbled." I am not in the habit of mumbling in this chamber.


Hughes Cleaver: I withdraw the word
"mumbled" and I say that he used a few words I could not hear which were a jumble. My hearing is fairly good. He did not read what happened in the committee. He made the statement that the chairman had ruled that the Pickering matter could not be dealt with then. The chairman made no such ruling, and I would like to read to the committee just what happened.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You have no right to do that.


Hughes Cleaver: The hon. member made a statement which I say is entirely incorrect, and I ask the right to correct his statement.


Frederick Clayton Casselman: You do not correct a point of order. You just state it.


Hughes Cleaver: The hon. member stated that the chairman ruled that the matter could not then be considered. I say that I did not so rule, and the minutes of the committee bear that out.


Thomas Vien: I do not know that there is anything on which to rule. There is a difference of opinions on the facts. I understand that the hon. member was reading from the record, and the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver) says that his statement as quoted was not correct.


Hughes Cleaver: It is only a deliberate misstatement of fact; that is all.


Joseph Henry Harris: I ask that that statement be withdrawn.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. member must withdraw the word "deliberate".


Thomas Vien: I request that the hon. member withdraw that statement.


Hughes Cleaver: I insist that he said that the chairman ruled that the Pickering charges

could not then be considered, and I say that that is incorrect, and it was intentional or he would have read from the minutes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I rise to a point of order. No member can impute improper motives to another.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No member can misconstrue the evidence which is on the records of this house.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The hon. member ought to withdraw the statement that the hon. member for Danforth made a deliberate misstatement of facts.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The record speaks for itself.


Thomas Vien: Order. The hon. member for Halton did say that the hon. member for Danforth had made a deliberate misstatement of facts. That is a statement which should be withdrawn.


Hughes Cleaver: Very well, Mr. Speaker, 1 withdraw the word "deliberate" and anything else that offends the hon. member, but I will say this, that he did make a misstatement of facts.


Joseph Henry Harris: I am sorry to delay the house, Mr. Speaker, but I will put it on the record, word for word, the way it reads. I am quoting from page xiv of the proceedings of Wednesday, January 19, 1944:
Mr. McGregor made a statement alleging certain irregularities in connection with the construction of No. 2 shell filling plant at Pickering, and submitted that the matter should be inquired into by this committee.
The chairman stated that the committee had been recalled for the consideration of its reports to the house with the understanding that no further evidence would be taken at this time.
I pause to ask the house to put its own construction on that statement, that no further evidence would be taken at this time, and on the previous paragraph with regard to the McGregor allegation of irregularities.
He invited Mr. McGregor to submit a memorandum to the chairman or clerk of the committee indicating the nature of the alleged irregularities in order that any action deemed necessary might be taken.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Henry Harris: Would the minister like me to read that over? It states, with the understanding that no further evidence would be taken at this time. Say "hear, hear" to that.


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes, sure. Read
slowly.

War Expenditures-Mr. Mackenzie King


Joseph Henry Harris: Then on page
15-I will try not to mumble my words-the chairman presented a report of the agenda subcommittee:
The subcommittee on agenda begs leave to present the following report:
That the text of press reports issued by Mr. McGregor stating that with respect to the construction of No. 2 shell-filling plant at Pickering, there has come to him evidence of serious allegations, of payroll padding and misuse of materials, be forwarded to the Minister of Munitions and Supply forthwith. In view of the fact that it would be a physical impossibility to make a complete investigation of the balance of Mr. McGregor's statement respecting "mismanagement" before Wednesday next, when the present session ends and the life of the present committee terminates, that the matter be given prompt consideration, when the war expenditures committee is appointed next session.
Now that is another example of what I was trying to convey to the members of this house, that we are not competent now to concur in this report because we as members of the house do not know enough about the evidence which is at present available although not tabled.
That, sir, is why I have the honour to move this amendment which asks that the evidence be tabled. It would have been a very happy situation had I been able to have the Minister of Munitions and Supply second my amendment. That would have cleared the air and we would have had the evidence on the table and would have proceeded in an orderly way with this responsibility which is ours in the conduct of this war expenditures committee and its great work.
On another occasion I shall have something else to say with regard to the general conduct of these committees. I will say this now, that I am of the opinion that this house is supreme over any committee, and even though the chairmen of days gone by have used the chairmanship perhaps to help some get judgeships and others a portfolio, I am afraid the hon. member who leads the committee now is using it as a stepping-stone to the basement in the [DOT]way that he has conducted the affairs of that committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I regret that I was not present in the earlier part of the evening, but I have been trying to catch up on some engagements which it was impossible to meet earlier in the day. Discussion however, it is apparent, has arisen over the question whether or not evidence which is taken in camera by one of the select committees-the committee on war expenditures-may be disclosed and. in the words of the amendment, "be tabled."
This is the third or fourth session at which we have had occasion to appoint a war expenditures committee. On each occasion I have pointed out that it was necessary, as suggested at the outset, by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson), I believe, to have a committee of this house to examine war expenditures for the purpose of guarding against extravagance, waste and any kind of fraud or wrongdoing. In speaking on the appointment of the committee I have on each occasion drawn attention to the fact that it was a very simple matter for this house to decide whether or not it would have such a committee and how the committee should function, because there was at Westminster, and had been not only throughout the present war but during the last war as well, a committee appointed at '"estminster to deal with national war expenditures. I stated on each occasion that the motion which was being brought forward in this house was in identical terms with the motion which had been adopted in the house at Westminster. In a time of war there are a number of considerations many of which are not apparent on the surface, of which the government, the House of Commons and parliament must take very full account. In connection with the methods of procedure and the evidence taken before the committee on war expenditures, I submit that there must be the best of reasons for having sittings held in camera or the parliament at Westminster would not have followed that procedure in the last war and insisted upon it in this.
Hon. members last year had the opportunity of meeting with the chairman of the war expenditures committee of the British house. He was attending the British empire parliamentary association gathering and many hon. members questioned him as to procedure, why it was that the committee on war expenditures in the British house held their meetings in camera, and why it was that there was so little or nothing at all in the way of debate on its reports. The answer which was given has already been stated in this house and is to be found in Hansard of last session. It was to the effect that the committee exists not for the purpose of trying some case, or seeking out scandal or to prosecute someone for some wrongdoing, but rather that it is a committee appointed for the purpose of assisting the treasury at a time of war, in seeing that in war expenditures waste is avoided and that economies are effected wherever possible. In the course of its inquiries members may come across matters which are evidence of wrongdoing, and in such cases the procedure at Westminster is to have the committee report at once to
710	COMMONS
War Expenditures-Mr. Mackenzie King
the minister whose department is concerned. Without any attempt to do things in public which might divert the mind of the people from the major issue, namely, that of the prosecution of the war itself, the minister of the department concerned is given an opportunity to see that errors are immediately corrected. There is the further procedure, that if a matter serious enough comes to light and the committee feels that it should be brought to the attention of the Prime Minister, this opportunity is afforded and indeed it is the committee's duty to bring the matter to the Prime Minister's attention so that the government itself may take it in hand immediately to ensure that nothing further is done which may be contrary to the public interest.
The reason why the committee holds its sessions in camera is first of all that the evidence itself can be so much more readily elicited than it could be if the proceedings were held in public. To further the efficiency of its work is one of the reasons why the committee proceeds in camera. I need not repeat what was said this afternoon by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver), the mover of the resolution for concurrence, because all hon. members know that officials will not come forward and give evidence in public in the manner in which they are prepared to give it in private. The war expenditures committee is free to call anyone -experts, officials of departments, any person they please. Hon. members will also know that evidence which is disclosed in one direction may be of great assistance to competitors of the concerns affected, and that in a public hearing witnesses will refuse to disclose evidence which they know is going to be of advantage to a competitor.
A further consideration, and a very important one, applies directly to this particular industry which is being referred to at the present time. The expenditures being examined into frequently involve questions of contract with other governments. I am not at all sure that this particular industry has not contracts to which the governments of the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States are parties, and I have reason to believe that some of these contracts might not have been made had these governments understood that their part in the matter, and the interests which they are seeking to conserve and to hold secret, at all events for the time being, would be disclosed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I
suggest-
TMr. Mackenzie King. I


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, my dear friend, I have never made a speech in this house which my hon. friend has not interrupted. I am going to ask him, please, once and for all, just-


Richard Burpee Hanson: The company itself disclosed these contracts.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -to try to
possess his soul in patience until I get through. He said this afternoon I was a little rough. I am trying to be smooth this time.
I come back again to what I was saying. In addition to the reasons for the in camera proceedings which I have presented, there is the further one of what may be given, wholly unexpectedly, in the nature of aid or comfort to the enemy. Witnesses cannot be examined in public without some of them saying something, quite innocently to them, seeming to have little or no significance, and yet, watched as proceedings are from every side by those who are seeking to further the interest of the enemy rather than the interest of the country, may lead to something being disclosed which may be at least a clue leading in directions very injurious to the war effort. These are all good, sound, substantial reasons.
There is no parliament more desirous of upholding its own supremacy than the parliament at Westminster. There is no parliament which has sought more eagerly than has the parliament at Westminster to preserve the utmost frankness and openness in all discussions. But when one looks through the list of the public men who have given their support to the present procedure at Westminster of the war expenditures committee and finds such names as those of all the prime ministers of Britain during the period of the last war and the present war, and all the leaders of the opposition in the last war and the present war, I feel that to oppose views which these gentlemen all agree must prevail in matters of this kind requires very substantial reasons.
One thing further. .At Westminster, so carefully is the whole situation guarded that the reports themselves are never debated. I do not know whether hon. members are aware of that. I am perfectly sure that if some service was not thereby being rendered the country an attitude of that kind would not be taken by the British parliament. That has been its position from the beginning. The reports are tabled, and never once have they been a subject of debate since this war has commenced. That seems to be a surprise to some hon. members, but the reasons for it are apparent. It does not mean that those who are members of the committee may not come across evidences of wrongdoing which

War Expenditures-Mr. Howe
they think ought to be exposed, and which they might even feel it their duty to expose. Where there are cases of that kind, and an hon. member who is a member of a committee that has been holding its sittings in camera feels that a wrong has been done which the committee is unwilling to investigate, or that the government is seeking to conceal something because it is unwilling to make public proceedings held in camera, that hon. member may rise in his place and prefer a charge against the government, and the government thereupon appoints a committee of inquiry. There is in such a case some responsibility assumed with respect to the charge that is made. A member is not supposed to make a charge that is not capable of being substantiated; rather is he expected to be so sure of his ground that he is quite prepared to substantiate his charge. There were many times in the last war when the government of the day had to consider whether it was going to investigate rumours and accusations which might be put forward by its opponents, and the government of the day-quite rightly-took very strongly the position that it was not the business of the government to take up the time of the country and parliament in discussing rumours and running down this and that for the purpose of obtaining what little bit of political or party advantage might be gained by some party, but that if an hon. member rose in his place and seriously preferred a charge in the manner I have referred to, an inquiry would be granted.
Then there is always opportunity for hon. members to discuss matters before the public accounts committee if they have reason to believe that there are situations which should be discussed there. But I wish to make it clear that it would not be possible for the war expenditures committee to function as it was intended to function unless its sittings were held in camera; and being held in camera it is not proper that the proceedings should be made public.
I understand that my colleague the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) would welcome all the evidence being made public. His wishes in that particular are shared by every member of the government, but so far as the adoption of that course is concerned it would be a proceeding directly contrary to the procedure which has been laid down at the time previous committees were appointed, and on the basis of which this committee has been constituted. .
Let me repeat that the committee, as the wording of the motion indicates here, is toexamine the expenditure defrayed out of moneys provided by parliament for the defence services, and for other services directly connected with the war, and to report what, if any, economies consistent with the execution of the policy decided by the government may be effected therein.
In other words, this committee is viewed in Britain, and it should be so viewed here, as an adjunct to or ally of the treasury; it is to help the treasury of the country to see that public funds are protected. If there are to be inquiries on other matters, they ought to proceed in accordance with the procedure of this house in such matters.
Therefore I hope, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. friend opposite will not press his amendment, but if he does, I hope the house will support the government in opposing it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In view of my previous remarks perhaps I should explain the position. I was listening to my hon. friend the house leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell) make statements as to the nature of the evidence taken before the committee. His statements were so contrary to the facts as I understand them and to the facts as I have stated them in this house that I felt I would like very much to see the evidence taken before the committee. Of course I have not seen it and have no idea what that evidence w-as. But I did not intend to have my remarks taken as meaning any more than that. I am quite aware that it would be a breach of confidence, and particularly a breach against myself, if that evidence were tabled.
The committee, in investigating all aspects of the aluminum situation, went very much outside its terms of reference. It investigated expenditures made by the British government in this country by direct negotiation, and investments made by the British government acting through myself as its agent. The terms on which I was appointed agent of the government of the United Kingdom for the transactions I entered into on their behalf were that such transactions would be entirely confidential as between myself and the British government.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In that connection may I ask the minister one question? The Prime Minister objects, but I am sure the minister will not when he hears the auestion.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Very well. [DOT]


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it not a fact that in its prospec! us concerning the sale of its preferred shares the company itself revealed, in a measure at least, the terms of the
War Expenditures-Mr. Howe

arrangement with the British government, and that this was the first the public knew about it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That may be so, but if so, the company acted on its own responsibility. Nevertheless I cannot do so; at least I feel that I cannot. The same applies to the Australian contract. Consideration had to be given to the investigation of the aluminum contracts in the light of our arrangements with the United Kingdom and with Australia. It was my desire that every aspect of the aluminum transactions should be examined; I was anxious that this should be the case, and to permit that to be done I took the responsibility of applying, through the high commissioner of the United Kingdom, for the consent of the British government to permit the details of that contract and of the negotiations leading up to it to be placed before the committee. The United Kingdom government was extremely reluctant to give that permission, but, after an exchange of several cables, permission was given with the definite understanding, so stated in the cable, that the hearings of the committee would be in camera and the evidence would not be made public. The consent of the government of Australia was given in exactly the same terms.
Let me point out that the war expenditures committee was appointed to examine into the expenditures of the Canadian treasury, and that the expenditures of the Canadian treasury for aluminum represent a very small percentage, certainly less than five per cent, of the expenditures that were examined. Had we not been able to get permission from the British and Australian governments, I would have had to ask my officers to reveal only the facts concerning purchases by the Canadian treasury, and in doing so I would have only asked the committee to keep within its terms of reference. However, the committee has examined the whole situation; the committee presented to the house a report that is unanimous, with the exception of one hon. member, and I think the house can feel safe in adopting that report without going back into the evidence, which is known to only a few hon. members of this house, and is completely unknown to members of the government and to by far the greater proportion of hon members.


Mr. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Munitions and Supply):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in
this debate for the purpose of considering, to at least some extent, some of the charges that have been repeated by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) as far as the

Department of Munitions and Supply is concerned. During the discussion of the war appropriation resolution last year the hon. gentleman made certain charges. These charges were referred to the war expenditures committee and, as the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) has just stated, in essence they were boiled down to some five charges. The hon. gentleman had an opportunity of giving or submitting evidence, since he was a member of the committee; but on none of the five charges has the committee found for him. On the contrary the committee has found against the charges, but that is not the purpose I have in mind in rising this evening; there are other members of the committee, I am sure, wrho will deal with the charges generally, as repeated this evening by the hon. member.
I should like to discuss twq main issues, concerning which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar repeated his affirmations this evening. Those two issues concern the direct purchases of fabricated aluminum, by the government, and the question of special depreciation on the Shipshaw power development. The Department of Munitions and1 Supply is not concerned with the British, American or Australian contracts, for the very good reason that it had absolutely nothing to do with them save and except as agent for those governments in the negotiation of one contract and in the finality, I believe, of the Australian contract. Neither did the department have anything to do with the plant expansions at Arvida, because these were brought about by the contracts to which I referred a moment ago.
Canada's purchases of aluminum, as everyone knows, in comparison with those of Britain and the United States were very small, and I hope to be able to establish that Canada's war administration certainly was not at fault in connection with any purchases of fabricated aluminum. I hope also to be able to show that the special depreciation which was granted at Shipshaw was the only logical thing to do at the time, and that had; it not been done serious harm would have befallen the war effort.
Canada's purchases of aluminum have been entirely related to fabricated items, such as sheet, rod, tubing, bars, structural shapes, forgings and' castings. Direct government purchases from the outbreak of war to August 20, 1943, total less than $900,000. Again I say that in comparison with the British and American purchases this amount was very small, These purchases were made for the government itself, either on behalf of crown companies or as requisitions were sent in by the service departments. There were other purchases made, of

War Expenditures-Mr. Chevrier
course, by contractors such as aeroplane manufacturers, which were of a far more important nature. In the two and a half years to June 30, 1943, total sale? of fabricated items were $33,984,093, and on these sales Alcan made the modest profit of $714,569. This was made before taxes were computed, and the company made a loss of $1,482,180 after a pro rata share of income taxes had been applied. Again with reference to these purchases, it is difficult to see where and how Canada's war administration has been at fault with reference to purchases of fabricated aluminum.
With the permission of the house, Mr. Speaker, I should like to place on Hansard a condensation of sales for 1941, 1942, and the first half of 1943. This condensation may be taken as reliable. From this it will be seen that the profit of the Aluminum Company oi Canada before charging off any interest or any taxes was 3-6 per cent on its cost of sales, and 3-4 per cent on its sales. Surely no one in this house can complain that in the purchases of aluminum by Canadians there has been any improvidence, there has been any gross profit, or there has been any carelessness in the negotiation of profit margins.
The next question which has to be decided-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: May I ask a question?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Order, order.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I have a right to ask a question. Are those figures the hon. member was about to give in part of the evidence?
Aluminum Company Domestic Analysis of Profit
Sales	
Cost of goods sold	
Gross profit	
Administrative and general expense	
Profit or loss before interest, income taxes
and inventory reserves	
Pro rata share of interest	
Pro rata share of taxes	
Net profit (or loss)


Lionel Chevrier: The figures I gave are to be found in an audited statement which I have before me, and which I shall be glad to send over to my hon. friend.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Again I ask the hon. member: Was it not submitted to the committee as evidence?


Lionel Chevrier: I was not a member of the
committee, and I do not know what the evidence was. But I do know that the statements I hold in my hand are public property, and they are for anyone to see. They indicate exactly what I have said, namely a profit of 3-6 per cent and 3-4 per cent on sales. The next question-


Thomas Vien: Has the hon. member leave to put the table on Hansardf


Karl Kenneth Homuth: May I ask a question? put on Hansard, if it is part of the evidence -and I believe that it is.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, it is a public document. It is part of the file of the Department of Munitions and Supply. If it was put in evidence, it was probably put in by one of my officers.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Why not put all the
evidence, from your officers, on the record?


Thomas Vien: Is there any objection to the placing of this document on Hansard? There being no objection, it is agreed.


Lionel Chevrier: 

War Expenditures-Mr. Chevrier
The next question which has to be decided is whether or not the transaction granting special depreciation was a provident one, and whether the government discharged its responsibilities to the people of Canada for the production of aluminum for war purposes with appropriate regard (1) for maximum output at maximum speed (2) economy in expenditure (3) equitable treatment and (4) longterm implications.	,
Aluminum, as the house knows, is in great demand for war purposes, chiefly in the manufacture of aeroplanes. It is estimated that from forty per cent to eighty per cent of an aeroplane is made of aluminum. Aluminum is made, as the house equally well knows, from bauxite, cryolite and fluorspar, and the resultant aluminum ingot is fabricated because of a tremendous amount of electrical energy which is put through these three commodities. Aluminum production requires three and one-third horse-power of electrical energy per metric ton of output. For each person employed in the production of aluminum over 100 horse-power is required, as compared with about one-half horse-power per person employed in the Bren gun plant of the John Inglis company at Toronto, and about one-eighth horse-power per person in the average of textile manufacture
The capacity for production of the Aluminum Company of Canada at Arvida from the years 1927 to 1937 was 45,000 metric tons, and its actual production in those years ran as high as 42,600 tons in 1937 and as low as
15,000	tons in 1934, with an average of 28,200 tons, or an average .production rate of 62-6 per cent. The normal place of aluminum in the world market ran usually fourth and fifth, and its production generally ran about 11 per cent of the total, with the United Kingdom by far the largest taker, Japan next at 20 per cent, then the United States, and small demands from twenty other nations.
In 1937 a world race for aluminum began to develop, as it now appears for war. Germany, Russia, Japan and Italy had led the way, with Germany reaching first place in the world by 1938. Influenced by these insistent demands Alcan laid plans to increase its capacity greatly, and in 1939 it turned out 75,200 metric tons, and in 1940, 99,000 tons, which was more than double its pre-war capacity, or over 260 per cent of its output in its best year, which was 1928, prior to the pre-war scramble for raw aluminum.
It should be pointed out that this expansion was initiated and financed by the company itself without any assistance from or intervention from the government.

Then there came three quick successions of contracts by the British government, one in February of 1940, a second in June of 1940 and a third in February of 1941. In these contracts the United Kingdom government contracted with the company to expand its production facilities very much more, and contracted to take the whole of the output of the new additions, plus all the output of the company's previous facilities, reserving only Canada's small demands, and thus until the year 1941 with provision for renewal of the arrangements if the emergency continued thereafter.
These contracts were financed by loans from the United Kingdom to Alcan totalling $55,600,000. They were 20-year three per cent loans. Again the Canadian government had absolutely nothing to do with any of these arrangements.
Next came a succession of four contracts with the United States, commencing with one for 170,000 metric tons, of May 2, 1941, and ending with one for 167,800 tons, of April 1, 1942. These contracts totalled 621,436 tons. The United States contracts called for four further plant extensions involving estimated deliveries when complete as follows:
Year	Tons
1942	'	 94,'474
1943		 146,283
1944		 326,216
1945		 54,463
This makes a total United States expansion of 621,436 tons, or 1,370,000,000 pounds of aluminum. Again the Canadian government was not a party to these contracts, nor did it know their terms until after they were signed.
But after the first contract which was made with the United States government in 1941 it became quite evident that Alcan could not fulfil it without an arrangement with the Canadian government which would permit capital expenditures for plants being charged off as a production cost over the expected period of the war. Otherwise the Canadian government would be expropriating in taxes money provided by a friendly government without which that government's imperative needs of aluminum could not possibly be provided. The same was true with respect to the three succeeding United States contracts. Refusal to agree to this understanding would have been unthinkable, so far as the Canadian government was concerned. The first two United States contracts, totalling approximately S120,000,000 in United States funds, with $50,000,000 in immediate payments, came at a time when Canada's balance with the United States was very unfavourable.

War Expenditures-Mr. Chevrier
Thus they were extremely welcome and clearly fell within the scope of the War Exchange Conservation Act, section 8 of which reads in part as follows:
The governor in council in order to increase Canada's supply of foreign exchange may, on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, enter into agreements with individuals, partnerships or corporations to grant assistance by way of special tax credits and/or special allowances for depreciation or depletion under the Incom: War Tax Act and/or the Excess Profits Tax Act, if, in the opinion of the governor in council, such assistance is necessary in order that an expansion of the exports of any individual, partnership or corporation receiving such assistance may take place or that the exports of any such individual, partnership or corporation may be maintained at levels higher than would otherwise obtain.
The proposal that the cost of the further plant additions should be charged to production costs was thus completely in keeping with the laws of Canada. This would have been equally true of the two subsequent United States contracts. In June, 1941, the United Kingdom government arranged with the Department of Munitions and Supply to take over the administration of its aluminum contracts. About the same time the government of Australia, which had already been negotiating a contract for a certain quantity of aluminum, arranged for that department to also take over the administration of its aluminum purchases.
As agent for the United Kingdom government the Department of Munitions and Supply subsequently negotiated for a further extension of Alcan plant facilities for the production of raw aluminum. Later the Minister of Munitions and Supply succeeded in reducing the average price for 1942 and 1943 of the British contracts to the same level as the base price of the United States contracts far 1942 and 1943. The successive two United States contracts, the Australian contract, and the last United Kingdom contract and the two final United States contracts, all calling for increased facilities, were superimposed one upon the other, before the previous plant expansion could be completed. Thus there never was a time at which a cut-off could be made, the plants being in a state of continuous expansion on an ever-increasing scale. Therefore it became impossible to segregate either the funds advanced by the various governments or the plants themselves.
The United Kingdom and the Australian contracts clearly could not come within the meaning of the War Exchange Conservation Act and, accordingly, it was decided, some months after the work had been under way 100-46i
and when very heavy commitments had been made by Alcan, that the matter should be dealt with by the war contracts depreciation board. This applied also to expenditures for completion of the Shipshaw power development with which I shall deal in a moment. So much for the facts.
I have dealt with this first in order to establish the tremendous expansion which took place almost overnight at Arvida. The plant at Arvida which had been producing at the rate of 62-6 per cent of its capacity had its production raised to 1,100 per cent over its pre-war capacity, an increase from a production capacity of 45,000 tons a year to 500,000 tons a year. This leads one naturally into a consideration of the Shipshaw power development project.
This was a purely Canadian matter. Neither the United States government nor the United Kingdom government had anything to do with it. The Shipshaw power project was not a new plant or a new project; it was the completion of one started in 1928 and held in suspense since 1931. It was forced on Alcan as a vital necessity to the means of fighting an air war. The down payments on account of the United States contracts referred to a moment ago were not sufficient to cover the full cost of the facilities for the production of the required additional raw aluminum, let alone provide anything for power development. The completion of the Shipshaw project was urged by the power controller as far back as 1940 in the clear vision that this was an air war, that there could not be enough aeroplanes without a greatly increased aluminum production and that such a production would imperatively demand a greatly increased power production as well. The construction of the Shipshaw canal and powerhouse in about ' eighteen months as compared with a normal construction rate of three years for such a work was an extraordinarily fine accomplishment. In the opinion of the power controller of Canada it was the greatest contribution made by this country to the war effort.
As the house knows, almost every war contract involves some additional capital expenditure, such as for new plant, new equipment, new buildings, new machine tools, jigs, fixtures, gauges and the like. It is a very rare exception for the Department of Munitions and Supply to find a contractor who has everything he needs with which to undertake a war contract. The required capital expenditure is usually put up to the department as something that it must find a way to take care of. There has developed over a period of time the following five methods, any one of which or any combination of which the department has to use.

War Expenditures-Mr. Chevrier
1.	By normal or accelerated depreciation granted to the contractor by his own expenditure in his own plant as a part of his production cost.
2.	By special depreciation granted to the contractor through his own expenditure in his own plant under a ruling of the war contracts depreciation board, again as part of his production cost.
3.	By capital assistance through government expenditure in the contractor's own plant.
4.	By the government building an entirely new plant and appointing an entirely new organization to manage it for them, or setting up a crown company to manage it without fee or profit.
5.	By the government purchasing or expropriating an existing plant, enlarging it to suit the requirements, and setting up its own management by way of a crown company or management fee arrangements.
These are the methods that have been used from time to time in the department. These, or a combination of these methods, are the only means by which the department can come to the assistance of a war contract.
The house will-agree with me at once, I am sure, that because of the huge commitments required on the part of certain contractors it is impossible for the government to expect of them that they should, or could, finance their undertaking in all cases. Such certainly was the case with the aluminum company. The government of the United Kingdom realized it from the first when it made to the company the substantial loan of $55,600,000. If the company had not had this money to put up plant expansions, it could not have proceeded. Similarly, the government of the United States made down payments aggregating $75,350,000. The total cost of the whole undertaking, including plant expansions, and power developments, was roughly $250,000,000. When it is considered that the cost of the project was so huge, I think it will be admitted that the United Kingdom and the United States governments were well advised, as was the Canadian government, in coming to the assistance of the company as they did.
This leads me to a discussion of depreciation. Depreciation has, to my way of thinking, three meanings. First, there is the wear and tear of an asset or of an article, the common usage by hand or the use that is brought about by the elements; such, for instance, as the annual depreciation in a motor car. Depreciation has also another meaning called obsolescence; that is, the asset is losing its value
lMr. Chevrier. 1
in the industrial field because other assets are superseding it in the sense of greater production, greater utility at less cost. For example, should aluminum be displaced by magnesium after the war, aluminum will have depreciated because of obsolescence. There is the third phase that has crept into the law, namely, that the asset is entrusted to facilitate our war purposes under the apprehension that should the war suddenly cease-call it what you will -the asset as a value has depreciated to the owner and it becomes of no use in peace time.
Depreciation, therefore, can occur through' wear and tear, obsolescence or disappearance of demand. If, for instance, the demand for aluminum after the war reverts to the position it occupied prior to the war, say, in 1937, depreciation of that plant will be great, because of obsolescence or disappearance of demand.
The principle of allowing depreciation as an item of cost is universally applied in every country which has an, income tax act. It is so recognized in Great Britain, the United States, Australia and Canada.
Generally speaking, depreciation is threefold; that is, normal, accelerated, and special.
Normal depreciation is that which is granted to every citizen by virtue of the income tax laws. As an illustration, machinery is deemed to have a life of ten years, working one 8-hour shift a day, and usually gets ten per cent depreciation per annum, as an allowance which it may charge as an item of cost. This is normal depreciation. If, however, the machinery works twenty-four hours a day, the life of the machinery is deemed to be much shorter, and an increased rate is allowed by the Department of National Revenue, which is called accelerated depreciation. The usual rate allowed in such cases is twenty per cent per annum, as the maximum, even though the machinery may be working three shifts. At the rate of twenty per cent per annum, a perfectly new plant would be written off in five years. I should point out here that there are many expenditures on a plant which are handled under norma! or accelerated depreciation, which are made without any reference to the Department of Munitions and Supply.
Special depreciation is that which is granted under the regulations of a board called the war contracts depreciation board. Where it appears that a manufacturer having a war contract or a subcontract is able to establish that part or all of his assets would have no post-war value, he may apply to the board for special depreciation, and if it is granted, that part which has no residual value may

War Expenditures-Mr. Chevrier
be written off. It is explicit that this privilege can be allowed only when the essentiality of the expenditures can be demonstrated, and then only to the extent to which the plant additions could be shown to have no reasonable post-war value.
In the case of Shipshaw, in the year 1925, the Aluminum Company of Canada filed with the Quebec government an application for authority to complete the Shipshaw power development. This application included the cost of a canal of much the same nature as that which now exists, sufficient to permit of the ultimate development of 800,000 horsepower years, at an estimated cost of $20,000,000 with only three 80,000 horsepower generators installed, out of an ultimate installation of ten such generators.
The company's plan was to instal these additional generators one by one over the years as and when the needs of its aluminum business so required. It estimated that each of these turbines installed would cost another $1,000,000, making the ultimate estimated cost $27,000,000.
The Canadian government, under the dire necessities of the war situation, compelled the company to complete this power development on the larger scale of 1,020,000 horsepower years. This it did under war-time conditions, with high wages and costs of every description greatly magnified, involving a total expenditure of over 870,000,000. How then, I ask, in equity could the Canadian government refuse to protect the company against a difference in cost between its normal expected expenditure of $27,000,000 and this extraordinary war-inflated expenditure of $70,000,000? That is all that the Canadian government did with reference to that projeot.
The impression has been created in the country that the whole of the power development was paid for by the Canadian government. This is not so. Actually it has cost the Aluminum Company of Canada every penny which it would have cost if it had been undertaken by the company in days of peace, namely $27,000,000 to $30,000,000.
As to the special depreciation on the facilities for the production of aluminum, the house should clearly bear in mind that not a single Canadian dollar went into the plants of Alcan. It all came from the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia

with the United States taking much the greatest share. The Canadian government had nothing to do with the way in which these governments chose to finance their needs of aluminum production. They alone decided the method which in their judgment could produce the aluminum they needed with the least loss of time and at the lowest price.
It is not for us Canadians, whose needs for aluminum were always more than adequately provided for, to criticize the decisions of these other nations. It was for the Canadian government to cooperate with these nations and to facilitate their decisions in every way possible. All that the Canadian government really did was to agree not to expropriate in taxes the funds provided by these allies in time of need, without which their needs could not be provided.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar spoke of the great amount of power which would be created in that north country, and how that power would affect eastern Ontario. I say to him that experts who have studied this question say that it is impossible to transport power to Montreal from the Arvida area at a reasonable cost and that because of the distance, which is 340 miles, it is outside the limit of the economic transmission of power, and power at Beauharnois would compete so greatly with Shipshaw power that there would not be the slightest inducement to Alcan to transmit its power there.
It would have been unthinkable for the Canadian government to have expropriated in taxes the very funds expressly provided by the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia for the erection of the plants, without which there was no possible way for these nations to get the aluminum they required when and as they required it.
I submit to the house that the Canadian government would have been recreant to its trust and false to its duty as a member of the united nations had it pursued any other course than that which it did with reference to the purchase of fabricated aluminum, with reference to the Shipshaw power development, and also with reference to the expansion of plant.
It will be apparent, too, to the house that the charges in connection with the Shipshaw development completely fail of substantiation. In the whole transaction the Canadian government moved quickly as regards production, and on a maximum scale. It moved economically for the completion of a half-developed plant, saving money as well as time. It allowed all that and no more than was equitable in the circumstances, and I submit with deference that no situation inimical to the Canadian position and long-term interests was created by these arrangements.


Mr. A. M. NICHOLSON (Mackenzie):: In rising to support the amendment, may I say that all members of the house were in agreement with the general principles which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) outlined in 1940 when the first war expenditures

War Expenditures- Mr. Nicholson
committee was set up. No one in this house wanted to discover war-time scandals, and I think it was recognized that any individual or corporation who would profiteer during these dark days was undermining confidence not only in this administration but in our democratic institutions. The Prime Minister outlined then and he repeated to-night the advantages of having these committees sit in -camera. All the opposition members of the 'house, I think, were opposed to having the [DOT]committee sit in camera in previous sessions, tunless it could be demonstrated that the evidence to be produced would give comfort to the enemy or would cripple our war effort. On all other occasions it was felt that the committee should sit openly and all information be made available to all members of the house and to the public.
The Prime Minister intimated to-night that if the committees sat in camera evidence would be elicited much more easily and that the members of the committee would be free to call anyone they chose. A year ago I sat with one of the subcommittees while the investigation was made in connection with the administration of wartime housing. Hon. members will recall that on various occasions I discussed the activities of wartime housing and advanced the general position that the taxpayers of the country were not receiving good value for the expenditures that were being made. I argued that the activities of wartime housing had been conducted in too many places in communities where there was a shortage of permanent houses.


Hughes Cleaver: I rise to a point of order. I believe it was distinctly understood, when the unanimous approval of the house was given this afternoon regarding the scope of this debate, that a debate would not take place on the reports tabled in 1941 and 1942. The hon. member is dealing with the report in regard to wartime housing which was tabled in 1942.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am not referring to the report. I am reciting an incident which occurred in 1942 and I am doing so in support of my argument, which in turn is in support of the amendment of the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris). I submit, therefore, that I am in order. In my discussions in connection with wartime housing I felt that we should be willing to satisfy the taxpayers of the country that the houses being built would not become slums of to-morrow and that temporary houses would not be put up where permanent dwellings were needed.
tMr. Nicholson.]


Hughes Cleaver: Mr. Speaker, I ask for a ruling. My hon. friend is continuing to discuss the wartime housing report.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I would ask the hon. member to bring his remarks to the point.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As a result of the statements I made in the house on various occasions, which were supported by returns tabled by the Minister of Munitions and Supply, one of the subcommittees was instructed to investigate the whole business of wartime housing. In the discussion certain charges were made by an official of wartime housing regarding the administration of another department and-


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Order. What the hon. member is now saying is not relevant.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw a conclusion. Not being a member of the subcommittee I was denied the right to have information placed before this subcommittee by another department of government even while we were sitting in camera.


Hughes Cleaver: Did my hon. friend move for it? I say he did not.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I was not a member
of the committee, but through the courtesy of the chairman and all members of the committee, in view of the fact that I had spoken on wartime housing in the house, I was invited by the chairman and the members to appear. I was not permitted to make motions. We were not permitted to call a civil servant who was in a position to give information.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I have given
my ruling and I hope the hon. member will abide by it. The present discussion is not relevant.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Let me conclude by
saying this. The purpose of meeting in camera was, in my opinion, defeated, and I think the public interest would be best served by having all the evidence made available to all members of the house and to the public except in cases where that evidence if produced would give comfort to the enemy or would cripple the war effort.
Mr. T. J. O'NEILL (Kamloops):	As a
member of one of the subcommittees that inquired into the aluminum contracts and the allegations made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), possibly I had better read from Hansard just what the hon. member said in those days. As reported in Hansard of June 14, 1943 at page 3619, the hon. member said:

War Expenditures-Mr. O'Neill
I have placed the facts before the committee without invective, I am certain without exaggeration, and I know without misrepresentation. These are the facts as I have accumulated them. I have got them first hand from first-hand sources. I have no doubt that there are certain people who know the people I visited when I was in Washington and know the offices where I got my information. I assure the committee that my information is authentic and gathered from those who were able to give me the information.
All through the hearings of that committee, the chairman, I can say, was very fair. 1 believe that every member of the committee will say that. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. had every opportunity to bring before the committee that evidence which he said he received- at first hand. He did not bring in any of that evidence. He brought no evidence with the exception of one witness, and the committee waited two days after we were ready to rise in order to permit him to bring in that witness, a Mr. Lipkowitz. Mr. Lipko-witz did not give any evidence that in my judgment would support the allegation made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar.
The hon. member goes on to speak of cartels, monopolies and what-have-you. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the main idea in bringing these matters before this house was to create in the minds of the people the belief that because of the existence of cartels, monopolies, or what-have-you, the people of this country were being fleeced out of millions of dollars on the purchase of aluminum. To support that I read this in the paper:
The peoples of the united nations are being sold down the Saguenay river, said Mr. M. J. Coldwell, leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation.
What paper? The C.C.F. News, of Vancouver, dated February 3, 1944. I do not think the C.C.F. News of Vancouver would misquote Mr. Coldwell. In the same paper Mr. Coldwell has this to say:
The report of the special subcommittee on aluminum, composed wholly of Liberals and Progressive Conservatives except for myself, is a very obvious attempt to whitewash the whole affair.
We have heard a lot of things here about imputing motives and so forth; but I consider that a statement like that, from a man who holds the high position of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, is an insult to every member of that committee. He does not even give us the credit of being intelligent enough to get the point. He says that the committee was composed of Liberals and Conservatives and that a deliberate attempt was made to whitewash the evidence which was given
before that committee. If ever there was an imputation of motives, I think this is one. It imputes the motive of dishonesty to the hon. members composing that committee, and as one of the members let me inform the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar that I am not dishonest. I tried to view the evidence as it was submitted and to give my findings accordingly.
To support my statement that the intention was to create in the minds of the people that they were being fleeced, I will read a little more of what the hon. member said. He stated:
Cheap labour, cheap power and high monopoly prices for their product have brought the aluminum interests untold wealth and economic power.
Then he went on to make some remarks with respect to labour. He has since said that he would like to retract the words he used on that occasion, that the treatment of the men at this plant was "scandalous" and "inhuman." But a great deal of publicity and a great deal of importance were attached to the statements the hon. member made at that time in this house; they have been echoed and reechoed over this country. I submit to you, sir, that in so doing a well-known method now used in Europe is being followed, the method of hammering and hammering and again hammering on a certain subject; it does not make any difference what the facts are, if you repeat a statement often enough, whether there is anything in it or not, the public will begin to believe it. But having said these things, the hon. member tonight said he would retract these expressions and would say that conditions were bad.
But he said a lot more than describing conditions as scandalous and inhuman. He said:
Men in the pot-rooms rarely last long amidst the poisonous fumes, and the labour turnover in that part of the plant is appalling.
As regards the fumes, it is well known now that the company has done everything humanly possible in the way of modern appliances to correct that condition. It is also a well-known fact that years ago the work of the pot-room men was very severe and arduous and the fumes were terrific. But today, so far as I have been able to determine, there is no record of any occupational disease in that plant. That should be a fair indication of whether the fumes are there in sufficient quantities to injure health.
As for wages, I do not definitely know the rates, but I am told that the income of a pot-room man is around $2,000. But there are other conditions besides wages to be re-
War Expenditures-Mr. O'Neill

garded. Everything is now being done to reduce the labour of these men. As an indication that conditions are not as outlined by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, when the strike took place last fall at Shawinigan Falls, there were, so far as I could find out through reading the papers, only two matters in dispute. One was, whether those men were to look after six pots or seven pots. They were supposed to look after one more pot in the winter time because the weather was cooler, than they had to do in the summer. One question in dispute was whether they should revert from six to seven pots in the winter time. The other point at issue was a jurisdictional dispute. They were not complaining about working conditions or about wages; what they were concerned about was whether they would have to look after six or seven pots, and whether one union or another union would attend to the interests of the workers.
A word as to housing. This committee visited Arvida and Shipshaw. The housing conditions there were very good. The company builds houses, which the men can either buy or rent, as they choose. They are very fine houses. They have good schools; they have hospitalization, and they have a retirement fund which, of course, is contributory. I found that the washrooms, lockers and such equipment are very much better than we have on ;the Canadian Pacific Railway. I worked for the C.P.R. for a long time and I know that conditions in this respect are not so good as those at the aluminum plants; yet as an old C.P.R. engineer I never considered that we were unfairly dealt with by that company.
It would appear from statements of the sort I have quoted that they may be inspired by another motive. I noticed that just after the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar made his allegation last fall, this appeared in the Ottawa Citizen:
Shipshaw is one of the most valuable pieces of ammunition for the C.C.F. in the forthcoming elections.
That was said by a prominent member of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party, now an M.L.A. in British Columbia.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who was it?
Mr. O'NEILL: Mrs. Grace Maclnnis, wife of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). As a further illustration of what is going on, I have in my hand the Kamloops, B.C. Sentinel, January 12, 1944.


Thomas Vien: Order. I must call the
attention of the house to the fact that we have a motion before us along with an amendment. The discussion should really take place on the

amendment; that is the subject matter we are discussing now. Also, the reading of excerpts from editorials is not in order.
Mr. O'NEILL: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and will refer to the amendment, which I believe is that the evidence should be tabled. As far as I am concerned I should like nothing better than to have tabled in this house the evidence submitted to the committee of which I was a member, because I believe it would completely vindicate the report brought in by that committee. When the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) was speaking he gave as one reason for asking that the evidence be tabled that it had reference to a certain meeting of the committee which took place some time before that. The hon. gentleman called attention to the fact that he had never attended a meeting of the committee which was held in camera. To the best of my knowledge and belief that is so; but I can say at once that I am sorry he did hot, because he is an able man and if he had seen fit to sit with the committee he could have given it a great deal of help. However, he did not see fit to join us when the committee was sitting in camera.
Hon. gentlemen will realize that it is the business of the chairman of a committee of this kind to bring in the witnesses. Our chairman, a very able gentleman, arranged with a gentleman in another city to come here -and give evidence. This was a man whom we could not bring here unless he came of his own free will. He was requested to attend and give certain evidence, and the chairman gave him the guarantee that his evidence would be given in camera. Then the hon. member for Danforth moved that the evidence be heard in public. Well, a discussion developed, and I voted against the motion.


Joseph Henry Harris: If the hon. member will permit an interruption, the discussion to which the hon. gentleman has referred occurred two meetings after the meeting to which I made reference. Will the hon. gentleman not verify that statement?
Mr. O'NEILL: The discussion to which I have reference occurred right at the meeting I am speaking of, and the man who was supposed to give evidence sat in the committee room for two hours while the discussion went on as to whether it should be in camera or in public.


Joseph Henry Harris: No.
Mr. O'NEILL: That is the way I remember it.

War Expenditures-Mr. Maclnnis


Joseph Henry Harris: The fact of the matter is that the meeting to which the hon. member refers was on August 8, and the meeting to which I referred was on August 7.


Hughes Cleaver: At what page of the evidence is that?


Joseph Henry Harris: Page 11.
Mr. O'NEILL: I have not the proceedings before me, but I recall the meeting vividly. If that is not the meeting to which the hon. member was referring I hope he will pardon me if I keep on with the meeting to which I am referring. The motion was made that the meeting be held in public, after this gentleman had been told that it would be held in camera. I voted against that motion, because quite obviously you cannot ask some gentleman to come to Ottawa and give evidence in camera, and then tell him the evidence is to be given in public. You would never get any evidence from him; he is a private citizen, and there is no way of making him come here and give evidence. The meeting was adjourned, for the reason that it was noon before we finished discussing the question of whether it should be held in camera or in public. We came back'after lunch and the meeting was proceeded with in camera, as it was supposed to be. I see nothing wrong in that, and I have no apologies to make.


Joseph Henry Harris: I think I am correct in saying that the afternoon session was held in public.
Mr. O'NEILL: I am speaking of my meeting, not the one about which the hon. gentleman is talking. The hon. member said he would not sit in camera at any time, and he did not; I do not recall seeing him in the committee at any time we were sitting in camera. The point is that we would not have been able to get that evidence at all unless . we did sit in camera. You must hold your meetings in that way; you cannot do it otherwise.
Since you called me to order, Mr. Speaker, for having gone off the track, I do not think I have anything more to say at this time except to repeat that as far as I am concerned I would rather have that evidence tabled. In view of all the circumstances, however, I shall not vote in favour of the amendment, because there are other strings attached to it which make a proposal of that kind impossible.


Angus MacInnis: I shall be very brief in my remarks, Mr. Speaker; I intend to speak only to the amendment and the tabling of the evidence heard by the war expenditures committee. I
was a member of that committee when it was first organized in 1941, and I believe the policy of hearing evidence in camera was the proper policy to adopt, particularly at that time. I think there were many things in its favour then that could not be said in its favour now. Some matters might come out which would give comfort to the enemy and interfere with our prosecution of the war, and so on, so that at that time I was in agreement with the majority of the committee that the meetings should be held in camera. But I submit to you, Mr. SpeakerpthatTIf the committee wishes to have its meetings held in camera it never should make a report such as was tabled in this house on January 26. The committee presumed to take the allegations or charges made by a certain individual and hold hearings on them; then it brought in a report, based on the evidence adduced before it, finding that the charges had not been substantiated in any degree whatever. When a report of that kind is brought in I submit that the evidence must be placed before this house, because there is no way in which hon. members can satisfy themselves as to the correctness of the report except by reviewing the evidence. Either that evidence should be tabled or the report should be withdrawn. We cannot have a report placed before us, the correctness of which is denied by one party- whether it be made up of one man or a dozen-and which is supported by others. There is no way in which' members of this house can vote intelligently unless they have before them the evidence taken in that inquiry. Think of a judge being asked to pass sentence in a case where he did not hear the evidence, where the evidence had been taken in some other place, and when he did not hear it! Then think of his being asked to base a judgment upon such evidence! We are in an impossible position. Either, as I said before, that evidence must be placed upon the table of the house, or the report must be withdrawn.


Robert Henry McGregor: Mr. Speaker, I think we have had enough aluminum for the time being, and that it would be a good time to go for a little boat ride. In the first place we have a report here, as submitted by this committee. I want to say to the house that this is not the evidence as submitted before the committee. And if I may be allowed the time I would prove that. I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made a little statement a while ago that anyone who wished to lay charges in the house could do so. I suppose he insinuated that the hon. member's seat would be at the

War Expenditures-Mr. McGregor
peril of whether or not he could prove those charges. I say to the Prime Minister that I will make charges to-night, and if I cannot prove them in the very evidence we have received, then he can do as he wishes as to sending me home.
In the first place I wish to make a little comparison between the Toronto shipbuilding yard, which in the first place was known as the Dufferin Construction company, and the Port Arthur yard. And I might say, just before making that statement, that in the draft report which I have in my hand, in the first place that comparison was made. It was struck out of the final report because some said that the figures were not exactly right-or for some other reason; I do not know just what the reasons were.


Mr. CRERAR:: May I ask my hon. friend a question, before he gets into his speech? Do I understand that on his responsibility as a member of this house he is proposing to make certain charges against the government?


Robert Henry McGregor: I said I was going to make charges, as far as this boat work is concerned. Does the minister understand that? If he does not we will try to tell him what it is.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not understand it.


Robert Henry McGregor: The Dufferin Shipbuilding company, when the war started, began to build boats. They got a contract, and at the time they received the contract there were four other companies which received contracts for boats.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order. You cannot
discuss the evidence.


Thomas Vien: Order. I had to call attention of the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. O'Neill) to the matter before the house, namely, that there is a motion and an amendment. The discussion must take place upon the amendment, not the motion. The motion cannot be discussed until the house decides whether the evidence shall be tabled or not.
In the third edition of Beauchesne's "Parliamentary Rules and Forms" I find this at page 769, as the ruling of the Hon. L. P. Brodeur, Speaker at that time:
When an amendment is proposed to a motion, the discussion should be strictly confined to the subject matter of the amendment.
This is the quotation:
Mr. Speaker:	I would call the attention of
the hon. member (Mr. Porter) to the fact that he is not discussing the question before the Chair. When an amendment has been moved to a motion for Committee of Supply, the discussion should be restricted to its subject-matter. That is a well established rule.

Mr. Porter: I was addressing myself to the question upon the subject of expenditure by the administration in connection with the Post Office Department.
Mr. Speaker:	The question of that expenditure does not come within the scope of the motion now before the Chair, which is the amendment moved by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Borden) concerning the tariff and the preference with England. I read this passage from Bourinot, page 549:
"When an amendment has been moved to the question for the Speaker to leave the Chair, the discussion should be confined to its subject-matter."
Mr. Porter: I would draw the attention of the hon. members of the house to this ruling.
The fact is that now we have a motion and1 an amendment, and the discussion is on the amendment moved as follows:
That all the words in the said motion after the word "reports" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"Be not now concurred in but that the house instructs that the evidence upon which the said reports are founded be tabled and that consideration of the reports be postponed until the house has had sufficient opportunity to study the said evidence."
When the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar was speaking he was making reference to the evidence, and that was on the motion. I ruled then that I thought he was speaking relevantly to the motion before the house, but that he should not deal with the evidence submitted before the committee.
Now the question to which the hon. member must address himself is the amendment.


Grote Stirling: May I draw to Your
Honour's attention the fact that the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Chevrier) in his speech which might have been conceived to be a reply for the government, covered a very great deal of territory with regard to the aluminum company and its subsidiaries. He did not deal with the amendment. He dealt with facts and figures, in a most interesting manner; and I . submit to Your Honour that it will be your desire to give the same latitude to one side of the house as was given to the other.
At the present time the hon. member for York East (Mr. McGregor) is explaining his position with respect to -the subcommittee, of which he was a member, and which dealt with shipbuilding, leading up to the question: Shall the evidence in support of that contention be laid before the house?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Speaking to -the point of order, I say that the hon. member is perfectly in order, aside from what the hon. member for Stormont might have been allowed to do. The hon. member for York East is pointing out to the house that the only -way- he can discuss

War Expenditures-Mr. McGregor
these matters is to have the amendment carried, so that the real evidence can be placed upon the table, due to the fact that the report of the committee does not bear out the evidence given. I say the point is well taken.


Joseph Henry Harris: Mr. Speaker,
before giving your ruling may I speak to the point of order by bringing again to the attention of the house what occurred on Friday. The Prime Minister used these words:
Concurrence in the report will have to be moved, and I should think the best way of proceeding would be to have concurrence moved on Monday and the debate on war expenditures take place on that resolution. I do not wish to restrict hon. members from debating the resolution to set up the committee if they so [DOT]desire.
I bring this to Your Honour's attention to show that it was the general feeling in the house when this debate commenced we should speak with-respect to all phases of it.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, may I have a word? I was out of the chamber when Your Honour intervened in this matter. I would point out, however, that I understood considerable latitude was to be given in this debate, the idea being that we would not debate the motion for concurrence and the motion to set up the committee on war expenditures on two different occasions. For that reason I think Your Honour will see at once the fairness of a decision which would allow the hon. member for York East (Mr. McGregor) to continue. Surely the intervention of an amendment should not prevent an hon. member from discussing the whole matter. After all, it was not his amendment; it was the amendment of another hon. member.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I am inclined to agree with the leader of the Progressive Conservative party. I believe it would be much better if Your Honour were to look upon this amendment in much the same way as we look upon an amendment to the budget, allowing all hon. members to have free discussion on the amendment, just as they would have on the main motion. I say this, having in mind particularly the points of disagreement which arose in the conduct of this committee. I think we would feel a lot better about it and get along much further if we permitted the discussion to go on quite freely.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) referred to what the Prime Minister stated as to the conduct of the committee. At that time the Prime Minister was dealing with the report, not knowing that there was going to be an amendment moved. As I take it, the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Chevrier) was speaking as to why it was not possible or feasible for the evidence which had been before that committee to be brought into the discussion in the house. I admit that he was permitted to deal with the matter with more latitude than perhaps I should have allowed him. No objection was taken, and I understood the basis of his remarks was that it was not possible for the government, in view of their commitments to governments of other countries, and others, to submit that evidence, and the house apparently desired to hear his statement. The question was raised when the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. O'Neill) was speaking. An amendment was moved and the house will recall that when the Prime Minister spoke to the amendment he confined his remarks absolutely to its subject matter. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) also addressed his remarks wholly to the amendment. It will be recalled that when the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) was speaking his attention was drawn to the fact that he was then speaking on the main motion and I would not permit him to deal with the evidence. The rule is clear. When an amendment is before the house, the subject matter of the debate must be the subject matter of the amendment.


Robert Henry McGregor: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to infringe on the rules of the house, but I take it that the other hon. members who have spoken have spoken along lines similar to those I intend to follow. I do not see why I should be treated any differently from any one else. It is not very often that I take up the time of this house for the simple reason that I think this is the greatest hot-air joint I have seen for many years.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Vien: I do not think the hon. member means that, and he must not use that language.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.
Mr. McGREGOR; As I was saying before, I wish to make-


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Do I understand that the hon. member has withdrawn that remark?


Gordon Graydon: He did not mean anything personal.


Thomas Vien: I would point out to the hon. gentleman that when the amendment is disposed of he will have the right to speak on the main motion and the latitude given to

War Expenditures-Mr. McGregor
those who have spoken on the motion will be given to him. At the moment we are dealing only with the amendment.
Mr. McGREGOR; The other hon. members who have spoken have given reasons why it should or should not be tabled and I want to go on and try to prove to this house in my own humble way why this evidence should be tabled. It is not in the report. To do this I must quote some figures and make some comparisons of the cost of building ships in different yards. That cannot be done any other way.


Thomas Vien: May I ask the hon. member if what he proposes to say concerns the evidence given before the committee?


Robert Henry McGregor: I understand that we cannot refer to the evidence given before the committee. Hon. gentlemen have spoken tonight who belong to the department and who have access to the files' of the department. They have given speeches, and I venture to say that ninety per cent of the evidence they submitted to the house was given before the committee. They were not on the committee and they can rise in their places and say what they like, but a member who was on the committee cannot do that. Is that a fair deal?


Hughes Cleaver: My hon. friend can move for the return of any of this material he wants which would bring it quite within the discussion of the house.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: That is what we are moving for.


Robert Henry McGregor: As far as I am concerned, I want this house and this country to have the material. I should like to have a ruling as to whether I am allowed to proceed.


Thomas Vien: I have intimated already to the hon. member that he is entitled to speak only on the subject matter of the amendment. After the amendment has been disposed of and the main motion is before the house, the hon. gentleman will then have the right to speak and will be granted more latitude than he is being given at the moment. Does the hon. gentleman understand that?


Robert Henry McGregor: I do not know whether I am allowed to speak or whether I am not.


Thomas Vien: I believe the hon. gentleman has not heard what I said. I have ruled already that the subject matter of the amendment is the matter under discussion now by the house. The hon. gentleman is entitled

to speak now on the subject matter of the amendment. If the hon. gentleman wishes to speak on the main motion after the amendment is disposed of he will have the right to do so with more latitude than he is given now.


Agar Rodney Adamson: On the point of order-


Thomas Vien: I have given a good deal of latitude to the opinion of hon. members, but I have ruled.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker-


Thomas Vien: Has the hon. member for York East (Mr. McGregor) finished?


Gordon Graydon: The hon. member for York East feels that he cannot go any further. There is nothing left for him to do but to sit down.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, I think I can confine myself to the rules of the house in respect to the present amendment. What I have to say will take only a few minutes and I shall be finished before eleven o'clock. I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) when he says that the members of this house find themselves in a strange position. They are being asked to vote concurrence in a report or to vote against concurrence without having access to the evidence upon which the report is based. We cannot do that very well. Personally I find myself in a strange position.
A report has been presented to the house which I understand is unanimous, with the exception of one member of the committee. When the report was presented I was not in the house; I was on a train. I read a bit in the newspaper and, as I gathered from the newspaper report-and I suppose this would be the reaction of the public-the report had been presented but nothing had been said. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) gave a statement to the press to the effect that the report was a whitewash. My amazement was considerable. I wondered at the time why the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar did not present to the house a minority report.


Major James William Coldwell: The rules would not allow it.


Ernest George Hansell: I understand since coming here that the rules will not allow it. I think it is a strange rule because I believed at the time that the hon. member should have had an opportunity of presenting a minority report. Then it would have been all in the one report. The statement that it was a whitewash seemed at that time to be a

War Expenditures-Mr. Hansell
bit of a reflection upon all the other members of the committee. What happened? The first opportunity which the hon. member had of bringing in what might have been tantamount to a minority report was to-day. The speech of the hon. member simply means, if we are to believe what he said, that his charges are correct and that the report was a whitewash. Therefore we have to decide whether to vote for or reject concurrence, and we have to do it on the basis of what we hear discussed in this house because we have not had the evidence presented to us. That is a strange position in which to place the members of this house.
I quite understand, on the other hand, for I have acted on the war expenditures committee in years gone by, that all the evidence submitted to the committee cannot be made public property. At least, if the evidence given before the committee on war expenditures last year is similar to some that was submitted in the year I was on the committee, I doubt whether it should be revealed because it would divulge certain matters in connection with our military operations, in Canada it is true, but which we could not possibly have divulged to the enemy. At the same time, however, when it comes to matters such as the charges which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has made, I cannot see that there could be anything in that evidence that would give comfort to the enemy. Surely it would give no comfort to the enemy to know whether we paid one million dollars for something or whether we paid ten cents for it. That has nothing to do with military operations or military strategy. On the other hand, the public has a right to know how we are spending public money, especially when it is spent for things that have , nothing to do with actual military operations. Therefore, if the government refuses to place the evidence on the table for the scrutiny of members of parliament, and if the hon. member's charges are not refuted satisfactorily to my mind, I am afraid that I shall have to join with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and refuse to vote for concurrence in the committee's report. Although he has been wrong so many times, I am afraid this would have to be one time when I would have to agree with him. If the charges are not refuted, there is nothing else we can do. Personally I think that when the charges were made last year the whole matter should have been sent immediately to the public accounts committee, and not be made necessarily a part of the work of the war expenditures committee.
So as not to embarrass the government in respect of evidence being 'laid on the table which it may not be in the best interests of winning the war to table because it might reveal something of value to the enemy, I have a subamendment to move. I move, Mr. Speaker, that after the word "evidence" where it first occurs in the amendment, the following words be inserted:
respecting aluminum contracts and relative subjects thereto.
That would mean that the entire evidence taken by the committee would not have to be put on the table but simply the evidence relating to the charges which have been made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. It seems to me that we have to make some distinction. I feel certain that if the evidence taken by this committee is like some of the evidence that was submitted to the wrar expenditures committee in years gone by it must contain some things that it would not be wise to reveal. But so far as aluminum contracts are concerned, that is a matter of dollars and cents, contracts, work done, and we have no reason to fear that that is going to give comfort to the enemy.


Mr. NEILL:: Mr. Speaker, how will the amendment read with the subamendment?


Thomas Vien: It will read as follows:
That all the w-ords in the said motion after the word "reports" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"Be not now concurred in but that the house instructs that the evidence respecting aluminum contracts and relative subjects thereto upon which the said reports are founded be tabled and that consideration of the reports be post-poped until the house has had sufficient opportunity to study the said evidence."
As it reads with the subamendment, it says: "the evidence respecting aluminum contracts and relative subjects thereto upon which the said reports are founded." I would point out that the reports are not founded simply upon evidence dealing with aluminum contracts and relative subjects thereto. I am afraid that the subamendment is out of order. If it was adopted the main motion would not be intelligible or consistent with itself.
On motion of Mr. Jackman the debate was adj ourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Gasoline Rationing
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, February 22, 1944