1944-07-27

OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
House of Commons Bebates
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, July 27, 1944
The house met at eleven o'clock.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the resignation of Th. Adelard Fontaine, Esquire, as member for the electoral district of St. Hyacinthe-Bagot. I have accordingly issued my warrant to the chief electoral officer to make out a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
Third and final report of special committee on radio broadcasting-Mr. McCann.
First report of the joint committee of both houses on the printing of parliament.-Mr. Ferland.

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

Mr. STIRLING:: 1.	What is the -total acreage of the Indian reserves at Winfield, B.C., and at Westbank, B.C.?
2.	What was the Indian population on each when they were first set aside as reserves?
3.	What is the present Indian population on each?
4.	What acreage of land in each is, (a) usable; (ib) cultivated by Indians; (c) leased by other than Indians; (d) idle?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	Duck Lake Indian Reserve No. 7 (at Winfield, B.C.), 439-64 acres; Tsinstikeptum Indian Reserve No. 9 (at Westbank, B.C.), 1570-17 acres; Tsimstikeptum Indian Reserve No. 10 (at Westbank Wharf, B.C.), 786-90 acres.
2.	Duck Lake No. 7-no census figures available but said to have been two and possibly
more families. Tsinstikeptum No. 9, Tsimstikeptum No. 10, 34.
3.	Duck Lake No. 7, population 19; Tsinstikeptum No. 9, population 83; Tsimstikeptum No. 10, population 21.
4.	(a) Usable land:	Duck Lake No. 7,
439-64 acres; Tsinstikeptum No. 9,1,000 acres; Tsimstikeptum No. 10, 360 acres.
(b)	Cultivated by Indians: Duck Lake No. 7, 56 acres; Tsinstikeptum No. 9, 187 acres; Tsimstikeptum No. 10, 110 acres.
(c)	Leased by other Indians: Duck Lake No. 7, 44 acres; Tsinstikeptum No. 9, 83 acres; Tsimstikeptum No. 10, 50 acres.
(d)	Idle: Duck Lake No. 7, 339-64 acres; Tsinstikeptum No. 9 1,300-17 acres; Tsimstikeptum No. 10, 426-90 acres.


CANADIAN FORCES-DISCHARGE PAPERS- VOLUNTEERS AND N.R.MA.
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Is there any difference in the discharge papers of soldiers who volunteer and those of soldiers called under selective service law and regulations ?
2.	If so, what is it?


Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax):: 1.	Yes.
2.	The same type of form is used but the word "enlisted" appears on the discharge certificate for general service soldiers whereas the word "enrolled" is shown on the certificate for N.R.MA. soldiers. In addition, the series of N.R.M.A. regimental numbers is distinguishable from General Service numbers. However, if an N.RjM.A. soldier has volunteered for general service, his general service number is used on the discharge certificate and the words, "also served under N.R.M.A. from-to -" are added.


R.C.A.F.-SERVICE STRIPES
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	Do personnel of the R.C.A.F. receive service stripes?
2.	If not, did -they ever receive service stripes?
3.	If so, why was the practice discontinued?

Questions


Mr. MACMILLAN:: 1 and 2. No.
3.	Not applicable.	.


WHEAT-PURCHASES FROM OTHER THAN PRIMARY PRODUCERS
Mr. PERLEY:: How many bushels of wheat of each grade were purchased from grain companies or other
interests than the primarv producer, during the crop years 1940-1941, 1941-1942, 1942-1943, up to and including July 31, 1943?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton. West):: Schedule A-Cash wheat, purchases from grain companies, 189,993-40 bushels; Schedule B-Futures, pit purchase, 51,930,000 bushels. Total 52,119,993-40 bushels.


SCHEDULE A
[Stage Direction]
Special Account-P.C. 1803 For the period from August 1, 1940, to July 31, 1943
Cash wheat purchases: Grades 1940-41	Crop Years 1941-42	1942-43	Combined Bushels
	47-00		47-00
No. 1 Northern 	40,599-00	40,599-00No. 2 Northern 	10,694-30	66,024-40	76,719-10No. 3 Northern 	104-30	10,484-50	10,589-20 3,925-50Tough 1 Northern 	3,925-50	Tough 2 Northern 	18,623-40	18,623-40Tough 3 Northern 	12,621-20	12,621-20Tough 4 Northern 	5,179-00	5,179-00Smutty 1 Northern 	
No. 1 CW Garnet 	3,099-50	3,099-50243-20	243-20No. 2 CW Garnet 	691-00	1,072-00	1,763-00Tough 3 CW Garnet 	1,268-40	1,268-40No. 2 Amber Durum 	1,719-30	1,719-30Tough Rej. 2 Northern mixed heated and heating 	1,586-20	1,586-20Tough Rej. 3 Northern mixed heated and heating 	467-30	467-30Tough and heating 3 Northern 	4,876-20	4,876-20Tough heating Rej. 3 Northern Sour 	1,715-30	1,715-30Tough sample heated 	2,245-10	2,245-10Tough sample heated and heating 	873-10	873-10Rej. 3 Northern Sprouted, Rej. mixed heated	1,831-00	1,831-00Nil	11,780-20	178,213-20	189,993-40

[Stage Direction]
Special Account-P.C. 1803
For the period from August 1, 1940, to July 31, 1943
Futures-Pit purchases:	Crop Years
Option month	1940-41	1941-42
May	   22,190,000-00
July	   4,779,000-00
October	   12,072,000-00
Nil 39,041,000-00
12.889.000-	00
12.889.000-	00
Combined
Bushels
22.190.000-	00 4,779,000-00
24.961.000-	00
51,930,000-00
[Stage Direction]
Questions

Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	How many bushels of wheat of each grade were taken by the wheat board from other than the primary producer, at the time the said board took over all wheat, September 21, 1943?
2.	What price was paid for same?


James Angus MacKinnon: Price paid basis No. 1
1 and 2.	Bushels Northern
Schedule A-Purchases
from the trade....	155,121,772-26 $1 231
Schedule B-Terminal trade purchases, Vancouver	 200,076-40	1 201
155,321,848-66
Schedule A
Wheat Purchased from the Trade-P.C. 7942 Crown Account
For the period from September 27, 1943, to June 30, 1944
Grades
No. 1 Hard	
No. 1 Northern....
No. 2 Northern....
No. 3 Northern....
No. 4 Northern....
No. 5 Wheat	
No. 6 Wheat	
Feed AVheat	
Tough 1 Northern... Tough 2 Northern... Tough 3 Northern... Tough 4 Northern...
Tough 5 Wheat	
Tough 6 Wheat	
Tough Feed WTieat.. Smutty 1 Northern.. Smutty 2 Northern.. Smutty 3 Northern.. Smutty 4 Northern.. Smutty 5 Wheat.... Smutty 6 Wheat.... Rej. 1 Northern.... Rej. 2 Northern.... Rej. 3 Northern.... Rej. 4 Northern....
Rej. 5 Wheat	
Rej. 6 Wheat	
Tough Smutty 2 Northern	
Tough Smutty 3 Northern	
Tough Smutty 5
Wheat	
Tough Smutty Rej.
4 Northern	
Damp 2 Northern. .. Damp 3 Northern... 100-3421
Price basis $1,231 for No. 1
Bushels Northern
26,140-00	$1 20|
42,201,380-03	1 23!
59,010,213-20	1 17!
24,787,397-48	1 16!
9,920,048-35	1 09!
12,301,618-00	1 05f
901,888-30	1 02J
310,814-50	1 00f
20,049-25	1 21!
530,352-40	1 13i
576,607-25	1 12|
80,735-35	1 07!
55,548-30	1 03|
26,024-20	1 00!
3,734-00	98}
50,182-55	1 10
180,542-15	1 07!
75,304-55	1 06!
18,333-50	1 02J
11,985-50	98|
134-00	97!
8,41540	1 10
54,640-45	1 07!
34,05445	1 05|
24,251-10	l 01!
34,039-10	98|
2,191-00	97!
7,947-00	1 05|
5,196-20	1 04|
1,415-00	96!
1,606-10	95!
16.453-20	1 04*
43,841-30	l 03!
Grades
Damp 4 Northern...
Damp 5 Wheat	
Damp 6 Wheat	
Damp Rej. 3 Northern	
Damp Smutty 2 Northern	
Tough Rej. 2 Northern	
Tough Rej. 3 Northern	
Tough Rej. 4 Northern	
Tough Rej 5 Wheat Tough Rej. 6 Wheat Dried 2 Northern... Dried 3 Northern... Rej. 1 Northern Mixed Heated.... Rej. 2 Northern Mixed Heated.... Rej. 3 Northern Mixed Heated

Price basis $1,231 for No. 1
Bushels Northern
1,882-50	97!
472-10	93!
786-20	90!
102-00	92!
1,628-50	97!
1,349-30	1 05!
2,260-00	1 03!
475-00	99!
234-20	96|
233-30	95!
62,441-54	1 16!
50,978-46	1 14!
130,145-50	1 09!
173,819-35	1 06|
79,035-30	1 061
W7heat Purchased from the Trade-P.C. 7942, Crown Account
Grades
Rej. 4 Northern Mixed Heated.... Rej. 5 Wheat Mixed
Heated	
Rej. 6 AVheat Mixed
Heated	
Rej. 2 Northern
Sprouted	
Rej. 3 Northern
Sprouted	
Rej. 2 Northern
Musty	
Rej. 3 Northern
Musty	
Smutty Rej. 3
Northern	
No. 4 Special ....
No. 5 Special ....
No. 1 CW Garnet .. No. 2 CAV Garnet .. No. 3 CW Garnet .. Tough 3 CW Garnet Smutty 2 CW Garnet No. 1 Amber Durum No. 2 Amber Durum No. 3 Amber Durum No. 4 Amber Durum No. 5 Amber Durum No. 6 Amber Durum Tough 2 Amber
Durum	
Tough 3 Amber
Durum	
Tough 4 Amber
Durum	
Smutty 2 Amber
Durum	
Smutty 3 Amber Durum	
Price Basis $1,231 for No. 1
Bushels Northern
5,39940	$1	03!1,857-40	1	00|1,570-30	98|850-00	1	07!3,709-50	1	05|1,657-20	1	06|125-00	1	06!1.601-30	1	00!173-30	1	09!1,533-00	1	05!11,571-25	1	14|86,309-15	1	13!73,871-35	1	12!985-00	1	10!1,189-30	1	04!21,091-20	1	29!1.109,006-20	1	2911,050.456-15	1	26!235,848-55	1	Ill9,636-40	1	081793-50	1	05!19,800-40	1	22!98,386-50	1	20!14,425-35	1	09!5,044-40	1	09!3,500-90	1	091
Questions

SCHEDULE A-Cont'd.
Wheat Purchased from the Trade-P.C. 7942, Crown Account
		Price Basis $1.23} for No. 1	
Grades Smutty 4 Amber	Bushels	Northern	Durum 	2,622-30	1	07iRej. 1 Amber Durum	335-00	1	09}Rej. 2 Amber Durum	5.417-20	1	09}Rej. 3 Amber Durum	9.919-30	1	09}Rej. 4 Amber Durum Tough Smutty 2	1,319-30	1	07}Amber Durum ... Tough Smutty 3	1,703-20	1	09iAmber Durum ... Damp 4 Amber	118-00	1	09iDurum 	
Rej. 2 Amber Durum	386-50	99}Musty 	
Rej. 2 Amber Durum	103-00	1	08iMixed Heated ... Rej. 3 Amber Durum	7,761-20	1	08}Mixed Heated ... Rej. 4 Amber Durum	14,053-00	1	o 00 *4-Mixed Heated ...	4,609-40	1	07}No. 1 Mixed Wheat	878-20	1	07}No. 3 Mixed Wheat	1,799-20	1	07}No. 5 Mixed Wheat Smutty 5 Mixed	838-05	1	08}Wheat 	1,542-20	1	06}Rej. 5 Mixed Wheat	1,985-50	1	08}No. 1 Mixed Grain..	61,211-25	95Tough 1 Mixed Grain Rej. Mixed Heated 1	1,704-30	93Mixed Grain 	790-00	90No. 4 White Spring. No. 1 Alberta Red	690-00	1	32}Winter 	132,232-00	1	38}No. 2 Alberta WTnter	'40,624-35	1	38}No. 3 Alberta Winter Tough 3 Alberta	8,248-00	1	36}Winter 	
Smutty 1 Alberta Red	1,040-40	1	35}Winter 	
Smutty 2 Alberta	3,085-00	1	33}Winter 	
Smutty 3 Alberta	3,562-40	1	33}Winter 	
Sample Durum and	1,906-50	1	31}Broken Wheat .. Tough Rej. 1 North-	2,402-00	1	00era Mixed Heated Tough Rej. 2 North-	257-30	1	08}ern Mixed Heated Tough Rej. 3 North-	8,387-30	1	05}ern Mixed Heated Tough Rej. 4 North-	16,699-50	1	05}ern Mixed Heated	1,892-30	1	02}3-Wheat Purchased 7942, Crown Account Tough Rej. 6 Wheat	from the Trade-P.C.	Mixed Heated .... Tough Rej. 2 Northern Mixed Heated	682-00	$	97}& Heating 	
Tough Rej. 3 Northern Mixed Heated	1,550-00	1 05|	& Heating 	3,300-10	1 05i	
Price Basis $1,231 for
Grades
Tough Rej. 4 Northern Mixed Heated
& Heating	
Tough Rej. 5 Wheat Mixed Heated &
Heating	
Tough Rej. 3 Northern Sprouted ....
Tough Rej. 4 Northern Sprouted ....
Tough Rej. 2 Northern Musty	
Tough Rej. 4 Northern Musty	
Tough Rej. 2 Northern Fireburnt ....
Tough Rej. 2 Amber Durum Mixed
Heated	
Tough Rej. 2 Amber Durum Mixed Ht.
& Heating	
Damp Rej. 3 Northern Mixed Heated Tough and Heating
3 Northern	
Tough and Heating
5 Wheat	
Tough and Heating Feed Wheat ....
Smutty Rej. 1 Northern Mixed Heated Smutty Rej. 2 Northern Mixed Heated Rej. 5 Wheat Mixed Rotten Kernels ..
Sample Spring and
Broken Wheat ____
Sample Heated _____
Tough Sample
Heated	
Tough Sample Htd.
and Heating _____
Sample Amber Durum Heated ..
Rej. 1 Northern
Mellilot Odor ___
Rej. 2 Northern Mellilot Odor ....
Rej. 5 Wheat Heated Rotten Kernels ..
Rej. 3 Northern Htd. Rej. Mixed Gravel & Cinders.
Sample Wheat-
Fireburnt	
Rej. 3 Amber Durum Mixed Rotten
Kernels	
Tough Sample Amber Durum Mixed
Heated	
Tough Rej. 2 Northern-Rej. Ergott Tough Sample Htd.
-Fireburnt	
Tough Sample Htd.
Rotten Kernels ..
Tough and Heating . Sample Wheat ..
Bushels Northern
1,419-30	99}
1,526-50	97}
2,668-10	1 04}
545-00	99}
3,611-30	1 05g
39-30	1 02}
1,325-30	94
4,157-40	1 08}
963-30	1 01}
1,449-50	95
1,530-10	1 06}
1,938-10	99}
268-00	95
384-00	1 07}
1,619-50	1 Olf
9,561-10	1 00}
7,402-20 62,819-20	1 00 95
16,153-40	94
2,248-00	94
943-20	95
367-00	1 11}
11-00	1 07}
1,455-00	98}
6,945-30	96}
1,998-50	80
1,508-20	1 08}
557-00	94
1,970-30	1 051
163-10	85
2,610-10	93

Questions as Orders jor Returns
SCHEDULE A-Cont'd.
Grades	Bushels	Price Basis $1.23i for No. 1 Northern '	Rej. 4 Northern Rej. Mixed Gravel & Cinders 	4,329-30	80Sample Mixed Gravel and Cinders ....	Rej. 3 Northern Rej. Mixed Heated ..	1,020-20	1	o o *4-*Sample Wheat Rotten Kernels 	9-50	95Sample Amb. Durum	39,782-00	1	09Rej. 4 Northern Mixed Rotten Kernels 	1,477-40	1	03i
155,121,772-26


SCHEDULE B
[Stage Direction]
the meaning of the Immigration Act are not subject to deportation on the grounds of internment.
2. There are none in Canada.

Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	Have any contracts in connection with the Canol project been awarded to Bans Wilhelm Rohl, or to any firm of which he is the head?
2.	If so, when, for what, and in what amounts?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	Not by the dominion government.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
For the period from September 27, 1943, to June 30, 1944.
Grades
No. 1 Northern	
No. 2 Northern	
No. 3 Northern	
No. 4 Northern	
No. 5 Wheat	
No. 6 Wheat	
Tough 4 Northern ....
Tough 6 Wheat	
Smutty 3 Northern . . Rej. 1 Northern
Mixed Heated	
Rej. 3 Northern
Mixed Heated	
No. 1 CW Garnet .... No. 2 CW Garnet______
Price basis $1.20i for No. 1
Bushels Northern
99,661-00	$ 1	20111,235-50	1	lii3,530-00	1	13169,956-40	1	06f283-10	1	02|1,538-00	99|6,684-50	1	04J1.082-50	97|3,318-20	1	03|509-00	1	06|2,003-30	1	03i184-20	1	11189-10	1	io|
200,07 6H10

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Are all enemy aliens who have been interned during the war subject to deportation at the conclusion of hostilities? If not, in w'hat eases is deportation not applicable?
2.	Are all Italian prisoners of war in Canada subject to compulsory return to their homeland after the war ?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1. No. Interned persons of enemy citizenship who are legal residents of Canada by virtue of having been landed in Canada within


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	Has the civil service appointment of James McGregor, an employee of the unemployment insurance commission, been made permanent by the civil service commission?
2.	If so, why has this been done in view of the restriction on permanent appointments in the civil service during wartime?
3.	Is the said James McGregor a war veteran, and what was the date of his first appointment to the civil service?


Mr. McLARTY:: Return tabled.


FREDERICK ROBERT (OR FRITZ) STAMPS
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	Is Frederick Robert (or Fritz) Stampe employed, or has he been employed recently, by the unemployment insurance commission or the Department of Labour?
2.	Is this man a naturalized Canadian or a British subject, and what is the place of his birth?
3.	If employed by the unemployment insurance commission or the Department of Labour, has his appointment been concurred in by the civil service commission?
4.	If so, is the civil service commission satisfied that Stampe was legally qualified to sit for the necessary examination?
5.	Is the civil service commission aware of any misstatements made by Stampe with regard to the place of his birth and his status as a Canadian or British subject, and, if so, what steps have been taken in connection therewith?
6.	Is it proposed to appoint Stampe to any other position within the civil service of Canada?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Return tabled.


HOUSING-EVICTION OF SOLDIERS AND SOLDIERS' FAMILIES
Mr. CHURCH:: What action is the government taking under the war measures act to prevent families of soldiers and soldiers themselves being evicted
Export Credit Insurance

from their 'homes, for the duration of the war and six months after, notwithstanding the provisions of any provincial law, statute, usage or custom to the contrary, and notwithstanding existing overholding tenants acts of the provinces ?


CANADIAN FORCES-CASUALTIES
Mr. CASTLEDEN:: What is the number of casualties by provinces in each of the three branches of Canada's armed forces from the commencement of hostilities to July 1, 1944?


Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax):: Order for return, subject to the reservations I made on July 24.


RELEASE OF AIRCRAFT FROM SERVICE IN CANADA
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	How many aircraft have been released from service in Canada by, (a) the R.C.A.F., and (b) the R.A.F.?
2.	How many of these have been sold, (a) for use in Canada; (b) for export; (c) how many have been donated for use in technical schools?
3.	How many aircraft have been destroyed in Canada as being obsolete or not airworthy,
(a)	by the R.C.A.F.; (b) by the R.A.F.?
4.	How many aircraft released from service have been reconditioned, (a) by the R.C.A.F.;
(b)	by the R.A.F., and how have these been disposed of?
5.	How many of the above aircraft have been reconditioned for the R.C.A.F. or the R.A.F. in privately owned factories, and how have these been disposed of?
6.	Have any aircraft been sold to date to private individuals, (a) by the R.C.A.F. or (b) by the R.A.F.? If so, to w'hom, how many, and what type?


EXPORT CREDIT INSURANCE
[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient for the purpose of facilitating and developing trade between Canada and any other country to introduce a measure:
1. To incorporate the Export Credit Insurance Corporation for the purpose of entering into contracts of insurance with exporters to insure against the risk of loss involved in contracts for the export of Canadian-produced goods.
The capital stock and the paid in capital surplus of the corporation each amounting to five million dollars shall be subscribed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce from time to time and paid therefor by the Minister of Finance with provision also for loans not to exceed in the aggregate, outstanding at any one time, an amount equal to five times the aggregate of the paid-up capital and surplus of the corporation;

2. To authorize the Minister of Finance during the three years next ensuing after the _ coming into force of this act, tola) guarantee the obligations of the government or an agency of the government of any such other country to pay the cost of Canadian produced goods under a contract to purchase such goods from an exporter;
(b)	make a loan to the government or any agency of the government of any such other country to enable such government or such agency to purchase from an exporter and to pay the cost of Canadian produced goods; or
(c)	purchase, acquire or guarantee any security issued by the government or by the agency of the government of any such other country to any person in Canada in payment of the cost of Canadian produced goods exported or to be exported to such other country ;
provided that the government of such other country requests the government of Canada to give such guarantee, make such loan, or purchase, acquire or guarantee such securities anA undertakes bo indemnify the government of Canada against loss in connection therewith.
The aggregate amount of such guarantees outstanding at any time shall not exceed two hundred million dollars and the aggregate of the amount of loans made and outstanding at *any time and the value of securities purchased or acquired and held at any one time shall not exceed one hundred million dollars.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley):: I have a question which I would like to address to the Minister of Labour, but in his absence I will address it to the parliamentary assistant. My attehtion has been called to selective service order 227-58, which requires, as I understand it, all veterans who did not see service outside Canada to be subject to removal from their present occupation to essential industry. They are holding a meeting in Vancouver to-night. They are not objecting to being placed in industry, in fact they are in favour of it, but they do resent being placed in the same category as zombies or those who did not volunteer for service. If what I have said is correct, the order makes a clear distinction between volunteers who were unable to get overseas through no fault of their own and those who did get overseas.

Quebec Election


Thomas Vien: Order. The hon. member has laid the foundation for his question and I would ask him to put the question now.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but these men are having a meeting to-night.


Mr. GRAYDON:: The matter is urgent, Mr. Speaker, and I suggest that the hon. member ought to be able to go on.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I would like to ask the parliamentary assistant this question-


Thomas Vien: The hon. gentleman has laid the foundation for his question and he must now ask it. The minister has had notice of it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I was proceeding to do so. I would ask the parliamentary assistant if his department will give further consideration to the matter with a view to separating the two groups.


Mr. PAUL MARTIN (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Labour):: The hon. member gave me notice of the question yesterday. The point under discussion is a ruling of the national selective service advisory board having to do with compulsory transfer orders.
For the information of hon. members I might say that under the compulsory transfer order plan civilians who are in certain classes of industry are asked to report to the employment office for interview to ascertain if they are suitable for transfer to work which is more important in the war effort. This plan has proven very successful; I am glad to say that it has actually been necessary to use compulsion in but very few cases. In fact, out of the thousands of cases where transfers have been effected there have been less than fifty who have raised serious objection. Usually it was found that the man is transferred to a position which pays a higher rate owing to the fact that men working in war industries are as a rule on a higher wage level.
Coming to the point of circular No. 227-58, up to July 14, 1944, the instructions issued on authority of the national selective service advisory board were that the compulsory transfer orders were not to be applicable in the case of returned men regardless of the nature of their service in the armed forces.
With the increasingly acute shortage of labour which has developed during this summer the advisory' board came to the conclusion that returned men should be interviewed and transferred where feasible but that this rule should not apply to men who had seen service overseas.
I am informed that no objection has been taken by any individual returned men, but I do point out that all individuals ordered to transfer under this compulsory transfer system have a right to appeal to a board of referees.
The hon. member asks if the department will give further consideration to the matter and he can be assured that the matter is being discussed currently with the officials concerned.


QUEBEC ELECTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. It is now nearly three weeks since he stated in the house that he had directed the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to make an investigation of the report published in Le Canada of a speech made in Montreal by Jacques Sauriol on July 9. I wonder if the minister is able yet to state whether he has received a report as to the accuracy or otherwise of the newspaper item.
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): Though I received no notice that it was the hon. gentleman's intention to bring this matter up this morning, and therefore have not brought here the preliminary reports I have received from time to time from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as to the progress being made in their investigation, I can from memory state that there has been found one reporter who claims to have been present at the meeting and to recollect the statements that were made. It was also suggested that notes of what was going to be said had been delivered to the reporter of another newspaper and efforts were made to ascertain whether or not that was so. It so happened that the city editor of that paper and the reporter were not available until last Monday. They were interviewed and they have not yet been able to find those notes. At the present time the situation is that there is one person who claims he could vouch for the accuracy of the statement made in the paper. The matter is being investigated under the supervision of the lawyer who usually acts in Montreal for the Royal Cana-' dian Mounted Police, and he is receiving daily verbal reports from those who are conducting the investigation.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: As this is the official paper of the government in Quebec, would the minister not admit the accuracy of that report?
Labour Conditions

Mr. ST. LAURENT: I would like to have the hon. gentleman restate that. I did not catch it.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: As this paper is supposed to be the official organ of this government in the province of Quebec, would the minister not be willing to accept the report published in it?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The minister knows of no newspaper that is the official organ of the government in the province of Quebec, and the minister will be guided by the advice of counsel who has been retained in Montreal and who is following, with the officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the progress of the investigation being made.


Thomas Langton Church: Is the minister not free now to admit that while the provincial elections are on the regulations * that I referred to the other day for the defence of Canada have been in effect suspended1?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No.


Thomas Langton Church: Why is there not one law for the whole country? Why single out Mr. Houde for treatment in one way and treat others differently? May I ask also whether the habeas corpus act has been suspended?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I was not able to follow completely what the hon. member said, but I did catch the observation that there should be one law for everybody in Canada. There is one law for everybody in Canada.


Gordon Graydon: May I be allowed to point out to the Minister of Justice that it has just come to my attention that the same Jacques Sauriol has now himself stated that he may be in a concentration camp, or that he may foe interned, for some of the statements that he has been making. Will the minister look that up in this morning's papers? I have just seen it.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I noted1 that, and there have been others who, being perhaps anxious for the role in which that would place them, have suggested that they might during an election campaign be interned.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: Late last night, according to reports, three thousand shipyard workers in Halifax and Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, were likely to strike this morning. I would inquire of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of

Labour whether the department has been successful in taking steps to avert a very serious disruption in that area.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member gave notice of his question regarding the difficulty between Halifax Shipyards Limited and their employees. As he knows, negotiations have been going on now for some time between the employees and the company in regard to the renewal of the former contract. The department of Labour caused to be set up a board of conciliation which made its report, and since the negotiations commenced, and all through the negotiations and since the receipt of the report, the department has had its senior officer on the spot in contact with both parties in the hope that mutually satisfactory arrangements could be worked out. I regret to say that efforts in this direction have thus far not proved successful, and I can now only say to the hon. member that the department is leaving no stone unturned to resolve the differences and to try and see that the men get back on the fairest possible terms.


LABOUR REQUIREMENTS FOR HARVESTING OF ONTARIO TOBACCO CROP
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. C. SENN (Haldimand):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour, or in his absence to his parliamentary assistant, notice of which I sent to him last night. At a meeting of tobacco growers from the counties of Norfolk, Oxford, Elgin and Essex held in Simcoe recently a resolution was passed urging the national selective service board to make provision for supplying sufficient labour to harvest the tobacco crop which is now approaching the time when it must be harvested. Has the Department of Labour received this resolution, and if so what action is to be taken?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have no doubt the hon. member did send a letter of notice of his question, but it did not reach me. The minister happens to be absent, and on that account possibly the letter was mislaid. Other hon. members, particularly the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Taylor) brought this matter to my attention, and it is being discussed by the departmental officials to-day.


REQUEST FOR WESTERN FEMALE LABOUR FOR EASTERN FRUIT AND VEGETABLE CANNING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. N. J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln) :: I was unable to give the Minister of Labour notice of this question, but I believe that the

Internments
parliamentary assistant to the minister could give me some indication as to whether there were negotiations going on with regard to it. Following the movement of farm labour from the west representations have been made with respect to getting female labour from that section of the country for processing the large crop of fruit and other vegetables which will be canned. Have any negotiations taken place and has consideration been given to the movement of female labour to eastern Canada for that purpose?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, consideration is being actively given to that matter.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Has any progress been made?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not in a position at the moment to report whether or not progress has been made.


TRANSFER FROM INDUSTRY TO FARMING OPERATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ernest Edward Perley: I am informed that some men working in certain industries, particularly in the mining industry, who would like to go west to assist in farming operations on their own fathers' and relatives' farms, are having a little difficulty. While they are being released temporarily by the industry they are having some difficulty with national selective service. They have to appear before the boards in their districts and they are informed that when they go west they will have to appear before the boards there. Would the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour inform the house if there can be any rule or regulations passed which will help to facilitate this situation so that these men will not have to face the difficulties that confront them now?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure that having in mind the importance of the work every facility will be used to facilitate the movement of the workers in the circumstances mentioned by the hon. member.


WAR LABOUR BOARD-RAILWAY APPLICATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN -FRAN QOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): May I ask the hon. and genial parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour when we may expect the decision of the war labour board on the submission of railway employees for adjustments of wages?
Paul Joseph James Martin: With regard to the decision of the national war labour board concerning the case of the railway workers, as I said last week in answer to a question put to me from the other side of the house, it is a very involved case, as the hon. member will appreciate. The national War labour board is giving the matter active attention. On inquiry this morning I was advised that the board is working on the matter and will give a decision at the earliest possible moment.


INTERNMENTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Tern-' iscouata): May I ask the hon. friendly and genial Minister of Justice if it can be expected that Mr. Houde will be released before Tuesday next, the last day for nominations to a seat in the Quebec legislature?
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): I must apologize to the hon. member. I did not realize that the question was being addressed to me, and I am afraid I did not follow him very closely.
Mr. POULIOT:: I shall repeat the question. From the report on Mr. Houde's case it appears that it is about to be settled. I wonder if he could be released before Tuesday next, the nomination day for all those who run for seats in the Quebec legislature.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Were I to attempt to deal with that report I should have to make a very long statement about all of the details of the Houde case. All I can say at the present time is that the matter is under consideration.


DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. H. KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State in his capacity as custodian of enemy property. In view of the interview that took place yesterday between a number of cabinet ministers and a delegation representing the Ukrainian Labour Fanner Temple Association concerning a request for return of certain properties or proper recompense therefor, is the minister able to make a statement on the matter?
SETI8ID ramON
Veterans' Insurance


Norman Alexander McLarty: I think the only reply that I can give to the question of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is the one that was given to the delegation yesterday, namely, that the government will give consideration to the matter and as soon as it arrives at a decision that decision will be announced. I think the hon. member will realize that the government should not act on any ex parte statement and should consider very carefully all phases of the matter.


VETERANS' INSURANCE
[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved the second reading of bill No. 170, to provide for the insurance of veterans by the Dominion of Canada.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
Sections 1 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
On section 9-Provision by contract for change of beneficiary.
Gordon Graydon: Mr. Chairman, these
sections are going through rather quickly. Will the minister give some indication of the real purport of section 7, which deals with the designation of contingent beneficiaries?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: In general this act has been redrafted for purposes of greater clarity. Sections 6, 7 and 8 taken together refer to beneficiaries. There is no real change from the old act, but the provisions of sections 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the old act have been redrafted for greater clarity and incorporated in these sections. It was found by the officers when they went through the old act that some of the provisions were rather badly drafted. These have been redrawn, without any significant change except the change in principle which I announced in :he house the other day when I spoke on the *esolution. The significant change is in section 10 of the bill, and when we arrive at that section I shall be very glad to explain the real change which is intended.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 10-Limit of benefits when death attributable to war service.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think I should explain the change here. Under both acts, if a pension is awarded to a person in the insurance beneficiary classes, the com-
IMr. Knowle* ]
muted value of the pension is deductible from the amount of insurance and an alternative insurance benefit, described below, is payable; but if the beneficiary is the wife or children of the insured, a minimum of $500 is payable plus the alternative insurance benefit, even though the pension is awarded to the wife. If, however, the wife of the insured is the beneficiary of the insurance and the pension is awarded to another person no deduction is made from the insurance money. As to the alternative insurance benefit under the old act it was the premiums paid on the amount of the deduction from the insurance, together with interest at 4 per cent, the total payable under the policy not to exceed the amount of insurance. Under the new act it will be the paid up insurance equity with respect to the amount of the deduction. Where the premium payment under the insurance is completed, as for example aften ten, fifteen or twenty years under ten, fifteen or twenty payment life contracts, the paid up insurance equity is the full amount of the insurance, so the new section 10 is a definite advance in regard to benefits to the beneficiary under the insurance.


Gordon Graydon: Perhaps the minister gave this information previously but what is the limitation on the amount of insurance a soldier can take out?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Under the old act it was $5,000. Under the present bill it is $10,000, with one limitation; that where an insured person had a policy of $5,000 under the old act, that person is limited to a total of $10,000 under the two acts. As an illustration, a member of the army in the last war might have a policy for $5,000. He cannot take out another pqlicy under this legislation for $10,000, but if he qualifies he can take out $5,000 under this bill and have his $5,000 under the old act.


Gordon Graydon: It occurs to me, of course, that this might be applicable to members of the veterans' guard.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Exactly.


Gordon Graydon: This would not permit them to take out an additional policy for $10,000, but to have a total of $10,000. May I ask also whether the policies which this bill envisages will be in the nature of straight life policies, or whether there will be some special terms in them about which perhaps the committee should know something?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No; there is no provision for a straight life policy. There will be ten, fifteen and twenty

Veterans' Insurance
payment policies, to the age of sixty-five, and there is an age limitation of eighty-five for the payment of premiums which is in conformity with modern insurance practice, instead of a straight life policy. This would mean that all persons reaching the age of eightyJfive would not have to pay further premiums. That is according to modern insurance methods.


Gordon Graydon: Are these policies of a standard type, without any options at all in respect to the insurance?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, there are options under certain sections of the bill, but it is in conformity with standard insurance practice except that in most cases, though not in all, the rates here are slightly lower than the rates of the standard insurance companies. Sections 6, 7, and 8 of the bill deal with those points. Perhaps I might give my hon. friend some specimen benefits, and with the consent of the committee I will place this table on Hansard:
Amount and plan of	Duration at death of insured	20	Ages	at Issue 35	insurance Whole Life (Old) Prems to 85 (New)	Old	New	Old	*\ New5	$ 536	$ 563	$ 556	$ 582$1,000 	10	579	623	625	65620	697	732	810	7795	824	1.067	1.008	1.238$5,000 	10	1.215	1.607	1.625	1,90420 Pay Life	20	2,273	2,592	3.294	3,0155	552	625	575	625$1,000 	10	616	750	666	75020	788	1,000	912	1,0005	972	1,625	1,175	1,625$5,000 	10	1,548	2,750	1,998	2,75020	2.096	5,000	4.212	5,000
It will be noted that there are slight increases under the new legislation in most cases but as in the $5,000 policy at age 35, where under the old legislation, after twenty years, the amount payable was $3294, and under the new legislation it will be $3,015.


Gordon Graydon: As I understand the
purpose of this legislation it is to give the veterans of this war an opportunity to take out insurance which the ordinary commercial companies do not regard as a favourable risk.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is correct.


Gordon Graydon: Following that principle, will there be any limitation upon the insurance a soldier may have on his life?	I
suppose there will be regulations in that regard concerning what sort of risks even the government are prepared to take. I would hope that the government will not be too picayune in the matter and will make the risks as broad as possible so as to give the greatest possible number of our soldiers an opportunity to take the insurance.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If my hon. friend will look at schedule B of the bill he will find certain regulations which are in exactly the same form as they were in the old Returned Soldiers' Insurance
Act. In most cases those regulations are just and also generous. There are certain cases however, in connection with which the minister could not accept applications. I have in mind certain incurable diseases, and I think that a restriction of that kind would be only fair. But in most cases, even where there is serious illness, applications would1 be accepted.


Mr. McCANN:: Is there any physical or medical examination of any kind?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not as a rule; but there are exceptions to that rule. Look gt schedule B at page 9 of the bill, where reference is made to applicants who are not seriously ill. Then, in class II there is reference to applicants who are seriously ill. Class III deals with applications from persons in so serious a condition of health that they have no reasonable expectation of life, and the fourth class is general. So that I take it the minister could call in a medical examiner at any time with respect to a case which was in a doubtful class, and where there might be some doubt as to recovery. That procedure would be taken in respect of applications considered really unjust or in other words in cases where there would be no hope of recovery.
5448
Veterans' Insurance


James Joseph McCann: Is that left to the minister, or will there be a medical board to pass upon it?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The answer to that question will be found in section 13 of the 'bill, where it is stated that-
The minister may refuse to enter into a contract of insurance in any case where there are in his opinion sufficient grounds for eo doing but, in the exercise of the powers conferred upon him by this section, the minister shall be governed by the provisions of schedule B to this act and he may require for this purpose that the insured shall submit himself to medical examination or shall furnish such other information as the minister may require.


Thomas Langton Church: I should like .to occupy only three or four minutes of the committee's time, and in doing so I shall direct my attention particularly to section 7 of the bill. I had intended to ask certain questions on second reading. I might say, however, that the bill now before us is a most commendable one, so far as it goes.
It might be recalled that in January, 1940,
I brought this matter of soldiers' insurance to the attention of the house. At that time I placed a resolution on the order paper stating that-
A system of life insurance on all soldiers be established, to include provision for their dependents, both during and after the war, and to include, for three years after the war, provision for their insurance against unemployment and want and free hospitalization.
When the matter was discussed I pointed out to the Minister of Finance what had been done in Toronto, and also in Washington. At the time of the last war, soldiers in Toronto were insured for SI,000. The beneficiaries, upon the death of those soldiers, received cheques for that amount from the city of Toronto. Then, in Washington they had a soldiers' insurance act. I believe that the Sparkman Act was introduced in Washington about the time they came into the war. Several provinces have aided in this matter by legislation.
The difficulty about this bill is that we are about four years too late.
I made that complaint only a month or two ago on a finance bill. I said at that time that , I had known a very fine specialist in Toronto, one who had specialized on diseases of the eye, ear, nose and throat, and who had operated on a former member of the House of Commons and, so far as I could learn at the time, saved his life. That physician went early to the war, having on his life an insurance policy with one of the commercial companies. I will admit that the Canadian insurance companies generally have performed a

patriotic duty during the war, but in some cases, owing to the peculiar types of policies, insured persons were faced with the alternative of having to pay additional sums or lose some of the benefits.
So far as this bill is concerned, it is my view that there are very few soldiers who would be able to pay three and a half per cent interest. I was hoping in the last three years that the minister would revive the provision contained in the Pension Act, to which he has made such worth while extensions. We wiii recall that a bill was before the house only a month or so ago to provide a separate department for soldier problems. It will be my hope that he will accept the same principles I proposed in 1940 as to a system of insurance, and include all other beneficiaries along the lines I have indicated.
I am convinced that many of the wives of soldiers will have great difficulty in carrying out payments on existing policies when their husbands are away. If the husband dies abruptlj-, it becomes more difficult to prove the claim and to get ready money to pay necessary expenses. This bill extends the policies from S5,000 to $10,000, a feature which I consider most commendable. I am sorry, however, that some provision has not been made for insuring soldiers in other ways, and against certain other difficulties they are bound to have. For instance, it was stated at a civic council meeting in Toronto that 600 soldiers are to be evicted from their homes. They will have nowhere to go. All this is to happen in the city from which I come. Yesterday at Toronto there was a meeting held on this with the Toronto board of control and Ottawa officials.
It would be my proposal that this principle of insurance should have wider scope, so as to include all conditions the families of soldiers might have to face. While the bill is commendable in many respects, yet in my view it does not go far enough, and is not protecting those who are overseas in France and Italy, and who are suffering as they have had to suffer.	*
As to getting money to protect small businesses they may have, I am afraid that controls of various kinds, and other conditions, will bring about a situation under which some of them may lose those businesses.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am sure the house is greatly indebted to the hon. member for the consistent interest he has taken in this question of insurance protection for our servicemen. I can assure him that the government through its official committees, not only in the Department of Pensions and National Health but also in the services,

Veterans' Insurance
has given very careful and sustained attention to the very problems he has mentioned. There are great difficulties in the way. I might inform my hon. friend by way of comparison that if he would take the capitalized value of our scale of Canadian pensions and compare it with that of some other nations which have adopted the in-service insurance policy, he would find that there is an increase, on an average, of from $5,000 to $6,000 in the capitalized value of Canadian pensions.
The hon. member mentioned another point which to my mind is far more important-and when I say this I am speaking from a purely personal standpoint, and not for the government. In my view the protection of dependents is more important than in-service insurance. We have in Canada a most comprehensive system for the post-war period to protect returning soldiers, airmen and1 members of the navy from the hazards the hon. member has mentioned,
I believe the present measure in respect of returned soldiers' insurance is as far advanced as that to be found in any other country. We have raised the amount from $5,000 to $10,000, and under section 10 of the bill we have made brovisions which are more generous to the pensionable widow or beneficiary. This is most certainly a definite advance. My personal view is that possibly something more should be done in connection with the protection of premiums. I ami not criticizing my hon. friend in respect of the points he has raised. On the contrary I am agreeing with what he has said, and I must also commend him for the stand he has taken in the last three or four years. I can assure him that every possible attention has been paid to this matter.


Thomas Langton Church: Would it not be possible under this bill for the government to consider paying half the new premiums for these soldiers? Would that not be done during the war, and for about a year after? I say that because some of them are pretty hard1 up.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think my hon. friend is dealing with an entirely different principle. This measure is designed only for those who have been discharged. This is a veterans' insurance bill, and the last one was a returned soldiers' bill. The provisions of this bill extend to those who are pensionable under the various orders in council, such as merchant seamen and members of the auxiliary services.
Mr. GILiLIS: Are merchant seamen covered?
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre) Those who are pensionable are covered, that is, those who have suffered disabilities are entitled to the same protection as enlisted men if pensioned under the Pension Act.


Thomas Langton Church: Can a man transfer a
policy from a private company to the government insurance?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This is designed principally for the man who cannot get a standard policy from a life insurance company. It enables such a man to obtain insurance with the protection of the state behind it. A man with a disability who cannot obtain insurance in any other way can obtain insurance up to $10,000 under the provisions of this bill.


Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford City):: Is there any provision in- this bill to insure men who served in the last wair and who did not take out insurance under the old act?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, there is not. That would mean a reopening of the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act which expired ini 1933. If a returned soldier of the last war was insured and has enlisted for duty in 1933, he would be entitled to $5,000 additional to the $5,000 he might have taken out under the old returned soldiers' act.


William Ross Macdonald: It seems to me that provision should be made in this bill for the veterans of the last war. There are many of these men between the ages of forty-five and fifty-five years. When they came -back from the last war they were not in a financial position to take out the insurance available to them under the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act. Now that their financial position has improved, why should they be prevented from coming within the provisions of this bill? I know there are quite a few whose finances were not such that they could come under the provisions of the old act and who would like to take advantage of this legislation. I think in that respect I can speak on behalf of some hon. members of this house. I know there are a number who served in the last war who would like to come under the provisions of this bill. To my knowledge some of them were not in position to take out insurance at that time, but they could take out some now. I am speaking not only on behalf of these members of the house but on behalf of a vast number of soldiers of the last war who I feel should come within the provisions of this bill.
Under the provisions of the former act a soldier could take out only $5,000 insurance, while under this bill he can take out up to $10,000. I commend the government for bringing in this bill at this time. I know that the measure which was brought in at the end of
Veterans' Insurance

the last war helped a great many soldiers. In saying that I speak from personal experience. I know there are other ex-service men in this house who took out policies under the old act. There were men who could not get insurance because of their physical condition and they were able to get this under the provisions of that act. It was a splendid thing for the returned men, because they could look ahead with confidence knowing that they had at least- an insurance policy behind them. I hope the government will see its way clear to widen the scope of this bill so that it will cover those who served in the last war.


Mr. GRAY:: Before I supplement what the hon. member for Brantford City has said, I should like to ask if there is any date of expiration in this bill.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Three years after discharge. The first bill which was introduced in 15)20 extended to only two years after discharge, but this is for three years.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I came under the old act
myself, and as I remember there were a number of extensions, I believe three or four at least. I do not think there should be a time limit in connection with this bill. If there had been no time limit on the old act, the soldiers referred to by the hon. member for Brantford City would have been able to take out insurance as they became financially able to do so. I agree with the hon. member for Brantford City that some provision should be made to include the veterans of the last war under the provisions of this bill.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In reply to the hon. members for Brantford City and Lambton West I may say that the provisions of the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act were in existence for practically thirteen years. The hon. member for Brantford City has referred to the limit of $10,000 in this bill as against $5,000 under the former act. I would inform him that the average insurance taken out under that act was slightly over $2,000. I do not think his argument applies with any force at all. There were five different extensions of the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act. To be frank about it, it was not taken advantage of to a very large degree. There were certain rigid features about that act which we have endeavoured to remove in drafting this legislation. We have raised the amount to $10,000 and we have increased the benefits to the widow. If we are to provide benefits for the veterans of our time, it would have to be done by amending the old returned 
soldiers' act, by providing a further extension of that act. Frankly speaking I do not believe the number of applications made under the provisions of the old act would justify such a course. Let us see to it that this bill, which is for the benefit of the boys who are now overseas in this war and of those who have been discharged, with its more generous terms, is as successful as possible. I think parliament will be doing its duty by seeing to that.


William Ross Macdonald: I had intended that my remarks should be congratulatory to the Minister of Pensions and National Health. I know he has a great interest, not only in the men who served in the last war but in those who are serving in this war. I commend him most heartily for bringing in this bill with respect to the men who are serving in this war, but I still feel that the men who served in the last war and who were not in a financial position to take out insurance should1 be able to take advantage of the benefits offered. The minister suggests that the old act would have to be revived. I ask him to give that his most serious consideration. I do not want to confuse the issue by emphasizing this point too strongly. If this bill is for the men who served in the present war then I agree with the minister when he says that it should be *put through. I suggest to the government that they review the old act to see whether or not it is possible to revive it in order to give the soldiers who were not in a financial position at that time to take out insurance an opportunity to obtain the benefits granted. They should also be able to increase their insurance to $10,000, as is provided for in this bill. That is another question; and I am merely referring! it to the government. I am in complete accord with the provisions of the present bill.


Clarence Gillis: I am sorry the hon. member for Brantford City has weakened in his argument.


William Ross Macdonald: I am not weakening. I aim just as strong as ever for reviving the old act, but I do not want to confuse the issue.


Clarence Gillis: You backed up a little.


William Ross Macdonald: I am not backing up at all.


Clarence Gillis: I think this is a step forward; it is an improvement on the old soldiers' insurance act, but there is much force in the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Brantford City and the hon. member for

Veterans' Insurance
Lambton West. Opening up the old act is not the solution of the problem raised by the hon. member for Brantford City. As I see it, this measure is merely one part of the scheme of rehabilitation of service personnel returning from the war, and the formation of a department of veterans' affairs was brought about, in my opinion, to consolidate all the machinery for both old and new service personnel so as to make one central administration. In view of the fact that we took the old pension act and opened it up, related the new forces to it, and made the necessary changes to bring it up to date, we should do the same thing with respect to this bill. There is no difference between the old soldier and the new soldier. They fought the same kind of war, against the same enemy, for the same objectives, although we are thirty years late in getting around to this as far as the old soldier is concerned.
In the field of insurance the soldier has a problem all his own. He is not looked upon as a profitable client as far as old line insurance companies are concerned, and if the government is to -go into the insurance business-and I think it should in so far as it can thereby protect those who have come out of the service-let them bear in mind that whether a soldier has a hole shot in him or not he suffers a great deal of disability if he has gone through a war, and it is difficult for him to secure insurance.
I think that this bill should be related to the soldiers of the last war. I visualize it in future as a large insurance scheme instituted by the government to protect those who are not able to get protection in the ordinary field of insurance. I believe there is quite a business in this for the government and that sooner or later they will have to come round to it.
I am not in favour of the time limit, because the average soldier coming out of this war, like his predecessor of the last war, is unlikely to appreciate within this period the advantages of this insurance. It will be ten years after he comes out of this conflict that he will recognize the value of this insurance. If the measure is on the statute book to be taken advantage of, and it is not being used, it is not costing anything. At the same time, when those who are intended to benefit by it realize that it means something to them, its benefits should be available to them. In my opinion this time limit is inserted for the purpose of appeasing the old line insurance companies, who may see in this bill a threat of invasion of the field of insurance.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No; no. I can assure my hon. friend that that is not correct.


Clarence Gillis: No, not so far as the minister is concerned; but there are a lot of long-range figures behind the scenes who have something to do with this. I believe that the minister's intentions regarding this measure are absolutely honest. I have merely risen to support the hon. me.mber for Brantford City and the hon. member for Lambton West. I believe that the limit should be removed and the scheme broadened to include the old soldiers. Most of them have no protection; they cannot get insurance to-day, and they should be enabled to take advantage of this particular scheme. This is a 1944 model, and we should let all ex-service men in the country have the benefits of it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I tell my hon. friend that we consulted some of the veterans' organizations and there was no request made for what is now being suggested. I should mention one or two other points in this connection. It might be unfair to introduce new principles for those who still survive from the old war. Some of them have gone away for good from this sphere; and the element of discrimination must be considered. But, also the rates would be very high, because the average age to-day of veterans of the old war would be fifty-five or fifty-six years.


William Ross Macdonald: I would not agree with that. I believe the average is lower than that.


Gordon Graydon: Let the minister look at his own birthday, to-day, and see.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In any event the rates would be very high, and I doubt whether more than a few veterans could afford to take the insurance.


Clarence Gillis: It would be cheaper than private company insurance.


George Hugh Castleden: Under what section
does schedule A, setting out the rates of premiums to be charged, become a part of the act?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That comes under an amendment which I shall ask one of my colleagues to move:
That clause 12 be amended by adding thereto the following subclause (2):
"(2) The premiums payable under the various plans of contract shall be as provided for in schedule A to this act."


George Hugh Castleden: How were these rates
arrived at?


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. I would point
out that the committee is now on section 10.
Veter am' Insurance

I know that hon. members were satisfied to discuss this subject in the general debate, and it is impossible to discuss the matter now.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I realize that I am out of order in reverting to section 3, but the minister has been very liberal, and we passed these sections rather rapidly. I hope that in spite of the fact that that section has passed, the minister, in the light of what has been said, and in the light of experience under the old act, which was renewed, as he pointed out, for some thirteen years, will remove the time limit under clause 3. I hope there will not be a time limit in this act, and I wish the minister would give the committee the reasons for putting one in. I endorse what has been said by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. It takes members of the armed forces a number of years to get on their feet and become reestablished. The young men who come out of this war, though they may be a little better informed on insurance matters than those who survived the last war, know very little, at the age of eighteen or twenty or twenty-one, about the various types of insurance. I think it is a mistake to have a time limit of three years. The bill would be more generally acceptable to the returned men of this war and to the country generally if that limit were removed, and I urge the minister to remove it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member. The reason for the limitation is obvious; we had it before, in 1920, when it was two years. It is to encourage these boys when they come home to take advantage of the very generous provisions of this legislation while they are still young and the rates are very low. It is that which makes it so difficult to adopt the suggestion of the hon. member for Cape Breton South.
In regard to old men like ourselves who were in the last war-


Ross Wilfred Gray: Speak for yourself.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think the limitation is an encouragement to insure. If it should be found necessary or advisable by the parliament and the government of that time to extend the period beyond three years, I am sure that the parliament then, with its usual generous heart, will do it.


Mr. MacNICOL:: I support the views just expressed by the hon. member for iLambton West; I had intended to express them myself. From the result of much observation following the last war, I was astonished at the number of the boys who returned who could not make up their minds within three years to do anything, and I have been wondering whether the
[The Chairman.]
minister could not see his way clear, if there is to be a time limit, to extend it to five years. Perhaps before the end of that time most men will have realized that they will lose the benefits of the cheaper rate unless they act quickly. In the riding I represent there are a very large number of returned soldiers, and if the minister could see his way clear to set the time limit at five years it would help them very greatly.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I do not think a complete repetition on my part of the remarks of hon. members who have spoken on this matter is necessary, but I entirely endorse- and I think I can speak in this connection for British Columbia soldiers-what they have said. I cannot agree with the minister as to the time limit, nor do I greatly believe in the supposed generosity of governments in the future. The .minister will remember that his own department only this year permitted1 pensions to be paid to those married after a certain period, following a strenuous battle *by the Legion throughout Canada. I cannot see why the time limit should be there at all unless it is at the instance of the insurance companies. When young soldiers come back we hope they will not follow the example of the minister in charge. We hope they will get married as soon as they can. But a young soldier is not in a position to take out insurance, to buy furniture, to establish a home for himself and a family. Again, I do not see why there should be a time limit. I agree with the suggestion that it should be extended to all veterans instead of reopening the act. I do not see where it would1 confuse the issue. It might confuse the insurance companies 'but I am not in the least bit worried about them. They have been able to look after themselves mighty well for many years and we need not worry about them. I suggest that the time limit be removed and that the act be made applicable to all overseas men. I am not worried about the fellow who served in Canada. As regards the man who was willing to go overseas, that is a different matter, but I am speaking on behalf of all soldiers of the active army both as regards the last war and as applicable to this war.


Mr. FAIR:: I commend the government for bringing in this -measure but I think it might be improved along the lines suggested by the hon, member for Brantford City, the hon. member for Lambton West, -the hon. -member for Cape Breton South, and the hon. member for Fraser Valley. The minister realizes that there are in the forces men who joined up immediately after coming out of school. They

Veterans' Insurance
have had no experience in earning a livelihood and very many of them will not have any money to get married and to do a great many of the other things they would like to do. Insurance is one of the things they will put aside for the time being. I recommend that the time be extended even beyond the five-year period suggested by the hon. member for Davenport. The experience of the last war has taught us that men were in too big a rush to get out of the army and into some form of employment so that they neglected a number of things they found necessary ten or fifteen years later. If it is not possible to have the act extended I suggest that the old act be amended immediately so that the men of the first great war may be given the protection that is being provided for the veterans of this war.


Mr. WRIGHT:: I do not wish to repeat anything that has already been said by others and I heartily agree with what hon. members have submitted to the minister. Has the minister any figures to show the percentage of veterans under the old act who took out insurance during the first two years as compared with those who took it out later?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The figures are these:
Year	Number	Amount1920- 1921	
2,371	$ 7,074,0001921-	1922	
7,456	17,874,5001922-	1923	
9,725	22,083,5001923-	1924	
14,025	28,696,500
In 1924-1925, 1925-1926, 1926-1927, 1927-1928,
no applications were received.
Year	Number	Amount1928-	1929	
4,035	$9,869,0001929-	1930	
3,407	7,967.5001930-	1931	
1,672	3,801.5001931-	1932	
1,373	3,210,5001932-	1933	
1,450	'	3,116,0001933-	1934	
2,802	5,598,0001934-	1935	
4	8,500
That must have been very unusual applications after the act closed.


Percy Ellis Wright: The figures quoted by the minister prove- the points of members who have been speaking, that this grew in popularity from year to year as the soldier realized the benefits under the act.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In the first five years the total of the members which I read in detail was 33,577, and in the last six years the total was 14,743.


Percy Ellis Wright: But there was a period in between in which it was dropped.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Percy Ellis Wright: And as a result the publicity would naturally be less with regard to the scheme, I really think, after the figures the minister has given, that he should seriously consider lengthening the period, if not eliminating it altogether. Under the scheme, can the beneficiary elect to receive an annuity instead of a cash benefit at the death of the insured?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is all by way of annuity except for the cash amount payable at death.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But it is payable only at death.


George Hugh Castleden: How many policies have lapsed under the agreement?
-Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):
I put that on Hansard the other day. My hon. friend asked sc question about it and I replied almost immediately, but he had left the chamber in the meantime. It is on Hansard.


Mr. WHITE:: I concur in what the various soldier members have said about the period for which the act is set. The minister, replying to one question, stated that it was only for a short period because they wanted the returned veterans to take out insurance while very young. Section 6 sets out who the beneficiaries are to be. The average soldier returning from overseas, if unmarried, is not going to be in very good financial circumstances, and if he can take out only a policy that is payable to his future wife and children he is not going to be very specially interested in insurance. We can take the minister's own example. When he came back from overseas, if he could only take out a policy payable to his future wife and children, he would not have veen very likely to take one. But as the years go by and the financial circumstances of a soldier improve "he may want to get married, and one of the first things he will wish to do will be to protect his wife and any children there may be.


William Ross Macdonald: The minister may w^nt to do that yet.


George Stanley White: We all hope so. Perhaps the baby bonus will induce him to do so. But the period of time may have lapsed and the soldier will not be entitled to take advantage of the act. The minister says that he wants the returning soldier to take advantage of it as soon as he comes home, and while he is young, but there is no inducement there for him to do so because it is payable only to his future wife and children. I think it should be extended because of that point alone; and when the soldier does marry it is not too late for him to take advantage of it.
Veterans' Insurance


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I reply to the hon. member for Yorkton. He asked for the number of policies that had lapsed. Up to March 31, 1943, the number was 53,288, and the amount was $122,016,470.24. The lapses for 1943-44 were 361, the total amount $859,395.48 or a total of 53,589 with a valuation of $122,875,865.72.


George Stanley White: ,When a policy lapsed under the old act after it had been carried on for a number of years what happened?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is a special provision in the old act that deals with that.


George Stanley White: Take a policy of $5,000 that a veteran had carried for ten years. Something happened and it lapsed. What benefit would he get out of that? Would he get anything?


William Ross Macdonald: While the minister is looking up that information I should like to give some information from my own experience, because I have had experience of policies lapsing from time to time. If I recall correctly what happens, after my policy lapsed I would receive a notice from the department of insurance advising me that it had lapsed and if I did not pay the premium within a certain time I would get a paid-up policy. If a soldier allowed his policy to lapse and did not pay the premium for a certain number of months-I am not sure of the number-he would have to go to a doctor, if he had been ill, and be examined, or else he would have to make a statement that he had not had any illness.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I understand the practice is that the proportion of the insurance which is covered by the premium actually paid would be payable, but not the whole amount of the policy.


George Stanley White: When the policy lapses, does the soldier receive from the department any sum in settlement of that policy?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is a cash surrender value of the policy.


William Ross Macdonald: When a policy lapsed under the old act I believe the soldier had to make a declaration that he had not been ill. If he had been ill he had to go to a doctor and be examined. Does that practice prevail in connection with the present act? If the doctor found that the man had been ill, would the department still continue to insure him?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I cannot answer my hon. friend's question because this has not been administered under my department. As my hon. friend knows, it has

been administered by the Department of Finance. I believe that what my hon. friend suggests has been the practice. What the practice will be in the future is a matter for consideration.


Robert Fair: How do the rates in schedule A compare with the standard rates of the line insurance companies?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am informed that they are lower than those of most companies. Probaby there are two or three companies that are as low. I do not know of any that are lower than those rates, but these are certainly lower than eighty-five or ninety per cent of the insurance companies.


George Stanley White: When the minister was speaking about the policy that had lapsed, was he using the word "lapsed" the same way as it is used with reference to any policy of the standard insurance companies? Those companies give the policyholders thirty days to pay the premium. Is the minister, or whoever will administer this act, to have any discretion in the matter, or is the arbitrary rule to be applied that after thirty days the policy lapses?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, I can assure my hon. friend that there will be definite discretion with regard to the point raised by him. That will be done by regulation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In reply to a question from this corner a while ago the minister admitted that the only kind of insurance provided for under this act is what is known as protection. The veteran has to die to collect, unless he takes the cash surrender value, in which case he is no longer protected. It is well known that this protection form of insurance is a desirable thing to have and it is commendable that it be provided at as low rates as the government can arrange. But I would point out that veterans will also be interested in providing for themselves what is known as endowment insurance, whereby some provision is made for payments to come back to them while they are still alive. I would remind the minister that in the Department of Labour there is an excellent scheme known as Canadian government annuities. Anyone can purchase a Canadian government annuity without medical examination. It is a simple matter to get in touch with the department and find out the rates and other conditions. I have two suggestions to make. The first is that the minister consider publicizing that fact along with any literature that is sent out.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Which fact?

Veterans' Insurance


Stanley Howard Knowles: The fact that there are government annuities available to all our people, including veterans. I suggest that that be included in any literature that is sent out in connection with this insurance.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: A very good suggestion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My other suggestion is that the minister consult with the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Finance to see whether any special offer might be made by the annuities 'branch to veterans. There is an element of subsidy which is contained in the annuities sei>up, of which I approve. I believe the country generally would approve a little further subsidy to enable veterans to provide annuities for themselves. I should be glad if the minister would consider those suggestions.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Thank you.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I have no intention of repeating any arguments, but the minister does not show any indication of deleting the restriction as to time that would be applicable. He says he wants the soldier to take advantage of this at an early date after he is discharged. In looking at schedule A I find that in the age bracket twenty-five to twenty-nine there is a difference of only twenty-cents a month in the premiums on a policy of a thousand dollars on a fifteen-year basis. Therefore I cannot see how the minister can substantiate the argument that the three-year figure should be retained. The suggestion has been made that the period should be five years. I think it should be five, if the limit be not taken off altogether.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is it not S2 a month on a S10,000 policy?


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: This is on the basis of SI,000; why talk of $10,000?


George Stanley White: Would the minister explain to the committee how the succession duty act will operate in regard to this insurance, and whether or not the annuities will be subject to income tax?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am informed not, but personally I am not positive on that point.


George Stanley White: Which, succession duty, or income?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Succession duty.


George Stanley White: Would the minister get a ruling from the department?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, before third reading of the bill. I shall get a ruling on both these points.


George Stanley White: Also about succession duty?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall be glad to do that before third reading of the bill and inform my hon. friend, or the leader of the opposition if my hon. friend is not in the house.


George Stanley White: Will the minister give an opinion as to whether soldiers' insurance such as this should be exempt from succession duty? Would he like to go that far?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is my personal opinion, but I am speaking only for myself.


George Stanley White: Would he like to recommend it?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall discuss it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Has the minister definitely made up his mind that he will not extend the period from three to five years?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Frankly, no; I am not qualified to discuss the actuarial possibilities of such an extension. I shall discuss it with those who are the scientific advisers in this matter before the bill receives third reading. I will see if there is any definite and insuperable objection to the suggestion, which has come from practically all quarters of the house. I shall be very glad to have that taken up.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That will be satisfactory to me.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Will the same thing apply to my suggestion?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No; I am afraid I must take a definite stand in that regard. If we are to extend these benefits to those who served in the previous war but who have not served in this war, we must do it by amending the old act. The whole system of premiums and everything else is based upon scientific actuarial practice, and in the case suggested by the hon. member we would have to amend the other act.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Then would the minister consider recommending that the other act be amended?


John Ritchie MacNicol: I want to thank the minister for his consideration and his undertaking that between now and third reading he will inquire as to whether it would be actuarially sound to extend the period from three to five years.
Veterans' Insurance


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I will discuss it with the superintendent of insurance, who of course has been responsible for the financial set-up of this measure.


George Hugh Castleden: If the minister has it there would he give us the amount of premium paid in to date and the balance of the fund at the present time.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I can give my hon. friend the receipts and expenditures, if that would answer his question.


George Hugh Castleden: I should like to know what has been paid in by way of premiums.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: These are the receipts and expenditures for 1943-44, as furnished by the department of insurance. The amount of the fund was $21,383,159.33.


George Hugh Castleden: That represents the total premiums paid in?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, that must be it. Bank interest earned amounted to $850,665.42; interest added, $682.31; premiums, $633,680.60.


George Hugh Castleden: Those were the premiums paid for that year?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes; this is the account for 1943-44. The complete figures are as follows:
Receipts
Amount of fund	
$21,383,159	31Bank interest earned	850,665	42Interest added	
682	31Premiums	
633,680	60Recovered death benefits... .	2,000	00Recovered cash surrender...	2,950	00Recovered disability benefit.	212	41Recovered annuities	
3,482	22

Expenditures
Payments at death	
$	206,856 11Annuity payments	
247,261	09Surrender values	
226,787	52
Premiums refunded (section
10)	
68,593	67Disability benefits	
22,046	83Excess premiums returned..	3,788	90
$ 77ft 994 19
Net balance	 22,101498 15


George Hugh Castleden: That statement shows a credit balance to take care of the claims that will still have to be paid?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is correct.
[Mr. MacNicol.l


George Hugh Castleden: According to the figures given by the minister approximately 48,000 policies were issued. Of these some 6,000 have lapsed or been paid up, and 14,647 have been surrendered. That would leave something over 24,000 policies still in effect, and the figure of approximately $22,000,000 is the credit balance in the fund at the present time.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


William Ross Macdonald: The minister has told the committee that it is impossible to bring veterans of the last war under this legislation. I realize that it would be difficult to do so, and for that reason I did not unduly press my suggestion that they be so treated. However, I am interested in having them protected. I am sure no soldier member of this house would want to weaken the case of the soldier of this war if that would be done by bringing the soldiers of the last war under this legislation. I do think, however, that all soldier members of this house believe the old act should be revived, speaking not for themselves but for the great mass of returned soldiers throughout the country. I am not going over all the arguments that have been advanced, but it is a fact that many veterans of the last war, because of physical incapacity, are not now insurable risks and therefore cannot obtain insurance with the line companies. When they returned from the w-ar they did not have the money with which to take out returned soldier insurance. They are now in a financial position to do so. The minister has said the average age of veterans of the last war is fifty-five years. I know there are many veterans of the last war under fifty-five years of age who are now able and anxious to take out this insurance. I am not going to ask the minister his personal opinion with respect to this matter but I am going to ask if he will not have the government consider reviving the old insurance act in order to permit veterans of the last war to become insurable at the present time. I am making this request in all seriousness, in behalf of the great number of veterans of the last war throughout the country who want this insurance.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 11-Reserve only to estate.
George Stanley White: Would the minister give a concrete example of this, showing in dollars and cents how it will work out? What will the estate get under what you call the reserve?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The principle is the same as that contained in section 11 of the old act. It has been reworded to conform to the changed structure of the

Veterans' Insurance
new legislation. The only difference is that the interest paid is 3J per cent instead of 4 per cent, as it was under the old act. By this section the estate of the insured receives only the difference between what might be considered the cash surrender value of the policy and the total of the premiums paid, with interest at 3^ per cent per annum thereon.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 12-Terms for payment of premiums.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is an amendment to this section, which I would like my colleague the Minister of Agriculture to move. The amendment is that section 12 be amended by adding thereto the following subclause:
2. Premiums payable under the various plans of contracts shall be as provided for in schedule A to this act.


Mr. GARDINER:: I move accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. McNIVEN:: When this section refers to a ten, fifteen or twenty year term does it mean a ten, fifteen or twenty year term policy, or does it mean that when the premiums have been paid for the period designated the veteran will have a full paid up policy?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The latter is the correct meaning.


Donald Alexander McNiven: That is, having paid his premiums for ten years at the rate designated in the schedule, he will receive a fully paid up policy.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes; of course with heavier premiums.


George Hugh Castleden: I wonder how the government has arrived at this schedule. The minister has said the rates are generally lower than are found for ordinary insurance in the life insurance companies.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes. This was compiled by the insurance branch of the government, and it is in conformity with the most modern practice of life insurance companies with, as I said this afternoon, a slightly lower rate than is accorded civilian applicants for ordinary life insurance.


George Hugh Castleden: The ordinary life
insurance company has heavy expenses in connection with selling the insurance. In this case the government is doing that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There are no administrative charges at all. Those are absorbed by the state.


George Hugh Castleden: Then, if the state is carrying all the administrative work, free of charge, it seems to me the rates are rather high. There is no cost of selling and no advertising.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. member will realize that in this instance the risks are very much greater than the ordinary life insurance company takes, because there is no medical examination. Honestly I believe that after looking into the matter to some extent the rates will be found to be very fair indeed.


George Hugh Castleden: The figures would show that the government has on hand about $22,000,000 from the old fund. They also show that there are about 24,000 policies still in force.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: About 20,000.


George Hugh Castleden: So that perhaps there would be about $40,000,000 of insurance?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes; but the rate of mortality is increasing every day for those who are insured under the old act.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And it will continue to
increase.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


George Hugh Castleden: It would seem therefore that there is about $20,000,000 on hand to meet obligations of about $40,000,000.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has consideration been given to providing any form of insurance other than the ten, fifteen or twenty-payment life plan? The veteran at the age of thirty-five for example, may take out what is called a 20-pay-life policy under this legislation, for which the premium would be $29.04 per thousand per year. If the veteran desires insurance to provide an adequate amount of protection to meet his increasing family responsibilities it will be difficult to put on sufficient protection at a rate that high. There are other forms of insurance which come at cheaper rates and provide better coverage, such as taking a straight protection policy on the one hand and an annuity contract on the other. Straight protection or, as it is called, term insurance, could be had at a much lower rate per thousand than the figure I have mentioned as an example. Has consideration been given to offering the veteran two or three different
Veterans' Insurance

types of insurance rather than confining him to this one type? I do not feel that this serves all of the purposes which can be served by insurance, in the light of modern understanding of that subject.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Of course there are two different principles, as my hon. friend must realize. This is really protection for dependents. Annuities are protection for the individuals themselves, during their lifetime. This on the other hand is essentially protection for the dependents of veterans.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are two different forms all right, namely annuities on the one hand and protection on the other. But speaking now of the latter, there are different kinds of protection. One kind is this 20-pay-life policy, where the premium is fairly high, but paid over a relatively short space of time, at the end of which the policy is paid up. The other kind is term insurance, a type of insurance which many insurance agents despise, but which I believe best fills the bill for any man who wishes to provide protection of $10,000 or $15,000 for his family during the years when his children are dependents. It could be done at half or a third of these rates, in ordinary companies, if the medical examinations can be passed. My point is that the government is making this one kind of policy available to veterans, as set out in this bill, whether or not they can pass medical examinations. I am suggesting it should consider making some other types of policies available as well.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 13-Minister may refuse to insure.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I call the minister's attention to class IV in schedule B, where it states:
In cases where an applicant with or without dependents whose health has become impaired as a result of immoral conduct prior to enlistment, during service or after discharge.
Applications are to be refused.
We might as well discuss this matter frankly. I presume the thought in connection with this general class has to do with the man who has contracted venereal disease. That is what is aimed at. May I at the outset commend the minister and the Department cf Pensions and National Health upon the vigorous campaign waged in the past few months in connection with the elimination of venereal disease. It does seem to me however that this clause, which refers to men who contracted the disease prior to enlistment and afterwards served, and men who

contracted it during service, should be limited to men who refused treatment, thereby putting themselves apart and in a situation where they do not deserve to receive insurance.. I am not holding any brief for these people, but I am afraid that, worded as it is 

"as a result of immoral conduct prior to enlistment, during service or after discharge" -it is too -broad, and is subject to the possibility of misinterpretation by returned men. It would also be subject to abuse, if I may say so, either by departmental officers or by a minister who might not see the returned man's point of view in the same way as the present minister might see it.
I am sure the minister must know of cases under the old Pension Act where what I have said would apply. I recall particularly cases in which illegitimate children were involved, and where the chairman of the then pension commission would almost refuse to read the files if anything of that nature was contained in them. My recollection is-and it is quite vivid to-day-that he had a stack of files almost as high as himself sitting in one corner of his room, and he would not even look at them because of the nature of the material they contained. I urge the minister to reconsider this class, or at least to give us some explanation for the present wording.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is a good deal of force in what the hon. member has said. Of course he knows as well as I do that we have provisions in the Pension Act which deal with immoral conduct, and of course pensionability is affected. One could not effect what he has suggested in the period prior to enlistment, because we have no control at that time. But what we could do would be to add the words "or refusing treatment for such", and bring about the desired result.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Yes, that would be satisfactory.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall ask my colleague so to move.


James Garfield Gardiner: I move:
That class IV in schedule B read as follows:
"In cases where an applicant with or without dependents whose health has become impaired as a result of immoral conduct prior to enlistment, or as .a result of refusal of treatment for such condition during service or after discharge from service.
Applications are to be refused.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
George Hugh Castleden: Schedule B, class II, paragraph (b) provides that an application will be refused in the case of an applicant with dependents, seriously ill with a disability that is not pensionable. What about the man who

Veterans' Insurance
at one time was not pensionable but later became pensionable? He might be refused a pension to start with, but may- have been granted it after it had been considered. His insurance would be refused during the period he was not pensionable but during which he might be seriously ill.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He could apply when his status had changed.


George Hugh Castleden: Supposing the legislation is not in force?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This covers only the tenure of the bill, but during the operation of this legislation anyone whose status had changed could apply.


George Hugh Castleden: If he became pensionable three years after discharge, under this bill as it stands to-day he could not obtain insurance?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It would not include any of them.


George Hugh Castleden: I think the clause
should be changed or some regulation should be passed so that such a person could become insurable.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What about 1(c)? Does not that cover the point raised by my hon. friend?


George Hugh Castleden: That is an applicant without dependents; I am referring to 11(b), an applicant with dependents.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: 1(a) should cover it. I may tell my hon. friend that there would have been no difficulty under the old act with that type of case, and I am sure it was intended to cover it in this legislation.


William Chisholm Macdonald: What would happen to an applicant who is ill on discharge from an illness contracted during service but which was not due to service? He is discharged because of that condition and might be seriously ill when he applies for his insurance. Would he be entitled to insurance?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: 1(b) would cover that.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 14-insurance money unassignable, etc.


Clarence Gillis: I understand the minister
proposed an amendment to schedule B, class IV. What was that amendment?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: To make it apply to those who refuse treatment for conditions arising as a result of immoral conduct.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If they accept treatment, they would be insurable?	,


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If they refuse treatment they are not eligible; if they take treatment and still have a disability, they are eligible.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 15 agreed to.
On section 16-regulations.
George Alexander Cruickshank: May an applicant
have his premium payments deducted from his pension?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.	.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I think the application for the payment of insurance should be simplified. We have had several cases in the branch of the Legion to which I belong where widows have almost had to have the deceased fingerprinted and photographed before they could get the insurance. I am not exaggerating, because I still have the correspondence. Surely this procedure could be simplified. It is all right if the widow has some money, but where she has no money to pay for the funeral or feed her children it is a different matter. I know of cases where it has taken five months before the widow could get the insurance. That is altogether too long.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I
am informed by the officers of the Canadian pension commission that that is being attended to. I may tell my hon. friend that his observations will be carefully followed out.


George Hugh Castleden: Did I understand the
minister to say to the hon. member for Fraser Valley that premiums could be deducted from pensions?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


George Hugh Castleden: Without the consent
of the insured?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, with his consent.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 17, 18 and 19 agreed to.
Schedule A agreed to.
Schedule B as amended agreed to.
Family Allowances
Clarence Gillis: The department will take the necessary steps to advertise and publicize this legislation?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think the suggestion is a most excellent one. If this legislation is under my jurisdiction I shall see that it is carried out. If not, I shall see that it is recommended to the particular department.
Bill reported.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.


FAMILY ALLOWANCES
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, July 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King for the second reading of bill No. 161, to provide for family allowances.
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is my purpose to deal, I hope in a dispassionate and non-partisan way, with certain phases of the subject of family allowances and the bill which has been introduced; for I believe that no more tremendous or important issue can come before this parliament for the post-war period than the one we are now discussing.
With the objective provided for in this bill there can be no disagreement; for if I understand it aright it means that through this measure an endeavour will be made to achieve equal opportunity, particularly for those in the lower income brackets, and to give many who to-day are denied freedom from fear and freedom from want the hope of something better in the future than this world and this country have seen before. I realize that to achieve these objectives planning must be done now, and with the objectives in mind I agree and in the aim and the purposes that it has, I concur. I realize that plans such as this require a great deal of organization now. If we are to have a dynamic and a workable plan the cooperation of hon. members of all sides is necessary. I repeat that I agree with the objectives of this bill, while criticizing it in some particulars-which I shall deal with in committee-and also raising a question as to the constitutional issue which was dealt with the other day by the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent).
The challenge of adventure into new fields of social welfare must not find us discouraged

by the difficulties inherent in the British North America Act. We must go forth into new horizons of social justice. To-day the opportunity comes to us as it has come to few men in few generations to take part in the forward march of the common man. I believe that my views and those of most hon. members are to be found in the idealism reflected in a passage of the National Resources Development report for 1943 which was placed before the President of the United States in January of that year. In the words of that report; there must be-
-the fullest possible development of the human personality, in relation to the common good, in a framework of freedoms and rights, of justice, liberty, equality and the consent of the governed.
As a means of protecting justice, freedom and democracy:
The three factors-democracy, dynamic economy and peace-never in the history of mankind have been united in a political system.
Changes are taking place and tremendous changes are about to take place. We in the parliaments of the empire to-day must recognize that. The state must guarantee and underwrite equal access to security, to education, to nutrition and to health for all. That assurance is inexorable through the awakening of the spiritual being of man everywhere and the recognition of all men of their responsibilities for the welfare of all other men, not only within their own state but beyond its confines. Too often some of us are afraid to approach new horizons because there has been no experience to guide us. I think it is a significant fact that in 1944 there is not in the governments of Great Britain, of Australia and of Canada and in the cabinet of the United States any man who was bom in the present century. In other words there are far too many men in positions of authority without having along with their experience the idealism, the drive, the forcefulness, the initiative and the appreciation of present day conditions which potentially men of the present generation should be able to give to government. My philosophy is that, though I ask no man to follow me in this view, I believe in welcoming change, provided it will be made effective. Too often in this country the dead hand of the past as it is written in the British North America Act has destroyed reforms which ought to have been brought into being for the benefit of the future. The party to which I belong has no reason not to have the reforming dynamic of that of any other party in this house. It was this party which brought in women's suffrage, which coordinated the various railroads under the Canadian National Railways, which brought in the Wheat Board Act of 1935 and the Bank of Canada Act in

Family Allowances
its inception, and the other legislation of 1935 much of which the government of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) placed before the courts with a view to determining its constitutionality and much of which was declared to be beyond the powers of parliament.
In that connection let me mention that the party led by the Right Hon. Mr. Bennett had the reforming zeal. It brought in the Weekly Day of Rest in Industrial Undertakings Act, the Minimum Wages Act, the Limitations of Hours of Work Act, the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act, the Employment and Social Insurance Act, The Natural Products Marketing Act, and various other measures to which reference need not be made at this time, but many of these acts when submitted to the courts were found to be unconstitutional.
While I have no hesitation in saying that I am going to support the principle of this bill and get behind the carrying into effect of any bill, brought in by any party in this house, which I believe is for the welfare of the people, I reserve to myself the right to place before this house and the people of Canada as a whole my views with respect to this legislation as it is presently constituted.
* It was said in 1935 by the Prime Minister , himself that Mr. Bennett was introducing the legislation that was then brought in for the purpose of getting votes. No one tfas more persistent in his demand that those acts then brought in should be constitutional than was the Prime Minister of this day. No one spoke in more fulsome tones of the necessity of upholding the constitution of the land than did he. Over and over again, he called upon the government of that day to secure the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in respect of that legislation.^ I am not going to read the provision in question; it is set out in section 55 of the supreme court act, chapter 35, and gives to the government the right to submit questions of law or of fact touching the interpretation of the British North America Act as may be referred by the governor in council to the supreme court for hearing and consideration.
I am going to deal with that phase a little later on because I believe that the Prime Minister, having stated that the operation of the act is not to come in until the 1st of July, 1945, and having denied that there is any ulterior purpose in postponing the date when these payments are to be made, must have some of the fears of the constitutionality of this bill that he expressed in 1935 as to the constitutionality of the measures then introduced. This bill is little different in its operation and effect from and is analogous with
the old age pension act. The old age pension act provides for payments to persons of seventy years of age under certain circumstances. This act provides for payments to parents or others having the custody of certain children; the matter of age being of very little importance in the principle at issue. Over and over again the Prime Minister reiterated in this house in 1935, in 1931 and in 1926 that this parliament did not have the power to bring into effect a national old age pension act whereby the dominion would pay total pension without securing an amendment to the British North America Act. My submission is that if the Prime Minister was right then, like principles apply in the interpretation of the present measure.
But before I go on to deal with the constitutional issue, let me refer to one other matter.
I want to see this legislation made effective and operative. I want to see brought into parliament legislation that will banish the sense of fear and insecurity among the poor of the country. I want to see legislation when it is introduced which will not only promise a hope on July 1, 1945 but which in 1944 will assure its fulfilment before the election and which will be known to be constitutional and within the powers of parliament.
I do not believe that, because members happen to sit on different sides of the house there is any one of us, regardless of his lifetime of service, who can claim a monopoly of love and affection for the common people. I can look back on my own youth and say that in my opinion most of us can claim to belong to that group honoured by the Prime Minister the other day as the humble poor. We want to see that the standards are elevated. Suggestions have been made by labour that this legislation will be taken advantage of by unfair employers to freeze the level of wages at a low figure by reason of the extra income . that will come should this act be put into effect. I believe the parliamentary assistant to the Prime Minister said that was not the case in Australia and New Zealand. But the situation there is different from ours. In one case the state is unitary and in the other there is a joint control body over the question of minimum wages. In this country we have nine different minimum boards or controls, wages in one province being lower than in others.
I have read a great deal on this subject, and the experience in some countries has been that wages tend to be set at a low level by reason of the fact that a family bonus is in existence. The evidence before the price spreads commission indicated that in this country there is not a fair level of wages from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Nor can there be until the Depart-
Family Allowances

ment of Labour in the federal arena arranges with the provincial departments of labour and cooperates with them to elevate the level right across Canada. My suggestion to the Prime Minister would be that when this conference comes between the government of Canada and the provincial premiers one of the things he should ask for in order to make this act protective of labour is that a common level of wages for like work ibe established in every province. This matter has -been dealt with at considerable length in the province of Quebec where in 1933 a social service commission met and produced one of the best reports on family allowances and the like that can be found anywhere. The findings of the Quebec committee of 1933 indicate that the adoption of family allowances might result in wages being kept down, and it asks in general terms for the adoption of family allowances. Instead of raising the level of wages in that province, which would not permit of competition in industry by that province with other provinces, family allowances, it was suggested, might be the solution. It is a very fair report. What we must insist upon is that while giving an allowance to the individual we must assure him that he receives the same level of wages as others in the dominion who are doing the same type of work, so that he may be enabled to partake of the better things of life.
This report, and I refer particularly to one paragraph, deals clearly with the situation and indicates the reason why various labour leaders have asked for the assurance from the government that family allowances shall not affect wage levels. I am not going to quote what Mr. Buckley or Mr. Millard said, or what Mr. Bengough of the trades and labour congress said, but they indicated the danger that until wages were equalizfed these bonuses may have the unfair result of freezing wages at a level that would not be sufficient to enable the individual to secure the better things of life. I have no observations to make on this paragraph-it requires none. It places before the country in summarized form the attitude generally by many of the labour leaders of the dominion.
We may recollect too, that the province of Quebec has an economic system dependent on that of the other provinces, and that an exaggerated rise in salaries would bring local industries into a disadvantageous situation when compared with rival industries in other provinces. The present economic depression has also taught us that the prosperity of nations cannot he contained in watertight compartments and that there is a real interdependence between the economic systems of different countries. If, therefore, on the one hand, the desire is entertained of affording a large family an opportunity of developing according to the will of providence, and if, on the other, it is agreed

that our national economic system cannot adjust salaries to fit the needs of a large family the only other choice is to have recourse to the family allowance.
I think that the country as a whole is entitled to have from the Prime Minister the assurance that there will be the establishment of a level of minimum wages across this dominion through cooperation with the provinces to the end that all, regardless of the province from which they come, shall have equal access to that freedom from want which all of us are endeavouring to bring about. I shall deal with that matter later in committee.
I now come to the question of the constitutionality of this measure. Far be it from me to indulge in any argument with so eminent a counsel as the Minister of Justice, but I think it was some years ago that either the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition said that if lawyers did not disagree it would be a strange country in which we live. I am not going to place my humble opinion against that of the Minister of Justice, but I am going to call as my witness the parliamentary assistant to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Claxton) who in 1939 dealt with this problem when he prepared a brief for the dominion government for presentation before the Sirois commission. The question comes up: is this constitutional? I do not think the Prime Minister indicated his view when he introduced the bill; but the mere introduction of the bill suggests his belief in its constitutionality. My leader contended that it was not constitutional, or was doubtful as to whether it was constitutional. I have already referred to the reports regarding old age pensions. Before a committee of parliament in 1925 the whole question of old age pensions was discussed, and the view was expressed following an opinion given by the deputy minister of justice, that old age pensions could not be brought in on a national scale without agreement with the provinces or an amendment to the British -North America Act. Then came the case referred to by the Minister of Justice the other evening, the Attorney General of Canada v. Attorney General of Ontario, 1937 Appeal Cases, at page 355. I am going to read one paragraph that the Minister of Justice did not read in its entirety when referring to this case which had to do with the Employment and Social Insurance Act of 1935. Lord Atkin said:
That the dominion may impose taxation for the purpose of creating a fund for special purposes and may apply that fund for making contributions in the public interest to individuals, corporations or public authorities could not as a general proposition be denied. . .	.
But, assuming that the dominion has collected

Family Allowances
by means of taxation a fund, it by no means follows (that any legislation which disposes of it is necessarily within dominion competence^
It may still be legislation affecting the classes of subjects enumerated in section 92, and, if so, would be ultra vires. In other words, dominion legislation, even though it deals with dominion property, may yet be so framed as to invade civil rights within the province: or encroach upon the classes of subjects which are reserved *to provincial competence.
I am sure that hon. members will respect the opinion of Mr. Cahan, former secretary of state, who gave these ideas on this case on March 1, 1937:
I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether his department, in association with the officials of the Department of Justice, have considered the full bearing of a recent opinion of the judicial committe of the privy council, with regard to a matter such as this. As I read that opinion the privy council have declared it illegal for this parliament to make any appropriation of funds derived from taxation for subject matters over which parliament has not legislative jurisdiction under section 91 of the British North America Act.
All of the matters legislated for in this bill or imposed by it deal with the matter of child welfare, on matters of social service organization andl within the competence of the provinces. Then Mr. Cahan says:
That is a wide and sweeping declaration of the judicial committe of the privy council which I believe applies not only to pensions for old age but also to pensions for the blind, and a number of other appropriations aggregating tens of millions of dollars which are annually voted by parliament. In view- of that opinion I think the government should take into serious consideration the question whether in voting these tens of millions we are not committing illegal acts which are ultra vires of the parliament of Canada.
That is one opinion. I quote now an opinion from Mr. Brooke Claxton, as he then was, and Mr. L. M. Gouin, as he- then was, now a member of the other place. I read from page 20 of the report entitled "Legislative Expedients and Devices Adopted by the Dominion and the Provinces, 1939" I see my time is rapidly coming to an end; therefore I cannot read this quotation at any length. Let me read one portion of it in which Mr. Claxton and Mr. Gouin, dealing with the question of old age pensions, which is analogous to the payment of allowances to children, the only-difference being the matter of age, said this:
It can hardly be doubted that the subject of old age pensions falls under the provincial jurisdiction to legislate respecting property and civil rights. That was the opinion given by the Department of Justice and it does not seem to have been challenged.
After quoting from the speech of Lord Atkin before the privy council, they added:
If this is a correct statement of the law, the dominion old age pensions act will be invalid
if -that act is in itself legislation "affecting the classes of subjects enumerated in section 92" or if the act is "so framed as to invade civil rights "within the province; or encroach upon the classes of subjects which are reserved to provincial competence."
Then after dealing with this and others, he said:
For this reason, the holding in the reference justifies Mr. Cahan's apprehension with respect to this act at least, and the act and any similar legislation might be held ultra vires if the question is ever raised.
I cannot go into the various house references of the Prime Minister during the years, particularly in 1926, 1935 and 1936, except to say that on January 21, 1935, at page 49 of Hansard, the right hon. gentleman was explaining why much of the reform legislation which had been referred to in the book "Industry and Humanity" had not been brought in, and1 went on to use these significant words:
In that view of things will be seen the foundation of Liberal policy on social legislation as well as much else; and if the Liberal party in the federal field, during the time I had the honour to be Prime Minister, did not introduce more in the way of so-called social legislation than it did, it was in the main for two reasons, one of which I have already indicated, namely, that up to the present time, until within the last few weeks, it has been understood that practically all legislation of a social character came exclusively within the jurisdiction of the provinces, the other reason being that we did not know where we should obtain the wherewithal to carry out these policies until we got rid of the cumulative deficits which we had inherited when we assumed office.
The only altered opinion in connection with the legislative competence of parliament was expressed by Mr. Bennett, who said parliament had that power under the treaty obligations of this country.
I should like to give one other reference to support my contention that this legislation should be placed before the supreme court, under the power contained in the Supreme Court Act, before the coming election, so that no one in this country may be deluded by false hopes. In 1935 the Prime Minister made a similar request to mine to-day. He asked that the legislation then introduced be taken before that court, pointing out his reasons for this request; and those reasons apply to-day just as they did then. In stating his reasons for submitting an amendment providing that the question of the validity of the legislation should be submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada, at page 10S6 of Hansard for 1935 the right hon. gentleman said:
My reason for submitting the amendment is this: While the Prime Minister has; intimated
Family Allowances

that in his own mind he is quite confident the measure is intra vires of this parliament, nevertheless he has come to that opinion only within the last few months. I believe I am right when I state that for years past he has held a different opinion. It is not surprising therefore if many of us are in grave doubt as to the competence of parliament's jurisdiction in the matter, and if we have doubts people throughout the country will have equal doubts. ... If I thought the suggested amendment would occasion any delay in bringing the legislation into effect, in the event of its being intra vires, I would not suggest the amendment. I am convinced however that my suggestion should not occasion any delay, and I do believe, assuming the legislation to ibe intra vires, very serious prejudice of its provisions would be thereby prevented. Unquestionably in the minds of the people throughout the. country when the measure is assented to there will remain a grave doubt as to its validity. The provinces will have doubts, employers and employees will have doubts and when my right hon. friend proceeds to provide the necessary machinery a critical situation may arise.
I think it is generally conceded that sooner or later this measure will come before the courts for a decision respecting its validity.
The Prime Minister must have had in mind that fine legislation which he drafted in 1907, the. Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, which did a tremendous lot of good but which, when it finally came before the courts in 1925, was found to be beyond the power of parliament to enact. Then he went on to say:
Should it be declared ultra vires, and the machinery meanwhile were set up with appointments of four or five thousand people made, and all were on a sudden to find themselves without a position, the results would be to say the least unfortunate. It would have, too, a bad effect upon the beneficiaries, the people paying into the fund, and upon the position of industry generally. In these unsettled times, if any further note of uncertainty is thrown into the situation existing between employers and employees, and if any further difficulty is added by way of ascertaining where they stand and what _ will be expected of them by way of additional taxation and additional burdens to the industries with which they are connected the situation will be made very serious indeed. It is to avoid the possibility of anything of that nature that I offer the amendment in the hope that my right hon. friend will see his way clear to accept it.
I am supporting this legislation because I believe half a loaf is better than no bread; but willing as I am to stand on principle I am asking that he submit this matter to the courts so that sooner or later our people may not find that they have been deceived, if this legislation should be declared to be beyond the powers of parliament. There is nothing unfair in this submission. The supreme court sits here in Ottawa; it is ready to be convened. The Supreme Court Act provides machinery to cover such a contingency. I ask the Prime .Minister when he replies to tell us

what reason, except the fear that this legislation is unconstitutional, prevents him from submitting this matter at once to the courts of this country. It will not mean holding up the effective date of the legislation, since it does not become effective until July 1, 1945. If the Prime Minister does not do that and this act is found ultra vires after it becomes effective, the reaction throughout this country against those of us who belong to the parties that have existed since confederation will be such as I do not care to envisage. They will contend that when we placed this legislation upon the statute book we knew it was not within the competence of parliament. I ask the Prime Minister what has happened since 1931 to change the opinion he expressed in the House of Commons at that time, which appears at page 750 of Hansard:
I say the British North America Act should be amended so as to make it possible for the federal government to undertake the administration of that scheme. . . .
He was referring to the old age pension scheme. The other day, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice referred to the decision of the privy council, to which I have already made reference. The hon. gentleman was counsel for the Dominion of Canada in connection with that matter, along with the present chief justice of the province of Ontario. And, Mr. Speaker, as I read that judgment, what the Minister of Justice said to the house the other day as to competence of parliament to pass this and like legislation was what he unsuccessfully advocated when he appeared before the privy council.
I am going to support this bill; I care not what others do. I support it because I believe we are living in a changing world. But, with all the sincerity that I can command I am asking the Prime Minister not to deceive these children and parents by allowing parliament to pass an act of which its legislative competence has not been determined.
And I ask this, too: why wait until July 1, 1945? So far as our men in the armed services are concerned, let us immediately, by the necessary amendment to the War Veterans Allowance Act, give to those who have served the additional amount that is promised to them if the act becomes effective on July 1, 1945. We believe that we are approaching the end of this struggle. This bill recognizes that it is necessary that'the dependents of service men should receive this extra allowance. Why not now, while they serve? Why a promise of a date so far removed, when we hope, under Providence, that this war will be over?
Supporting the principle of giving aid to those in lower categories, and opportunities

Family Allowances
which so many of them are denied, I ask that parliament bring into effect-and parliament has the power-a system of scholarships to be effective throughout this whole dominion. Let it be by way of grant, so as to allow young boys and girls of merit and ability to climb the difficult heights so often denied them because of poverty. There are men in this house who came up that way. They are on the government side of the house, and they are on the opposition side of the house. This parliament has an opportunity to do something practical now. Ask for the cooperation of the provinces. Why was this not submitted to the provinces? Why w'ere they not given an opportunity to look into it?-and I speak for no province or no area. All I have said comes as a result of my own personal research. Why the postponement of the conference from week to week and from month to month? Convene it now. Let the provinces see the picture, so that they will realize that unless we lay a foundation now for that new world about which we speak so often, we are going to reap as we have sown, because of our indifference to the problems facing us.
I believe $250,000,000 in all is to be expended. That is $100,000,000 more than is being spent annually throughout the dominion for education, high, intermediate and1 low. Let nobody say that this bill is something dangled in front of the people, something to be made effective only after an election and in the light of certain eventualities. Make it constitutionally effective now. And if it is not, find out if it is within the competence of this parliament.
We have a terrible responsibility for the post-war period, sir. This parliament should make available moneys by grants to the provinces-and it has the power-to establish health units, hospital units, to set up libraries, to provide for better schools and to establish a system of scholarships. These are things recommended by the committee in Quebec in 1933, a committee with vision. Make it possible to establish low-cost housing. Make it possible, by the expenditure of not much more than this amount, to bring into the' homes all across Canada electrical power. Make it possible to establish a new health, educational and general welfare, national and provincial set-up.
That, Mr. Speaker, is all I have to say, with the exception of one concluding quotation from the National Resources Development report, which seems to sum up the whole thing. This report speaks of the change in public opinion during the war. Many social solutions could not have been provided for
a few years ago, because people would not have permitted the anticipated expenditures.
. It is different now.
This upsurging human personality, even in the terrible grip of war, looks for the new heaven and the new earth within its sight and grasp for the first time. If men of good will cannot unite to find a direction and show the way, men of bad will appear; they will loot the ships of state wrecked by the false lights on the shore.
As a man of good will I appeal to the government to let us know whether or not this measure is constitutional; let us know that it can be carried out and will be carried out. And if it is found ultra vires by the supreme court, then let us by cooperation with the provinces bring in legislation that will elevate the position of the common man.


Mr. A. W. ROEBUCK (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, in the first instance may I congratulate the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) upon a portion of his speech. I was impressed, surprised and delighted to hear the commendation which fell from his lips, directed toward the principle and purport of the bill under discussion. In its aims, purpose and objectives the hon. member says he concurs. He agrees that it will open up new horizons of social justice, and that the state must underwrite equal access to nutrition for the people. This and many other statements of the kind are commendation of a kind that is welcomed, both because of its substance, accuracy and truth, and because it reflects the independent stand of the hon. member as compared with that of his leader-at-large and of his leader in the house.


Gordon Graydon: There is no variance in our opinions.


Mr. REID:: They are 'for it and against it.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: I will take that up a little later.


Gordon Graydon: That will be fine.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: It does not make much difference what position the leader of the opposition takes in the house, because if the party ever does take office he will disappear anyway, and somebody else will be in his place.


Thomas Reid: And that is a sobering thought.
, Mr. ROEBUCK: While I congratulate the hon. member on his freedom of thought, the good will he has expressed, and the commendation he has directed toward the bill, I do not congratulate him upon what he has attempted to do.
May I call attention to the fact that the hon. member for Lake Centre at no time in the full course of his address, mainly on the
54G6
Family Allowances

constitutionality of the measure, had the temerity to state as his own opinion on his responsibility as a lawyer that the measure is unconstitutional. His object throughout was to raise doubt and to ask that this be resolved by some other court than the high court of parliament. Doubts and smokescreens were what he was dealing in, not his own opinion regarding the bill.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: What is your opinion?


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: I will state it before I am through. The hon. gentleman has suggested that this measure which he so highly approves be submitted to the courts, I presume before it is passed by this parliament, or at all events before it is allowed to come into effect. He refers to other legislation passed in 1935 which he thinks is in some way similar and which was referred by the present government to the Supreme Court of Canada. I would like to call his attention to the fact that that legislation was passed in 1935 and the decision of the privy council in England from which he read is dated 1937. In other words, it took two years to obtain a final decision on the legislation to which he referred.
I am wondering whether the real purpose of the suggestion that we refer this matter to the courts is along the line of a number of suggestions I have heard from the other side -something else, some other time; a matter of delay. Two years from now the hon. gentleman may not be a member of this house. No one knows just what two years may accomplish, but I do know that the members on this side believe in this legislation. They are not accepting proposals which, defer its operation two, three or more years while the matter is fought out in the courts. The Prime Minister suggested that the legislation of 1935 be submitted to the courts. Why? Because for the main part it was obviously unconstitutional.


John George Diefenbaker: If it was obviously unconstitutional how did it come about that the hon. member, representing the province of Ontario on the submission before the privy council, argued that it was not unconstitutional?


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: The hon. gentleman has asked a very good question. The Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) together with the present chief justice of the supreme court of Ontario, and I all argued in the same direction. We endeavoured, to save the Unemployment Insurance Act from a decision of unconstitutionality. Realizing the value of the legislation and the desirability of its immediate enforcement, we put up every argument we knew in order to save the legislation
	1
for the people. The fact that we failed resulted in the legislation being deferred for quite a number of years. Our purpose was good, but we were not successful in law. In due season I shall state why we were not successful.
There is nothing mysterious about constitutional questions. They are problems which the ordinary man, untrained in law, can understand. Let it be understood that jurisdiction to pass laws of this or any type lies in one or other of our legislatures, either in the dominion parliament or the provincial legislatures. The authority of these two legislatures in their respective fields is plenary and complete. There is nothing that we cannot pass. The British 'North America Act exhausts the legislative powers that are possible. Anything that is humanly possible is legally possible in one or other of these legislatures. Lefroy in his "Canada's Federal System", at page 94, said:
The clauses of the B.N.A. Act relating to the distribution of legislative powers exhaust the whole range of legislative authority, so far, at any rate, as the internal affairs of Canada are concerned, and whatever is not thereby given to the provincial legislatures rests with the dominion parliament.
The inquiry is fairly simple as to whether legislation is within, the jurisdictional competence of this house. The first thing that one does is to inquire whether it has been given to the provincial legislatures. If not, then it is within dominion jurisdiction, because of the overriding power of the dominion under the residuary clauses of the British North America Act. It has been argued by my hon. friend that the provisions of this bill may fall within section 92 of the British North America Act, and are therefore within the legislative competence of the provinces. There are only three clauses in the British North America Act which even suggests the possibility that this legislation belongs to the provinces. Subsection 7 of section 92 reads:
The establishment, maintenance and management of hospitals, asylums, charities, and eleemosynary institutions in and for the province, other than marine hospitals.
The second one is subsection 13:
Property and civil rights in the province.
The third is subsection 16:
Generally all matters of a merely local or .private nature in the province.
Obviously this legislation is not charity. An eleemosynary institution is defined by Webster as an institution "relating or devoted to charity, to alms, to almsgiving." This legislation is not charity because the payments are of right. Look at section 4 of the bill,

Family Allowances
which states that the allowance shall be "payable" only after registration of the child, and so on. Section 13, subsection 2 refers to the recovery of undue allowance when an allowance has been paid to a person who was not "entitled" thereto.
One is not "entitled" to charity. Payments are not "payable" to one to whom you are making gifts. That is not charity. This is not an eleemosynary institution, a hospital or anything of the kind. It does not fall within that section of the act.
Then consider property and civil rights- there is no property right and there is no civil right affected in any way by this legislation. The payments are to individuals as of right as between themselves and the Dominion of Canada. No contractual rights are touched, no property rights are in any way interfered with. It does not relate to either. Property and civil rights are for the most part rights of contract, and there are no contractual rights involved 'in this instance.
My hon. friend has referred to the case of Attorney General of Canada v. the Attorney General of Ontario, which is the last, the most important and the most comprehensive decision on the question of jurisdictional rights in matters of this kind. The case grew out of the legislation brought in by Mr. Bennett's government in 1935. It was referred by a government headed by our present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to the Supreme Court of Canada. At that time the dominion was represented in the argument by the late Mr. Justice Rowell, until recently chief justice of Ontario; and for the leading province, the province named in the case, I appeared as the attorney general in person. So that I think I have some right to speak, not authoritatively, but with a certain background of knowledge, in discussing this measure. Few practising lawyers in Canada have had more genuine experience in constitutional matters than have the present Minister. of Justice, and may I add in all humility, myself.
Now let us'see what Lord Atkin said in the privy council with reference to the unemployment insurance measure:
There can be no doubt that prima facie, provisions as to insurance of this kind, especially where they affect the contract of employment, fall within the classes of property and civil rights in the province and would he within the exclusive competence of the provincial legislature.
That was the reason that the legislation to which my hon. friend has referred was declared beyond the competence of the dominion parliament. It was because it was insurance legislation and because it interfered with contracts
as between employer and employee, adding Statutory conditions to the contract of employment. We argued that the matter was of such great general importance that it should be included in the overriding sections of the act, but the court found there was no emergency which took it out of the province's jurisdiction and placed it in that of the dominion. Because it interfered with contracts and insurance, and therefore property and civil rights, it was beyond the competence of this parliament.
What similarity is there between that act, which was declared ultra vires of our parliament, and the one which is before us and which we are now considering? There is no insurance in this bill, none at all. There is no interference as between employer and employee. There is simply a gift by this parliament to some section of its taxpayers. It is not within provincial jurisdiction in any of its aspects.
Is it within the jurisdiction of this parliament? Again, Mr. Speaker, I refer to that very notable decision in England in 1937, Attorney General of Canada v. Attorney General of Ontario. I quote the same great jurist, Lord Atkin, on the subject. He says:
That the dominion government may impose taxation for the special purpose of creating a fund for special purposes, and may apply that fund for making contributions in the public interests to individuals, corporations or public authorities, could not as a general proposition be denied.
There you have it, appearing in the very decision which counted out Mr. Bennett's legislation because it did infringe provincial jurisdiction. You have the broadest and the clearest statement that legislation such as we have before us to-day and which does none of these things could not as a general proposition be denied.
His lordship pointed out that dominion legislation, although it deals with dominion property, may be so framed-and this is what my horn, friend read-as to invade civil rights within the province. Of course it can. Mr. Bennett>did that very thing; but we have not. We have not encroached upon classes of subjects which are reserved to provincial competence. We do none of those things.
It might be held that this legislation is within the competence of this government because of the overriding powers of the dominion for the peace, order and good government of this country. It is not necessary, however, to justify it in that way. If it is not within section 92, the section which gives
546S
Family Allowances

powers to the provinces, then it does come within the overriding sections, as I have already said.
There are, however, other grounds. Subsection 2 of section 91 gives to the dominion power to raise money by any mode or system of taxation. We are going to do that; we are going to raise money by various modes and systems of taxation and expend it in this way. Then subsection 1 gives to the dominion the power for the disposal of the public debt and property. That is to say, we propose to exercise the right which the act has given to us to dispose of the money which we have raised by any system or method of taxation.
Lefroy, in his work on constitutional law, at page 493, makes this statement:
It would be impossible for parliament to legislate even under its general residuary powers bo make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada if it was restricted from incidentally affecting property and civil rights in the different provinces.
But we are not even doing that. We have a right to affect property and civil rights, but we have not the right to legislate regarding property and civil rights: I use the language of the act. Take for instance the Canada Temperance Act, which was held within the powers of this legislature. It was because it was in the public interest, and necessary-so they thought at that time-for the peace, order and good government of Canada, to preserve public order and safety.
I could refer to a long list of decisions of the courts, all perfectly clear, all perfectly logical. Let me take a typical one: Workmen's Compensation Board v. the Canadian Pacific Railway. The act was declared to be unconstitutional because it attached terms to contracts of employment and because it sought to impose contractual details as between employers and employees. There is none of that in this act.
I rather regret the position taken by the member for Lake Centre because I have always looked upon him as a good lawyer. In the past there have been some very good lawyers on the Conservative side of the house. I need only mention Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir Robert Borden, Hon. C. H. Cahan, to whom my hon. friend has referred, and Lord Bennett. Those of these gentlemen who have passed to their reward, had they heard the Conservative party in this house to-day attacking this bill as unconstitutional, would have _turned in their graves. They would have been astonished to find the Conservative party committing itself to legal propositions of that kind.

My hon. friend quoted Mr. Bennett. Let me do the same. In the House of Commons debates on May 5, 1936, as reported at page 2848 of Hansard, Mr. Bennett said:
It does not require a parliament at Westminster to pass a statute to confer upon .this parliament jurisdiction to deal with its own [DOT] revenue.
Of course it does not. My hon. friend has referred to statements made by the Hon. C. H. Cahan, at one time member for St. Lawrence-St. George. Mr. Cahan was a very good lawyer' indeed with a very high standing. It seems remarkable that St. Lawrence-St. George should send so many distinguished representatives to this house. Mr. Cahan, referring to the unemployment insurance case before the privy council in 1937, which we have had under discussion, and at page 2576 of Hansard, on April 5, 1936, questioned the possibly serious effects of a judgment which limited at all the right of this parliament in the expenditure of its own money. The court in England had said that the dominion parliament could not use its money for the purpose of infringing the legislative authority of the provinces, and it was that proposition which the Hon. C. H. Cahan was attacking in this house, because he thought that the jurisdiction of this parliament, under the British North America Act, was wider still than the judgment of the privy council-not narrower, as my hon. friend would have it be. He said:
This opinion, if it is valid, raises grave doubt as to the validity of appropriations by this dominion parliament of current revenues for such objects as old age pensions, unemployment relief, or for giving assistance to provincial undertakings of any description. If these appropriations are illegal and beyond the competence of the dominion, grave consequences may follow.
I join with him in that statement, and much. more so were the legal propositions advanced by the opposition in connection with this bill sound law. The gravest consequences might follow. I shudder at the implications of the legal philosophy which we have heard across the floor of the house.
If it is illegal to give money to parents for the benefit of children, as is suggested, then it is unconstitutional also to build houses for families including children, and our whole housing legislation is unconstitutional, beyond the power of this parliament, and may be set aside.
The Old Age Pensions Act is threatened. My hon. friend has had the temerity to link these two acts together and to say that if the Old Age Pensions Act were in some way unconstitutional then so must this be. That is wrong. But if this is unconstitutional, then

Family Allowances
the Old Age Pensions Act is unconstitutional. The Old Age Pensions Act has features which this does not possess.
Votes for the department of health, for the control of disease, are unconstitutional if this is unconstitutional. What about bonuses to agriculture which we have been giving to individuals all across the Dominion of Canada? Does my hon. friend argue that we have not power in this legislature to grant those bonuses?
Somebody has said that the encroachments of the dominion government upon provincial jurisdiction would reduce the provinces to the status of county councils. Let me tell you, were the legal philosophy that we have heard expressed this day sound, this parliament would have a lame jurisdiction. Parliament would not have the power of a municipal council to expend its own money for the benefit of its own taxpayers.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Grants in aid of technical education.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: Yes, of course-technical education and vocational education.


An hon. MEMBER:: And unemployment * insurance.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: And unemployment insurance, the Canada highway act, whereby we have granted millions; farm and fishery loans; the unemployment relief act, under which we have * expended hundreds of millions of dollars-all that falls by the same logic as does the act before the house to-day. The very comparison shpws that the contention is absurd.
What a mess my friends have got themselves into constitutionally in this argument! At present we are allowing income tax payers to deduct $108 per child from their taxes as a child allowance. Now the pith and substance of that legislation would not be altered were we to charge these people their full income tax and later return money to them by way of an allowance on behalf of the child. The pith and substance would be exactly the same. The constitution of Canada, Mr. Speaker, does not make a distinction between rich and poor, as apparently does the opposition in the House of Commons. If it is ultra vires to pay children's allowances to parents whose income is below $1,200 per year, then I say it is equally ultra vires to give allowances to parents whose income is over $1,200 per year. And if that is so, then the income tax act of this parliament is unconstitutional, and should be declared so by the courts.
I have not heard the hon. member for Lake Centre proposing that we refer all those acts
and all the legislation upon the statute books of Canada which is on a par with this act-I say, I have not heard him proposing that all this legislation be referred to the courts for a decision the tenor of which we know in advance. The courts of this country are busy institutions. We have no right to impose upon them tasks which are not bona fide or to ask them to resolve doubts that do not exist.
It has been suggested by the leader of the opposition-it is so indefinite that it is hard to put your finger on it-that family allowances be geared up in some way to individual needs. Apparently that is the suggestion of a bill which he would like to introduce were he in power, a bill to give children's allowances geared up to individual needs. I suppose he would send thousands of ladies with spectacles and long noses to inquire into the private family affairs of the people of this dominion.


Gordon Graydon: Section 5 does that.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: No, it does not, not by a good deal. It only prevents abuse of the act; but my hon. friend suggests that he poke his unwelcome nose-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Tory nose.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: Tory nose, yes, into ten thousand homes inquiring, as a means test, into how much money they have, or how much salary is earned by the bread-winner. Well, I do not like it. I am sorry to point out to him that if the hon. member for Lake Centre is a good lawyer, then that, too, would be unconstitutional. As a matter of fact there is nothing suggested from the other side of the house that is constitutional if their theory of law is right. It is all unconstitutional, and we had better fold our tent like the Arab and quietly steal away. We are no longer a parliament able to dispose of our own revenue by giving it back to our own taxpayers.
However, there is this to be said-I have already referred to it-it is not to the leader of the opposition that one looks for authoritative statements of policy, but to the leader of the party.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Who is he?


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: I do not know.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: You will when the election comes.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: I have read something in the newspapers about it. A convention may lay down general principles with regard to

Family Allowances

legislation, and from the speeches of leading members of a party you may get the drift of public opinion within that party; but when you want to know what legislation would be introduced by a party in opposition should it take office, you go to the statements of the leader; because it is the leader who has the power, when the party takes office, to implement his promises, not the leader of the opposition. The present leader of the opposition, therefore, does not count. He may look upon himself as a John the Baptist, but as a matter of fact he is a voice in the wilderness, a reed shaken by the wind.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Forty years, too.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: A better simile would be the tadpole which disappears when the butterfly appears. Therefore if you would find out what the Conservative party stands for, do not go to John the Baptist-


Paul Joseph James Martin: He lost his head.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: Yes. The analogy is good. No; go to the butterfly who flits about this Dominion of Canada attending afternoon teas, picnics and banquets with a carpet-bag.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Milking cows.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: Milking cows, yes, crowding the overcrowded trains, when he is not speculating in farm lands. That is the man to whom you go to find out where the * Conservative party stands and what the Conservative party will do should it take office, and should it be so fortunate and should the Dominion of Canada be so unfortunate as to have it take office.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I turn to an amazing statement made by Mr. John Bracken on June 24, 1944. He said:
The plan has all the earmarks of a politica' bribe.
Ugly words; very ugly words.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What did McTague say?


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: McTague does not count. It is the butterfly that decides the policy so far as the party is concerned. Neither McTague, the leader of the opposition nor the hon. member for Lake Centre decides the policy. Mr. John Bracken used these ugly words with reference to this measure. In doing that I suggest to this house that he has definitely and irretrievably set himself in opposition to family allowances; because I take it, Mr. Speaker, that this gentleman would not himself be a self-confessed briber of the

public. Therefore it is settled for good and all that the Conservative party under the leadership of Mr. John Bracken is irretrievably opposed to family allowances and will make no promises or approaches to family allowances at least prior to the coming election.


Gordon Graydon: You cannot read that into the statement.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: Yes, I can,


Gordon Graydon: It is your own inference, then.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: Let me give you some more of the statement. I again quote from the statement of June 24. Mr. Bracken says:
It is time we asked ourselves when this-


Gordon Graydon: May I say to my hon. friend that he is picking out different points of Mr. Bracken's statement; I ask that he read the whole statement, now that he has commenced to read it. We know that he is setting himself up as a comedian, and we have enjoyed it very much, but I think we should at least get down to business.


Thomas Vien: The hon. gentleman may make his own quotations.


Frederick Clayton Casselman: His time is up.


Gordon Graydon: I am asking that the full statement be read.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: I presume the leader of the opposition knows the statement by rote. He must have memorized it^ because Mr. John Bracken is his leader. He should not require me to read to him what John Bracken said.


Gordon Graydon: I know what it is; I want the house to know. I want my butterfly friend to read it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He is not here.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: I would not impose such an injustice on the house as to read the chaff that comes from the gentleman who leads the Conservative party.


Gordon Graydon: You are afraid.


Frederick Clayton Casselman: You have exceeded your time,


Thomas Vien: Order.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: May I have the time of these interruptions credited to me?


Frederick Clayton Casselman: You are past your time already.

Family Allowances


Gordon Graydon: He thought he was at a garden party; he was being the comedian, that is all.


Thomas Vien: Order.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: Let me read-


Gordon Graydon: It is time for garden parties anyway.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: This is what Mr. Bracken
said. I know it hurts hon. members, but let me read it:
It is time we asked ourselves when this legal bribery of the electorate is going to be stopped.
He is referring to family allowances as legal bribery of the electorate. Therefore I take it that even when this bill passes and becomes law, and administrative machinery is provided by this government, should Mr. Bracken take office, the act will be repealed.


Gordon Graydon: We will make a workable act.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: There is no doubt about it; that is the assurance-


Gordon Graydon: We will make a workable act for the children.


William Ross Macdonald: I rise to a point of order. May I ask if the leader of the opposition has any more privileges to interrupt than any other hon. member?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He is the official interrupter.


Gordon Graydon: On the point of order, may I say that I think I have the same rights as the hon. member for Brantford City.


Mr MACDONALD (Brantford City):: I grant that.


Gordon Graydon: The hon. member has made many statements in his speech this afternoon upon which I could have raised a question of privilege, but I knew he was attempting to be the comedian of the party on this occasion and I did not want to interrupt him. But I say if he attempts to be provocative in the future as he has been to-day I shall have to rise to a point of order.


Thomas Vien: There is no point of
order. The hon. member's time expired at half past four, but he has been interrupted several times in the last few minutes. I gave the hon. member for Lake Centre at least five minutes extra in order that he might conclude his remarks, and I think it only fair to do the same thing for the hon. member for Trinity.
100-344i


Gordon Graydon: Then let him get down
to business.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: It is I who should
raise the point of order because of the very disrespectful remarks of the leader of the opposition. When I am making the most serious case possible he referred to me as a comedian, and threatened that if I proceeded to make points which he did not like he would do something about it.


Gordon Graydon: I wanted you to talk about the children of Canada.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: The issue is joined. Those who would confine children's allowances to the children of parents who are well enough off to pay income tax will vote for Mr. Bracken. Those whose sympathies are broad enough to include the children of the poor as well as those of the well-to-do and rich undoubtedly will support the government now in office, which is placing this splendid measure upon the statute book.
Now, have I exceeded my time, Mr. Speaker? I will not proceed unless the house gives me the privilege.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: I want to point out that this is not a bribe, because the beneficiaries are children who do not vote, and the fathers and mothers who will have the responsibility of expending the money are promising nothing in return. It is therefore not bribery. Furthermore he would be a bold man indeed, or a very biased partisan, who could find corruption in a bill to supply clothes and shoes and better food to the children of this country.
This bill has been attacked on the floor of this house as a hurried measure, brought in on the spur of the moment, and so forth. To my own knowledge this measure has been in the mind of the Prime Minister for at least twenty-five years.


John George Diefenbaker: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman says this measure was referred to to-day as hurried, and not properly prepared. Apparently the hon. gentleman is reading from a speech he prepared for delivery some other day, because I made no such statement to-day and I am the only one who has spoken.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: If the hon. gentleman denies having made those statements I am very glad to accept his apology, but it has been said by others. Twenty-five years ago on August 7 I was present at a great convention. I have here a report of the statements made on that occasion by the present Prime Min-
Family Allowances

ister advocating an adequate system of insur-[DOT] ance against unemployment, sickness, dependence in old age and other disabilities, which would include old age pensions, widows' pensions and maternity benefits, all of which he said should be instituted by the federal government together with "effective legislation for the conservation of human life and health." Twenty^five years later, I find the speaker who addressed us so eloquently at the time advocating in almost the same words the same type of legislation, springing from the same principles of humanity, justice and public welfare.


Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I know my good friend the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck) will forgive me if I do not try to follow his argument. He had a very happy time setting >up straw men and then knocking them down; but I would point out that he and many of his colleagues are in grave danger of being chased right out of this house by this "Bracken butterfly" of whom he speaks so glibly. That same "Bracken butterfly" has served as a premier in Canada for more years than any other living Canadian, and will be a premier again for many years to come.
I propose to spend my time in dealing with this bill, and at the outset let me say that I intend to support the measure. I do so in the hope that it will benefit Canadian children and Canadian parents, thereby benefiting the Canadian nation as a whole. I think of the hundreds of thousands of young Canadians in the forces, and the other thousands who have served in the forces but have been discharged. I believe the destiny of Canada is in the hands of these young men and women, and it is of vital importance that they be enabled to establish homes and rear families. This bill should help to bring about that result; if it does not do so, I suggest that we must go much farther and enact other measures which will enable our young men and women coming out of the forces to establish homes and bring up families in this land. Perhaps other methods might have been adopted. I am not so sure that the objectives sought to be reached in this bill might not have been attained in other and more practical ways, but that is now beside the point. The bill has been brought down; the ministry stand behind it as their method of meeting the problem, and the house is faced with the acceptance or rejection of this measure.
I propose, however, to suggest certain changes which I think would greatly improve this measure. Many supporters of the government have spoken during this debate, but very few suggestions for improvements have come

from them. The tendency has been rather to quote extracts from "Industry and Humanity", that book by a young author, W. L. Mackenzie King, and to sound paeans of praise for what the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and his party have done in the way of introducing security measures in Canada.
It is all rather amusing, to see this sudden conversion to the advocacy of reform measures. I was elected to the House of Commons in 1935, and attended my first session in 1936. That, of course, was about a year after Mr. Bennett's government had passed its reform legislation. The first step taken by this government waf>
to scuttle the Bennett reform measures; and it was done most effectively. Then, after much prodding, coaxing and pleading, one step was taken toward social security, and that was the passing in 1940 of the Unemployment Insurance Act. That happened between four and five years after this government took office. And now, after a lapse of another four years, we have another security measure. I hope we shall not have to wait until 1948 for the next one.
In the meantime there has been dismal failure in connection with other measures. Let us, for instance, take the atttiude of the government in regard to old age pensions. We have had to plead with the ministry to take some steps; and even yet very little has been done. The government should have gone much farther in helping the old age pensioners of Canada.
Then, what about health insurance? We were led to believe last year that a health insurance measure was shortly to be placed upon the statute books of Canada. Well, a committee was set up, and a draft health insurance bill was placed before it; not even having the endorsement of the government, but simply presented by a department of the government. That bill was considered all last session, and this year we have had the same procedure. Another bill has been thrown to that special committee-known as the committee on social security-and has been mulled over. But we are to provide for no health insurance in Canada at this session.
Let us see how this social security committee has functioned. It was set up early in the session of 1943. We all had great hopes of what it could accomplish. The resolution appointing the committee was in these words:
Resolved that a select committee of this house be appointed to examine and report on a national plan of social insurance, which will constitute a charter of social security for the whole of Canada, and to that end, to examine and study the existing social insurance legislation of the parliament of Canada and of the

Family Allowances
several provincial legislatures; social insurance policies of other countries; the most practicable measure of social insurance for Canada, including health insurance, and the steps which will be required to effect their inclusion in a national plan; the constitutional and financial adjustments which will be required for the achievement of a nationwide plan of social security.
There was a grand plan, and we had reason to expect that something very much worthwhile would result from the sittings of the committee. I believe it has done good work; but there is still no such thing as a charter of social security for Canada. The performance has fallen far short of the promise.
In the. speech from the throne this year we find another promise which has not been implemented. This is the paragraph:
When suitable agreements are reached with the provinces, my ministers will be prepared to recommend measures to provide for federal assistance in a nation-wide system of health insurance, and for a national scheme of contributory old age pensions on a more generous basis than that at present in operation.
The session is drawing to an end. There is absolutely no hope now of any such measure being passed, and there have not been any provisions made for a conference between provincial and dominion representatives. I repeat, therefore, that there seems to have been a sudden conversion on the government side of the house to the advocacy of reform measures. I hope the conversion is genuine, and not just an attempt to outbid the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party. If it is such an attempt, then I warn the ministry that they are tackling an impossible task.


Gordon Graydon: The kiss of death.


Howard Charles Green: I now come to the suggestions in connection with the bill. The first has to do with the men and women in the fighting forces, also those who have been discharged from the forces, and with pensioners of the last war. There is some reference to these Canadians in section 8 of the bill, a section which provides against duplication in allowances, and also for the reduction or withholding of allowances. The provision is that there may be a reduction or withholding of the allowance payable-
... to any person receiving aid from the government of Canada or any province for the maintenance of a child in respect of whom the allowance is payable under this act, provided that such reduction or withholding shall not be made by reason of a pension under the Pension Act or dependents' allowance payable in respect of a dependent child of a member of the naval, military or air forces of Canada.
Then section 3 of the bill provides that no allowance shall be paid under the measure until July 1, 1945. I point out to the Prime
Minister that these young men who have been serving in our forces, those who have served and have been discharged, and those pensioned from the last war should be paid at once. I can see no reason why they should not receive their allowances, without waiting until July 1, 1945. I realize that in respect of civilians who have not been in the forces it will be necessary to have registration, to set up records and the like. But in all these other cases, those men and women to whom I have referred, the government has full and accurate records including birth certificates for the children, and I can see no reason for the delay.
Further, many of these people are in great need. For instance, the young wife in Vancouver whose husband is overseas now finds it almost impossible to get a home. We hear some talk about the government's building war-time houses for the dependents of men overseas. There is certainly a great need to help soldiers' families in Canada. Provision should be made to let them have their allowances now, without waiting until July 1, 1045.
I was somewhat disturbed by a press dispatch which appeared in the local papers of July 18, and which purported to be the report of an interview with officials in the Prime Minister's office and in the office of the Minister of Finance. What disturbed me most was this reference to the men of the forces:
One of the reasons that payment of the allowances will not start until July of next year is that the government hopes by that time "Canadian soldiers will be home."
That looks as though it is the hope of the government that it will not have to pay these allowances to the dependents, at all. Then the dispatch goes on to say:
The soldier's wife receives the allowance in addition to all other benefits, and if the troops still are overseas next July "she will be very well off financially," said officials.
I hope the government will go right ahead and make these payments now to the dependents of members of the armed forces, to those who have been discharged and to pensioners of the last war.
Another weakness in the act in regard to the men and women of the armed forces is the fact that children of Canadian fighting men living in England receive no allowance. I have not the figures about the number of Canadians who have married overseas, but I believe it is between 20,000 and 25,000.


Mr. CLAXTON:: The bill provides for
payments to these children on their becoming residents of Canada.
Family Allowances


Howard Charles Green: There has been a good deal of political bickering about this bill. That, of course, is very difficult to avoid in connection with any bill. But if we look at this question in a sensible light, which I am sure all hon. members can do, it cannot be disputed that no one member of this house has a heart which is very much larger or very much smaller than that of any other hon. member, and that no one party or group have more concern for the welfare of the children of Canada than any others. The love of children is one of the strongest and noblest instincts in man or woman. If we keep these facts in mind and cooperate with each other in trying to make this measure a success, I believe we can hope to do what is set out in the resolution with which the bill was introduced, namely:
. . . ensure a greater measure of well-being to the children of the nation and . . . help gain for them a closer approach to equality of opportunity.
If we keep those words in mind, perhaps we can reach that objective.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My attention has just been called to a statement made by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver) last evening in my absence, when he said that I had made a speech which had been written for me. The rules of this house prevent me from castigating the member in the language I would like to use.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I shall have to content myself with saying that the charge as made is malicious and entirely untrue, and-


Mr. CLEAVER:: I rise to a point of order-


Herbert Alexander Bruce: -and unworthy of a member of this house, and I ask the hon. member to retract it unequivocally.


Hughes Cleaver: My point of order is this. As I understand the rules, my hon. friend's sole right is to deny that anyone else wrote his speech; and the word "malicious" is highly unparliamentary.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: So is the word "untrue".
Mr.'CLEAVER: I resent it. It was not maliciously said. I believed and honestly believed that somebody else had written the speech. My hon. friend has been in public life for many years. If he wrote it himself, why did he not deliver it himself without-


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Mr. Speaker, I am quite capable of writing my own speeches, and I ask the hon. member to retract what he said.


Hughes Cleaver: The rules say that a member must not read a speech. I refer to rule 293.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, surely the hon. member has done enough harm to the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce), without going farther with it.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce), as is his right, has risen on a question of privilege with regard to a statement made by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver) last evening. That statement, as I understood it, was that he had read his speech but that it was written by someone else. The hon. member is now denying that it was written by someone else. I do say, though, that he should not use the word "malicious" or impute malice in respect of the statement made by the hon. member for Halton.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Or "untrue".


Hughes Cleaver: Withdraw.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I also suggest, with deference, that the word "untrue" is unparliamentary. The proper words are, "not in accordance with the facts".


Thomas Vien: That is a matter of words. The intention, I think, is plain. The hon. member says that his speech was not written by anyone else but was written by himself. But the word "malicious" should not have been used.


Hughes Cleaver: I ask that the word "malicious" be withdrawn.


Gordon Graydon: The hon. member for Halton is trying to add insult to injury so far as the member for Parkdale is concerned, and I suggest that the matter ought now to be dropped.


Mr. GOLDING:: On a point of order, it is hardly fair that the leader of the opposition should make that statement. You yourself, Mr. Speaker, have stated that the word which was used by the member for Parkdale is unparliamentary and suggested that it be withdrawn. I think it should be withdrawn.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I think it served my purpose^ and I withdraw the word "malicious".
I should like to refer, on a question of privilege, to a statement made by the parliamentary assistant to the Prime Minister (Mr. Claxton), in which, on page 5395 of Hansard, he challenges the statement that I made in regard to the attitude of the British government toward family allowances. I will not read what

Family Allowances
he said, but he referred to certain misquotations appearing in some papers, and the inference would be that I had used those misquotations and therefore made a wrong statement. The hon. member in quoting from the British parliamentary debates of February 16, 1943, what Sir John Anderson had said, neglected to read the portion directly preceding the words he read into the record. So that the record may be straight-


Brooke Claxton: I never read any words into the record.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What page is that?


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Page 5395, at the bottom of the page.
'Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre): This was page 1667 of the British Hansard. I have it here.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I have the British Hansard, but I am speaking of the Canadian Hansard.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am asking the hon. member for the reference to the speech of Sir John Anderson in the British Hansard.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I have here a copy of volume 386, No. 30, for February 16, and I was saying, when interrupted, that the hon. member neglected to read the immediately preceding paragraph which dealt with the subject. I think that in order to keep the matter straight that should be read.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Which paragraph?


Thomas Vien: Order. This is hardly a question of privilege. The hon. member, as I understand, has not implied that he has charged the hon. member for Parkdale with something which was wrong and improper. I did not gather that from his remarks. There is no question of privilege.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: The inference is that I gave a wrong interpretation of Sir John Anderson's speech. I maintain that I did not give a wrong interpretation of that speech, and in order to prove that, I should like to read a few words from the immediately preceding paragraphs of Sir John Anderson's speech.


Thomas Vien: The hon. gentleman has stated his position. He is making a statement that, in my opinion, does not constitute a question of privilege. I have allowed him to make his statement, but I do not think he should go farther.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Sir John Anderson says: "I come-"


Thomas Vien: Order. I think the hon. gentleman has stated his position at sufficient length. '


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Mr. Speaker, in the same connection I should like to refer to the statement made by the member for Edmonton East (Mrs. Casselman) when she spoke over the radio two nights ago and used these words- it all has to do with the same thing.


Thomas Vien: Order. The hon. member proposes now, on the floor of the house, to discuss a speech made by another hon. member over the radio, and he cannot do that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I protest that the hon. gentleman is endeavouring to create the impression that the quotation of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Claxton) and the quotation of the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mrs. Casselman) are inaccurate. I have in my hands a copy of the British Hansard and every word that they quoted was absolutely accurate-every sentence, every comma, every line.


Gordon Graydon: That is not fair either.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: That is true, but they did
not read enough. Since the hon. member has referred to the speech made by the hon. member for Edmonton East, I submit that I am in order in referring to what she said.


Thomas Vien: I think the incident must be considered closed.


Mr. L. P. PICARD (Bellechasse):: We all remember the incident in Roman history when two armies about to engage in battle decided to entrust their fate to the strength and valour of an equal number of men, called respectively the Horatii and the Curatii, rather than have the two armies slaughter one another. At this advanced stage of the session that example might well have been followed by the different parties in this house. As far as I am concerned, I would be willing to let the matter stand for our side on the masterful speech delivered, when he introduced the measure, by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King); the other parties might have selected each a spokesman to present their viewpoint, and after their remarks had been replied to, the debate could have been closed. I would gladly have accepted such a proposal and, I trust, few members would have opposed it; but as things stand at the moment, after the unbridled flow of words we have heard during the past few days, I have fewer scruples as I rise to go on record on such an important measure.

Family Allowances

deflection of payments that will have to come from other provinces to pay that province's heavier share of these subsidies. A proportionately lower revenue provider receiving a proportionately higher subsidy can scarcely make for greater unity at this stage in our national life.
It is alleged that in Ontario a larger number of families come within the income tax paying group and will, therefore, receive no benefit under this measure. I do not see any injustice- there. If these people, as a result of circumstances I shall discuss in a moment, are better off financially and economically, are we to consider it an injustice when some benefit is given others who in the past have not had the same opportunities or enjoyed the same benefits, and who have not attained the same financial security? It has been said that a larger number of Ontario families are in the income tax paying class. Why? Because of super-intellectual and physical gifts? Because of racial superiority? Well, Mr. Speaker, you might believe that to be the case after listening to the hon. member for Parkdale. From his remarks you would almost think the people of this province have some special attributes.
However, if we calmly analyse the situation we see that half the province of Ontario enjoys climatic conditions which make agriculture at least forty per cent more prosperous than in the colder districts of Quebec. But that is not the main reason for the difference. The main reason is the industries which have been established in Ontario; but those industries have not grown out of thin air. They have been built by capital which came from outside this country, from England and the United States. The people of Ontario have benefited; they have found work and a better standard of living. I do not blame them for taking advantage of this outside capital that has been entrusted to their care; I am sufficiently broad-minded to make that statement. We were the vanquished and they were the victors; money came from England and was entrusted to them, and probably I would have done as they did. But no money came to the Franch-Caandians in the province of Quebec; no foreign capital has been entrusted into their care. Where would it come fromt For a hundred years after 1759 no French ships could sail the St. Lawrence; no connections could be maintained with the former mother country. In all justice I must add that when connections were reestablished no money came from France. They sent their money where it would earn a greater profit, instead of sending it to this country then under British control. So that we had to live to ourselves. Whatever

industries we have established; whatever financial and manufacturing firms we have set up, have been created from the toil and economy of our forefathers, and that point should be taken into account when one is considering the economic situation of Quebec as compared with that of the other provinces. There is no question of inferiority; it was simply the chance that some had to obtain foreign capital, a chance they were sufficiently clever to utilize to their own advantage, and on the other hand the fact that the French Canadian population of Quebec did not have the same chance or the same advantage.
Furthermore, even in those large industries, public utilities, railway companies and so on which have been established in the province of Quebec with capital coming from England or the United States, our people are given minor positions and are prevented from advancing. We do not want to broadcast this situation, as some of the isolationists are doing on the platforms of Quebec at the present time, but we have evidence to that effect. I will admit that for some technical positions our people may not have been qualified, because our province has not had the schools in which people may be trained for these positions, but the progress made during the war is proof of my statement that our people can work a.s well as any others; that when they are given a chance they can better their conditions, working well for the country and helping themselves at the same time. We did not have that chance previously because capital was not entrusted to our people in our province to the extent that it was sent into the province of Onatrio, out the situation has changed with the setting up of the many war plants that now operate in the province of Quebec. For some time last year I was with the empire parliamentary association, and for another period of time I sat on the war expenditures committee. In both capacities I had an opportunity to visit shipbuilding and muntiion plants in Montreal; big gun factories and shipbuilding plants in Sorel; shipbuilding plants in Levis and in Lauzon; small arms ammunition factories and shipbuilding plants in Quebec, and the aluminum plant at Arvida. All these plants were manned by people of my own racial group. They are doing well, occupying positions of importance and responsibility, and with their increased salaries they have bettered their conditions in every way. Therefore that myth of the superiority of the worker of another province, because he is of another race, has vanished with the improved opportunities that have come to the people of Quebec since the beginning of the war. Give any Canadian equal opportunity in industry anywhere, and very

Family Allowances
soon there will be no more talk about Quebec having less people in the income tax paying class than any other province. Give them the same opportunities and the same capital Ontario has had, and they will do just as well; there will be no more suggestions that one group is inferior as compared with another.
All right, Mr. Speaker. We are partly responsible for the past, too, in an indirect way; I am one of those quite ready to admit , that fact. For a long time we lived in a shell, as it were; but discussing the history of those conditions and of that period would, I am afraid, take me far beyond the scope of the question now under consideration. We have been late in developing proper standards of education for the masses. Not having outside capital, we have progressed more slowly in the economic and financial fields. We have not been helped by the immigration of people of our own stock, as others have been helped. We have had no outside capital. Being less self-sufficient financially, the public treasury of our province could not devote the money that should have been spent on health services and in the advancement of educational facilities. I admit all that, but great improvements have been made in the past fifty years. The days of road and bridge building have gone; the period of the harnessing of our water powers and the exploitation of our resources has paved the way for the developments that have been observed in Quebec during the last few years, including improvements in health services, compulsory education, the expansion of technical and trade education and other measures the ultimate results of which will greatly benefit the whole population. Therefore, if perchance thfe margin of benefit accruing to one province seems higher in the aggregate than that accruing to another province, it is partly due to the conditions I have described and partly due also to the fact that the average number of children per family is much larger in Quebec than in the other provinces.
Is there anything unjust about this? A country cannot be said to be prosperous when one part of it is not prosperous. The lack of purchasing power of one part of the population reduces the chances of the other part to better its own standards. We are interdependent more than ever. Nations are interdependent; provinces are interdependent; individuals are interdependent. The advocates of immigration say that we need more population to meet our needs. Let us first improve the lot of our own people, and we shall be sufficient unto ourselves.
I do not think the fears of labour that this treasure may adversely affect salaries are substantiated by the facts. Experts on family allowances connected with the French labour unions in France have all been
witnesses to the fact that that has not been the result of the granting of such family allowances in France. We have the evidence of the secretary-general of the C.G.T.-that is the federation of workers in France-who has stated repeatedly that this had not been the effect over there. We believe the same thing will happen here.
Some people have said that this is an impracticable adventure, and that many of the countries, which had it at one time have had to abandon it. It is to be noted that the eight countries in 1940 which paid family allowances were Belgium, Italy, France, Hungary, Chile, New South Wales, New Zealand and Spain. In addition to these, there are quite a number of countries which paid family allowances on a smaller scale. These were not paid by the government, but rather by the industries themselves. Or, if paid by the government, they are paid solely to the civil service. The civil service, the railway workers, and provincial and municipal employees in Holland receive 2-5 per cent of their salary per child per year with a minimum of 50 and a maximum of 200 florin per head per year.
In Switzerland some industries have instituted family allowances for their own employees. Sixty-five thousand families of employees of the federal administration receive an allowance of 120 Swiss francs per child per year.
In Germany certain industries have had it for a long time, especially the mining industry. Civil servants and day labourers employed on public works, bank and insurance employees have also benefited. The allowances in Germany are uniform for each child.
In Poland the civil servants enjoyed family allowances before the war.
In Czechoslovakia the workers in the coal mining industry received family allowances.
In Austria government employees have benefited from family allowances since 1926. In private industries payment of allowances has been in effect since long before that time. This has applied to mining, steel works, printing establishments, and so on.
In Sweden we find something contrary to what has been said in the house. Sweden never had a government-operated plan of family allowances. Therefore it could not have abandoned such a policy, as has been said. But during the last war the cost of living bonus had taken the shape of subsidies proportionate to the importance of the family. When peace came and normal conditions were restored this cost of living bonus disappeared in 1923.
In Great Britain the greatest objection of the independent labour party is to the fact
Family Allowances

that unskilled labour with large families would receive from their salaries and the allowances paid to them more than would skilled labourers who are bachelors. This objection fails to take into account the fact that the expenses of the father of a family are such that allowances will mean more in the way of benefit to his family, but not more net income to himself than the bachelor would receive.
Fathers of numerous children create a reservoir of vital energy. They contribute to the nation future producers and future consumers. They contribute workers to develop the nation's resources, and consumers of the products of its industries. Yet the fathers of large families are called upon to make the greatest sacrifices. With the policy of equal work with equal pay, which I approve as the only just approach to fair compensation for work, a condition arises where there is inequality of social standing; then inequality of opportunity develops. That condition is opposed to efficiency of the work of the fathers of families. If those fathers are working for the same salaries, they have to deprive themselves of everything in order to maintain their children. Family allowances will correct that condition.
Salary is compensation for a definite economic service which adds to the value of a given product. Allowances are a compensation, for the accomplishment of a social duty, the growth of human capital.
Material difficulties facing families, especially those with numerous children, are such that their number is constantly declining. Yet depletion of human capital and the lowering birth rate have been decried by all economists and sociologists as a major reason for the weakening of many European nations.
I stand by the principle of "equal work-equal salary". The basic salary for work should be enough to provide comfort and decent living to an average family. We were told earlier in the debate that of the: workers gainfully employed forty-eight per cent are single, that thirty-nine per cent have no children under sixteen years of age. _ Therefore the eighty-seven per cent of the gainfully employed are the ones with which we should be concerned in fixing the basic rate. The basic pay should be determined upon decent conditions of living for an average family, and family allowances would then give a supplement to those amounts.
It is understood that the present system as proposed by the government is much more equitable than any other system in operation in Europe before the war. Not only one class of the population, but all of it will be placed

on equal terms. When the allowances are paid only to salaried workers it brings about an exodus from rural to urban communities. People want to get the allowances. The contrary will be the effect under the present measure. Families will be kept on the farms and encouraged to carry on tilling the soil, a process which is so necessary. Migration to cities has been the usual procedure in several countries. If we want to stop that, and if we want to keep carrying on in respect of colonization, then here is the measure which will effect that result.
This is a good measure, much better than those which have been in force in Europe, and which I have had occasion to study. I say that because the measure before the house encourages the man, wherever he is, in the work he is doing. It does not bring about an exodus to the cities, as would happen if only the salaried class were to receive the benefits.
It is said that a few will be taxed to protect the others. That statement fails to take into account the fact that families with many dependents are those which are affected to the highest degree by indirect taxation. They are the largest purchasers of quantity-produced goods, which are the key to prosperity of industrial centres. They are the greatest contributors to indirect taxes, through the great number of things they have to buy daily for their families.
Before concluding, may I say that I found it heartening to hear the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion) talk about the narrow-mindedness of the observations of the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce). I wonder if the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay realizes that the only utterances of that kind made in the house were made by members of the party to which he belonged in 1940, and of which he was organizer in Quebec, at the time of the-last general election. Unfortunately the hon. member is not in his seat at the moment. It is a known fact that at the next federal election, whenever that may be, in Quebec these people will come out disguised as independents. Just now we see the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy) on the platform in Quebec, supporting Mr. Duplessis. Yet he will pledge himself that he is quite independent, when the election comes along.
In conclusion, let me say this, to all the critics of this measure. There are those in my province who have made charges and who will try to find fault with some of the details in connection with the application of this principle. When the hunter in the forest kills a giant bull moose, he rejoices at his success; he marvels at the size of the animal, and his pleasure is enhanced by the struggle he

Family Allowances
has had to get it. He does not stoop to see if the animal has fleas in its fur, but that is exactly what these people are doing now, those in my province or elsewhere who criticize details, especially those who are trying to find fault with the scale of payments, or those who claim that some wfll get more than others. These people are simply trying to find fleas, when they should rejoice that they have received a bull moose as a gift.
They would be contributing more to their own people; they would be contributing more to public life if they tried to realize what the bill really means. We have seen prominent opposition members of this house admit that they agree with the principle of the bill, admit that they are for it but with certain reservations. We have seen certain people in my own province, the people who the hon. member for Parkdale says will benefit most by this bill, finding fault with it. Some people say that this is a political measure, yet we have a group now in Quebec trying to fight it because they do not think it is fair. I think this government has found the proper medium to meet the situation and to provide equal opportunities for our young people. Our political critics will be judged on their merits. As I stated earlier in my remarks, I am ready to let the case stand on the masterful speech delivered by the Prime Minister when he introduced the measure and on the foresightedness he has shown in the past for the advancement and betterment of the fate of the nation.
^ Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview): Mr. Speaker, the opposition has taken up very little time in this debate since the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) spoke the other day. It is the duty and function of the opposition to offer constructive criticism. We have heard a lot to-day about the constitutional question. I come from a city which has been one of the leading cities in America in social reforms of all kinds, and I wish to offer some constructive criticism of the bill. Some of our cities have borne the burden and heat of the day without a great deal of help from the federal authorities.
It is the first duty of the federal government to look after the health, wealth, peace and prosperity of its citizens. Because of our complicated constitution we have had overgovernment and over-taxation in this country. One result has been that the burden bears heavily on real estate, on the small business man, the manufacturer and others who are trying to earn an honest living.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, a large part of our representation on this side of the chamber is from the province of Ontario, especially the Toronto district, which has had quite a number of these social services for many years past. These social services grew very largely from beginnings in the days before the South African war, in that glorious Victorian era which built up assets for the future, assets which we seem to have squandered in many ways. In those days the people, kept the state; to-day the trend seems to be that the state will have to keep the people.
We have heard a good deal on this side and other sides of the house concerning the constitutional question, but it has little or nothing to do with this programme. A committee of which I used1 to be a member did some very fine work between the two wars, particularly, in the years 1926, 1927 and 1928. During those~ sessions the industrial and international relations committee examined many witnesses, including the deputy minister of justice, who said that under "public debt and property" federal power could vote money for certain social services. The present Attorney General, who is one of Canada's leading counsel, was one of the principal counsel for the government in connection with the Rowell report. The Rowell commission no doubt did good work, but they discovered very little of importance on the constitutional question not known.( It was well known that none of the social services such as technical education, grants for pensions and the like could be dealt with by the high court of parliament at Ottawa except under the first five or six words of the first section of the British North America Act, having to do with "public debt and property." The subject was dealt with by the Supreme Court of Canada when the government made a reference of then existing 1935 legislation to that court; an appeal was had to the privy council, and Lord Macmillan gave a judgment.
For many years between the two wars I have urged in this house that in view of overgovernment in this country and over-taxation, our main problems in this country were constitutional reform, parliamentary reform, cabinet reform, and law reform; and it turned out, in view of the decisions which have been given, that what I said on this matter was correct. Between the years 1930 and 1935, while the Conservative government was in office, our
Family Allowances

leader adopted a socialistic programme. It was copied very largely from the best of many countries. It was patterned according to a recognition of what Canada could afford to pay for, adapted to our local circumstances, and that should be the test of any social system, for the state has no money to provide for all this work except what comes from the taxpayer. I stated in 1927 andi 1928 that the only authority in the British North America Act under which the fedieral government could provide social services was contained in the words " public debt and property." In the result, in 1935 our government was beaten at the polls, and a new government came in. I remember the blazing billboards all over Canada in 1935, with the colours of the magnificent racing stable at Hamilton-gold and black-and the words "End unemployment; vote Liberal." Was unemployment ended? No; but the people voted Liberal; there is no doubt about that. Along came a continuance of the depression and the dole system. I remember that, sitting across the floor on the front government benches was the late Minister of Labour, the Hon. Norman Rogers, who made the statement to me that what I had said about a billion dollars being spent by federal, provincial and municipal authorities on the dole was correct. And what did they get out of it? Nothing.
I remember when alone in this house, seeing two hundred thousand of our youth coming every year, from 1935 to 1937, out of high school, I advocated an apprenticeship system and an advanced social and security policy for the young people of our country. For this proposal I got no support in this house, I am sorry to say, from my hon. friends to the left. It is true that there were hardly any of them in the house at that time, about the only one being the late Mr. Woodsworth. I wanted to see established an apprenticeship system by which these young people would sign up as apprentices for from three to five years and learn one of fifteen trades, and get military and physical clothing, lodging, a per diem allowance and deferred pay. I suggested that this system should extend from three to five years and include military drill and some knowledge of civil aviation, then in its infancy. With such a system we would have produced in three to five years journeymen fit for some twenty to twenty-five skilled callings, comprising the bigger industries of this country, and when the war broke out we would have had 25,000 skilled pilots and air mechanics. But all we got was the dole, and the dole was a complete failure; to a large extent the money was wasted.
I Mr. Church.]
Then came 1935, with the reference of legislation to the privy council. In 1937 I again put forward the apprenticeship proposals for ending unemployment and abolishing the dole. The government of the day appointed the Rowell commission, largely as a consequence of a debate on a motion for parliamentary, constitutional, cabinet and law reform. The late Chief Justice Rowell, who had taken a great interest in the work, headed the commission, and a report was made, but they found out very little except what was known before, namely that under "public debt and property" we could make grants for various social purposes. While I am not speaking for others who live in Ontario, I would state my opinion that the final report of the Sirois commission was unjust and unfair to Ontario, the main taxpaying province of this country. The effect of its recommendations would be to make that province a milch cow for the whole of confederation. However, I do not wish to urge that argument; I never did and I never will, because I believe in the pact of confederation and in the spirit of the old Cornish battle cry, "Each for all and all for each." What is for the benefit of one province should be for the benefit of all the provinces. But from the point of view of social services and the reforms proposed, education and so on, it seems to me that report was unfair to a province like Ontario.
Coming now to the question which has been raised by this bill, No. 161, introduced as a government measure by the Prime Minister-(Mr. Mackenzie King), who has followed this sort of work for many years past, I think he should be well acquainted with the glorious record in the social services of the city from which I come because he and his family have had an intimate connection with that city. It has led in social reforms and services of one kind and another. It is one of the finest cities on the continent and has done a great deal in public health to spread social reform benefits to all classes. Some people seem to think that by means of these family allowances and social security generally we are going to abolish poverty. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we have always had the poor with us and we shall always have them. Neither planning nor victory, nor social reforms, as President Roosevelt has said, will ever bring about the millennium. All the parties in this house seem to have been competing in a race to see which of them could do the most along these letfist lines and which will first reach the sepulchre of social security.
I submit that if this bill had been referred to a select committee of the house we would

Family Allowances
have had a far better measure before us now, because such a committee would have studied all the inconsistencies and inequalities inherent in it, removed the duplication of services, and proposed remedies to remove those many difficulties. As matters stand now under it, we are simply going to set up the largest control system of bureaucracy. The government seems to have forgotten all about the public welfare boards that have already been established in all the provinces and in the larger cities in the dominion. Take, for instance, Toronto. In that city we have a large welfare department dealing with all aspects of the social problem affecting the poor, the sick and the suffering. There is a large office open morning, noon and night, Sundays and holidays, twenty-four hours a day. There are district offices to which the poor can apply. There is a division to look after old age pensions, mothers' allowances and so on; there is an accounting division; there is a single men's division as well as a housing division, and we have a placement division. In emergencies there is a large bureau which will give prompt attention providing food and lodging as well as medical services for neonle in need and takine care of evicted families. I may say that there are 600 soldiers to-night facing eviction orders from their houses. I had a question on the order paper in this connection but it has not yet been answered. We have a department of public welfare to look after all these things, but in this proposed bill the government seem to be altogether unaware of that fact. In one branch of that department in the city of Toronto provision is made for men who are convalescing and there are some per diem patients. Provision is also made for those who are ill and others who are partly employed. There is a physician and there are nurses available. Are we to set up a rival organization in competition with such departments throughout the provinces, ignoring what has been done in the matter for social security? Is the government to overlook all that the city of Toronto has accomplished at great expense, one of the senior municipalities in Canada, which, as I have said, is undoubtedly a leader in social services and has been for many years past?
In another branch of the department to which I have referred provision is made for tubercular cases and there is sanatorium treatment for men who require rest and special food. There is an officer in charge of the placement division which I have mentioned, which works in cooperation with the national selective service to find suitable employment
for persons who, by reason of physical disabilities, require public assistance. Everything is done to help people to get a new start, and those who are in receipt of public assistance are brought before the medical board at intervals. The housing division looks after the cases of persons who are faced with eviction orders and endeavours to prevent eviction. Sometimes it is necessary for people to move a little outside the city. Those on unemployment relief are eligible for consideration. There is provision also for hospitalization. There is an officer in charge of old age pensions and there is a means test.
I suggest that there is going to be a means test under this legislation as well, and in connection with similar social legislation that has been passed in this country. If an old man is in need of help he writes to his son or daughter or some other relative in the family, and if he has a little estate, however small it may be, an old house perhaps, he is refused assistance.
This bill should have been referred to a select committee first and later to the law courts, and in my opinion it may yet wind up there. We have heard a great deal to-day from various constitutional authorities in this house, including the hon. member who preceded me. He seems to be an expert on . all technical questions brought up under the constitution, although he has not had much training in social welfare. Under our con-^'i stitution the courts are subservient to the I legislature and the legislature in turn is ( subservient to the will of the people.	-1
What do we find under this bill? I have been looking through the bill and, while I am criticizing it, I would give it somewhat qualified support. I wish to offer some constructive suggestions to improve it to the government. The first payments under the bill will not be made before July 1, 1945. They have been postponed until that date. There will have been an election before then. The people will have to decide in the ballot boxes once for all whether we are to have a totalitarian socialist state, whether we are to have the programme that has been proposed by hon. gentlemen to my left, whether we are to see in this country the socialization of all services, and whether the Canadian people are to be called upon to exchange for those social services all the liberties that have been won for them down through the years, and submit to regimentation along various lines.
In a dispatch to all Canadian papers from ' the external affairs department on July 18, one of the reasons advanced for the postpone-
Family Allowances

ment of the payment of family allowances until July 1, 1945, is that the government hopes that all Canadian soldiers will be home by that time. That is what is reported to have been said by a government spokesman at a press conference. Well, there is no mandate whatsoever from the people to pass a bill of this kind.
Why have we the right to impose $700,000,000 on the already overburdened taxpayers of this country, with the controls, regimentation, artificial' burdens, barriers and restraints of trade that are now placed upon the taxpayers? Real estate in every municipality in Canada is overburdened with federal problems like this. Why should the city of Toronto have to pay millions of dollars and hand out the dole and all that kind of thing for years, when now the federal parliament are bearing the full burden here as this bill promises to do? The government gave only forty per cent for unemployment, after promising to give it all and end it, and saddled forty per cent on the province and twenty per cent on the municipalities. The weakness of this bill is that it sets up a huge bureaucracy control system. There is duplication in it. The bill has the following elaborate definitions:	"Allowance,
child, institution, maintains, minister, parent, registrations," and so on. How many more registrations are we to have? We have had the census; we have had the unemployment report of the Rowell report; we have had the plebiscite and all these things, and now we shall have a new registration system according to the definition of one section of the bill. Then the bill divides the children into four or five classes. One class is to receive S5 per child per month; another class, $6; another class, $7; another class, $8, and so on.
Instead of having this extensive control board and duplication of services, why do they not make those cash grants direct to the municipalities through the provinces instead of spending two or three hundred millions in the way indicated in this bill? I venture to say they could do the work for one-tenth of the cost if the work were given to the welfare organizations that I have suggested here tonight, the municipalities and the provinces. Much economy could be effected in that way, and only the actual needy provided for.
Under section 9, "powers of minister", they are going to set up a vast body of officials who will make rules and regulations of all kinds. Under section 10 they can arrange with the provinces for the carrying out of the operations of the measure. They make the rules and regulations. There is no definite indication that this $200,000,000 will be well spent. Some

get it and some do not. They say that everybody who can qualify under the section will get it.
When you come to the astronomical figures like that $200,000,000, there is less likelihood that it will be well spent. The disposal of that money will no doubt be by the means test. What about the division of powers? They are going to give to those standing bureaucrats and others the responsibility for spending money voted by parliament.
With respect to the extensive social services of the municipality of Toronto that I shall refer to to-night, one of the main ones in our city is a fine medical health department costing millions of dollars in the past twenty-five years. There is a food inspector, nurses' branch, nutrition branch, dental and medical services, a meat inspector, milk inspector, urban electrification and rural electrification, low cost housing, fuel supply, removal of slums, new sewer supply for the large cities and surrounding districts, pure water supply, transportation system that did so much for housing. Gainful employment for all would do more for the benefit of the working classes than anything else in the history of this country in the way of doles and cash allowances. In our city the fine streetcar system, including buses and radials, under the transportation commission transports passengers for one fare that cost five or six fares throughout the city before. Taking over ol the radials there and removing the light, power and transportation franchises in the counties of Peel, York and Ontario into a civic and district transportation system built up the suburbs. All these things have assisted in the building up of small homes. The up-to-date administration of the health department made it one of the finest on the continent. Education has been well looked after. The public schools, separate schools, secondary schools have all been looked after. There was medical and dental inspection in the schools, free textbooks and no fees to pay. Some people were thirty years of age before they ever saw a dentist. Child welfare and nutrition were taken care of. Milk and meals were supplied in the schools. I would say to the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mrs. Cassel-man) that the social services she spoke of have been given the people of Toronto for many years past. In 1910 I became a member and chairman of the board of health, and as alderman, controller and mayor I took a large part in the work of the organization of that department in placing Doctor Hastings in charge. He became one of the greatest medical health officers on the continent.
There is no doubt that had this bill gone to a committee one-third would cover the cost

Family Allowances
of it as it will be or less after the coming election, and about one-third of its cost will have to be assessed against the provinces and the municipalities. A means test will no doubt have to be provided as with other social bills I have mentioned. In our high schools and other schools for some years they have had free textbooks, no fees in any of those schools, and the boon of all these things has been to the working classes of this country.
I am driven to the conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that we have been overlooking the, war altogether. Generals Beveridge and Marsh are the leading generals of this country to-day. We seem to have forgotten the administration of the war altogether, although it is primary and other things secondary. With an election coming on, we seem to have forgotten all about the war and about the young people who are overseas in Italy, Normandy, Flanders and other places. I have .received letters from some of these boys and they have been wondering what is to happen to them when they get home from the war, whether they will have not only to serve through the war and suffer over there but also have to pay for it when they come back sick and disabled.
If the bill that is before us is to be supplementary and complementary to the low existing wage scale it might have some merit. The minimum wage rates are under the absolute control of the provinces, and excellent work has been accomplished in that connection. I am sorry that this particular bill did not go to the provinces, because I know for a fact that in so far as the legal aspect of it is concerned the province of Ontario has been asking, as others have, for a conference on this subject since the first of the year. With regard to the low wages and the war, there is no doubt that although the workers' wages have gone up, the cost of living has gone up with them, notwithstanding the index. In this particular bill S480 is the limit for a family. Where are they going to get a house for that to-day? There are no houses no matter what you pay for them. That is one of the main social problems before us, proper housing and fuel. There is more ill-health caused by bad housing, lack of ventilation, lack of fuel for nine months of the year than anything else, as any medical officer of health can tell you. In this country fuel is needed for nearly nine months of the year. People can do without food for a day, but they cannot do without a house to live in and little fuel with the temperature as it is for nearly nine months of the year.
This war is not being fought for certain plans, profiles and blueprints of socialism. That is not what we are fighting for in this
war. With regard to those various reports, the Beveridge report is not adapted to this country. It is all very well for us to refer to it, but it is not adapted to this country or to the constitution of this country or to the working classes of this country. Many labour unions have opposed family allowances. They think it will weaken their programme on which they have made progress so far, of better wages and gainful employment with the social services I mentioned and security. Many trades unions take this view which I have supported for many years and some are opposed to family allowances. It will be found that the cost of all those control boards under this bill is going to be fabulous and there will be duplication. With all these controls and boards on all these measures the poor will get very little out of it.
One of the finest institutions in Canada for the care of children is the hospital for sick children in Toronto, which was established by the late John Ross Robertson, and which has become a model for the whole continent. That institution is supported by voluntary subscriptions, and a new building is very badly needed. Eighty per cent of the child patients receive free treatment, while most of the remaining twenty per cent pay very little. I see many of these children, the out-patients, going on the street-car to receive their treatment. I am strongly in favour of helping the families, many of whom are suffering at the present time, but I think considerable economies could be effected in connection with these social measures if we were given a more precise outline of how they are to work. At the present time, of course, there is a great scarcity of domestic help in this country; even those who may be ill and have large families to look after cannot get any assistance, and that situation affects the hospitals and all other social services as well.
The other day the Minister of Finance was referring to the housing situation, but little if anything has been done about it. The Prime Minister of Great Britain has proposed to erect 500,000 prefabricated houses there, but our industries are not likely to receive any large orders for materials entering into such houses unless we aid industry, housing and reconstruction. I doubt if we shall get very much out of that Churchill order, owing to the scarcity of labour and material, any more than we received much benefit from the great orders placed in connection with civil aviation before the war commenced. It was said by a great British statesman two years ago that we should exercise a great deal of caution before making far-reaching decisions in time
Family Allowances

of war, because such decisions are apt to be ill-judged since at a time like this no one is perfectly normal.
The present proposal is fashioned more or less after the Beveridge report, which has been the subject of several debates in the British House of Commons, one of which was referred to by. the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver) the other night. On February 26, 1943, in this connection Sir John Anderson, lord president of the council, had this to say:
They (the government) had come to one clear and definite conclusion, that whatever might be decided about cash allowances, by far the best and most effective measure within the limit of its possibilities is the fullest development of the various child welfare services which bring the benefits directly to the children.
That statement was confirmed in the British house later on, although different opinions were also expressed. On March 21, 1943, Mr. Churchill had this to say:
We must beware of trying to build a society in which nobody counts for anything except a politician or an official, a society where enterprise gains no reward and thrift no privileges. I say "trying to build" because of all races in the world our people would be the last to consent to be governed by a bureaucracy. Freedom is their life blood.
That has been the creed of the people of Canada for many years past. Now are we going to give up all our liberties and become a totalitarian state? I say we are not; and it is a case of liberty and freedom on one hand versus state control of our lives on the other. We should restore the right to possess private property, since the real happiness is in gainful work and service to one's fellows, and socialization and the totalitarian state are foreign to our soil and our way of living in Canada.


William Chisholm Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) suggest that the constitutional problem does not arise in connection with the 'measure now under consideration. I quite agree with that statement. I am convinced that the parliament of Canada has full power to legislate in respect of family allowances, and that the bill now before us contains nothing which could be considered in any way an invasion of the provincial field of legislation.
In my remarks this evening I intend to deal with the measure on its merits. At the beginning of the session we were invited to consider a social security and human welfare programme which I think was the finest and most progressive programme ever presented to this house. Some may say that the war is no't yet' won, and that legislation having to do with social security and human welfare might very well wait until it is over. But

while the time of victory is not certain, all signs indicate that victory is now in sight. Moreover, social security and a national minimum of human welfare, together with a closer approach to equality of opportunity, are all part of the new order of which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has spoken and which our men in uniform as well as the civilians of this country will expect to find when the war is over. The Prime Minister has said too that unless the new order is already on its way before the end of the war we may look for it in vain.
Part of the government's great programme of social reform is this provision for family allowances, designed to assist, families whose incomes are low. The scheme is comprehensive, as is quite fitting. The bill provides that the allowances will be paid to families irrespective of family income. There is no limit to the number of children in each family for whom provision is made, although the same amount will not necessarily be paid in respect of each child. The allowances must be applied by the parents, or such other person authorized to receive them, for the maintenance, education and advancement of the children. They may be discontinued or paid to some other person if the Minister of National Health and Welfare is satisfied that the children are not receiving the full benefit. Surely there is nothing wrong in that. These payments will be exempt from taxation. They cannot be assigned or given away as security. The allowances will be paid in respect of children of members of the armed forces and will be in addition to dependents' allowances now provided for their families.
I wish now to give briefly some of my reasons for supporting this measure. It will be generally agreed, I think, that whatever will promote the welfare of the Canadian children is for the good of the country. I would submit that one most effective way of promoting the welfare of our children is to increase the incomes of families of low incomes, in which these children are to be found.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Is this the best way to do it?


William Chisholm Macdonald: It is one
excellent way to do it. I do not know of any better way, because family allowances will do this, through the increase in the incomes of these low-income families. They will be able to give their children a better deal. They will be able to provide for them better food, better clothing and better housing, and give them better education. All this will mean

Family Allowances
healthier children. The allowances will permit the children to have a much better chance of success in after years, and to have happier lives.
Family requirements vary according to the number of children, and it is of the utmost importance that provision be made to secure a minimum level of maintenance for the children themselves. An increase in wages of the head of a family will not meet that situation. Wages are based on many factors. They are based on the skill of the workman, the type of work in which he is engaged, and on many other conditions.
It is quite obvious, too, that industry, thrift and self-denial are themselves not sufficient to ensure security. Many people, through no fault of their own, but by reason of illness, unemployment . or possibly unlucky investments, find themselves at times in need of assistance. In a household where the head of a family is able to provide for all reasonable requirements, one would expect to find contentment, and a happy environment in which the children might properly be brought up. On the other hand, if the head of that family is unable to make adequate provision for family requirements, the children may grow up in fear, and with a sense of frustration. The formative years of their lives pass quickly, and in after years they may have to overcome a feeling of inferiority.
It is important that the children in their sensitive years should not feel that family allowances are given on compassionate grounds, and that they can know that, the allowances are received by their tarents as of right. The provision in the bill that allowances are to be paid to families irrespective of income should commend itself to every hon. member.
There is a further consideration. Many heads of families in need of allowances are not wage-earners at all. I have in mind the farmers and the fishermen, and I shall have something more to say about these two classes in a moment or two. Before doing so, however, I wish to suggest, at the risk of repetition, that this legislation will help to create employment in Canada after the war. Our fighting men and women, our war workers and children coming of age will expect, and rightly so, that there will be jobs for them to do. We cannot afford to have it otherwise.
The $200,000,000 a year which it is estimated this programme will cost, will remain in Canada ; it will be spent here. That money will be spent on food, clothing and other family necessities, the supplying of which will in turn help our farmers, fishermen, businessmen and manufacturers. Family allowances will increase the purchasing power of the people. If in the process they also assist in bringing about a more even distribution of our national income, so much the better.
There are some who complain about the cost of the programme. But if we are to have this great measure of social reform we must be prepared to pay for it. So that we cannot afford to abandon our efforts to raise the standard of family life for the masses of the people. We are able to say that in proportion to our population we have put forth the greatest war effort of any of the allied countries. Are we to confess that we cannot raise the money necessary to carry out this great social reform? We have been able to find all the money required for the war effort. If we were called upon to-morrow to supply additional tanks and ships we would not throw up our hands, and say that the money was not available.
In this connection I should like to read a passage from a book written by the Right Hon. Winston Churchill in 1921. This is the book entitled "Aftermath." In the second chapter, speaking about the organization and the machinery at the disposal of the British government on Armistice day, he said this:
There was very little in the productive sphere they could not at this time actually do. A requisition for instance for half a million houses would not have seemed more difficult to comply with than those we were already in process of executing for a hundred thousand aeroplanes, or twenty thousand guns, or the medium artillery of the American army, or two million tons of projectiles. But a new set of, conditions began to rule from eleven o'clock onwards. The money-cost, which had never been considered by us to be a factor capable of limiting a supply of the armies, asserted a claim to priority from the moment the fighting stopped.-
I suggest it all sums up to this, that if family allowances will ensure a national minimum of welfare for our children we should go forward with our programme, and not abandon it because of monetary consideration.
I would congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the government upon the courage and vision they have shown in introducing this measure, and in taking steps to see that it is put into effect without any delay. I would submit that the programme of family allowances is inherently sound and in the national interest. I should like, however, this evening to consider it for a few minutes more from a provincial point of view. I hold in my hand a very fine book entitled "The Economic Effects of the War on the Maritime Provinces of Canada," by Professor B. S. Kierstead. His study was made at the invitation of the institute of public affairs at Dalhousie university. One of the chapters
Family Allowances

in the book deals with fisheries, and was written by Professor Stewart Bates, professor of commerce at Dalhousie university, and now economic adviser to the Department of Fisheries in Ottawa. Professor Bates, after referring to the state of the fishing industry at the outbreak of the war, goes on to say:
The money income derived from catching and processing fish in the shore communities averaged less than $300 per annum per man while that of fishermen in larger centres, like that of Halifax and Lunenburg, although averaging $1,000 on bigger vessels, was still low compared to other trades of comparable skill, risk and hardship.
I have referred to the maritime fishing industry because the fishermen are a class who will benefit greatly by family allowances but whose status would not necessarily be affected by an increase in wage levels. In 1939 there were, in Nova Scotia alone, 17,335 inshore and offshore fishermen. I should mention also our farmers. They are also a class not necessarily benefited by an increase in wage levels but who will be greatly benefited by family allowances.
I should like to refer to the report of the Rowell-Sirois commission on dominion-provincial relations. This report shows that education and welfare expenditures in Nova Scotia are materially below the per capita average for Canada. In the words of the report, "the province shares with New Brunswick the unhappy distinction of having the longest unfavourable economic history of any Canadian province." The per capita wealth of Nova Scotia and the annual income of Nova Scotians are lower than that of most provinces. At the same time living costs are high. In peace time our provincial revenues were insufficient to do more than take care of our normal requirements. They could not possibly support a programme of family allowances such as is proposed. Other provinces with greater resources and more buoyant revenues might be able to do so.
In Nova Scotia where education and welfare expenditures are below the national per capita average, the establishment of a national minimum level of well-being for children would be of tremendous benefit to our people. There is a tendency these days for provinces and municipalities to bring all their problems to Ottawa for solution. Here is a proposal by Ottawa to take care of one of our most pressing and urgent provincial requirements-an improvement in the standard of life of our young children. I welcome and support the splendid programme of family allowances that is proposed.
Let me add one more word. While only 29-63 per cent of the total population of Canada is under sixteen, slightly more than
[Mr. W. C. Macdonald.1
thirty-one per cent of the total population of Nova Scotia is under that age. These figures are based on those given in a return made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) to a question asked by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce), to be found on page 4144 of Hansard of June 26 and on the figures to be found in the official handbook, "Canada, 1944", published under the authority of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
In conclusion, I would say that when one views this measure from all angles it can be safely said that the family allowance programme will be of great benefit to Nova Scotia, financed as it will be by all the people of Canada.
It is fitting that this bill should be sponsored by our beloved Prime Minister. His whole life has been consecrated to the cause of human welfare. He has given magnificent leadership to his country throughout the war. The people of Canada are happy in the certain knowledge that he will continue to lead them, not only until the end of the war, but also in the task of winning the peace that is sure to come.


Mr. J. A. ROSS (Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a few observations on this bill No.-161, to provide for family allowances. The Atlantic charter and the four freedoms expressed an ideal, and we now have a great opportunity to assist in the progress, achievement and welfare of the common man of our country and his dependents. May I say that I have always favoured some form of family assistance.
As a municipal official I had an experience, which I believe is equalled by few members of the present house, during the great devastation and depression-the greatest since confederation-which prevailed1 in the southern part of the prairie - provinces. As a result of the contact I had with many families I became impressed with the necessity for some assistance along family lines. During the years of the depression this same government headed by the same Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) set up what was known as the Rowell-Sirois commission to study conditions in Canada from coast to coast. They spent a great deal of time in receiving many briefs from leading organizations throughout Canada and they duly made their report to the government, I am sorry to think that the present government have completely ignored that report. They have done worse than that; they have added to the difficulties which that report pointed out, by implementing the recommendations of the social insurance commission of the province of Quebec.

Family Allowances
The report of that commission was referred to this afternoon, by my colleague, the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). At page 70 of the 1933 second edition of the report of that commission it recommended family allowances rather than providing the same standard of industrial wages which prevailed in other provinces of the dominion. It is pointed out that with uniform rates of wages Quebec could not compete in industrial output with the other provinces. That is scarcely in keeping with the argument which was advanced just before the dinner recess by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Picard).
My chief criticism of this bill is that it does not create a standard of wages throughout the dominion. This is lacking in various provinces at this time. We tried to provide for this in our amendment which was ruled out of order, and our appeal from the Speaker's decision was voted down by this government. We thought these allowances should not be paid until there was full collaboration with the various provinces and then only after the federal Minister of Labour was satisfied that there were uniform standards of wages prevailing in the various provinces.
I am satisfied that there are people in many parts of this country who would raise larger families if they were assured of an adequate income. I remember a by-election in my native province of Manitoba last year when one of the socialist members was campaigning and endeavouring to prevail on the sympathies of a large audience in the southern part of my province. They had not been in the northern part of Manitoba. I have considerable respect for this gentleman, but he was reported in the press as pointing out the medieval conditions existing in Flin Flon in northern Manitoba. I happened to be in that town at the time he made his speech and I made it my business to find out the conditions which prevailed at that time. I was amazed to find just what the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting company, a capitalistic enterprise, had done for the people in that centre.
These people had splendid homes with modern conveniences which they were able to obtain at reasonable rentals. There were also recreational, educational, health and other facilities provided by this company. Most of the young parents were raising fine, healthy families. To me it was an outstanding example of what could1 be done in a community. It was not in keeping with the thought expressed by that speaker in that by-election who was trying to arouse feeling against capitalism in this country. To me it was evident what could be done in this
country if we had a proper standard of wages throughout Canada. The nation would benefit greatly as a result of healthier and larger families.	.
Again, it was pointed out by my colleague the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) that in 1939 the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr. Claxton), in a presentation to the Sirois commission, pointed out the unconstitutionality of such a measure as that which is now proposed to this house.
It was also pointed out by my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), who, I think, said he had been elected to parliament in 1935, that the first act of the present Prime Minister and his government after being returned to power in 1935 was to scuttle the reform legislation of the Bennett government, and that on constitutional grounds. I believe that is exactly the situation which prevails with this measure to-day. I listened carefully to the arguments of the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) on this subject, and I must confess that they did not impress me. I am still convinced that this measure is unconstitutional. To prove our sincerity in this matter, wre proposed an amendment which we thought would make the scheme more workable and which would enable assistance to apply to these people immediately rather than making them wait until July, 1945.
Moreover, I have spoken about my experience during the great devastation and depression in the prairie provinces during the early thirties.
I have been perusing old volumes of Hansard, and I have found a speech by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) under date of February 24, 1930. It is reported in Hansard of that date at page 38. He asserted that relief problems were a matter for the municipalities; if they could not handle the situation, then it was a matter for the provinces; if they could not handle it, then it *was a matter for the federal government, and in the meantime people should mind their own business. Those are the words of the present Prime Minister, to whom we listened three days ago proposing this bill and emphasizing his consistent stand for humanity during his career in this country.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: And he is not listening to you now.


James Arthur Ross: Well, I would not suppose that he would be. To me this bill is not realistic. I took some time in the last session of parliament to discuss social security. I pointed out at that time that the present
Family Allowances

Prime Minister had then been in public office for approximately twenty-four years-it will be twenty-five years on August 7 next-approximately eighteen of those years as Prime Minister of this country; approximately seven years as leader of the opposition. It is strange, when he had all these proposals in 1919, that we should have to wait until the eve of an election for a bill such as this, and that, more-pver, it should not take effect until July 1, 1945. The Prime Minister in some heat, the other day, telling us of all he had done for humanity, took us through his record. He told us that he had served from 1908 to 1911; then there was a lapse until 1919, when he became leader of this great party. I believe that then he wrote this book "Industry and Humanity", and spent some years in the country to the south of us, studying social problems-the years from 1914 to 1918, or something.


Mr. MACKENZIE  ICING@: May I interrupt my hon. friend. He is repeating something, whether consciously or not, which is wholly untrue. My hon. friend says that I spent some years, between 1914 and 1918, in another country. I did1 nothing of the kind. I spent those years for the most part in Canada. The book to which my hon. friend refers was written in Canada-every line of it. It is perfectly true that I did some work pertaining to industrial relations and war industries outside Canada in that period; but at no time since I came to reside in Ottawa in 1900 have I given up my residence in this city; at no time between 1914 and 1918 did I reside anywhere other than Ottawa, except temporarily.


James Arthur Ross: I did not say, or did not intend to say that the book had been written other than in Canada. What the Prime Minister said he did during this period can be found on page 5338 of Hansard. He said he would not go into detail but he had spent considerable time studying social problems, in the nation to the south of us.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: My hon. friend says I spent some years.


James Arthur Ross: The right hon. gentleman said he had spent that period in another country. What I said will be found in Hansard to-morrow and can be checked. I said this book was written at this time; I did not say, in the country to the south of us. I said he spent considerable time there, and the Prime Minister's record will be found in the book in the parliamentary library from which I got these facts, and I do not think I went far astray. I am simply going through what he said with considerable heat the other

day during the presentation of this bill, "putting my party first and the country second". I have always considered that his loyalty was with party first.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Arthur Ross: What I said with respect to party first when the Prime Minister interrupted me will be found in Hansard at page 5339.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member said to-night that I spoke "with considerable heat". That is something which hon. gentlemen opposite are seeking to repeat and repeat and repeat.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Part of the propaganda.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Part of their propaganda. I wish to say to my hon. friend that I spoke in no heat whatever in connection with this debate, and when hon. gentlemen seek to convey that impression by their words they are seeking to misrepresent the facts.


James Arthur Ross: I am prepared to say, "in a manner of eloquence1", if it pleases the right hon. gentleman better. We are entitled to our own interpretation. I spoke on social security some seventeen or eighteen months ago-to be exact, on March 4-when I pointed out the record of the Prime Minister and what he had done for social security during these many years.
I have already referred to the report of the Rowell commission, which points out the great difficulties prevailing in this country and the impossibility of many provinces carrying out their functions in respect of social security as they would like to do; and I say that these difficulties have now been accentuated. I have set forth our proposal for collaboration with these provinces, which I think would be much more satisfactory than the proposed bill.
Other speakers have referred to the lack of nutrition in many families throughout Canada. I believe that the records of the department of the Minister of Pensions and National Health will prove that, for one reason or another, approximately half the families of this country lack adequate nutrition. I realize that some have told us that we have the highest standards in the world.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is why the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden) looks so well.


James Arthur Ross: In an article sponsored by the government it is stated that, of twenty-six leading countries of the world, only four have a record of maternal deaths worse than Canada's. In four years, 1932 to 1935, Canada

Family Allowances
lost 70,000 infants under one year of age and another 33,000 mothers and still-born infants. Without going into other details, I think this proves what should be done to create health facilities in this country. Government investigation of Canadian children has shown, as I have already stated, that half of the nation's families are undernourished for one reason or another. It is also pointed out in the same article to which I have referred how much further advanced is the nation to the south of us in thgse matters than we are in Canada, how little we have done correspondingly and how much less money we have spent in this respect.
I wanted to make my position on this bill quite clear. As I stated at the beginning,
I have always been in favour of family assistance. I have been opposed to this bill in detail, but I am going to support it because half a loaf is better than no bread and I am in favour of the objective. Speaking some eighteen months ago, I took exactly the same stand on the constitutional set-up as I am taking at this moment. On that occasion I said:
I have already indicated, when speaking on the debate in reply to the speech from the throne,-
That is, in 1943.
-that if social security legislation is to function properly, the British North America Act Should be amended. If that is not done, the dominion and the provinces must get together and agree on certain matters-which to date they have not done.
That was some seventeen months ago and it has not yet been done.
In the programme of the Progressive Conservative party as laid down in Winnipeg in December, 1942, we recognized the obligation of government to make available to every citizen adequate medical, dental, nursing, hospital and pre-natal care, and to further advance public health and nutritional principles so that health may be safeguarded.
I think that makes my stand perfectly clear and shows why I am supporting this bill. If I took up further time at this stage, Mr. Speaker, I would be only repeating many of the arguments that have already been advanced, and I do not care to do that at this time. I shall have some questions to ask when we are considering the bill in detail, but at the moment I would refer to one section to which reference was made by my colleague the member for Vancouver South, relating to the dependents of those now in the services. As he said, the government have all these records, and dependents' allowances are being paid in many cases. If this measure is to be put into effect and made
really worth while, these dependents' allowances should be paid immediately. Another point was that the children of Canadian servicemen born in Britain are not entitled to family allowance until they return to Canada. That is unjust, and if this bill is to become law, these provisions should be made at this time.


Mr. M. E. McGARRY (Inverness-Rich-mond):: I have no desire to prolong the debate before the house, but I wish to offer a few brief remarks om what I consider to be the most important measure designed for the social and economic welfare of the nation which probably has even been brought before this house. That Canada is a resourceful country is something that has never been denied and is a matter of world^wide knowledge. There is no doubt about it that nature has been very bountiful in her gifts to this great dominion, but a superabundance of resources, diversified as they may be, will not alone achieve greatness for Canada. In order to exploit these resources we must have a healthy, vigorous, intelligent citizenship. The adage that the health of the nation is the wealth of the nation has never been marred by the ages; it is just as terse a truth to-day as it was 100 years ago, and the greatest student of economics will point out that the most valuable asset that a nation possesses is a healthy, vigorous, intelligent population; while on the other hand a puny, unintelligent population is the nation's greatest liability.
This bill is designed to improve our social and economic conditions, but under present conditions it is very difficult to enlist into this great and noble programme of betterment every person who is interested in this admirable forward movement. It is impossible under our present conditions to afford equality of opportunity for all who I know are willing to enter into this erusadte. Our w^ige regulations to-day are not flexible enough to take care of the wide discrepancy between the cost of living and his income for the man with a family in the low wage scale, because his income cannot be supplemented and he is not on an equality in earning, from the point of view of the cost of living, with the bachelor, with the young man with no dependents, or the married man who has no family. I believe there is no other corrective for this discrepancy than this very measure that has been brought down to-day. We say that the allimportant thing is to have a healthy, intelligent nation. Take the father of a family in the low wage category. He has to accept the same income as the young man who has no depend-
Family Allowances

emts. How is that father going to carry on. his domestic obligations and' the charges that fall upon him in supporting his family and educating his children? If we are going to propagate and improve the health of our nation, the greatest requisite of all is proper nutrition of the children when they are in their formative years. This bill makes provision for those who cannot afford to give proper, adequate nutrition to their children.
Let us turn next to the question of education. There are many families who will participate in these allowances who can give adequate and proper nutrition to their children. What happens in those cases? These allowances contribute to the better education of their children. If these families can afford to nourish their children they can set aside this allowance so that it will accumulate into a repository that can be utilized later for the advanced education of their children. Those of us who have had experience in teaching school have often been very sorry when we found young children in the lower grades who demonstrated mental acuteness and gave evidence sometimes of the promise of a worthwhile manhood, and who should have had the advantage of going into advanced education. But what happened when they were through with common school education? They were forced to retire from the field of education, and the result is to-day we have some men who inherently are extremely bright but who have had to retire to the pick-and-shovel class simply because they did not have anything to start them on their way. I myself have known young men who, I believe, if they had had enough money to start in their first collegiate year, would have shown such mental assets that many philanthropists, recognizing their ability., would have carried them right through their collegiate course.
With regard to the health side, those of us who have had the experience of practising medicine, particularly in general practice, have seen hundreds of cases of young men and women who I really think went down to an early death because they did not have the resistance to the disease that laid siege to them on account of the lack of proper nutrition in their formative years. As I said at the beginning, I am absolutely of opinion that there never was a measure brought into this house or any other house of parliament that has the same virtue as this measure with which we are now dealing.
Some mention has been made of the cost. Some raised the objection that we are spending $200,000,000, but we must realize that we are spending almost that amount of money 
every day on a programme of death and destruction, almost as much in one day on a programme of death and destruction as we are to pay under this measure in a whole year, a measure that is intended to bring about in this Canada of ours what we think is the initiation of a new day and a new heaven and a new earth. When we consider the dividends that will be paid1 on this small expenditure of money in the way of better health, less hospitalization, less medical costs, less loss of man-power days, I think every lion, member and every individual in Canada will feel that the expenditure is well justified.
Another objection that is advanced against this measure is that there is some fear that the mothers will not make proper use of this money. Having had some experience with mothers in their homes and with their families, I say that I have every confidence in the mothers. I know the solicitude that they have for their children. These mothers who are so tolerant of the restrictions that have been placed upon them during the stress and strain of war, those mothers who have done so much to contribute to this war effort, can be well trusted with every dollar of this money. They will see that it is put aside and used in behalf of the welfare of their children.
We have listened to some other objections. We have heard the constitutional feature of it advanced to-day. I am not a lawyer and I will not enter into that field', but I have confidence in our chief. I do not think he would bring this measure into the house and make the forecast that he made if he did not feel that it was constitutionally operative. I have listened to men on this side of the house who, I think, are just as good authorities as any on the other side of the house. They were supported by the ablest lawyers of the British empire and I am perfectly satisfied that this measure is constitutionally sound.
Then we heard another complaint that this is a matter of bribe. Do you imagine, Mr. Speaker, that our chieftain who has led this great party for twenty-five years would be silly enough on the eve of an election to bribe children who are in the cradle to-day in order to get their votes at the next election? To my mind that is very silly. I will offer this warning to the people who use that as a hurdle to the advancement of this measure, that it is hopeless to expect that when these children come to voting age, which will be twenty-one years from now, they can count on their support for having offered this objection to this great measure which is designed to help the youth of the land.
The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) says that this measure of social welfare should

Family Allowances
not be brought in at all. He says that in the city of Toronto they have public welfare institutions which are looking after their children. Well, the city of Toronto does not comprise the whole of Canada, and if those philanthropic institutions in Toronto want to carry on with their philanthropy they can do so, despite the fact that this measure comes into effect, a measure in behalf of the youth of the whole of Canada.
The hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) suggested that instead of this measure there should be a uniform standard of wages. Well, that will not help the situation of the man , who has a large family compared with the man who has no domestic obligations of that kind. What this bill is designed to do is to bring about equality of opportunity and the establishment of a uniform wage rate would leave matters exactly where they are to-day. As I said at the outset, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this is the most important social welfare measure that has ever been brought into this house or into any other house. Despite the criticisms offered and the hurdles that some hon.' members have cast in its path, I believe it is so good and popular and so full of virtue that there is not a man or a woman who sits in this house that would dare undertake to vote against it.


James Arthur Ross: On a question of privilege, the last speaker said that I suggested that uniform wages should be instituted rather than any family payments. I said that the measure of family allowances should be used to help create a standard of wages. He misquoted me. I know he does not want to be unfair.


Mr. A. H. BENCE (Saskatoon City):: In my opinion the vast resources of this country require a very much greater population than we have at the present time. That increase in population can be obtained only through two means: first of all, through immigration and, second, by raising the birthrate of this country. I believe in the principle of properly selected immigration. At the same time I believe it is essential in the interest of the future of this country that we should give further encouragement to the matter of the production of our children. I want to take this opportunity to point out that in my opinion the birth rate, particularly in the English-speaking sections of this country, is not nearly as high as it should be. At the risk of appearing impertinent I suggest that there are many people in this country who have failed to assume their proper responsibility in regard to the survival of our nation. Many people may suggest that this is none
of my business; but in view of the information given to us, which indicates that the birthrate, particularly in the English-speaking sections, is going down considerably, I believe that it is a matter of concern, and that any person who has the future of his country at heart should .at least draw to the attention of the people of Canada this alarming situation. I was particularly struck with the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in dealing with this measure at page 5330 of Hansard, when he said:
1 draw attention particularly to the following statement. According to the 1941 census, of the gainfully employed, 48 per cent are single; 39 per cent of the married ot widowed have no children under sixteen and 40 per cent of those with children under sixteen have only one child. What this means is that 84 per cent of the children in Canada under sixteen are dependent upon only 19 per cent of the gainfully employed. _ In other words, the major burden of raising the next generation and perpetuating the Canadian nation falls on less than one-fifth of our working population.
I suggest that this statement should arouse the thinking people of this country. The other day I noticed some figures supplied by the bureau of statistics which indicated that the ratio of children under seventeen per family for the whole of Canada is only 2-06, while in only one province, namely Quebec, is the ratio greater than two per family. No doubt I will invite criticism in making this suggestion to the people of Canada, but I believe they must reconsider their position with respect to whether or not they are going to limit their families to none or one or two children so that they may be able to continue to live in comparative luxury, or whether they are prepared more adequately to discharge their obligation to the nation, even though that may mean a more restricted standard of living as far as they personally are concerned. In offering that suggestion I do not wish to be misunderstood. My criticism is levelled against all of us, not by any means excluding myself.
With respect to the measure now before the house, of course in my opinion it is not a proper solution of the problem with which we are confronted. Obviously a proper solution would be to raise wage levels and incomes of the people of Canada, and bring about a better distribution of the productivity of the country across the various classes. Too many people do not now receive a return in proportion to the efforts they put forth on behalf of this nation. I believe that if we had a proper standard of distribution of the productivity of this nation there would be no necessity for a measure of this kind; but realizing that we have not reached this happy state, that we have not reached the point where there is a
Family Allowances

proper relationship as between the earners of this country, I am prepared to support a measure which will put the people in the lower income brackets in a position to raise children without materially reducing their standard of living. To the extent that this proposed legislation will assist parents to bring up their children under better conditions, both physically and morally, I am prepared to support it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Your leader will soon be left alone.


Alfred Henry Bence: I can assure you that my leader will not be left alone. If you want me to go into some of the arguments he placed before this house I shall be glad to do so, because I agree with them. In a few moments I am going to indicate why I believe the proposed legislation was not properly considered before being brought into this house, and if I may I am going to suggest that the Prime Minister and the administration should have gone into the matter much more carefully before introducing it.
In addition to assisting those in the low income groups at least to retain their standard of living when they are prepared to discharge their great obligation by raising children, this legislation does something else for which I am prepared to support it. That is, it endeavours to solve the problem of the distribution of purchasing power in the country. While I oe-lieve that the administration should have brought in a measure which would have dealt with that problem directly rather than indirectly, still because in a measure this legislation does help to spread purchasing power across the whole of the people, I am prepared to support it. But I repeat the assertion I made in the first place, that the welfare of our people should be predicated upon a better system of distribution of the wealth of the country, according to the contribution each makes to the production of those things which are required in the life of this nation. I believe also that our success or failure in the reconstruction period will depend upon whether or not we raise the lower wage levels of our people. I agree with the conclusion reached by the chairman of the reconstruction council of my own province, who indicated that if we expect to achieve that measure of prosperity we all anticipate and hope for, we shall have to do something to ensure that the wage levels in the lower brackets of this country are increased.
In that connection I am concerned, as other hon. members have been, with the possible effect of this legislation upon the wage levels of the country. I believe that the fears which

have been expressed by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), and by many labour leaders throughout the country are entirely justified. When I began to consider this angle of the matter I wondered what was the position with respect to that application to the national war labour board by the railway employees of Canada, which I believe is causing the administration considerable concern at the present time. I am wondering whether or not there is a possibility that the decision on that matter, which has been held up for some time, was being delayed until this legislation had been adopted by the parliament of Canada. If that is so, I want to protest very strongly against it. I say that because the matter of family allowances, which would not come into effect until a year from now, certainly can have nothing to do with the question as to whether or not a body of men are entitled to an increase in their pay at this time.
I agree with those who have suggested that the whole matter of labour relations and other matters affecting $ie provinces should have been reviewed with the provinces before this legislation was brought to the House of Commons, in order that some method might have been achieved under which we would have had a minimum standard of wages, and a uniformity of legislation with respect to the many social welfare problems confronting the Canadian people. I believe that those provinces should have been consulted, because they are interested in many angles of the question. Any matter which relates to the social welfare of our people is a matter concerning which, in our opinion, the provinces should have been consulted. Surely the matter of family allowances, which will take such a large portion of the taxpayers' money, should have been considered in relation to all the other social necessities over which the provinces have control and jurisdiction.
The whole matter of this legislation has been approached piecemeal. Why was the subject of family allowances picked out and thrown into the picture? Why at the same time were not some of the other problems with which we are so very much concerned, dealt with? Why was not the matter of finance carefully considered with the provinces? Why were not jurisdictional differences considered? Why were not the peculiar needs of each of the respective provinces gone into carefully before any decision was made to spend $200,000,000 on this scheme? In my opinion it was too bad that a well integrated and cohesive system of social security was

Family Allowances
not worked out, and a concrete plan presented to parliament before one angle of it was thrown into the legislative sea.
As Mr. Marsh points out in his report on social security for Canada-and this is found at page 88, where he deals with cash allowances as part of a social security system:
The third method is to recognize children's allowances in forthright fashion, as a specific social security measure justified on its own merits. What is envisaged in this report is a children's allowance system considered as a unit along with unemployment insurance, health insurance, disability insurance, and other measures in the social security system, but geared into them at every point where they belong. Not only is this logical, but it will contribute immensely to administrative simplicity and efficiency if this plan is adopted. This has now been indicated at many points in preceding sections, and requires no further emphasis.
Where in the present system of social welfare measures have we any integration whatsoever, so far as the dominion and the provinces are concerned? I suggest we have none. We just grab here and grab there, do this and do that, without any consideration of the vast, broad picture involved.
I am particularly interested in the implementing of most of the recommendations proposed in the report of the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations, commonly known as the Sirois report. It is my understanding that this commission studied the whole problem, and made recommendations with respect to the reallocation of responsibilities ,and the sources of revenue of the provinces and the dominion. Those of us who come from the province of Saskatchewan feel keenly about the implementing of that report. We have felt that if many of the recommendations made had been adopted we would have obtained a place in the confederation which would be much fairer than the one we have had heretofore. We have found out that as a result of the peculiar situation in which we are placed, the responsibilities we have been asked to share under confederation are far greater than we are able to discharge in relation to our income.
That report, as I understand it, contemplated a broad approach to the whole question of social security, and, I believe, even had in mind the solution of the type of problems with which we are faced to-day in connection with family allowances. As an indication to the house of the state of mind of those who prepared the report, I should like to quote briefly from the recommendations made in connection with
financing provincial and municipal social services. We find this at page 44 of book II of the recommendations:
Our financial recommendations aim to place every province in a position to finance its own social welfare programme in accordance with average Canadian standards, and to make such adjustments with its municipalities in the financing of this programme as seems to it reasonable. Moreover, provision for periodical revision of adjustment grants and for emergency grants should enable each province not only to protect its standards in social services, but also to improve them at the average pace maintained by the provinces as a whole. This method we believe will ensure to the provinces not only the capacity to provide reasonable welfare services for their people, but complete autonomy in the formulation of their social welfare policies, in the choice between alternative services and between alternative methods, and in the administration of their services.
And then it went on to say:
This does not rule out the possibility of dominion assistance by grants-in-aid for particular services (e.g. mothers' allowances or special health measures) should the dominion so decide. It is indeed possible that dominion assistance of this sort might be a means of improving, or coordinating, or equalizing particular provincial services, and it is possible that the national interest might on occasion justify such a step.
I suggest it is obvious from that report that the commission had clearly in mind the thought that there would be a getting together of the provinces and the dominion for the purpose of solving these problems as a whole. It is my belief that the Prime Minister would have been far better off in the long run if this plan had come out of a dominion-provincial conference, after the whole matter of social welfare, finance and reallocation of jurisdiction had been carefully gone into, and agreement arrived at.
It seems to me the main premise for the solution of most of our social welfare problems lies in a consideration of the recommendations of that report, and a working out of a scheme which will eradicate the present constitutional difficulties. After all, there are many other things we must consider besides family allowances, important as they are. There is, for instance, the matter of education. There is the matter of a badly needed increase in the payment of old age pensions. There is the matter of blind pensions, and some sort of aid for people who are totally incapacitated and who have no means with which to keep themselves. There are many other social problems which should have been worked out before it was decided to spend 8200,000,000 on this particular project.
I should like to know how the expenditure of $200,000,000 will affect these other measures. How will it affect the question of whether or
Family Allowances

not we shall be able to give the provinces those things which possibly we had in mind in the way of new fields of taxation and that kind of thing? When the provinces come for aid in connection with these various matters will they be told that we are now spending $200,000,000 on family allowances and that, therefore, we have no money for them? When we reiterate our demands for a decent old age pension, shall we be told that the money is not available because $200,000,000 is being spent on family allowances?
If the administration say that they cannot do this, there are one or two questions I wish to ask. First, why not? Second, if you cannot do it, why was that position not considered before you embarked on this very large expenditure? As a matter of fact the old age pensioners of this country cost the dominion government only $31,569,780, or, in round figures, about thirty-one and a half million dollars. When we are going to spend $200,000,000 on our children I 'can see no reason why we should not spend the money required to assist our older people. In view of the arguments that have been advanced in this house with respect to the constitution and the availability of finances, we should not have to listen to excuses that this matter has to be put off to a future date.
Before I close this particular phase of the matter I should like to ask the administration *j a further question. Will the cost of the legislation that is now before us prejudice in any j way the implementing of the Sirois commission ' report?
I agree with those who have suggested that this legislation places too much power in the hands of the minister. I concur with those who have advanced arguments that the legislation is too bare, that we should have before us most if not all of the regulations which will affect the lives of the children and the parents to whom these grants will be given. In view of the fact that the minister has the power to withhold payment, if he wants to, from vast numbers of people, it is not too much to ask that this house should have all the information available and all the regulations the administration can place before the country at this time.
Before the bill is finally passed I believe it should go back for redrafting in order that some of these matters may be ironed out, and in order that the regulations which the government has in mind may be presented to this -house before the bill is made law. f Before I close I wish to say a word about the constitutional angle. This matter was covered most admirably this afternoon by the hon. member for Lake Centre, and I do not propose to traverse all the arguments he

presented. I know the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) treated the" leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) with a certain amount of scorn when he suggested that this legislation was not constitutional. I know the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Claxton) just brushed aside the possibility of its not being constitutional.
But in view of the position which was advanced this afternoon by the hon. member for Lake Centre; in view of the stand taken by the Prime Minister in 1931 when the old age pensions legislation was being considered; in view of the statement that he made then to the house to the effect that to be on the safe side the whole matter should be considered from the constitutional angle and if the government was going to pay 100 per cent of the old age pensions then the British North America Act would have to be changed; in view of the statements contained in the report made by Senator Gouin and the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George to the government in connection with the Sirois commission report, and further, in view of the grave doubts which have been expressed with respect to the constitutionality of the old age pensions legislation, I suggest that the Prime Minister should have the matter reviewed from a constitutional point of view before this legislation is put into effect.
I say that because it would be a terrible thing if, after the scheme had been put into effect, it was found that it was not constitutional.) I suppose any taxpayer who felt aggrieved at the legislation could easily take steps in that regard. If the Prime Minister feels about this legislation as he has felt about similar legislation in the past, then I beileve he will take this step before it is put into effect.
I assert again that if it is definitely clear that the legislation is constitutional, then the Prime Minister should, in conjunction with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), reconsider the position which has been expressed in this house on many occasions during this parliament by the Minister of Finance as to whether or not the administration will take over the old age pensions and pay an amount sufficient for these old people to live on.
I am going to vote for this measure because I believe in the principle of granting assistance to the children of our country. Our children are the greatest asset that this country has. I am going to vote for this measure for the reasons I expressed a short time ago, because I believe it will assist in solving one of our greatest problems, the proper distribution of purchasing power. But I believe it has been

Family Allowances
hastily put together. I believe it should have been prepared in conjunction and collaboration with the provinces.
I believe the Prime Minister might yet take steps to discuss with the provinces the various problems which I have outlined. Bad as it is in the sense that I have indicated, and containing the loopholes which I believe are there, nevertheless as far as I am concerned I am not prepared to vote against legislation which will in a measure assist our children and our poor people. I believe that it should be part of a properly integrated social security scheme worked out, as I have indicated, in conjunction with the provinces. But as far as the principle that lies behind it is concerned, as far as the intent with respect to the placing of the people of this country in a position where they can have and maintain children decently and adequately is concerned, then I am prepared to support the bill.


Mr. W. A. TUCKER (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I would like first of all to congratulate the ministry upon its courage in introducing this bill at this time. I say that particularly because of the various threats which were made when the bill was first proposed and which have been echoed inside and outside this house. One of the most potent ones that was brought forward and held over the heads of the ministry' was that it would affect the unity of Canada. The support which this measure has received from all parts of the house has shown that the decision of the ministry to introduce this bill has been more than vindicated. I am quite sure that if there had been anything vitally wrong with this measure the opposition parties would have screwed up their courage to the point of voting against it. But from what I can see there is not a single party in this house, in spite of all the threats and hints which were made beforehand, that is actually going to oppose the measure when it comes to a vote. So that once more the courage and wisdom of this administration are being vindicated for all the country to see.
^With regard to the constitutional argument'
I believe that a reading of the various decisions made in recent years demonstrates that our dominion can spend its money to promote the welfare of its citizens, under "peace, order and good government", without having to get consent_.of any Province in the A way which is proposedj But the hon. member for Saskatoon City (Mr. Bence) has depicted the terrible situation which would develop if these allowances were commenced and later it were found that the bill was unconstitutional. I do not think that situation would be
quite so terrible as the hon. member suggests. If this measure gets the strong support of the house and the senate which it appears it is going to get, it will be apparent that the almost unanimous opinion of this parliament, expressed by both houses, is that it should be put through by the dominion parliament; and the ease with which, in a similar case, we got the necessary amendment of the constitution in order to enact the unemployment insurance measure shows that we can easily secure a confirmatory amendment of the British North America Act if there were any question about the constitutionality of this measure. It is strange that under these circumstances, seeing that we have, as a matter of fact, absolute control of our constitution, and when all parties uphold this measure, we should spend hours and hours debating whether we have the right to put it through. A simple resolution of this house and the other house is all that would be required.


Alfred Henry Bence: There would have to be first the consent of the provinces.


Walter Adam Tucker: No. We did not have to get the consent of the provinces with regard to various amendments of the British North America Act,which we obtained in past years, and we certainly would not have to get it in regard to this measure. When opposition members are reduced to that argument in order to oppose this bill it shows a bankruptcy of thought and policy.


Alfred Henry Bence: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Walter Adam Tucker: Yes.


Alfred Henry Bence: If this measure were declared unconstitutional, would the hon. member be in favour of changing the constitution without the consent of the provinces?


Walter Adam Tucker: My answer to that is that when the Canadian people want this measure, as will appear from its passing almost unanimously in this house and the other house; when there is apparently no opposition from the provinces to the dominion taking this tremendous responsibility upon itself, I would have no hesitation in upholding, just as I support this bill, the necessary change in the constitution if such were necessary in order to bring the legislation within the powers of this parliament. Why should I not do so? If a bill like this were put before the British parliament, the very fact that people voted for it would indicate that they wanted to have it in force. If I vote for this bill in this parliament it is a sign that I
Family Allowances

want to have it in force in Canada. If it were necessary to pass a resolution after we pass, this bill in order that we may have the power to put it into force, I would just as readily support that resolution as I would support the bill itself. I hope that is an answer to the hon. member's question.


Alfred Henry Bence: That is not an answer to the question. I asked the hon. member if he would obtain the consent of the provinces before putting through the amendment to the constitution.


Walter Adam Tucker: I do not think it is necessary to obtain the consent of the provinces to put into effect a measure such as this. But if there were any doubt about the matter, or if the payment of these allowances were m danger of being interrupted, I do not think any province would stand ip the way or ask to be consulted. And if, in a great humanitarian measure like this, any province did stand in the way, I would say that its objection should not prevail against the will of the Canadian people.
An hon. member said something about the birthrate of this country; and what he said applies, I think, not only in Canada but throughout the white world. When I was recently attending the international monetary conference I had occasion at different times to talk to some of the Indian and Chinese delegates. One of the things which both of them emphasized was this, that practically every fourth person in the world is an Indian and every fourth person in the world is a Chinese. That, of course, indicates that one person out of every two in the world is either Chinese or an Indian. These people are basing their claims to certain things upon their share of the earth's population. Their delegates also pointed out to me that it is coming to be realized that the people of these races are not inferior, in ability to fight and defend themselves, to the white races. It was very clear to me that if the white race hopes to maintain its place in the world it must cease its present practice of limiting its families, or the time will come when it will have to yield its present position to the other races.
I agree with the hon. member for Saskatoon City in his suggestion that the implementing of the recommendations in the Sirois report should not be hindered through the passing of this bill, and I do not believe that such is the intention of the government. The whole basis of the recommendations in that report, as I understood it, was to provide the various provinces with the means of doing as well by their citizens in the realm of jurisdiction con-

fided to them as any other part of the dominion is able to do. It is well recognized that, owing to fiscal and tariff arrangements in ' this country, the tendency is to concentrate great wealth in certain provinces, and if other provinces do not have access to the taxes levied upon those centres of wealth they will not be able to discharge their obligations under the constitution as well as provinces in more favoured areas. But these obligations are among the most important of any which are confided to either the dominion or the provinces. Education and- medical attention are obviously among the most important obligations of any government. They are confided to our provinces, and one of the grievances of the western provinces has been that they have not had the means of providing the same standard of education or of medical attention to their children as has been possible in the more wealthy provinces of central Canada.
I said, in one of my first speeches after I had the honour of being elected to this house, and before I realized what was going to be required of some of our western Canadian boys, that I deplored the apparent assumption that there is such a thing as a second-class citizen as well as a first-class citizen in this country, that it was all right for a lad to be brought up and educated in Saskatchewan with not quite so good a chance as a person in the more favoured provinces. I said that if we were to have a united- and harmonious confederation we had to treat all parts of our country the same, and do away with the idea that there should be parts of the country where some people were treated better than others.	-
Nowadays, hardly a week passes without its coming to my attention that some of these young lads who were brought up in Saskatchewan in the depression days, who often did not have enough to eat or the wherewithal to get a decent education, have given their lives for a country which told them and their parents in the days of the depression that they could not find the money to enable their parents to give them enough food and medical attention to bring them up as children should be brought up. -That, I hope, and in fact I am sure, has been borne home to every person in the more favoured provinces. Of those lads who were denied those privileges, many are to-day defending this country; many of them have already given their lives in its defence; and never again must it be said to any Canadian family that we have not the money to provide them with the bare necessities of life so that they may have food and clothing, a reasonable education and medical attention in order

Family Allowances
that they may arrive at complete manhood and womanhood in the full possession of health and strength.
It is something for which I have been thankful ever since I came to this house that we have at the head of this administration a man who felt as our Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) does, about the poor of this land. If as many things as we should like to see done for the poor have not been accomplished, I am sure it was not his fault, and to-day I rejoice in this measure and am thankful that he heads this administration, because in a great measure he is responsible for bringing it in at this particular time. I deplore the attitude of those who ask, why the haste? I would say on the contrary, why has there been a delay?
I cannot understand the members of the Progressive Conservative party asking, why the haste? I am glad that the measure has now been brought in. I am happy that it is being done now, and I express my humble and deep appreciation of this administration in acknowledging this achievement. I am glad they did not listen to any quibbles about constitutional obstacles.
I remember very well when the same arguments were advanced in connection with old age pensions, that we had not the constitutional power to do such things. If our present leader had not decided to go ahead with the old age pension legislation, regardless of such arguments about jurisdictional problems-and such arguments were advanced then, just as they are being advanced now in connection with this proposed measure-I suppose we would never have had old age pensions to-day. Many times as I talk to old people to-day and see how much better their last days have been because of the old age pension they receive from month to month, I have thanked God that the Prime Minister felt as he does toward the poor of this country, so that he saw to it that the evening of their lives was made happier and more comfortable by reason of old age pensions, and that he had not listened to quibbles and arguments that we had not the constitutional power. I remember it was argued at that time that that legislation might be declared ultra vires, just as it is said that the legislation before us at the moment will be ruled ultra vires. But I have not seen any province object to it, nor have I seen it ruled ultra vires; and certainly if the grant made in connection with old age pensions is not ultra vires, and no attempt has been made to declare it ultra vires, there is even less likelihood of this measure being so ruled.
There is another suggestion, why take up this particular bit of legislation? There are many other problems, it is said. Well, I do 100-346	'
not think much attention should be paid to that argument. You cannot make a better beginning than to make sure that the children of the country are well looked after through' a minimum measure of well-being. Surely it is not suggested that we should not do anything until we are able to do everything. You have to start somewhere. We have looked after unemployment insurance and old age pensions, and now we are starting to look after the minimum standard of well-being for the children of the nation. In my opinion that is the greatest measure for the good of the nation in the days that lie ahead, greater than any other measure that has been introduced into, this parliament since confederation.
I commend the speech of the leader of the government when he introduced the bill, pointing out how an investment in the health of our children, in the food, clothing, shelter, medical attention and so on which they require, would bear rich dividends in the days that lie ahead. Thinking back over the period of depression in Saskatchewan and of some of my neighbours, some of the casual labouring people who were trying to bring up families of five and six, and knowing, as we all do in a small town, pretty intimately the circumstances of everybody, I knew the income of some of those people, and I often wondered how in the world they managed to clothe and feed their children and send them to school as well as they were doing. Some of those children were brought up on incomes which I am sure hon. members would regard as impossible; nevertheless they went to school and did well, and they have gone into the world and become good citizens. Many of them, as I have said, are in the armed forces and some have already been decorated in this war.
When I hear people who are highly placed, enjoying good incomes, saying that we dare not trust such people with the money because they will not use it to help their children, that it will not be properly applied, I should like to have some of these members see what was accomplished by some of those neighbours of mine with the' little amount they had from year to year. I know of families during those depression years, the families of returned soldiers who were getting very small pensions, some of them having to live on the war veterans' allowance, which was around $40 a month, and some of the heads of those families could not get other work and had to subsist on that allowance of $40 a month. I have known a family where that was practically the only income for several years and they had five children. Somehow or another,

Family Allowances

those children were looked after and brought up and to-day two of those boys are overseas fighting for their country.
I do not know of a single pensioner or returned soldier who is in receipt of money from the government in the way of pensions or war veterans' allowance, where practically every bit of money that came into the house did not go to look after the children, to procure food and clothing and provide education and who has not been grateful for that assistance. I think the money paid by this country in pensions to returned soldiers of the last war, apart from the fact that it was an obligation to those men, has already borne fruit in this war in the type of children brought up in those homes, where there was a measure of gratitude to the country for looking after them when they needed looking after.
The Prime Minister dealt eloquently in his speech with this aspect of the matter, and I do not think that people who are in receipt of a good income, or who have confidence in their ability to earn a good income, can have any appreciation of the haunting fear that stalks a household where a man has to live on casual earnings and where very often, if he does not earn even $5, the question presents itself, where will they be able to provide for the children the following day? I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that in a country as rich as Canada that sort of situation is not good enough for the kind of people that we have here, people who have shown themselves to be capable of almost measureless self-sacrifice in connection with this war. Canada owes something better than that to the kind of citizens we have in this country, as they have shown themselves to be in the last war and in this war. I rejoice that now there is going to be given to all citizens of Canada some measure of security such as was given in the war veterans' allowances or to those in receipt of pensions in the past few years.
We see that striving for security on the part of some of the highly placed citizens of our country. We see that on the part of the judges who wanted to see that their families were looked after. This parliament does not hesitate to take steps to see to it that people placed in those positions receive a certain amount of security. We see it with regard to the- civil servants who serve their country in the civil service. We do not hesitate to appropriate money to see to it that they are looked after in their old age. Surely the average taxpayer who is not in receipt of an income from the country but who, in fact, helps to build up the nation and contributes toward the income of the country, is entitled to the minimum standard of living.

In addition to the benefit which this will give to the children of the nation, there is that element of the banishing of fear from the homes, the banishing of fear from the hearts and minds of the parents of the children and from the children themselves. That alone is a great step forward. After all, in this country we do not let our people starve to death. I have wondered why it is that we have not before this given them some measure of security by telling them that they can rely upon us, not as a matter of charity, but in this wealthy country of ours where we produce ample food, clothes and shelter for all our people we could tell them that if, through no fault of their own, they are unable to earn these things themselves they are going to have it as a matter of right; and to the extent that this measure does not give that minimum standard of livelihood to the people of this country I would hope that it would be supplemented by other measures which would give that minimum standard of life.
One of the arguments that have been used throughout the country against the present system is that we have want in the midst of plenty; that we produce more food than we can possibly use ourselves, more clothes, more shelter, plenty of doctors to look after the medical needs of our people, plenty of teachers to look after their educational needs, and that if we do not then give a reasonable standard of living to all our people our system is not functioning properly. That is a reasonable argument. The organization of the state exists to serve the people, and it must be so organized as to serve the people. If it is not organized to serve the people and give them what they are able to produce as a people, give them security, give them that minimum standard of living, then they will change the organization of the state. Some people ask "Why was not this done before?" My answer to that is that we live in a democratic state, and while there may be far-sighted people who perhaps many, many years ago would have liked to give this minimum standard of welfare to our people, we know that throughout the country there were the fearful ones who said: "Where is the money to come from?" and all that sort of thing. They thwarted the will of those who realized that these things were possible. I rejoice that at last that bogey has been laid to rest once and for all; that never again will it be used as an argument against giving the standard of living that this nation is able to provide for its people; that we cannot find the money to do it. To those people who worry about the $200,000,000 that is to be spent per year on this measure, I say that the only limitation upon the good things of life

Family Allowances
that we should provide for our people should be the limitation on what we are able to provide for them by our industry within Canada and our ability to produce here and procure goods from outside the country with our production within the country.
Of course, living in a country such as ours, that means that if we are to have a high standard of living we must have world trade, and I rejoice in the attitude of our party because I realize that it is fundamental, if we are to have a high standard of living, to be able to trade our great surpluses for the surpluses of other countries that produce things we cannot produce. But while we are striving for an increase in world trade to raise the standard of living of all our people we should never lose sight of the fact, as the Prime Minister pointed out, that we produce most of the basic necessities of life in abundance within Canada. I rejoice that by this measure we are now going to help to supply those basic necessaries of life to all of the children of this land of ours. I hope that once and for all that argument is going to be laid to rest, that we are such a stupid people that we permit our children to go in want alongside granaries bursting with grain and other foodstuffs that are spoiling, and that that situation will not prevail in the future.
One argument that has been used against this bill is that it will destroy the self-reliance of our people. I think that was well answered by the Prime Minister. I think, Mr. Speaker, that for one man who has been made strong by adversity there is at least one man who has been broken by adversity.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: One? Thousands.


Walter Adam Tucker: with a measure like this. It must be that they have never left the large cities, or, if they have gone through the country, they have kept their eyes closed. Services such as they describe cannot be provided in the small urban centres or the rural sections of this country. A very large proportion of our people live in those small urban centres and rural areas; and the social agencies built up in the large centres could not begin to take the place of these grants, which will enable parents to provide their children with more of :he basic necessities of life.
Mention was made of food and clothing, but other difficulties were experienced in Saskatchewan even before the war. Because of the lack of money and purchasing power in the hands of the farmers in many of the rural ^reas of Saskatchewan, doctors found that they could not make enough out of their practices to pay expenses, and they had to leave. For distances of perhaps fifty to sixty miles there would be no doctor at all. In the winter time, after the roads were closed, the women in isolated farm homes would be snowbound, with the nearest doctor perhaps fifty miles away, knowing full well that if anything happened to one of the children or to themselves the crisis would have to be faced without medical help. If this purchasing power is placed in the hands of our people it will enable all districts to be better served as far as medical attention goes.
It is well known that there has been great disparity between the income of the rural areas and that of the urban areas. It is also well known that families in rural areas are larger, on the average, than those in urban areas. This measure will tend to overcome that disparity in income, and for that reason also I welcome it. It will help substantially in redressing that balance. In western Canada we experience crop failures from time to time, and our- people are most grateful for the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, which gives them a certain amount of security in the event of the occurrence of that disaster. But the payments are not large, and these additional allowances will give them an even greater feeling of security. This will greatly add to the joy of living on our western prairies.
I have been discouraged and surprised by the attitude of a few labour leaders in this country who have opposed this measure. They may feel that by organizing they can drive up wages; but dto they not realize that great numbers of people, including the casual wage-earning class, the so-called white collar class, and the people on our farms, cannot be assisted by their organizations? Surely their opposition to this measure, if we look at it 
purely from their own point of view, should have been tempered by the thought that, after all, the greater part of the population of this country cannot organize in labour unions but is going to receive a tremendous benefit under this legislation. When they study the figures which have been given in this debate I hope they will withdraw the opposition they have expressed toward this most statesmanlike legislation.
In moving the second reading of this bill the Prime Minister referred to the Atlantic charter. I well remember when the Atlantic charter was signed and the suggestion was made that we were going to devote ourselves to bringing about freedom from fear and freedom from want among our people. At that time we felt that if we could bring about some amelioration of those conditions among our people it would be perhaps some compensation for the measureless misery and suffering of this war. If now, having held out those hopes to this nation, we do not follow through with measures which will bring about freedom from fear and freedom from want, we shall create a feeling from one end of this country to the other that our leaders have not been sincere with the people. I rejoice that this spirit of following through in connection with those hopes and promises which were held out to our beleaguered people in the dark days of 1940 has been made manifest as the star guiding this administration in the measures it is now taking looking to the well-being of our people.


William Henry Golding: Order. The hon. member's time has expired.


Walter Adam Tucker: Surely, Mr. Speaker, the sacrifices made by our people at home; their willingness to devote themselves to the welfare of their country; the spirit in which many have left their loved ones, their children and gone forward into the hell of battle; the willingness with which our young people have risked everything they possess, all merit the support of this house and of future houses for all measures which will ensure -that this devotion is properly requited by a grateful people.


Mr. G. E. WOOD (Brant):: Mr. Speaker,
it is with a measure of pride that I take this opportunity of supporting this most humanitarian piece of legislation, and also supporting my distinguished leader in this measure which I believe is dear to his heart. May I congratulate the hon. member for Rosthem (Mr. Tucker) upon the vigorous and splendid manner in which he marshalled his thoughts when speaking on this measure. I must con-

Family Allowances
fess some jealousy of his ability along those lines, but I would also say that it was most pleasing to listen to him.
In the short time I have at my disposal I shall endeavour to express my views, the views of a common person, one who has never experienced poverty, who has never enjoyed luxury, who has always had plenty to eat, plenty to wear and plenty to do. I have always, however, understood the positions of those who have not been as fortunate as I have.
I am inclined to the view that our Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), my dis-guished leader, has taken his present attitude because of his memory of things which might have happened in his early family life. Only recently I had occasion to look into the early history of Canada, particularly as it relates to the Indians in my constituency, and the manner in which those who held legislative positions in the country at that time, a time when my leader's grandfather was endeavouring to champion the rights of the common people to responsible government, filched from the Indians $160,000. That was the same group which probably was responsible for the exile of the grandfather of our present leader. Because of that, the birth of his mother took place in .poverty-stricken conditions, and under circumstances which almost cost her life. Had that happened we would not have had in Canada to-day this distinguished Prime Minister. I am inclined to the view that the fact we all cherish championing contributions our forefathers have made in the past prompted him to give consideration to that which is so near to him.
I mention this because, in my d\jty as a member of parliament, I discovered these things. That is what prompted me to think this legislation is the product of that experience, and I believe it is what prompted my leader to advance it. From the point- of view of the farmer, as the hon. member for Rosthem has pointed out, this legislation is something which the farmers, and those others who obtain a good share of their living in kind, but not in money, will accept readily. It will enable them to secure for their children some of those better things in life, and possibly make it possible to give a more balanced ration, and thereby to develop healthier children.
I am inclined to think this is one of the first measures in which the farmer has been permitted to share and share alike with urban folk. I was interested in the comment of the hon. member for Saskatoon City (Mr. Bence). Had I been a Conservative, myself. I think I would be opposing this legislation, on the grounds of paternalism, charity, and all the things that go with it. Fortunately, however,
I do not happen to be a Conservative, and I cannot accept the view of a former speaker to the effect that a division has been closely drawn in orthodox thinking. I still say that Liberalism is a state of mind, and I do not think it can be changed. It is, in fact, a progressive state of mind, one of those things with which we are born. We all have in us the positive and negative sides. At times there are places for Conservatism, times when we must consolidate the ground won by advanced Liberal thought.
But in these times we are looking for further advancement. When the hon. member for Saskatoon City made the claim that the solution of our problems was to be found in increasing wages-


Alfred Henry Bence: I said one of them.


George Ernest Wood: Well, all right, one of them. I have not been able to accept that view. It would be a very nice one to accept, of course, because everybody likes to have more money either in wages or from the sale of his produce. But we must remember that increased wages increase costs of production and the purchasing power of the dollar is immediately destroyed. There is just so much national wealth, and when one person gets more than his share the other fellow has to do with less. If we are to compete in the open markets of the world in the disposal of our surplus products, we must remember that we have to consider costs of production. People who are buying our produce are not going to consider our standard of living. It will be a clear-cut business proposition, and we would be wise to keep that thought in mind. After all, if the labouring man can buy the necessities of life at a lower price, he is already enjoying an increase in wages by virtue of that increased purchasing power.
Another reason for my acceptance of this legislation is the encouragement it must give to Canadian-born children. It has been my experience that men bom and reared in this country generally enjoy a certain standard of living and of ideals. Those who come in through a method of immigration import with them many of those characteristics and ideas which infect the country to-day. It might be wise to make an analysis of our parliamentary guide. I believe, if we did that, it would be found that my statement is borne out to a very great extent.
Those old pioneers, people who thought in the orthodox fashion, came to this country and cut down the stubborn forests. They did not ask for any special privileges; they did not ask to have things other people had. They took over their land, and produced those things
Family Allowances

which would increase their standard of living. They did not ask for a share of the production, or for a share of what other people had already earned. They did not become socialistic, or place themselves in a position to take what generations had sacrificed to develop.
I believe we can maintain a Canadian standard of ideals by encouraging more Canadian-born children. As the hon. member for Rosthem said, many people ask, How are we going to finance this? Because of advanced systems of transportation and communication we have to-day large companies, some of which have developed on an international scale. Sometimes they corral to themselves a monopoly of business, and by virtue of that fact create great volume of wealth. I take the view that because the law has protected those great companies, and has permitted them to continue in the enjoyment of their great possessions, the same law should enable them to share some of their wealth with those who are less fortunate. It is only just and reasonable to expect that they will take those who are not so fortunate by the hand and help them over the rough places of life. It seems to me that this legislation is visionary in that respect. We have in Canada to-day three thousand more factories than we had when the war broke out. Many of them have developed into large businesses and by virtue of that fact they have been able to get for themselves a great deal of wealth. The weapon of taxation will be used to see that that wealth is redistributed to those who need it most, to the homes with the greatest number of children and where the need is greatest.
Another argument in favour of this bill is that quite often when the family is young the earning power of the father is at its lowest point. He has not yet come to that age in life where he is able to realize upon his efforts and experience, and that is the time when he finds his burden is the greatest.
There is one thing I deplore, the argument that this legislation will create national disunity. It is unfortunate that attention is drawn to people who live within certain boundary lines. After all, the choice of where we are born or who our parents are to be is not our own. I think it is up to us to be broad-minded and fair enough to realize that at least all people are entitled to their share of the good things of life.
The Globe and Mail quite often print a column entitled, "In case you are interested." I do not know whether the local representative of that paper is in his place, but I should like to call his attention to something which possibly he can have printed to-morrow in the Globe and Mail. Jf there is one column in

any paper that has done more to bring about disunity it is that column in that morning paper. Quite often they refer to Quebec in a roundabout way. Here is something I should like to draw to their attention.
Being a farmer I have always been interested in the federal farm loan legislation. I placed a question upon the order paper, and the reply I received indicated that there were 5,527 farm loans in the province of Quebec, and 2,530 in Ontario, less than half. The total amount of the loans in Quebec was S13,500,000, while those in Ontario totalled a little over $6,000,000. Here is the point I want to draw to the attention of the editors of, "In case you are interested." I am bringing this out because I am an Ontario farmer. In spite of the fact that Quebec has twice as many loans totalling more than twice the amount of the Ontario loans, the arrears of payments in 1943 were $70,040 as compared with $164,000 for Ontario.
I do not publish that information with any measure of pride, but when it came to my attention I felt that there must be something about the philosophy of the people of Quebec, something about their family life which made them honest enough to try to pay their debts. That, in my view, is a worth-while object and one which enhances their integrity.
There is another thing I should like to draw to the attention of the Globe and Mail in case they run out of material for the column, "In case you are interested." No nation is particularly great because of its material wealth, a nation's greatness is measured by the quality of its people. I consider that this legislation will enable our people to maintain their families in a standard better than they would otherwise be able to do.
I see my time is limited, but there is one thing I should like to direct attention to which came to my mind recently. It may be considered crude for me to refer to this matter but I think it is quite important. We subsidize many other things, so surely our children are entitled to consideration for they are the most important. In Ontario the farmers receive a subsidy for producing bacon hogs. First we receive $3 from the federal government for producing a grade A hog; we receive $1 from the province; we receive $2.25 in freight on the 1,000 pounds of grain we feed per pig; we receive another $3 for the twenty bushels with the fifteen cent per bushel ceiling price that is granted; this totals to a little over $9 per pig. I always read the Globe and Mail when I have breakfast-


Mr. MAYBANK:: The hon. member would not suggest for a moment that there is as much fun in a little pig as there is in a child?

Victoria Cross-Lieutenant Homell


George Ernest Wood: I am just trying to show which is the most important. I noticed on page 19 of the Globe and Mail a little item referring to a prolific sow that produced a litter of eighteen pigs. If that could be duplicated every six months that family of pigs would earn a subsidy -of S324 per annum. If we can do that for our swine production, surely there should be no objection to this legislation.
On motion of Mr. Wood the debate was adjourned.


EMBASSIES
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hon. members will recall that, during the discussion of the Department of External Affairs estimates under the war appropriation bill last year, reference was made to the development of direct diplomatic relations between Canada and certain Latin-American countries, and that I informed the house at that time that we hoped to exchange diplomatic missions with Peru.
I have pleasure in informing the house that Doctor Henry Laureys has been appointed the first Canadian ambassador to Peru.
Doctor Laureys returned in the spring of this year from South Africa where he served as the first High Commissioner for Canada for over four years. Doctor Laureys had a distinguished academic career as dean of the school of higher commercial studies at the university of Montreal before he entered the public service, and has made a wide study of international, economic and commercial problems.
The Peruvian government has appointed Doctor Humberto Fernandez Davila as charge d'affairs ad interim at Ottawa pending the appointment of a Peruvian ambassador.


APPOINTMENT OF MINISTER AT EMBASSY TO UNITED STATES
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have also pleasure in announcing that Mr. L. B. Pearson, minister-counsellor at the Canadian embassy in Washington, has been appointed minister at the embassy.
Mr. Pearson has already had a long and distinguished career in the Canadian external affairs service, both in Ottawa and abroad. For the last two years he has been second in com-ma*vd at the embassy in Washington, and
charge d'affaires when the ambassador is absent. Since his appointment to Washington he has represented Canada at the first meeting of the council of the united nations relief and rehabilitation administration and has served as chairman of the supplies committee of that organization. He was also a member of the Canadian delegation to the Hot Springs conference on food and agriculture, and has served as chairman of the interim commission set up to complete plans for the establishment of a united nations food and agriculture organization.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, July 28, 1944

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of standing committee on standing orders.-Mr. Golding.
Fourth report of standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Moore.

Cyrus Macmillan: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the
Minister of National Defence for Air it is my proud privilege and honour to inform the house that the highest decoration for valour, the Victoria Cross, has been awarded posthumously Edward David1 Hornell, of Mimico, Ontario, formerly residing at Harbord street, Toronto.
With the consent of the house I should like to place on Hansard the citation referring to the gallant and distinguished conduct of Flight Lieutenant Homell, on the night and day of June 24 last.
Flight Lieutenant Hornell was captain and first pilot of a twin-engine amphibian aircraft engaged in anti-submarine patrol over northern waters.
The patrol had lasted some hours when a fully-surfaced U-boat was sighted travelling at high speed on the port beam. Flight Lieutenant Hornell at once turned to the attack. The U-boat altered course. The aircraft had been seen and there could be no surprise. The U-boat opened up with anti-aircraft fire which became increasingly fierce and accurate.
The front guns of the aircraft replied; then its starboard gun jammed, leaving only one gun effective. Hits were obtained on and around
5508	COMMONS
Victoria Cross-Lieutenant Homell
the conning tower of the U-boat, but the aircraft was itself hit, two large holes appearing in the starboard wing.
Ignoring the enemy's fire, Flight Lieutenant Hornell carefully manoeuvred for the attack. Oil was pouring from his starboard wing; and his petrol tanks were endangered. Meanwhile the aircraft was hit again and again by the U-boat's guns. Holed in many places, it was vibrating violently and became very difficult to control.
Nevertheless, the captain decided to press home his attack, knowing that with every moment the chances of escape for him and his gallant crew would grow more slender. He brought his aircraft down very low and released his depth charges in a perfect "straddle". The bows of the U-boat were lifted out of the water; it sank, and members of the crew were seen in the sea.
Flight Lieutenant Hornell contrived, by superhuman efforts at the controls, to gain a little height. Fire in 'the starboard wing had grown more intense and the vibration had increased. Then the burning engine fell off. The plight of aircraft and crew was now desperate. With the utmost coolness, the captain took his aircraft into the wind and, despite manifold dangers, brought it safely down on a heavy swell.
Badly damaged and blazing furiously, the aircraft rapidly settled. After the ordeal by fire came ordeal by water. There was only one serviceable dinghy and this could not hoid all the crew, so they took turns in the water holding onto the sides. On one occasion the dinghy capsized in rough seas and was righted only with great difficulty. Two of the crew succumbed from exposure. An airborne lifeboat was dropped to them but it fell some 500 yards dowm 'wind.
The airmen struggled vainly to reach it and Flight Lieutenant Hornell. who throughout had encouraged them by his cheerfulness and inspiring leadership, proposed to swim to it, though he was nearly exhausted. He was with difficulty restrained. The survivors were finally rescued after they had been in the water twenty-one hours. By this time Flight Lieutenant Hornell was blinded and completely exhausted. He died shortly after being picked up. Flight Lieutenant Hornell had completed sixty operational missions, involving six hundred hours flying. He well knew the danger and the difficulties attending attacks on submarines. By pressing home a skilful and successful attack against fierce opposition, with his aircraft in precarious condition, and by fortifying and encouraging his comrades in the subsequent ordeal, this officer displayed valour and devotion to duty of the highest order.
The members of the crew who died with him were Donald Stewart Scott of Almonte, Ontario, and Fernand St. Laurent, of Father Point, Quebec. The surviving members of the crew are Bernard Charles Denomy, of Chatham, Ontario, who was awarded the Distinguished Service Order; Graham Campbell, of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, who was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross; Sidney Edward Matheson, of Nelson British Columbia, who was awarded the Distinguished
*lr. Macmillan.]
Flying Cross; Flight Sergeant Israel Joseph Bodnoff, of Ottawa, who was awarded the Distinguished Flying Medal, and Sidney Reginald Cole, of Long Branch, Ontario, who was awarded the Distinguished Flying Medal.
May I add just one word, Mr. Speaker? We rejoice, I am sure, in the rescue of the living; we deeply sympathize with the kindred of the dead. This story of courage which I have just read is typical of the spirit of Canada. May it live forever as a perpetual inspiration in the heart and memory of the land they loved, Canada, the land they died to save!


Gordon Graydon: The announcement of the parliamentary assistant that the highest of all recognitions for gallantry and devotion to duty, the Victoria Cross, had been awarded posthumously to one of Canada's valiant and intrepid young airmen serves to focus attention once more upon what this young generation of Canadians are going through and sacrificing for us all.
To Flight Lieutenant Hornell's parents goes out our genuine sympathy in their tragic loss. Deep as will be their sorrow, they will have the consolation that their boy was not afraid to die that others might live.
At many a remembrance day ceremony across Canada since the last war people with tear-dimmed eyes have sung this hymn, one verse of which seems singularly appropriate in view of Flight Lieutenant Hornell's brave and unselfish service, and I repeat it to this house:
Proudly you gathered, rank on rank to war,
As who had heard God's message from afar;
All you had hoped for, all you had, you gave
To save mankind-yourself you scorned to save.


PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 172, for the relief of Ruth Usher Garson.-Mr. Factor.
Bill No. 173, for the relief of Albert Daniel Joseph Doherty.-Mr. Fulford.
Bill No. 174, for the relief of Rosie Vogel Blatt.-Mr. Fulford.
Bill No. 175, for the relief of William McKenzie White.-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 176, for the relief of Zoe Irene McFarland Craig.-Mr. Fulford.
Bill No. 177, for the relief of George Henry Olaf Rundle.-Mr. Isnor.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question in regard to the investigation he has conducted into the actions of certain officials of national selective service at Balsam Creek, Ontario, regarding one Morrison, arrested1 for infractions of national selective service regulations, either during or after performing a funeral service.
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice) : When my estimates were under consideration the hon. member asked1 me if an investigation had been made of the newspaper report of this incident. I told him then that to my knowledge no investigation had been made but that I would look into it at once. An investigation has now been made and I have received the following report from the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police:
I have had this matter investigated and the following are the circumstances in connection therewith:
On July 7 an obituary item appeared in the North Bay Nugget to the effect that a funeral would take place on July 9 ten miles from North Bay and that the person officiating would be one Donald Morrison for whom a warrant as a delinquent had been received by our North Bay detachment on March 23 last.
The enforcement officer of the national selective service at North Bay, who observed this obituary notice, perceived that the list of those attending included two other persons for whose arrest warrants were held. He communicated with the regional enforcement officer, and was instructed to attend with police officers and check on men of military age in an endeavour to apprehend Morrison and others for whose arrest warrants had been issued. The officer first referred to accordingly approached the Ontario provincial police and the military provost police and our own detachment, with the result that two members of each of the three forces and the enforcement officer, together with the enforcement liaison officer of the selective service, attended the funeral. The funeral proceeded, and it was after the ceremony was over that a check was made as those in attendance were leaving the cemetery. Apparently some of the individuals for whom warrants had been issued got away by crossing the fields, although an effort was made to detain these men. Mr. Morrison was the only one, however, who was arrested.
I may say that at the time the question was asked in the house by Mr. Diefenbaker, particulars regarding this matter had not come to hand.
While I consider the actions of those conducting this check, under the circumstances, to be devoid of all decency and sentiment, I should say that our constable had been criticized by
Selective Service
the local selective service officials for alleged neglect in executing the said warrants. This resulted in an inquiry which indicated that the charges were unfounded. However, I consider this no excuse for the actions of the members of this force, as they should have refused flatly, under the circumstances, to carry out the instructions of the selective service officials.
I have ordered severe disciplinary measures to be taken against members of the R.C.M. police involved, including the transfer of -the personnel [DOT]to headquarters.


Mr. HAZEN:: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question arising out of a statement he made a few minutes ago about the incident at the funeral at Balsam Creek, Ontario, in which the Royal Canadian Mounted Police took part. I understood him to say, and this is what I would like cleared up, that the police were disciplined for executing a warrant after the funeral. Is that correct? Were they disciplined for executing a warrant for arrest after the funeral?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: They were disciplined by the commissioner for executing a warrant in a cemetery after the funeral had taken place.


Douglas King Hazen: Is there anything particularly objectionable about that?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Each one must determine that according to his sense of what is decent.


SOLDIER SETTLERS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Fair: I should like to ask the Minister of Mines and Resources what action has been taken by the government with respect to the brief presented to a committee of the cabinet on May 23 last by a delegation representing the soldier settlers' association of Canada, asking among other things for clear title to-their lands.


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources):: The matter is still under consideration. This delegation presented their memorandum to six members of the government on the date mentioned by the hon. member. Unfortunately since then, due to the absence of the director of the Veterans Land Act and my own absence for a week, we have not had an opportunity to meet and consider the representations with a view to making a report to council, but that will be done as soon as it is convenient to do so. The hon. member is aware, as is every other hon. member, that in these closing days of the session we are all working under considerable pressure.

Alaska Highway


ALASKA HIGHWAY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: The Minister of Mines and Resources told us, I think, that he would endeavour to obtain, some report on the rumours in circulation regarding the disposition of equipment from the Alaska highway. I believe he said he would have something on Thursday. Will he give us any information he has obtained?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I referred the matter to the Prime Minister's office, because probably it comes more under external affairs than under any other department, and I shall bring it again to the notice of the Prime Minister. He was not in the house yesterday morning when orders were called and is not here this morning, but I have no doubt he has a reply to the query which he may give later to-day or to-morrow.


Gordon Graydon: From information I get now it would appear that this matter actually is being held up by some department or departments of this government. Apparently the war assets corporation or some similar body is not allowed1 to purchase these goods from the United States government and resell them in the usual way. The minister might look into that also.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I shall be glad to have that matter brought to the attention of those who have to do with it. But, as I stated the other day, this property belongs to the government of the United States.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: We all
know that.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Well, then-


Richard Burpee Hanson: But it
cannot be disposed of; it is being destroyed, and people think that is wrong.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That may be, but surely my hon. friend realizes that some aspects of the matter may make it difficult for this government to decisively intervene. What I rather object to is the inference that may be drawn from the remarks of the leader of the opposition that in some way the government here is responsible for this situation.


Gordon Graydon: I think that is the case.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Then all I can say is that the leader of the opposition is making a very considerable assumption.

[Later]:	.
Right Hon, W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) : Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday last reference was made by the hon. leader of the opposition and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) to reports to the effect that certain stores and equipment used in the construction of the Alaska highway by the United States had been destroyed and that residents of the Peace River district were facing threats of prosecution by the United States federal bureau of investigation for having recovered from army dumps goods allegedly discarded.
This matter had also been brought to my attention by the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Turgeon), in whose constituency these actions are alleged to have occurred.
When these reports were received that useful stores were being destroyed, the special commissioner for defence projects in northwest Canada was asked to investigate and, as I informed the house on July 10, he replied that he had been unable to obtain evidence to substantiate these charges. He has, however, continued his investigations and now reports that United States officers are engaged in closing up one hundred and fifty construction camps, segregating and concentrating all usable, material of economic value at thirty collection points for later disposal. When the United States army has completed these operations and has provided lists of surplus equipment which it does not wish to remove to the United States, it may prove practicable for 'the Canadian government to take custody of this material, dispose of it, and turn over to the United States government the net proceeds of sale, after deducting sales expenses and such duties and taxes as may be assessed. Discussions to this end are now under way between the two governments and it is hoped that an agreement will shortly be reached.
With regard to the specific charges that usable stores have been destroyed, the United States authorities advise that explicit instructions have been issued to their officers in the field that everything of economic value should be salvaged. Infected blankets and clothing and foodstuffs unfit for human consumption are, however, being destroyed. It is, of course, possible that errors of judgment have been made in carrying out these instructions. Officers of the United States northwest service command and representatives of the war department from Washington are now making a complete investigation of charges of improper destruction and waste. Their findings will be communicated to the special commissioner.

Provincial Elections
As for heavy equipment such as tractors and bulldozers, I may say that a goodi many of these machines have already been made available to the Canadian government for use on defence projects. I have every confidence that the usable remainder will, in due course, be salvaged and put to profitable employment.
With reference to the allegation that agents of the United States federal bureau of investigation have been examining the situation, and that they have made threats of prosecution against Canadians who have been combing the army dumps in the area concerned, I am informed by the special commissioner that there is no evidence to support these assertions. In any event, as hon. members will understand, officers of the federal bureau of investigation would have no authority in Canada to take such action as has been alleged.
As hon. members know, supplies and equipment for the use of United States armed forces in Canada have been admitted free of all duties and taxes on the express condition that they were required for the exclusive use of those forces. With the gradual completion of the defence programmes in the northwest, there are bound to be surplus items of equipment and supplies left at isolated outposts and construction camps in the north country. These will probably include articles of every sort, some new, some used, some scrap and some repairable. The cost of transporting these articles, frequently by air, to the place they now are has been very high. It may often not be worth while to ship them back to the United States. However, under the law such supplies cannot be disposed of in Canada to other users than the United States army except after appraisal and payment of the usual duties and taxes which they would have had to pay if they had been ordered from the United States for private use in the first instance.
As I have said, the Canadian government has taken the initiative in proposing to the United States an over-all agreement which would provide an orderly procedure for the salvaging of United States surplus stocks in Canada. I am hopeful that definite arrangements may soon be made in this matter. We should recognize, however, that even such an agreement will not fully meet all the difficulties of a complicated and unusual situation. I have, therefore, instructed the departments of government concerned to try to work out some practical and realistic arrangements so that the requirements of the revenue laws do not in any circumstances result in the unnecessary destruction of goods that could be put to useful local purposes.
100-347i


Howard Charles Green: May I point out to the
Prime Minister in connection with his statement that there is a press dispatch in the lower right-hand corner of page 12 of this evening's Ottawa Journal about the same matter. It is headed "Says medical supplies thrown away in Alaska", and the item reads:
Vancouver, July 27. Large amounts of medical supplies were among material thrown on a big dump of unused United States Army goods near Dawson Creek, B.C.

It was not in Alaska at all.
-Peter H. Schroeder, Dawson Creek trucking contractor, said here to-day.
"Enough stuff was tossed away to stock a drug store for 10 years," he said.
Perhaps this also might be investigated.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It would come under what I have already suggested.


METHYL ALCOHOL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): When my estimates were under consideration the other day the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Hazen) asked if any invesigation had been made into a poisoning incident which arose through the drinking of methyl hydrate, which had been shipped in containers which did not bear the word "poison". I inquired into the matter and found that an investigation had been made and a report submitted to the Department of National Revenue for their consideration. I am told that instructions now have been given by the Department of National Revenue to have a prosecution instituted against the suppliers of this substance.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: Is the Minister of Justice yet in a position to give us any report on the investigation he is making with respect to Mr. Jacques Dumoulin?
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice):	I think I should endeavour to
dispose of this matter definitely, if I can. I find that it was first referred to in the house by the leader of the opposition on Tuesday, July 18, as appears at page 4973 of Hansard. I happened to be away at that time attending the monetary conference at Bretton Woods, and I did not have an opportunity of seeing
Provincial Elections

the Canadian newspapers. I must confess that for some time past I have been devoting very little time to looking at the newspapers. When I returned on Thursday morning the matter was again referred to. My attention had not been called by anyone to what had taken place on the preceding Tuesday. Probably I was at fault, but I must confess again that I did not take time to read Hansard for the three days I was away.
On Thursday, that question was coupled by the leader of the opposition with another, concerning an incident which was reported as having occurred at a political meeting in Lethbridge, where another provincial election is to take place, and it was suggested that the Lethbridge incident should be investigated also. I had not seen any Canadian newspapers for four or five days, and though perhaps to a certain extent I was mistaken I took this to be good-natured political raillery and answered that I thought the keeping of peace and order under ordinary circumstances was the responsibility of the attorneys general, and that if I attempted to investigate every brawl that occurred across the country soon I would be charged with meddling in things that were no concern of mine.
The leader of the opposition again referred to the Dumoulin case when my estimates were under consideration on July 21, saying that he asked the question because Mr. Dumoulin was a member or a supporter of the Quebec government; that appears at page 5245 of Hansard. Again I took the statement to be the kind of good-natured political raillery in which we sometimes indulge, and let it pass. Last Monday the leader of the opposition asked if I had an investigation made. I was surprised and said I had never undertaken to have any investigation made, and I had not yet seen what the leader of the opposition had said on the first occasion. But I said I would get the papers; and he having stated that there was something reported which in his opinion should be investigated, I would see if I could agree with the impression he had gathered from the newspaper report. I then got a clipping from the newspaper L'Evenement which was the first report of the incident. I was scandalized at what I saw there, because I know this particular Mr. Dumoulin; I have known him as a lawyer for over twenty-five years and from time to time heard some of his speeches. A few weeks or months ago he was guest speaker at a luncheon at the Empire club of Toronto; and as I say, this report did

not sound like something he would say. But of course the island of Orleans is not the Empire club of Toronto.
I do not know positively- whether he did say what this newspaper reports, or whether he did not say it. But I had investigations made immediately, and it has been ascertained that there was only one newspaper reporter present at the island of Orleans, and he has unfortunately destroyed his notes. The island of Orleans is a very charming island of four or five agricultural parishes. There is one other industry there-a small wooden-boat shipyard that has been in existence since the very early start of the colony. In that yard lifeboats and boats of the kind-and since the beginning of the war some other boats-have been made and repaired. But essentially it is an agricultural community.
Now, the only reporter at the meeting was a Mr. Clement Brown. Mr. Clement Brown was interviewed. He said that he had made notes while Mr. Dumoulin was speaking, but that he had destroyed his notes immediately after he made his report for his newspaper, and that he could not swear to any verbatim statement attributing it to Mr. Dumoulin. He did remember that Mr. Dumoulin had said:
I have done everything to help the youths, sons of farmers to be exempted, none of -those who called upon me for assistance and who had a right to -a -postponement, have been mobilized, and they are to-day still on t-he farms.
Well, that did not seem to be so very bad, because I doubt if there are many hon. members in the house representing rural constituencies who have not from time to time been asked' to make representations on- behalf of bona fide farmers' sons. The meeting had been attended by, among others, the mayor of the municipality in which it was held, and the mayor of the adjoining municipality. They were interviewed, and they both said that Mr. Dumoulin had not made the other statement attributed to him in the newspaper report. I have a complete report here. Yesterday I showed it to the leader of the opposition. I do not think it is something which should be tabled. But if there is any other hon. member who would like to see it I shall be only too glad to show it to him.
The result is that it certainly could not be established in a court of justice that statements contrary to the defence of Canada regulations were made on that occasion.
May I go one step farther, and in doing so I invoke a question of personal privilege. On

Provincial Elections
Wednesday a newspaper published in my home city of Quebec carried1 a leading editorial, over half a column, in respect of this incident.


Gordon Graydon: Which paper?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The Chronicle-Telegraph. It states:
To hold Mr. St. Laurent responsible for the outcome of legal proceedings would be unreasonable. In the event of an investigation being held, we have perfect confidence in the ability of the defendant who may have been sailing close to the wind to free himself on one technical ground or another. But all the more on this account the minister could afford to make a show of doing his duty by undertaking to consult the officers of his department, instead of curtly snubbing the opposition for doing their duty in questioning him.
I certainly had no intention, of snubbing the opposition, or anyone; and I hope that impression was not conveyed to the leader of the opposition with whom I had the exchange in that connection.


Gordon Graydon: Perhaps the newspaper may have meant, from that, that the minister was pretty quick to say that he was going to make no investigation in respect to it.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I did not say I was going to make no investigation. I said I had not undertaken to make any.


Gordon Graydon: That is not my recollection, but I shall not quarrel with the minister.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	And the editorial
continues:
That the position of Mr. St. Laurent is a difficult one, in view of electoral complications, no one can gainsay. But the obligations of his office are unchanged on that account. And if any man would insist on justice being done "though the heavens fall", that man is he, admiring observers of his previous career would have sworn. That he has not shown himself strong enough to do so is unfortunate for Canada and as already sugge'sted, keenly disappointing to themselves.
I do not mind personal criticism; that is of no real importance. But, Mr. Speaker, even during election time we should maintain some sense of proportion and perspective. And I submit that what is unfortunate is not that Mr. Dumoulin is not prosecuted, but perhaps, that so many of us in Canada appear to be too unwilling to give to matters which are important the whole of our time and attention in the order of their respective importance.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would not be so thin-skinned.


Gordon Graydon: With respect to the Dumoulin matter, may I say that the
investigation, as I see it, is not very complete, nor is it very conclusive. One thing that strikes me is that Mr. Dumoulin himself has never come out and denied the statement that he is alleged to have made.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am sick and tired of hearing the Quebec election fought every day across the floor of this house.


Thomas Langton Church: I would like to ask the Minister of Justice if he could tell us-


Thomas Vien: Order. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has the floor.


Gordon Graydon: The Minister of Justice nas raised some question as to the stand I took regarding the Dumoulin matter when it was brought up in the house and about which an editorial appeared in a Quebec newspaper. At page 5252 of Hansard, of July 24, I asked this question:
Has the Minister of Justice any report to make on the progress that has been made in the investigation of statements alleged to have been uttered by Jacques Dumoulin in the Quebec election?
The Minister of Justice replied, and it is upon this reply I think that the editorial was based:
I am not having any investigation made as to the statement alleged to have been made by Jacques Dumoulin in the Quebec election, nor have I ever stated that I was going to.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That was a statement that was absolutely true. There was no investigation being made at that time. That was not a refusal to make an investigation.


Gordon Graydon: May I say this?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Gordon Graydon: I know, Mr. Speaker, that we have had a long series of questions on the order of the day, but this is extremely important. I just want to say this. The Minister of Justice says that he did not refuse. I would like to know what he meant when he said this:
I am not having any investigation made as to the statement alleged to have been made by Jacques Dumoulin. -
That is what I took as a straight refusal.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That is quite clear. It is a statement that at that time I was not having any investigation made and was therefore not in a position to be receiving a report.


Gordon Graydon: When somebody says he is not going to do something, I take that as a refusal.
Provincial Elections

Mr. ST. LAURENT: I did not say that I was not going to. I said that I was not having any investigation made 'at that time.


Gordon Graydon: And that you were not going to do it.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I did not say that.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, since the incident which occurred at Lethbridge has apparently been mentioned in the house, I crave the privilege this morning of saying just a few words. The incident as reported in the newspaper was an entire distortion of that affair. During the course of my speech in Lethbridge I had occasion to refer to the rise of racial animosity in Canada, and the persecution of minorities. I referred specifically to a speech made by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Jaques) on July 12, 1943, and reported in Hansard. At that point Mr. Landeryou, Social Credit candidate, said, "That's a lie."


George Alexander Cruickshank: Wasn't it?


Major James William Coldwell: No, it was not. And I repeated the reference to the protocols of Zion, which the hon. member had placed upon the record. The interrupter made the same remark. I then said, "You will either withdraw that remark, apologize for that remark, or you will leave the meeting." I then sat down. I waited a full minute or more, during which time some people in the audience were endeavouring to persuade the interrupter either to apologize or leave. Then the chairman rose and said, "The interrupter has had time to consider what he will do. I give him another five seconds to rise and apologize, or be shown out."


Gordon Graydon: Was it "shown" or
"shoved"?


Major James William Coldwell: "Shown". Then ushers took him, without undue violence, from the hall. On the outside of the building he became abusive, and accused some of our people there of being fascists. Then I am told a man-


Thomas Reid: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Major James William Coldwell: -who had already had three sons overseas-one killed, one missing, and another who was now serving, struck him. It was on the outside of the hall. That is what occurred.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker is on his feet.


Thomas Reid: My point of order is this: can a matter that occurred outside this house be debated in the house?


Gordon Graydon: You will be given just five seconds if you are not careful.


Thomas Reid: I have another story to tell. If this is going to be a free for all, let us get in on it.


Major James William Coldwell: May I say that-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Vien: The question was raised before in the house by the leader of the opposition on a question addressed to the Minister of Justice. It has been raised again to-day, and I thought it was only fair that the hon. member should have an opportunity to speak.


James Garfield Gardiner: On the point of order, this incident that is being recited is just typical of dozens of incidents put on by the C.C.F. all over western Canada.


Major James William Coldwell: That is not true.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have been called a liar from the audience by C.C.F. organizers at least twenty times within the last ten years. There is nothing new about that at all. He is simply getting back what he organized in western Canada.


Major James William Coldwell: I have no knowledge of any such incidents. May I say that if I were the Minister of Agriculture and anyone called me a liar he would not remain- in my presence any length of time.


Thomas Reid: No; you would get strong-arm men to do it.


James Garfield Gardiner: The Liberal party to which I belong has never organized storm troopers in western Canada to throw anybody out. When I want anyone thrown out of my meetings I throw them out myself.


Major James William Coldwell: That is why no one ever gets flung out.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
[Stage Direction]
internment: camiluen HOIJDE-REPORTED STATEMENT OP JACQUES SAURIOL
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Langton Church: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question. Has he come to any decision with regard to the release of ex-Mayor Houde of Montreal before the last day for nominations, next Tuesday, for the Quebec elections? Second, has any action been taken in connection with the press report of a statement of Jacques

Internments
Sauriol, referred to yesterday? Mr. Houde only said what many others said of the late plebiscite in and out of this house.
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): In reply to the first question, I have not arrived at any conclusion as yet. In reply to the second question, I have come to the conclusion that it would not be proper to institute proceedings against Mr. Sauriol. I received a report on this matter from the counsel who is usually employed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Montreal which has impressed me with the undesirability of instituting proceedings. I dislike taking up so much time with these matters, but it must be done if they are to be finally disposed of. The counsel considers that it would be doubtful whether or not he could establish his facts upon the reports he has received from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In addition, he writes:
As to the expediency of taking action, the following comments may be considered by the authorities:
It is a well known rule that under our criminal law, any one, whether the victim or not of an offence, may take action.
This discretionary power brings to the fore the question of the advisability of proceeding in any case.
This discretion is a right vested in any citizen as well as in those who have the responsibility of the admission of justice. It belongs to them all, once satisfied that the evidence justifies them to take action, to decide whether or not such action should be taken.
As far as the authorities are concerned, their decision must not be guided simply by the specific case under consideration, but must be inspired by the broader view of good government. For such decision they are answerable 'to the people who have entrusted to them the responsibility of governing.
This right to take action has been restricted in a number of offences under the Criminal Code of Canada and under the defence of Canada regulations, in certain matters such as im the present. And for the prosecution of certain offences, consent from the responsible authorities is required.
In confining this discretionary power to the governing authorities in these particular cases, the legislator has given more importance to the feature of expediency, and has left it entirely to the governing authorities to decide whether in any case, taking action would be a remedy worse than the evil.
The occasion which gave rise to the speech referred to is the provincial general election. While the occasion is not a defence for violation of the law, yet, it cannot be denied that on such occasion, it is according to the principles and customs, that greater tolerance be granted to the people to give their views and discuss the status of those who have governed them.
Election time is, in fact, the only time when a free people can discuss public matters for the purpose of the very creation and establishment of the next government.
The occasion becomes the rational foundation of that tolerance. This, again, does not justify the violation of the law, but it increases the degree of wisdom needed for the government, to use adequately the discretionary power given to it to take or not to take action, and it would appear better and more in line with a free constitutional foundation of power to make a mistake in granting too much tolerance, than to make a mistake in restricting it too much.
Furthermore, the action of the authorities will be much more publicized than the speech of one Jacques Sauriol and the speech, by the action of the authorities, will be given the real publicity.	,
Again, the action of the authorities will have a reaction, and it is logical to expect the general electoral campaign to be a proper occasion, if not the ideal occasion, for further violations.
The effect of the speech of Sauriol is known, and is not, as far as we know, of any importance. The effect of an arrest is not known but can be anticipated as fostering the movement and inflaming declarations to come.
I do not think the attack on the federal police has, in any way, touched the stability of its good character and reputation, and when this temporary situation created by the election will be over, Sauriol's speech will have been forgotten.
May I say, in support of this opinion, that these views on the expediency of proceeding are absolutely in line with the reason of ixistence of regulation 39 itself.
The purpose of the regulation is definitely to assure the efficient prosecution of the war, and in deciding as to what action can be taken, the same aim has to be kept in mind.
The very question for the authorities to lecide is whether taking action, under these circumstances which are temporary in character will not be more harmful than refraining from ;aking it.
On consideration of that opinion I have come to the conclusion that the taking of action might be more harmful in its result iian to refrain from taking it at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: Whose opinion is that?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That is the opinion of Mr. Gerald Fauteux, K.C., Montreal, who for some years past has been the counsel consulted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


John George Diefenbaker: Why should' not the same principle be applied so far as these simple Jehovah's Witnesses are concerned?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The members of Jehovah's Witneses against whom warrants had been issued were defaulters under the National Resources Mobilization Act.
Criminal Code


John George Diefenbaker: And this is sedition.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It is considered by the authorities that those who have been requested to comply with the National Resources Mobilization Act and have failed to do so should be brought to justice.


John George Diefenbaker: And sedition should not be prosecuted.


CRIMINAL CODE
[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of and concurrence in an amendment made by the senate to bill No. 139, to amend the Criminal Code.
He said:	The amendment will be found
at page 598 of the Votes and Proceedings of Monday, July 24.
Gordon Graydon: Perhaps the minister will give us some idea of the purpose of the amendment.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The section amended is one which provided for transferring appeals from summary convictions, which formerly in the province of Quebec went to the court of king's bench, crown side, to the superior court. The court of king's bench, crown side, in the rural districts sometimes does not sit for many months; sometimes more than a year passes without a session of the court. But the superior court, which is the trial court and is presided over by the same justices who sit in the court of king's bench, crown side, has much more frequent sessions. So for the purpose of expediting the disposal of appeals from summary convictions the criminal code was being amended to substitute the superior court as the court to be appealed to for the court of king's bench, crown side. In Montreal and in Quebec the superior court sits from September 10 to December 20 and from January 10 to June 20 without interruption, and our view was that each day was a session. But there was doubt expressed on that point by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion), and to clear up that doubt we are having inserted that the first day of each week will be deemed to be the first day of a session. That will determine when the appeal must come on for hearing.


Gordon Graydon: I take it that the minister is satisfied with the amendment as passed by the senate?

Mr. ST. LAURENT:	Yes. It makes it
perfectly clear that the first day of each week will foe the beginning of the session, and that will definitely determine without possibility of dispute when the appeals should come on for hearing.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient for the purpose of facilitating and developing trade (between Canada and any other country to introduce a measure:
1.	To incorporate the Export Credit Insurance Corporation for the purpose of entering into contracts of insurance with exporters to insure against the risk of loss involved in contracts for the export of Canadian-produced goods. '
The capital stock and the paid in capital surplus of the- corporation each -amounting to five million dollars shall be subscribed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce from time to time -and paid -therefor by the Minister of Finance with provision also -for loans not to exceed in the aggregate, outstanding at any one time, an amount equal to five times the aggregate of .the paid-up capital and surplus of the corporation;
2.	To -authorize the Minister of Finance during -the three years next ensuing after the coming into force of this act, to
[Stage Direction]
(a)	guarantee the obligations of the government or an agency of -the government of any such other country to pay the cost of Canadian produced goods under a contract to purchase such goods from an exporter;
(b)	make a loan to the government or any agency of -the government of any such other country to enable such government or such agency to purchase from an exporter and to pay the cost of Canadian produced goods; or
(c)	purchase, acquire or guarantee any security issued by the government or by the agency of the government of any such other country to any person in Canada in payment of the cost of Canadian produced goods_ exported or to foe exported to such other* country;
provided that the government of such other country -requests the government of Canada to give such guarantee, make such loan, or purchase, acquire or guarantee such securities and undertakes to indemnify the government of Canada against loss in connection therewith.
The aggregate amount of such guarantees outstanding -at any time shall not exceed two hundred million dollars and the aggregate of the amount of loans -made and outstanding -at any time and the value of securities purchased o-r acquired and held at any one time shall not exceed one hundred million dollars.

Export Credits Insurance
Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, this resolution embodies a new principle with respect to facilitating imports f-rom Canada to other countries. I think that most members of the house have been anxiously waiting for the skeleton structure of this legislation to be presented to the house so that we may gain some conception of what the real motive underlying the introduction of this type of legislation is. I think that most members of the house will be anxious that whatever can be done by the government to facilitate our export trade should be done. I do not think there will be any disagreement over that either in this house or in the country. We are anxious, of course, to scrutinize the methods which the government proposes to employ to carry out this very laudable end. I think it will be helpful at this stage if the minister would outline in skeleton form just what the government has in mind with respect to its general policy on export trade.


James Angus MacKinnon: I
think the matter could be more profitably discussed when the bill is before us for second reading. At that time I purpose making a statement outlining the objects of the bill. I hope that that will be satisfactory for the time being.


Gordon Graydon: I think it will be, provided we have at the appropriate stage a statement from the minister giving full details in connection with the government policy. I quite appreciate that there is no special reason why there should be a duplicate debate, especially at this stage in the session; but perhaps, if the minister will undertake that when second reading is commenced he will give a full statement, that will be satisfactory.


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes; I shall be glad to do that.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Bradette in the chair.


Howard Charles Green: I doubt very much if it is wise to have this resolution go through without one or two explanations being given by the minister. I should like to ask him one or two questions in connection with the resolution. The first paragraph reads that it is expedient to introduce a measure-
To incorporate the export credit insurance corporation for the purpose of entering into contracts of insurance with exporters to insure against the risk of loss involved in contracts for the export of Canadian produced goods.
Will the minister tell us what type of insurance contracts are to be entered into?


James Angus MacKinnon: The explanation I intended to make on the second reading of the bill will fully cover that; I will go into it thoroughly. I will say-and I do not want this to start a general discussion on the bill, but in answer to the hon. member's question

that it is a proposal to insure contracts for the sale of goods by Canadian exporters to residents of other countries.


Howard Charles Green: The reason I ask this question is that I represent a constituency which is, vitally interested in export trade. Our harbour is probably the most important feature, in a business way, about the whole of greater Vancouver, and we are very much interested in this measure. It is all very wpll to make an explanation on second reading, but it does help one a great deal in studying a bill and preparing to make remarks upon it if some preliminary explanation is given on the resolution stage. I think the minister should make at least some explanation at the present time. He says that the Export Credit Insurance Corporation is to have power to enter into contracts of insurance with exporters. Does that mean, contracts with individual firms, contracts of insurance insuring the transactions of individual firms against loss of any kind, or does it mean insuring the carriage of goods overseas? Just what is meant?


James Angus MacKinnon: I would be very grateful if the hon. member would let this stand until the second reading, when an explanation will be made and an opportunity for discussion given. The explanation I have already made in reply to the hon. member's question answers, I think, the question he just asked. What is proposed is the insurance of an agreement to sell goods by a Canadian exporter or producer or manufacturer to a customer in another country.


Howard Charles Green: I suggest to the minister that he give us his explanation now. It will make it far easier for us to. understand the bill when it comes down; and there is not much time now for studying these bills. Certainly it would facilitate the passage of the bill if an explanation were made at this stage.


James Angus MacKinnon: I am quite ready to go on if it is the wish of the committee that I do so now. I thought it would save double discussion on the points, but if, as the hon. member suggests, it may shorten the later discussion I shall be very glad to make a statement now.


Gordon Graydon: I think the minister
should do so if any members of the committee desire it.
Export Credits Insurance


Mr. STIRLING:: May I make this point
with the minister, as I warmly support the representations of the hon. member for Vancouver South. Both of us come from constituencies far removed from here; and if the minister can give his explanatory notes on the resolution stage, the people we represent here will have some opportunity of seeing what the thing is about before the bill is in their hands.


James Angus MacKinnon: Mr. Chairman, the bill covered by this resolution provides the measure that was forecast in the speech from the throne for the purpose of establishing a system of export credits and of export credit insurance. The need for and the purposes of this bill should require very little explanation or justification.
.Canada is now the third trading nation of the world. Our export trade is now running at a level considerably in excess of three billion dollars annually. This represents in value more than, double the export trade we possessed at any time in the 20 years from 1919 to 1939.
As we approach, and later enter, the postwar period Canada is bound to experience a fall in exports of those kinds of goods that represent purely war-time trade, and every effort must be made, without delay, to see that the volume of our commercial exports increases as rapidly as possible. Every possible support must be given to the enterprise and sales efforts of Canadian exporters.
A considerable number of countries will emerge from this conflict with their financial resources greatly impaired. Particularly during the transition period from war to peace, trade with many countries is likely to be uncertain either because of unsettled internal conditions in those countries, or because of measures taken by them to control trade and exchange. As a result Canadian exporters would be quite justified in being hesitant to offer goods because of the risks involved or because private financial institutions are reluctant to grant the necessary credit facilities. In this way valuable and inherently sound export business may be lost at a time when it may be imperative to develop overseas markets for the output of our greatly expanded productive capacity.
The present measure is intended to meet this situation in two ways. First, it provides the authority to set up an Export Credit Insurance Corporation. Before the war some form of export credit insurance was made available to their exporters by governments in many countries. Our information indicates that there were some 18 or more countries which operated export credit insurance

schemes of one type or another. The essence of export credit insurance is that the exporter enters into an export sales contract with an importer in another country and is able to insure himself on a premium basis in respect of the payment risks that are involved. The Export Credit Insurance Corporation that is to be set up in Canada is intended to develop for the assistance of Canadian exporters an insurance business of this kind, and it is the intention that it shall operate on a self-sustaining basis, but that it shall be essentially non-profit-making. After careful consideration it has been decided that the credit insurance business can best be handled by placing the enterprise and responsibility in the hands of the corporation, rather than a board or other form of administration that would be merely a part of one of the government departments.


Howard Charles Green: This is to be a government corporation?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes. Secondly, the bill empowers the governor in council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance and with the concurrence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, to give direct credit assistance to the governments of other countries or their agencies for the purpose of facilitating Canadian export trade. The establishment of the Export Credit Insurance Corporation alone is not sufficient to meet the circumstances with which we will be faced. The insurance scheme will assist trade with countries where the importers already have funds with which to make purchases in Canada, but it will probably be the case in many countries that not only will the importers be stripped of their financial resources but, as I have already mentioned, the governments themselves of these countries will emerge from the war period with their financial resources greatly impaired. It is with that condition in mind that it is considered essential to have the power to extend direct credit assistance by loans, guarantees, or by the other methods provided in the bill to enable the governments of other countries or their accepted agencies to place orders with Canadian exporters.
This second part of the bill-under which the provision of direct credit assistance is authorized-is intended to apply only for a three-year period, as it is expected that the main need for direct credits will arise during the unsettled conditions of the transitional post-war years. As conditions become more stabilized greater dependence could be placed upon the export credit insurance provisions alone to provide the main means of maintain-

Export Credits Insurance
ing and developing Canadian export trade, in bo far as it may prove necessary to continue to give export credit assistance in any form.


Howard Charles Green: The plan is twofold. In the first place this Export Credit Insurance Corporation will insure the business of the exporters, and then for a period of three years the Canadian government will lend money say to the Belgian government or to any other government, with which money the Belgian government can buy goods from Canadian firms.


James Angus MacKinnon: Quite.


Howard Charles Green: Or it may be done in the way of a guarantee-


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: -of the purchases by the Belgian government. Why are those loans and guarantees restricted to governments or governmental agencies. In the normal course of business goods are exported by a Canadian exporter to a Belgian importer. Apparently there is no provision for helping to develop that trade. The loan now goes to the Belgian government.


James Angus MacKinnon: My hon. friend has just referred to what is covered in part I of the bill. Part I of the bill provides for the insurance of a contract entered into by a shipper in Canada with an importer or a purchaser in another country. Part II of the bill provides for a loan to the government to enable the purchaser in that country to pay for goods purchased in Canada.


Howard Charles Green: There is no intention of lending to foreign firms?


James Angus MacKinnon: No.


Howard Charles Green: The loan will be made only to a foreign government?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes, or their agencies.


Howard Charles Green: The second portion of the plan is more or less of a mutual aid proposition?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: In effect the Canadian government will buy the goods from the Canadian firms, trusting that the purchase price will eventually be paid by the government of the foreign country. Is not that what it means?


James Angus MacKinnon: Possibly, in a roundabout way; but actually what will happen is this. The Canadian government purposes making a loan to the foreign government, the proceeds of which will be used for the payment of goods imported from Canada so that the exporter in Canada will be paid.


Howard Charles Green: What supervision will there be over those loans so that we shall be sure that the money is used by the foreign government for the purchase of Canadian goods?


James Angus MacKinnon: That will all be covered in the bill when I bring it down.


Howard Charles Green: That is covered in the bill?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes.


Thomas Langton Church: I should like to ask the minister two or three questions about this proposal. I fail to see how this is going to facilitate trade and exports to these countries at the present time. As you know, Mr. Chairman, they have what they call section 7 of the lend-lease agreement in which Great Britain and1 the United States are interested. Some of the countries are empire countries and some are other classes of countries. This government is going to guarantee $200,000,000 and the amount outstanding on loans made at any one time is not to exceed $100,000,000. This is the very subject matter that has been covered by the conference going on in the United States on international finance lend- . lease matters for the past month.
In this resolution we are dealing with a guarantee of a loan to an export insurance corporation to a great many countries that are within the empire, some of them dominions, crown colonies and dependencies, others invaded countries. The other countries are countries that formerly came under the most favoured nation treaty so far as exports and imports are concerned. Others are in a different class. Many of those countries have been devastated by the axis powers during this war. Some of the countries covered by this proposed export corporation are in the Pacific.
I doubt whether New Zealand and Australia have a separate lend-lease agreement as is proposed1 here. This is distinctly such a separate lend-lease agreement with no guarantee of repayment of loans. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, to be embarking on a separatist policy toward those other countries not within the empire and giving them some special form of treatment under a separate lend-lease arrangement with no chance of any payment back. While we believe in some of the prin-
Export Credits Insurance

ciples of the Atlantic charter it will be left to Britain and the dominions to carry the bag after the elections are held next November in the country of our great ally to the south.
Section 7 of the lend-lease agreement covers the very countries which are named in this resolution; it covers the very same territory. As I said the other night we should first decide-and1 it has to be decided before this corporation can operate-what the policy of the government regarding empire countries is going to be after the war. What is the policy going to be regarding Russia and the United States? Russia has an agreement with Britain, outside of section 7 of the lend-lease agreement, for trade with Russia, to which the dominions are not yet a party, for twenty years. It was made in Moscow last year. The United States is going to have a similar agreement. I think we should have all the cards laid on the table, because the way we are spending money we are just approaching a totalitarian socialist state in so far as capital and maintenance and everything else is concerned, without proper protection. If this continues, no business man will be able to carry on his business. Who are the exporters of this country? Many of them have been driven to the wall by high taxation. Look over the exports at the present time. I think they have been very well covered by the lend-lease agreement. We had1 a similar situation after the last war, and some of the money has not been paid back yet.
I do not wish to delay the passage of this resolution, but I hope when the bill is introduced it will give us a little more information than is contained in the resolution. I will tell you this; the way we are doing business at the present time, outside of section 7 of the lend-lease agreement to which the United States is committed, I believe we are going to get into a whole lot of trouble. I doubt whether it is going to mean anything. Take the case of the Pacific. Some of this corporation's work will be in the Pacific. Russia is not at war with Japan, and Russia may be out of it when the time comes to take advantage of this legislation. Are we going to stand all the risk in the Pacific? Are we going to stand behind guarantees to the amount of $200,000,000, with another $100,000,000 in loans? The war with Japan may continue for a year or two after the war with Germany is over, for the situation in the east is very difficult. Japan still has a very powerful fleet. Suppose some of our ships carrying these goods are sunk; is this country going to stand the loss? Or is Canada going to embark upon a lend-lease policy of its own, lending money to all sorts of countries, many of them unfor-

tunately bankrupt? These are some of the questions that will have to be dealt with, and I should like a reply from the minister.


James Angus MacKinnon: I might reply very briefly at the moment because, as the hon. member has just said, all these matters can be discussed when the bill is in committee. To deal with just a couple of points, this measure is just supplementary to other legislation, and in no way cancels that other legislation. The hon. member suggested that this legislation might be against the best interests of the United Kingdom. I would reply that similar legislation is in effect in the United Kingdom at the present time.


George Hugh Castleden: I understand that
under this legislation the government will be underwriting risks in the export business which private enterprise will not underwrite. Is that the idea?


James Angus MacKinnon: That is the intention; not all, but selected contracts. All these matters will be dealt with when the bill itself is brought down.


George Hugh Castleden: The purpose of the second part of the bill, then, is to insure against loss by making loans to those countries to which the exports are to be made?


James Angus MacKinnon: It is anticipated that part 1 of the bill will not become operative to any great extent for the time being.


Howard Charles Green: That is the insurance feature?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes. Part 2 will be operative during the transition period. The first part of the bill is essentially peace-time legislation; the second is not.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister-


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I would refer hon. members to standing order 69 of Beauchesne, citation 740:
_ Unless the motion for leave be opposed, this is not the time for a lengthened debate on its merits. When an important measure is offered by a minster or other member, this opportunity is frequently taken for a full exposition of its character and objects; but otherwise, debate should be avoided at this stage, unless it is expected that the motion will be negatived, and that no future occasion will arise for discussion.
The minister distinctly stated his hope that the discussion going on now might take place on second reading of the bill, so I would ask hon. members to avoid any duplication of discussion.


Howard Charles Green: Surely we are not going to be choked off like that. On second reading of

Export Credits Insurance
a bill there is no opportunity to ask a minister questions, and I submit that we are entirely within our rights in asking such questions at this stage. So far not a question has been asked that does not deal directly with this resolution.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The bill will be before the committee on second reading.


Howard Charles Green: Questions cannot be asked on second reading. Just because the session is drawing to a close is no reason why these important measures should be rushed through the house. We have taken only a few minutes so far.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I know that in the mood of hon. members at present they do not want repetition. Sometimes the same discussion is repeated when the bill itself is before the committee.


Howard Charles Green: I have been here from the
Pacific coast for six months; I have listened to repetitions lasting not half an hour but two or three weeks. Now when a question comes up which is of vital interest to my whole province and to all the exporting firms of Canada I suggest is a queer time to try to choke off any discussion. I do not care what may be the mood of hon. members-


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I hope the hon. member will withdraw the words "choke off." It is the last thing in the world I would want to do. I simply read citation 740 in connection with the resolution now before the committee.


Howard Charles Green: The chairman said the
mood of the house was not in favour of any repetition. The mood of the house does not have very much to do with the rules of debate. Representing constituencies, we have certain rights here, and so far as I am concerned I do not propose to have those rights done away with.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: There is no question of withdrawing any rights. The chair just referred to the standing order; I need not repeat that reference at this time. It is not the intention to take away any of the rights of the members of the committee.


Mr. McILRAITH:: On a point of order,
Mr. Chairman, after you read the relevant paragraph from the rules the hon. member for Vancouver South said, "We are not going to be choked off like that," obviously having direct reference to the chairman. I am sure it was not the intention of the hon. member to make such a reference to the chairman of
the committee of the whole of the House of Commons; yet that was the import of his words.


Howard Charles Green: That was exactly what I
meant, and I think that would be the effect if we were prevented now from further discussing this resolution. I should like to ask the minister whether or not the new export credit insurance corporation will be able to pick and choose the contracts that it will insure. I take it that the commercial banks will be ready to provide credit for all sales that are reasonably sound and that the insurance provided by the government will be required only in connection with sales that are not so sound. May I ask the minister whether or not that is the case.


George James McIlraith: Before we get away
from the point of order, surely there is some obligation on the part of hon. members with respect to the chair in connection with proceedings in committee. It is perhaps quite natural that the chairman would hesitate to ask for the withdrawal of remarks pertaining to himself, but are we to let reflections on this institution pass unnoticed, such as the one uttered a few moments ago, that the chairman of this committee was attempting to choke off discussion by reading a paragraph from the rules of the House of Commons? Is that not a pretty serious thing? I understood you, Mr. Chairman, to read a paragraph from the rules of the house; and for an hon. member to remark that by doing so you are choking off discussion from any section of the house is something which I do not think any hon. member, in any part of the house, can afford to let pass. I am sure that on mature thought the hon. member for Vancouver South will agree that he did not mean it in that way, but when he reads the record he will see how serious it is. I would ask that the word's be withdrawn.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: I am happy to say that I have not heard you, Mr. Chairman, object to the statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver South, who said that if hon. members could not question the minister bringing in this resolution, whose department it affects, discussion is prevented or in other words choked off. I do not see why the hon. member for Ottawa West should be so exercised over the use of the words "choked, off," because in effect that is what the prevention of further discussion of this resolution amounts to. I do not think the chairman could take any offence from the words used by the hon.
Export Credits Insurance

member for Vancouver South, notwithstanding the attempt of the hon. member for Ottawa West to make an occasion of it.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: On the point of order
raised by the hon. member for Ottawa West, it is not the intention of the chair to press the point, for I am sure the hon. member for Vancouver South realizes that the chairman would be the last person to attempt in any way to curb the deliberations of the committee. However, I believe there are times when it is the duty of the chairman to bring to the attention of the committee certain rules concerning the debates and the subject matter under discussion.


Howard Charles Green: It is interesting to see the hon. member for Ottawa West rise in his seat at this stage of the session and try to correct some of the rest of us.


George James McIlraith: The hon. member for Ottawa West has some rights.


Howard Charles Green: Many of us live thousands of miles away from Ottawa, and attend regularly. But he is not to be seen in the chamber very often.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, there is no member of the House of Commons who has attended the sessions of parliament more regularly than I have. Surely the hon. member's statement is grossly inaccurate. That statement could not be made without being challenged.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I can challenge what the hon. member for Vancouver South says, and I can vouch for what the hon. member for Ottawa West has said. He is in the house nearly all the time.


Howard Charles Green: I am here a good deal of the time, and I am only speaking from my own observations.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: A very unfair statement.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps the minister would answer the question.
Mr. MacKI'NNON (Edmonton West): The bill provides for the right of selection of risks.


Howard Charles Green: Is it a fact that the
better risks will be handled by the banks?


James Angus MacKinnon: I
think the bank itself might be insured on risks. I am not saying that definitely, but-


Howard Charles Green: The new corporation will be able to insure the commercial banks against loss.


James Angus MacKinnon: I
would think so.


Howard Charles Green: Is that the way an insurance contract would be written, as a general rule?


James Angus MacKinnon: No. Provision is made for right of selection of risk between the manufacturer or producer in Canada, and his customer in the other countries.


Howard Charles Green: In the case of a loan to a foreign government for the purpose of purchasing Canadian goods, is the Canadian government to be in a position to say from what firm the foreign government will purchase the goods in Canada?


James Angus MacKinnon: I do not think the Canadian government would interest itself on behalf of any individual firm in Canada. It would be an arrangement with the other country to enable that other country to provide Canadian funds to pay any exporter in Canada.


Howard Charles Green: Will the government have any control over purchases within Canada? That is, will the government have power to say from what firms these purchases are to be made?


James Angus MacKinnon: I
do not think the government would attempt to do that.


Howard Charles Green: Is this loan provision to apply to all foreign governments? For example, is it to apply to the government of a country which is able to pay for the goods, or is it only to apply to the countries whi,ch have been bankrupted by the war.


James Angus MacKinnon: These loans will all be considered on their merits, by the government. There is no obligation to make any loan. It will all be as a matter of negotiation.


Howard Charles Green: That is, it might apply to France, or to Great Britain or to the United States? At the present time the minister is not in a position to say that there will be any distinction between governments?


James Angus MacKinnon: No.


Grote Stirling: Is this bill to cover manufactured articles as well as natural products and agricultural products? Is it to cover all exports from Canada?


James Angus MacKinnon: I
believe manufactured products.


Grote Stirling: Only?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes.

Export Credits Insurance


Robert Fair: Have losses been, sustained by the British government in the operation of legislation similar to this?


James Angus MacKinnon: I believe I shall be able to make a statement on that. I am not sure, but I think the officials in my department have some information on the point. My understanding is that the losses have been kept down to a very small point.


James Arthur Ross: Would this apply to sales of wheat?


James Angus MacKinnon: No.


James Arthur Ross: Not at all?


James Angus MacKinnon: No. I do not think it applies to sales of wheat.


Mark Cecil Senn: Does it apply to any agricultural product, whether manufactured or in its natural state, or is it for other manufactured goods?


James Angus MacKinnon: My understanding-and of course I am speaking this morning without having assistants in front of me-is that manufactured1 products only are to be dealt with.


Mark Cecil Senn: But there are manufactured pioducts such as canned goods. I suppose bacon, when it is cured, would be considered as a manufactured product? Does it apply to that class of goods, or to goods which are not agricultural in any sense of the term?


James Angus MacKinnon: It applies to products which cannot ordinarily be handled through the regular channels. It applies particularly to countries which are not in a position to pay cash now but which, it is considered, will be in a position within a reasonable length of time.


James Arthur Ross: That is not a very clear statement. The statement the minister has just made indicates that probably the greatest requirements of those countries will be for processed agricultural products, such as those mentioned by the hon. member for Haldimand. They will require bacon, processed beef, and various other agricultural products, including canned vegetables.


Mark Cecil Senn: And flour.


James Arthur Ross: It has been made clear for some time that those will be .the goods for which those countries will want credits. Surely we are not going to pass a bill of this kind without making provision for goods for which we have been led to believe for years there would be a market. We have understood
that goods of this kind would be required for months and years following the cessation of hostilities.


James Angus MacKinnon: No; it does not necessarily mean that. I might add that we are not asking for the passage of the bill at this time. We are only asking that it be advanced one stage, so that the bill can be dealt wtih.


Howard Charles Green: Does it apply also to purchases by united nations relief agencies? Will the sales to those agencies be supported or guaranteed in any way?
, Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West): No; it will be entirely supplementary to and outside of that.


Mark Cecil Senn: If the resolution passes the committee stage we will have no other opportunity to get information.


James Angus MacKinnon: Oh, yes, you will.


Mark Cecil Senn: Not until the principle of the bill has been passed on second reading. We will have to assent to second reading, which adopts the principle of the bill. If I thought for one moment that no class of agricultural products was going to be included in the bill, I would be inclined to vote against it. We have been led to believe, as the hon. member for Souris has pointed out, that following the war there would be a great demand for agricultural products of this country from other countries which will be badly in need of them, countries which have been overrun by the enemy. If no provision is made in the bill to support the export of those goods produced by farmers, I would be inclined to vote against it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I have before me a certain bill which is supposed partly to deal with the question raised by the hon. member. The present position in connection with bacon, cheese and other farm products of that type is that we enter into agreements with the governments of the countries with which we are dealing. It is assumed that a certain amount of that will be done in the period following the war. The products dealt with in that way do not come under this bill. My understanding is that products, which do come under the bill, are not dealt with that way. The bill providing for the handling of floor prices on farm commodities following the war does touch upon the point which has been discussed.


Ernest Edward Perley: Then we may take it from the statement of the Minister of Agriculture that actually there will be three boards marketing agricultural products. First there will be the wheat board, which is not men-
Export Credits Insurance

tioned in either the bill sponsored by the Minister of Agriculture or that sponsored by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Then we have bill 168, which is to be considered next, and which sets up a board to buy and sell farm products. Now we have one suggested by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. We will have three boards marketing agricultural products, and I think we should have a definite statement as to how they will cooperate and what understanding there will be between them.	[DOT]


James Garfield Gardiner: My understanding is that the bill to be founded upon this resolution will be a bill to establish credits. It will be recalled that at the end of the last war there were credits arranged with certain countries to which we wanted to send certain products, one of which was wheat. It may be necessary to make certain financial arrangements in order to make it possible for a country to buy our products. As far as the agreements in connection with the products discussed a few moments ago are concerned, that is, bacon, cheese, butter, canned milk and things of that kind, they are made under the boards now set up and they will be continued to be made in that way at least until the end of .the war. There is a possibility that may be carried on in the same way from then on, provided that other countries wish to deal in that manner. If Britain still wants to buy surplus products direct from the government, then I suppose we will try to sell to them in that way, and boards may be set up through the agency of the legislation which I am bringing down in connection with floor prices arrangements.


James Angus MacKinnon: I have just been advised that there is no limitation on the type of products.


Grote Stirling: Natural products or anything like that?


James Angus MacKinnon: No limitation on the products.


Mr. RALSTON:: Obviously the resolution does not limit it by its terms; it is Canadian-produced products.


Grote Stirling: The minister stated-


James Layton Ralston: I am simply saying that the resolution does not limit it. The minister said tha4 he was speaking without his assistants before him and without the bill before him, but I am pointing out to the committee that if they pass the resolution its terms are not necessarily limited to manufactured products; it covers Canadian-produced goods.


Grote Stirling: I agree entirely with what the Minister of National Defence has said, but what he and others do not seem to understand is that some of us come from constituencies far away. We are in the dying days of the session, possibly, and unless we can get some definite information at this stage we will have no opportunity of understanding the bill nor shall we be able to send it out until it has been introduced.


James Layton Ralston: I am suggesting that the resolution is not restricted to manufactured goods, so that the committee or the house would not be debarred when the minister brings down the bill from pointing out that they have not tied their hands by passing the resolution. The resolution in its terms is wide enough to cover everything, including farm products. I got the impression that the committee felt that in passing the resolution in this form they would debar themselves from asking afterwards that farm products be included. I am pointing out that that is not so, that the wording is wide enough to cover all products.


Howard Charles Green: Is it the intention that all goods, manufactured or otherwise, shall be covered by the bill?


James Angus MacKinnon: I am so informed.


Mr. BURTON:: If it is at all possible, we should have this bill in our hands in ample time.


James Angus MacKinnon: I am informed that the bill is printed and will be distributed.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. MacKinnon (Edmonton West) thereupon moved for leave to introduce bill No. 178, to incorporate the Export Credits Insurance Corporation and to promote the revival of trade by the provision of dominion government guarantees to encourage exports from Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION


EXTENSION OF OPERATION OF ACT-FURTHER ' PROVISIONS AS TO CONTRIBUTIONS, ETC.
[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 171, to amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act.
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker-


James Arthur Ross: A reversal of form.
fMr. Perley.]

Civil Service Superannuation


George James McIlraith: 
PROVISION FOR PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF CHILDREN UNDER SIXTEEN
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, July 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie
King for the second reading of bill No. 161, to provide for family allowances.
George Ernest Wood: Mr. Speaker, last night at the adjournment of the debate I was discussing some of the reasons why I

believe that the family allowance legislation would be beneficial, and examining some of the criticisms of those opposed to this bill. If I were inclined to offer a suggestion, it would be that this type of legislation should be extended by associating with it a scheme of contributory old age pensions, the income derived from which might serve in some degree as a revolving fund for payment of children's allowances. In my opinion the fact that the state has undertaken to provide for family allowances obligates those who are to enjoy that privilege to contribute, through some appropriate measure and suitable machinery, towards their own social security at the time when they retire from the activities of life. I have always believed that every man should provide something for his own security, and that it should not be left to the state to bear the cost of old age pensions without the individual making some contribution through his own efforts to reaping this reward when he comes to the time of retirement.
We have heard objections from ttiose who think that this will be an expensive scheme. The important principle is to see that the wealth of our country is well and reasonably spent. The fact that Canada expends $350 million annually on intoxicating liquors is enough to silence those who think we cannot afford to expend $200 million upon the nation's greatest resource, its children. At any rate there cannot be a valid objection to this measure from the people who condone an indulgence which in my belief often impairs natural ability and dethrones the God-given gift of reason.
I remember reading somewhere about a deputation which waited upon Lord John Russell to voice their objections to certain taxation. His reply was, " You may rely upon it that the government of this country does not tax the working classes to anything like the extent to which they tax themselves in their expenditure on intoxicating drink alone."
As regards the element of thrift which is involved in the requirement that people shall do something to provide for their own security, it may be remembered that Richard Cobden once said there were two classes of society; those who have saved and those who have spent, those that are thrifty and those that are extravagant. All our great institutions, all our mills, our factories, our homes, have been founded by those who saved their money and, in building these, institutions, provided labour with the means of employment.

Family Allowances
There still remains plenty of evidence that thrift and enterprise are useful and commendable. Thrift is still necessary, and, as I have said, if I were to make any suggestion it would be to supplement this measure with a national scheme of contributory old1 age pensions, to give the people an opportunity to provide for their own security in their declining years.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker I should like
my first word in closing this debate on the second reading of the family allowances bill to be one of appreciation of the attitude which the house generally has taken toward the measure. I particularly wish to thank the members of my own party for the united and loyal manner in which they have supported the measure and also for the able way in which, through their speeches, they have explained essential features of the bill itself and the fundamental principles which underlie it. Their addresses reflect credit upon this House of Commons. May I say to the members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, to the Social Credit group and to independent members who have spoken that I am also pleased that they have indicated their intention to support unitedly and unanimously the second reading of this measure.
With regard to my hon. friends of the official opposition I should also like to express my appreciation to those of their number who have supported the measure in principle and have given reasons for that support. I must confess that, in some respects, my feelings have been rather of amusement than surprise at the attitude which as an opposition they have adopted. When I read the statement made by the leader of the Progressive Conservative party, who referred to the measure as a species of political bribe, before there had been any opportunity of discussing it in this parliament, indeed before its terms had been made public, when he said that he hoped the day was coming when there would be an end to this legal bribery of the electorate, I thought that those who profess to be his followers in this house would have championed his position. I thought that if this was a species of political bribery we would have had one gallant gentleman after the other rising in his place and giving reasons to this house why this measure should not be supported. The fact that they did not is, I say, to their credit. Perhaps it was because of the intimation I gave them that what their leader had said was a reflection upon the membership of this house, and would reflect in particular on
any hon. member who might take the same attitude. It is quite clear that no hon. member in his place in this house has wished to repeat any such allegation on the floor of parliament.
The members of the official opposition did briefly, in a sort of fashion, indicate that they thought there were better means of dealing with the quesion. I was a little surprised to hear the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) say that this measure was not one of social justice. I hope that will not cause him to refrain from supporting it when it comes to a vote on the second reading. He has probably heard enough in the debate to cause him to change his mind on that score, as a good many others have evidently changed theirs. If this measure is not one of social justice I cannot understand how anyone in this house would desire to support it. But as I say, if the leader of the opposition has changed his mind on that score, as he probably has we shall see definitely when the division takes place.
My hon. friend was followed by one other champion of t'he point of view of a past age, the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce). I myself think it is fortunate we have the hon. member for Parkdale in this house because he does belong so obviously to a past era. As I listened to him giving his arguments against this particular measure I could not but think of the familiar lines; they appear in Dickens' "The Chimes" of just a century ago:
Bless the squire and his relations.
And always know our proper stations.
There is another line or two:
Oh, let us love our occupations,
Live upon our daily rations.
In other words, in the hon. member's mind the whole of society is to be classified in strata-those with high sounding titles and many possessions are to be at the top, and those who are unfortunate enough not to possess much of this world's goods are to be classified as belonging, to the lower stratum of society. That point of view, which unfortunately is still held by far too many, was clearly set forth in what the hon. member for Parkdale said in the course of his remarks.
However, Mr. Speaker, there ended the brave attack by the opposition on the measure. As I remember it, there was on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite complete silence for a day. Hon. members on this side of the house continued to give reasons why they believed it was in the public interest that this measure should be supported. That period of silence of a day having elapsed,
Family Allowances

we then had an entirely different attitude assumed by other hon. gentlemen opposite. In the speech of the leader of the opposition there was the old familiar exception taken to the measure as being unconstitutional. As I recollect it, that was the line taken up by the next speaker, the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). I have already said to my hon. friend that I thought he made out about as good a case as could be made out for the position that he was seeking to put forward; but that obviously it was such a weak position that it was not possible even for him to make a case.
The argument that this measure is unconstitutional, or may be unconstitutional, and for that reason should be referred by the government to the supreme court before it is permitted to find its place on the statutes or to come into force, has been supported by the hon. member for Lake Centre by the statement that a similar course was suggested by myself when I was in opposition with reference to the legislation that was brought forward by the former Prime Minister, now Lord Bennett, with regard to unemployment and social insurance legislation. Well, there is just this difference between the two measures. The legislation that was introduced by Mr. Bennett was obviously unconstitutional. This legislation is obviously constitutional. In order to make apparent to everyone that Mr. Bennett's legislation was ultra vires of this parliament it was necessary to have it referred to the supreme court. The supreme court gave a decision on it-one that I imagine every legal expert knew would be given'-that the legislation was ultra vires of this parliament. What was the reason for that decision? The reason, essentially, was that the legislation inserted a condition in agreements between employers and employees in the different provinces to which the legislation was intended to apply. That was an interference with property and civil rights. The insertion of a condition by the federal government which affected the agreements between parties was obviously an invasion of the rights of the provinces in the field in which they had competent and exclusive legislative jurisdiction, and therefore it was ultra vires. But this legislation contains nothing of that kind which would justify any question as to its constitutionality.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the Prime Minister permit just one question?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: If that be so, why did the Prime Minister submit to the supreme court and to the privy council various other

matters of social legislation introduced by the Bennett administration which those courts found to be constitutional?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, I cannot recall at the moment, but I am pretty sure it was done in an attempt to clear up the whole situation once and for all. I would hope that my hon. friend would have been the first to profit by the opinion given by the supreme court, and that he would not h^ve found it necessary even to suggest that this particular measure was unconstitutional. (The supreme court has made it perfectly clear, and certainly the judicial committee of the privy council, which is the highest court, has made it perfectly clear that this parliament is at all times free to make a grant of its own money in any way that this parliament may determine. This is a free grant. It is a grant made from this parliament by virtue of its control over its own money. There is no court that I know of in the world that has questioned that right so far as this parliament is concerned or were it similarly circumstanced so far as the parliament of the United Kingdom is concerned^ So that the raising of a constitutional issut? amounts simply to throwing up a sort of smoke-screen, arising out of differences of view in the past, instead of constituting an effort to eliminate smokescreens altogether in facing the future order, and seeking to find the best way to further that new order for the well-being of the Canadian people.
I need not say more about this matter except to refer to the question of government authority as exercised in the case of old age pensions. That has been quoted against this particular measure. The action of this parliament with respect to old age pensions only confirms what I have said about the right of this parliament to do what it pleases in the way of making grants. In that case parliament made a grant to the provincial governments.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not want to interfere with my right hon. friend-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If you don't, don't speak.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is rather an abrupt reply. I do not want to divert the Prime Minister's attention from his speech, but may I say to him that the grant was made as a grant in aid because of the opinion of the Department of Justice that you could not take the money of the taxpayers and give it to individuals for this purpose. That was why the government of the day adopted the principle of grants in aid. I am sure I am right about that.

Family Allowances


William Lyon Mackenzie King: protection of the *working people, the great mass of the people of this country from occupational or other diseases which help to undermine the strength of the nation. If this country is to be what we wish it to be, a country of happy, contented and prosperous people, it will only be by safeguarding the lives and welfare of the many, and by protecting from injustice and ill the homes of the humble in the land.
More statements were made in this House of Commons on January 19, 1911, and appear at pages 2040 and1 2041 of Hansard for that year.


Mr. COLD WELL:: Thirty-three years ago.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes,thirty-three years ago. Perhaps hon. members will be surprised when I read the interruption that occurred when I stopped at where I have stopped to-day. Mr. Northrup, who was then occupying a seat opposite, said:
Would the minister be good enough to state to the house on what grounds he claims this house has any jurisdiction to pass such a measure?
That is exactly the same sort of thing we have been listening to from hon. gentlemen opposite when to-day another great social reform is being placed before this parliament for adoption. I was able to cite the opinion of the justice department which was to the effect that the measure in every way was intra vires. Throughout the years, from that time to the present, wherever opportunity has presented itself, the party on this side of the house have sought, to the best of their ability, as occasion has arisen, to further measures with respect to the conservation of human life and welfare. We have time and again proposed and carried measures which to-day are of nation-wide application. I am happy that I have been spared to help to-day to further the enactment of yet another measure which will be one of the most far-reaching ever enacted for the benefit of those in humble circumstances in our land.
My friends of the C.C.F. have also made what I considered extreme and mistaken claims as respects the part they have played in advocating that industry should be made to serve the well-being of society. They have said that they were laughed at when they spoke of industry being carried on for use rather than profit. Well, I do not know who laughed at them.


Thomas Miller Bell: We have been laughed at in this house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In this house?


Thomas Miller Bell: Yes.

Mr. MA.CKENZIE KING: Not for that. There have time and again been extravagant statements made by them which have been laughed at, but I can say that when my hon. friend and some of his friends were in the kindergarten hon. members on this side of the house were proclaiming that industry should be considered as in the nature of social service, and its rewards made proportionate to the service rendered by all 'the parties to industry.


Thomas Miller Bell: What have you done about it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: than to seek to raise in this country any form of prejudice, whether it be racial prejudice, religious prejudice, or prejudice against classes or regions.
Every one knows that Canada is a difficult country to govern. Every one knows that, at a time of war, we should, above, all else, be as united as we possibly can. Yet in a period of war, at a most critical time, speakers on the other side of the house, in the official opposition, have repeatedly thrown out words insinuating that, in some way, this measure had been brought in to assist participants in an election in another province. I hope I can leave the matter at that. If what I am saying is not true I hope some one will immediately correct me.
There is another reason why this measure should not go into force before July 1 of next year. I have indicated that it is not my intention if I can possibly prevent it, and I think I may be able to, to deny to the people of Canada the right which is theirs of having an election at least every five years. This parliament is not going to be permitted to continue, whether the war is continuing or not, beyond the five years of its term. As is known, we were returned as a government to carry on the war. And we intend to do that; suffer politically as we may by devoting our entire time to carrying on the war, we intend to pursue that course in the manner that will best help to win the war. There are some hon. gentlemen opposite-and this is not restricted to the official opposition- who have been spending most of their time in trying to win elections and trying to destroy this government charged as it is with the many responsibilities that have been placed upon it by the Canadian people. I think I have some appreciation of the spirit that is in the breasts of the Canadian people. I tell my hon. friends that they will find, when the time comes, that the Canadian people are not going to be indifferent to the action, no matter from what party it originates, of trying to destroy the government that has been sent here to carry on the prosecution of the war, as vigorously as may be possible, and of seeking to destroy and undermine in every possible way its authority in different parts of the country.
I have been amazed1-I must say that I speak of these things because I think they ought to be mentioned-at the fact that some men of high position in this country who were brought into the government service to help to carry on the war, knowing what they do about the seriousness of the situation, and how necessary it is that every man of ability who can serve should remain in service to help to

win the war, should have left the government service in order, in the crisis of the war, to help organize a political party against the government. That, too, is something that the people of Canada will not forget.
The people of Canada have a moral sense which can be trusted, and I think that some gentlemen will find that out. Speaking of the official opposition, some one said to me, it was true of them, as had been said of an opposition elsewhere perhaps, that they had not enough members to fill an omnibus. He added, the way they are being led at the present time, not in this house but from outside, that when the next election comes they will not have enough to fill a taxicab, let alone an omnibus. I think that is probably correct.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You had better look after your own fences; do not bother about us.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I know my hon. friend does not want me to worry about him. May I say that I am not worrying about him at all.


Gordon Graydon: I think you fellows will be able to walk; you will not need a vehicle at all.


Mr. ADAMSON:: The Liberal party will come back on a bicycle built for two.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: However, that is by the way.
I come now to one of the other criticisms which have been made of this measure, that certain labour leaders have objected to it on the score that it might possibly have the effect of keeping down wages which are already too low. If I believed that any such possibility existed, I would be the last person to introduce the measure. But as has been so frequently made clear in this house, the effect of this measure, first of all, is going to be to create a much greater and more certain and constant demand for commodities in the domestic market of Canada than has existed at any time prior to the war. That of itself will keep up the demand for labour. That certainly is not going to make it any easier for employers to keep wages depressed.
The wage system takes no account whatever of family status. This is something that cannot be considered too carefully. The factors that determine the rates of wages must take account of international competition, national competition and local competition. In that process the fixing erf the rate of wages is related no more to those who have great obligations than to those who have no family obligations. A man who has a large family

Family Allowances
gets no consideration in payment for his services as a wage earner because of the sazie of his family.
Nevertheless, if it were not for large families this country would rapidly lose its whole strength as a nation. It is upon the families of this country, their numbers, the quality of their health, their, vitality and strength that the future of Canada depends. Yet, under the wage system as we have it in a world of only partly regulated' competition, the tendency has been to destroy family life and to depress the standard of well-being of large classes in the country. I am going to refer to this again a little later on because I think it is a very serious situation.
The fundamental justification of children's allowances is that the wage system takes no account of the family status of the wage earner, and that, in a considerable sector of Canadian industry, the wages being paid are not sufficient to give the worker a family income sufficient to keep his family in health and decency and up to a reasonably current standard. Family income must somehow be supplemented or, alternatively, a substantial portion of the population must be doomed to extreme poverty and its inevitable consequences of disease, crime, illiteracy, inefficiency and other forms of social degeneration. Allowances paid for all children, it is believed, represent by far the simplest and cheapest way of providing a supplementary family income. They avoid discrimination or social stigma and can be administered simply and cheaply. That is my reply to that particular criticism.
I intended to mention, whether I did so or not I am unable at the moment to recollect; if so I shall repeat it, that when the present administration were returned to office by the people of this country, we were continued in office for a particular purpose, namely, to prosecute the war to the utmost on behalf of the nation. We were not elected to office to introduce measures of social reform which will involve large expenditures of public money, without the people of this country having an opportunity, in the first place, to pronounce upon post-war policy. We were not given a mandate to put into effect a programme of social measures. Nor were policies of reconstruction and world rebuilding an issue in the last elections. I like the British parliamentary practice in contrast to that of some other countries, according to which it is understood that, when a ministry has fulfilled its obligations in accordance with the mandate upon which it was appointed to office, and when new questions arise which the public have not had any opportunity to consider,
the ministry, in the discharge of the trust which it.owes to the people, should go to the people, present the new issue, and give them an opportunity to pass upon it. That is what we intend to do.
Part of our duty has, of course, been to anticipate the difficulties which will arise in the post-war period, and to prepare those measures which will serve to meet the difficult questions which will arise when the war is over. No one can begin to know, except those who have had to do with it-here I refer particularly to many of our public servants, those in the civil service of this country who have been working night and day, giving of their health and strength to help to get into scientific and final shape the measures that should be presented to parliament at this time-I say that no one can know, except those who have had experience of it, what a terrific strain it has been upon the administration to have not only*to further the prosecution of the war, but, as well, to have to anticipate and prepare for the problems which are going to arise in the postwar period. But we have assumed that responsibility and we are presenting our measures to this parliament at this session.
When the right moment comes we shall place before the people of this country a programme which we believe will serve the best interests of the people of Canada in the post-war period. It is for that as well as for the other reasons I have mentioned that this measure of family allowances has been fixed to go into effect on the first of July of 1945. Before this measure goes into effect, the people of this country will have an opportunity of expressing their views and their wishes in regard to it. They will have to bear the expense of it. My own belief is that the measure itself is going to create so much in the way of employment that the national income will be so increased that we shall find it possible not only to have this class of social enactment self sustaining but be able as a consequence to have as well a reduction of debt and taxation. As I said1 the other evening, one other reason why I myself took very strongly the position that this measure should not go into effect before a general election was that I did not wish to give to suspicious minds any occasion to think that the government might be seeking, as one leader already has said, to bribe the people. I wonder what lion, gentlemen opposite would be saying to-day if the date when this measure was to come into effect had been fixed at some time before the close of this year, and if at a time an election

Family Allowances

was on, be it this year or next, cheques were going into the homes of this country out of the public treasury in payment of family allowances. I think I know what would be said in this house in regard to anything of the kind, and rightly said. I was determined that no stigma of that sort should attach to a great social measure of this kind intended for the continuing well-being of the children of Canada.
What I wish to refer to more particularly, and it is the last subject on which I shall touch, is the justice of this measure. I know that- there are people of all classes throughout this country who are much concerned about the significance of this measure, as to what will follow from it, and as to what it may involve by the way of change of many practices and usages to which we have grown accustomed.
I want to speak of the justice of this measure as between man and man in the matter of their posessions, as between those that have and those that have not. Some there are who say that this measure is unjust in that it takes away from him that hath and gives to him that hath not. It all depends on how wealth is created and how it comes to be possessed. I want to make clear the justice of the measure in relation to a more equitable distribution of the wealth of- this country. I want to say a word, also, as to the justice of the measure as between parents in this country, as between those who have great responsibilities in the bringing up of families and other members of our society who have not the same obligation.
I want also to say a word as to the justice of the measure in relation to the children of this country, a limited number of whom have the best of opportunities in facing the battle of life, but multitudes of whom have little or no opportunity at all.
I wish to say a few words as to the justice of the measure from the point of view of Canada itself, the preservation of our nation and all that that will mean in the years to come.
First as to the justice of the measure as between man and man. Here may I take occasion to say that this measure grows out of a sincere desire on the part of the administration to meet a new condition of things with which we shall be faced when the war is over. During the last war we heard time and time again: When the war is over we shall have a new social order, things are going to be very much better for all classes of people in this country. We know that anything but that was the case. The years have gone by, we are now going through another war, and the same pro-

fessions once more are being made. But this time, so far as this administration has power to have it so, we intend to see if we possibly can that the new order expresses a new social concept altogether of industry as being in the nature of social service and the obligations and rewards that grow out of that conception. It is of that concept that I wish to say a word in conclusion this afternoon.	.
I tried, in the period of the last war, not knowing whether or not I should be in parliament again, to give to my country what I could, as the results of careful research, of the principles on which I believed reconstruction should be attempted after the war. The measure I am advocating to-day is along the lines of the principles that I laid down at that time. But conditions which no man could control and no group of men could control have made it impossible for many of the required measures to be carried out since that time which, when the war was on, people were most anxious to have carried out. But we owe an obligation to our country to-day, and we owe it to the world to-day to see if, in some way, we cannot make a contribution that will prevent a recurrence of situations such as since 1914-18 have brought about another war.
May I by way of prefacing what I have to say read a paragraph from an address I made in Toronto before the Empire club at the King Edward hotel on March 13, 1919? At that time I was seeking to point out the necessity of a new conception of industry, the necessity of being in earnest in the matter of establishing a new world order, of finding the means whereby that new order could be secured. I repeat, as more applicable than ever to the world to-day what I said in the years immediately following the end of the last war:
Especially in industrial relations have we accepted with complacence an order of things to which we have grown accustomed. The shock of war, stirring the world's soul to its very depths, has brought before our eyes the shattered image of an industrial civilization which is full of injustice. It has left us to decide whether the new order shall be little more than a return to the old, with all iits worship of material wealth and material power, and its relative indifference to human worth and human well-being; or Whether it will be an order worthy of the sacrifices of the heroic dead, and the services of those who, on land and sea and in the air have endured all manner of hardship and peril to preserve the liberties and freedom that we still enjoy.
Let us be assured of this: the unrest in the world of industry to-day is no ephemeral and transitory affair; no mere aftermath of the hideous convulsion which has shaken existing society to its very foundations. It is the voice of a grief-stricken humanity crying for justice in the relations of industry.

Family Allowances
I repeat what I said at that time is truer than ever to-day. We have before us the knowledge of the fact that because no heed has been paid to the truth of statements such as this, another great world war has come into being, and we must make it our supreme duty, in this generation to do all we possibly can to avert hereafter any calamity of the kind.
To bring that about we must have a wholly new conception of industry as being in the nature of social service for the benefit of all, not as something existing only for the benefit of a favoured few. First of all, let us understand exactly what industry is. Industry is the means by which the material sources of the world are transformed, through human intelligence and human energy, with the aid of natural powers, tools and machines into commodities and services available for human use.
What does that mean? It starts with the natural resources which have been the gift of the Creator to mankind. The natural resources of any country have not been given to individuals; they have been given to the entire community, to the entire people. That, I think, we must realize as a fundamental truth, and all our efforts at the improvement of social and industrial conditions must be based upon that knowledge. But what has come to be the accepted view as we have developed the institution of private property? Not industry as existing for the good of all-but industry as a means of private profit and gain. Are we then to throw aside all belief in the nature of private property to society because of some evils which have grown out of that system? Before we do so we would do well to examine the position of private property as to what it means in the way of initiative, in development of resources and making them available for service and use, what it may also mean in the betterment of masses of men.
Private property, in itself, is in no sense sacred. Private property is justified only in so far as the well-being of society is better served by its preservation as. an institution than society would be by some communistic or socialistic plan. We have to ask ourselves, is the system of private property as it works out to-day in industry operating for the wellbeing of mankind as a whole, or is it operating for the benefit of the very few who are being enabled to reap vast fortunes, and to the detriment of the many who are kept at a margin of subsistence throughout their lives? If the latter, can not the evil be remedied, and the good maintained without throwing over the whole structure for some the merits of which remain to be proved?
100-348i
Taking industry as we have it to-day; we have grown accustomed to accepting the view it is something which concerns two parties, mainly if not only, namely capital on the one hand, and labour on the other. The argument with respect to industry is, that capital which represents saving is invested and labour does the work; therefore capital should get its reward in the way of profits; labour should get its reward in the way of wages. Both capital and labour are necessary. Nothing can be done in the way of developing resources, except in the most primitive way, without the investment of capital, which is the use of wealth for the production of further wealth; nothing can be done without labour lending its skill, its ability and its muscular strength to help to develop resources. These two are essential-absolutely essential-and should get their reward. But either of them by themselves or both together are incapable of developing resources unless there is yet a third party to assist in the work of production. That third party is managerial ability. The world has come to recognize to-day that there is something wholly different between the function which the manager of a great industry performs and the function which an investor of capital performs. The function performed by a manager of industry is one demanding a high degree of intellectual acumen, demanding knowledge of men and how to coordinate their work, how to relate it to the needs of organized society, and a knowledge of world markets and world affairs. This is a class of ability which is very rare, and it commands-and rightly so-very high rewards in the form of salaries. It is through the. skill of management that the two parties to industry, labour and capital, are able to work together. They can work together so long as they are united by mutual confidence, but if that goes they are as helpless as the two blades of a scissors when not firmly bolted together.
But neither capital, nor labour, nor management could do anything in the way of development. of natural resources or the furthering of industrial processes without a fourth party -I shall call it the silent partner, if you. wish -which is the community, in other words organized society, which makes possible all production that results from the efforts of the other three combined. What could be done in industry without the part which the community plays?
For the sake of brevity I shall repeat here what I have said on more than one previous occasion in regard to the part which the community plays. I wish it to be understood that by "the community" I mean the entire
Family Allowances

population, every man, woman and child, rich and poor, that goes to make up the community which we know of as the nation:	*
What is 99 per cent of the expenditure of government in normal times but outlays in the nature of investment in industry: investment in property and services of one kind or another, which alone makes possible the vast cooperation and coordination of effort which is the very life-blood of industry? The vaster industrial organization becomes, the more it depends in a multitude of directions upon the investments, not of capital or labour or management, but of the community.
It is the community which provides the natural resources and powers that underlie all production. Individuals may acquire title by one means or another, but it is from the community, and with the consent of the community that titles are held. It is the community, organized in various ways, which maintains government and foreign relations, secures law and order, fosters the arts and inventions, aids education, breeds opinion, and promotes, through concession or otherwise, the agencies of transportation, communication, credit, banking, and the like, without which any production, save the most primitive, would be impossible. It is the community which creates the demand for commodities and services, through which labour is provided with remunerative employment, and capital with a return upon its investment. Apart from the community, inventive genius, organizing capacity, managerial or other ability would be of little value.
Turn where one may, it is the community that makes possible all the activities of industry, and helps to determine their value and scope.
. Community investment is supposed to receive its return in enhanced purchasing power to consumers as respects the number and quality of available services and commodities.
I hope it is clear that in the world as organized industrially to-day all that is received in the way of wages, all that is received in the way of interest on capital, all that is received in the way of salaries for managerial ability, is dependent upon what the community itself does to make possible their cooperation in the work of industry. If that is true, then the question immediately arises, where does the return to the community come in? What is the reward that the community receives? As I have indicated here, the reward that the community gets is the services and commodities which are made available for use as a result of the four parties I have mentioned working together

in production. They have worked together so successfully that they have solved the problem of production.
In the early days of the old regime of hand tools it was only a limited production of commodities and services that the parties to industry could make available for use. Pro- [DOT] duction was limited by individual skill; but to-day with the aid of machines, the parties to industry all working together, and with what the state does to keep in working order this great industrial organization, we have been able to produce so much that at times nations have destroyed large parts of what has been produced on the farms and in the fields, and some of the things that have been manufactured, rather than have them equitably distributed. Surely there is evidence of great injustice here-that the resources which were given to man for his enjoyment should actually be destroyed because production has got to the point where not only all that is needed for society is produced, but where it is possible for a large part of total production to be left in the hands of individuals rather than distributed for the well-being of the many, to say nothing of great quantities of wealth being destroyed that a privileged monopoly may be maintained. The community does get its reward in services and commodities, but it does not get a reward which for a large portion of the population begins to be adequate. It gets its reward in services and commodities for a number of individuals. The very well-to-do secure it in abundance. The comparatively well-to-do receive a limited return, but the mass of people do not begin to get from the natural resources of the country which have been given by the Creator for the benefit of all what they should get in the way of services and commodities as a result of those natural resources being transformed in the way which makes them available for human use. And that is what this particular measure, among other social security measures, seeks to bring about in the way of justice where at the present time great injustice exists.
The new conception of industry I wish to place before the house is the following:
No longer must industry be thought of as a mere revenue producing process, in which capital, labour, management, and the community meet like so many rival and contending factions, each to appropriate to itself 'by force or might the largest possible share of the fruits of industry. Industry must be thought of, as in reality it is, as in the nature of social service, and participation in industry, whether in the form of labour or capital investment, as social service of the highest kind, since upon its successful accomplishment rest all other forms of human service.

Family Allowances


Major James William Coldwell: What is the right hon. gentleman reading from?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have been reading this afternoon, where I have read, exclusively from an address I made in Toronto in 1919. What I said in that address is based on what I had set forth in the book "Industry and Humanity", which I wrote hoping it might be a contribution to my country and to other countries in the post-war period. That is what I am seeking to accomplish to-day, along with other hon. members of this house, the opportunity being at hand to express now in the form of law upon our statutes means whereby the new order can be brought into being in an effective way.
May I now refer to the effect of the existing order as it relates to justice between those members of society who have families to support and those who have none. As I have said, the wage system takes no account whatever of the family. The wage system recognizes that a certain quantity of work entitles the performer of that work be he single or married to a certain reward, but it does not go beyond that.
As I mentioned at an earlier stage in the debate, the number of families in this country in which there are children under sixteen is approximately 1.500.000. The approximate number of children of these families is 3,500,000. Over half of those families benefit in whole or part from income tax allowances for children. The families with the lowest income do not benefit from the allowance at all. It is estimated that one-third of the 500,000 families in Canada receive the full income tax allowance; that is to say, an allowance for the bringing up of their children. One-third receive a partial benefit; one-third receive nothing. Over half the children get little or no benefit from income tax allowances, and they belong to the families where the need is greatest. I ask hon. members whether that is justice either to parents or to children, having in mind that the parents of families have rendered the state its.most necessary of all services, namely, provided it with its citizenry for the years to come. Surely those who have assumed that obligation are entitled to special consideration. The one way in which that consideration can be made certain and effective is to see that those who have families do receive out of the national income some return which would help them to meet the obligations of bringing up their families on at least a minimum standard of life applicable to all. Equally the children in families who constitute the future citizenry of the country are entitled, in the interest of the country itself, to have the assurance that they
will have during the early and formative period of their lives a certain minimum of security against lack of nourishment, lack of clothing, lack of shelter, lack of food and lack of adequate education.
I should like to conclude with a reference to the effect upon the nation itself of the efforts of the system as it prevails at the present time. A nation's population is its first asset. If from any cause a country's population be reduced in numbers or vitality, its strength relatively is weakened. If men are drafted for the army they must be taken in large part from industry; if killed, wounded or enfeebled, industry suffers. If, in industry, human life is destroyed or impaired, the nation's manpower is thereby lessened. If unsanitary conditions and congested industrial areas breed disease and spread contagion and infection, no distinction of either person or class is respected. No service to the community or to industry can be greater than that which contributes to the prevention of accident and disease, or any form of impairment of health and efficiency. What physical and mental overstrain, and under-pay and under-feeding are doing for the race in occasioning infant mortality, a low birth rate and race degeneration, in increasing nervous disorders and furthering a general predisposition to disease, is appalling. These are the problems which require first consideration, if decadence is not to be the fate of industrial communities.
The war has postponed, as I have said, the hour of social reform; but it has served to arouse communities to the need of improvement in social conditions. A revitalized citizenry is now seen to be a part of the problem oi preparedness and defence. An awakened social conscience demands that conditions which make for ruin and decay in urban or rural communities must be eliminated, that the well-being of society as a whole may be conserved. Standards of living conditions and standards of working conditions are now definitely recognized as wholly essential to community well-being. This above everything else I wish to stress in relation to familes that are in humble circumstances, facing the conditions that must be faced to-day in a world like ours. To save the spirit of men from being crushed is quite as important as to prevent their bodies from being broken or infected. Many a man's spirit fails when, through no fault of his own or of his family, efficiency is permanently impaired through accident or savings become exhausted by unemployment or sickness, or where a new life in the home suggests an additional burden instead of a joy. Much invalidity and penury
Family Allowances

is due to lack of character and thrift; but much also is evidence of want of effective social control. What society fails effectively to prevent, society is in some measure under obligation to mend. That is what we are seeking to effect by this measure.
Let me give the house a few figures, which I gave before and which I now repeat, hoping they will be weighed carefully in all parts of this country, for they relate to the future of Canada if Canada is to hold her place as a country, strong enough to maintain her position in competition with other nations and in the face of situations which may arise in the course of time, when to see that its rights are fully protected this country will need all the population it can support and all the strong and vital men it can raise. I was pleased to notice that last night the hon. member for Saskatoon City (Mr. Bence) referred to this statement, which in its significance I think is as important as any statement made in this house for a long time. According to the 1941 census, of the gainfully employed forty-eight per cent are single, thirty-nine per cent of the married or widowed have no children under sixteen and forty per cent of those with children under sixteen have only one child. What does this mean? It means that eighty-four per cent of the children under sixteen in Canada are dependent upon only nineteen per cent of the gainfully employed. That, I think, makes a case as strong as any that needs to be made for seeing that these children, who are the future men and women of this country, receive adequate care, adequate nourishment, adequate clothing, adequate housing and the meeting of all other essential needs.
Before us at this time, Mr. Speaker, is what is taking place in Europe, and we know something of the future we are about to face. I was inspired to undertake the particular study of social conditions and of industrial relations subsequently published under the title of "Industry and Humanity" by a passage which was brought to my attention by my late brother, Doctor Macdougall King. While writing a book on "The Battle of Tuberculosis and How to Win It," he drew m3r attention to a profound statement made by Louis Pasteur, to whose great service to mankind I have been pleased to hear so many fine references made in this house in the course of the present debate. I give that statement to hon. members of this house that they reflect upon the significance of its every line.
Pasteur had lived at the time of the Franco-Prussian war and had seen the efforts made by Germany to destroy Europe. He was not living at the time of the last war; he could
(Mr. Mackenzie King.]
have known nothing of the present war. But we know of all these wars, and what Pasteur wrote in 1888 is surely seen to be truer than ever to-day. Pasteur required the aid of the microscope to discover the devastating germs within the blood; his finely trained intelligence enabled him to perceive like factors and forces at work in the world. In the light of his previously acquired knowledge, he saw the same conflict between individuals and between nations as he found within the human organism. This is the scientific utterance in relation to man which Pasteur has left to the world:
Two contrary laws seem to be wrestling with each other nowadays: the one, a law of blood and of death, ever imagining new means of destruction, and forcing nations to be constantly ready for the battlefield-the other, a law of peace, work, and health, ever evolving new means of delivering man from the scourges which beset him. The one seeks violent conquests, the other the relief of humanity. The latter places one human life above any victory; while the former would sacrifice hundreds of thousands of lives to the ambition of one. Which of these two laws shall ultimately prevail, God alone knows.
By the measure on family allowances before this House of Commons to-day, we are seeking to further the law of peace, work and health. Looking to the immediate establishment of a new order, we are giving to-day, by its provisions, a challenge to the law of blood and of death.


William Henry Golding: I was paired with the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.
Bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the Prime Minister if it is his intention to continue discussion of this bill in committee? I understood that we were going on with something else when the second reading had been completed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not have any such understanding. It was my intention to go on in committee, but if my hon. friend desires to wait until to-morrow, very good.


Gordon Graydon: I do not think I have any special preference, but in giving the order of business last night it was indicated that after second reading we were to go on to something else. I have no objection.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I stated last night:
In the afternoon we shall continue the debate on the family allowances measure, and if we conclude that measure we shall then return to whatever order on the list we may not have completed.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: In the year 1934 there arose a great figure named William Aberhart who preached the doctrine of $25 a month for everyone. In the year 1935 a number of members were elected to this house who were pledged to that principle. When those members began to speak the opposition to what they had to say was universal. It has been genuinely entertaining to a number of us to hear a great number of those who were most offensive in their sneers and jeers about the "$25 a month," as they said, "something for nothing," rising meekly in their places and supporting this measure. There are only two things I have to say regarding this measure- it does not go nearly far enough; the method of financing these allowances is unsound. Canada will run into bewilderment and frustration and disillusionment if the governments in power persist in trying to finance allowances and other consumer purchasing power distribution measures by means of debt money. I felt it was important to draw the attention of the house and the country to that fact.
The government is feeling its way. It is imitating the motions, but it is without the soul and driving force which is necessary in order to introduce a sound method of distribution. I think the Prime Minister did exceedingly well this afternoon in his speech, but I could not help wondering what Mr. Aberhart would feel if he knew that eight years after he introduced his great movement he would have as a follower the Prime Minister of Canada and the leader of the Liberal party.
As the Prime Minister has indicated, we are entering an age of abundance far greater than has even been hinted at at the present time. Meagre little family allowances will be simply drops in the ocean in effecting the amount of purchasing power that must be put into the hands of the public in order to enable them to consume the plentiful production we are now capable of producing. I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister upon having had the courage to introduce this measure at this time. I wish also to congratulate the members of this house for having had the good sound common sense to support this measure and pass it unanimously.
Family Allowances


Thomas Miller Bell: I should like to say
just a word. When I saw the vote this afternoon I wondered1 just why this parliament had waited such a lorjg time to pass a measure of this description. This afternoon the Prime Minister quoted speeches he made thirty-three years ago and referred to his book " Industry and Humanity," which I had the pleasure of reading a good many years ago. The Prime Minister has been in office for most of twenty-five years and at the end of that time we find a House of Commons unanimously in favour of this great social measure-for I so regard it. That is a satisfaction to everybody. But one wonders why such a measure has been delayed for so long. I look back over the last few years, as I said the other day, and I think of the misery of the ten years between 1929 and 1939. The Prime Minister this afternoon referred to his visits to people in 1911, when I was pretty young. I was glad to note what the Prime Minister said about those people at that time. But let me say to him that I only wish that in the last ten years he might have visited some of the homes in his own constituency. There he would have seen indescribable conditions. I remember being up in that constituency in 1934 and seeing little children with their feet bound up in gunnysacking because there was no money to buy boots and shoes so that they could attend school or engage in other normal activities. I say this to him too, that I am quite sure that irrespective of what the outcome of the next federal election may be, there is no party in this house which would dare to do anything ! }>ut implement this piece of legislation.1^ We shall have to extend our social service measures. It is estimated that this measure will cost the country in the neighbourhood of $200,000,000 annually. We have also a health plan which will cost possibly another $200,000,000 annually. We have men and women returning from overseas incapacitated and from other causes, and I hope eventually-I hope, I say-that we shall be spending several hundred millions of dollars to do the right thing by these men and women.
But what I want to point out now is that somehow we have to find the ways and means of providing the necessary revenues for these purposes. My hon. friends to my left a few moments ago spoke of the national dividend. I believe that a national dividend will come when we are able to control the productive resources and the national resources of this country in the public interest. I do not think

you can issue national dividends unless they can be transferred into property over which
the nation has some financial control.
I believe that this measure which we have adopted unanimously this afternoon is going to force this country along the road towards a new social order which the Prime Minister perhaps did not exactly imply this afternoon, but which is undoubtedly in the making, a new order in which the productive and natural resources of the nation will be operated in the public interest for the benefit not of a few but of the whole people of this country. We are on the threshold of tremendous changes, and we have to prepare the economic base for these social security measures.
If I have one criticism then to make of what the government has proposed and the house supported unanimously this afternoon- and I am glad that it has been unanimous- it is this: we are building the superstructure without providing the necessary foundation. After all, the necessary foundation is the goods which will validate the allowances that are now being provided for. We have reached an age of abundance, but that age of abundance cannot be taken advantage of by the people until the means of production and distribution are in the hands of the people of Canada. The people of Canada themselves hold the key to unlock the closed door.
I am glad that all this has happened this afternoon. We, as the Prime Minister said, have taken a little credit for promoting across this country many of these social measures. We still repeat that we have done a great deal along these lines. I remember a trip that I made to Great Britain in 1924. When I returned I happened to be a political candidate in the city where I lived. At that time I was actively urging old age pensions and unemployment insurance, those two great social measures which we now have on our statute books. I remember very well how my opponents, both Liberal and Conservatives, came back with the statement that I had been over to Great Britain and Europe and copied their ideas and that in this country we did not want to import the dole. I have a vivid recollection of that campaign and of what was said about those two social measures at that time.
This morning in my office upstairs I opened a letter which came from an old pupil of mine, the son of a former Liberal member of one of our legislatures in this country. That boy is now serving in the Royal Canadian Air Force in India. I have not his letter before me but I can quote pretty well what he said. He said: "I spent four years in

Family Allowances
Great Britain. I went over there with the idea that it was a very backward country, that they heated their homes with fire-grates, that they had no central heating. I understand now what you stood for in the old days in Regina. When I compare conditions in Canada with what I see in the way of cooperative endeavour and of social advancement in that country I realize that in these respects we are still in our infancy." These are not my words. They are the words of a lad whom I taught a good many years ago in Regina.
My predecessor in this movement in this house was the late Mr. J. S. Woodsworth, and I say without fear of contradiction that if anyone ever did anything to popularize these social service measures across Canada it was the late Mr. J. S. Woodsworth. I am glad that we have got this measure at last.
But there is something I must say to the Prime Minister. This afternoon when he said that there were obstacles in. the way of bringing down this measure years ago, I wondered what those obstacles were. After all, the government which has proposed this measure has been in power ever since 1921, with the exception of five years. The government has had the power to do things, and if these things were good to advocate twenty-five years ago, they certainly were good to implement long before 1944. I do not want to seem ungrateful or ungenerous, but I do want, to point out that we have waited a very long time, and now at last we have a unanimous House of Commons to support the bill that has been read a second time to-day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps I
should say a word of thanks to my hon. friend for what he has just said. He spoke of the pleasure it gave him to see this measure carried unanimously. I only wish to say that that shows how effective over recent years has been the educational work that has gone on from this side of the house by the Liberal party. My hon. friend says that we have had the power all along. But to use power without having public opinion with you is to adopt the nazi method of proceeding, which is quite contrary to the spirit of Liberalism. Part of the art of government, if I may be permitted to say so, lies in knowing when it is best to do things and when it is wiser to leave them alone Before the war the country was certainly not in the mood it is in to-day, nor did it have the understanding of social problems that it has to-day.
We have been going through another war. People have had searchings of heart which have caused them to see the necessity for
great changes. This is the opportune moment to bring down this measure and we are seizing opportunity by the hand, which may I say I believe is the right way of proceeding. We have now had about five years of war. If I had attempted to bring in a measure of this kind any sooner I believe that it would not only have been fatal to the enactment of the measure itself; the attempt so to do would also have been resented very strongly by the people of Canada. Fortunately, I think, they are now in a mood to support the measure, and I am happy indeed that that support is going to be so generously given in all parts of Canada.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am very glad that the Prime Minister, whom I have known for a long time as an advocate of social legislation, has lived1 to see so much of what he advocated enacted into law. I am grateful to hon. members on the other side who, when I rose a few moments ago to support this measure- an act for which I make no apology-expressed their appreciation with applause.
I too have been an advocate, of social legislation for a long time. I do not know whether my first efforts in that direction antedated those of the Prime Minister, because he has been interested in the subject for a long time; but away back in 1914 I was one of those who advocated what was perhaps about the earliest measure of social legislation in this country, namely workmen's comp*nsation. I did that because in the factory in which I laboured I saw on many occasions men lose a hand or a leg or otherwise become injured, and on two occasions, either because of heat or some other reason, two men fell into a cupola in which about 100 tons of iron were melting, and not even their ashes were found. I realized at that time that the workmen always had a battle to obtain any rights. I am not speaking about inability to obtain compensation from the company with which I was associated, because it was a very human organization and was managed by high-minded men. But in those days the courts were full of cases of men who had been maimed in industry and had to fight for their rights; that is, they did so if they could afford to engage the services of a lawyer or find one generous enough to plead their case for nothing. Too often these humble employees did not get the redress to which they were entitled. So that in those early days I was an advocate of workmen's compensation.
The government of the day in Ontario, which was the Whitney administration, was the first to enact such legislation. I refer to these matters because, as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar was speaking, I thought

Family Allowances

I had better correct a few of his ideas about who has been first or last in the advocacy of social legislation. Also I was one of the early advocates of mothers' allowances. My interest in this reform arose from having lived, in a neighborhood in which children blessed almost every home, and from early childhood I saw what it meant to a family if the breadwinner either died or was killed. How long mothers' allowances have been on the statute books I do not know.


Mr. HOWDEN:: May I tell my hon. friend that a Liberal government in Manitoba enacted workmen's compensation and mothers' allowances in 1915. Manitoba was the first province in Canada to do so.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is not important which ' province was the first. I know that Ontario was very early in the field, thirty years ago, and long before the late leader of the C.C.F. -for whom I had high regard and a very friendly feeling-was in this house.
Another early piece of legislation, which was mentioned by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, was unemployment insurance. May I say that I went to Europe and visited several European countries which had unemployment insurance and studied the benefits of their legislation. Perhaps I should yield precedence to the Prime Minister and some others as being ahead of myself in advocating unemployment insurance, but I was very early an idvocate of it, because I earnestly believed m it. I did so because in the plant with which I was associated were hundreds of men, the very flower of Canada. There are no finer men than the average industrial worker. No class of men have rendered more service to their country. I might instance the hon. member for Huron-Perth, who was a foreman in a small plant in the town in which he lived, and during that period found time also to serve as mayor of his community, as chairman of the hospital board, and in every worthwhile effort in the town in which he resided. He is but one of thousands; I could name many others. I name him because I see him sitting over there and because we have a certain affinity, having both laboured in businesses associated with iron and steel, his company making steel boilers and other agricultural machinery for farmers, and the large company I was associated with making boilers and radiators and steam equipment of one kind and another.
I advocated unemployment insurance because on so many occasions I saw good honest citizens laid off work through no fault of their
IMr. MacNicol.]
own and no fault of their employer, and as their wages were never high they suffered much distress.
Another piece of legislation which I advocated many years ago was the old age pension. Numerous men have supported conscientiously and honestly this social reform. The Prime Minister was an early advocate of it; I heard him speak on the subject many years ago.
Many other pieces of social legislation have been discussed in recent years. Some are federal, some wholly provincial. If all of them are not on the statute books I hope they soon will be. The importance of maternal allowances cannot be disputed. Too often the advent of a little "treasure" into the home is a heavy handicap to the breadwinner, the ordinary humble honest heroic citizen. The allowance should apply at least to every family whose income is not more than $2,500 a year. If this provision is not on our statute book it should be. It is in effect in England. Of course in Canada the present Prime Minister and his predecessors have been faced with the problem of the nine provinces. I hope the time is not far distant-now that space is almost annihilated with the advent of radio and aeroplanes and swift automobiles and fast trains-when the federal government will have much more power than it has to-day, so that it can do what New Zealand has done, what Australia, whose federal constitution permits a little more latitude than ours, has been able to do, and what the British government long ago put into effect.
Mr. Chairman, I was almost going to say I am a worshipper of the old country; they have been so far ahead of us and1 any other country in social legislation. They have set the way for all of us and they deserve unstinted praise. The reason why they have been able to do it is that they are not circumscribed by nine provincial governments, from whom they had to get permission to do certain things. I am not going to speak on the constitutionality of this measure; it does not interest me. If this government has the power to do it, then I give them all credit for having gone ahead with it. This constitution business is something I am not competent to talk on. Therefore I have no reference to make to it.
Another thing that I have seen in my long association with industry is the terrible hardships that are experienced by the workingman's family when he, the bread-winner, becomes sick or his wife becomes sick. They have no sick benefits. For some years we have had this in some plants. We followed the programme which was adopted in England, away back in the early nineteenth century.

Family Allowances
d543
At that time great labour organizations organized, instituted and successfully carried on sick benefits. I am a strong believer in sick * benefits. When the bread-winner at the ordinary low salary is taken sick or his wife is taken sick and he is placed in a position where he cannot carry on, why should he not have sick benefits? I do not know where they are to come from, but they should come from somewhere. If we have the authority to do these things I say, go ahead and bring in legislation along that line.
There is another group about whom I have been making a long investigation for quite a period of time, namely, the crippled. I have in mind at the present moment a man who is badly crippled. He is taken around in one of those little four-wheel child's wagons. He is a very fine man, an excellent musician, a man of high character. But as a child I suppose he became afflicted with spinal meningitis or something else that affected his legs so that he could never walk. He has been a cripple all his life. Society did not give him any chance. Our governments have not given him any chance. I hope that if the Prime Minister lives long enough-I cannot hope that he is to be Prime Minister much longer- but if he is-and no one can tell to-day who is to be Prime Minister after the next election-I suggest to him that he consider the cripples. There are many of them. I know a little girl who lives near my home. It would make your heart ache to see her getting around. She sits on the floor and throws one leg in front of her and draws the other behind her. She is unable to get a position anywhere. Society gives her nothing, and so far as I know the government gives her nothing. If the provinces would do it-


Frederick Clayton Casselman: I wonder if the hon. member knows that the social security committee is recommending a grant to the provinces to be used for aid to crippled children under the draft health bill which has been under consideration during the, last few years?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Let me say that I have studied the matter for quite a number of years, but I have never been able to get anywhere. I brought it up in this house some years ago. All I have to say is that if the provinces will not act, let the federal government act. The crippled child has the right to have a square deal from society and it is not getting a square deal to-day. The crippled child cannot get a position-


John Horne Blackmore: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does he imagine that there is any province that would refuse a grant in aid from the dominion for the purpose of the crippled children?
1.00-349i


John Ritchie MacNicol: No, I did not say that and I think the government-


John Horne Blackmore: Why all the excitement then?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Because it is not being done to-day. I am not blaming the federal
government.


John Horne Blackmore: The federal government is not granting the money. You are starting with the cart before the horse.


John Ritchie MacNicol: No, I am not doing any
such thing. I am saying that the horse, which in your case I suppose is the provincial government, is balky and will not do anything. If the cart is the federal government, then let the cart commence to take more notice of these things. The blind are being taken care of and have been for some time. I advocated pensions for the blind years ago and we had a committee on it a few years ago. I am glad that the government has granted contributions to the blind. I believe they are on the same basis to-day as the old age pensioners, are they not? That is all to the country's credit. These are four other social situations which I hope will be taken care of. I give the government credit for everything it has done. It deserves credit for what it has done, but we can all go farther.
That, Mr. Chairman, is my own humble contribution, small I know, but I never missed an opportunity to speak on these things, nor have I for the last twenty-five to thirty-five, years and more. As one who has had some humble part in advocating and supporting these measures, I am glad to see that in the majority of cases they have come to pass.
I have only two observations to make with reference to the bill now before us. I am not clear on section 2. We have not yet come to it, but I may as well say something about it now. I am not clear about the position of the Canadian soldier who has lived here all his lifetime and had the courage to enlist. I honour those men who have the courage to enlist voluntarily. I know numbers from the riding I have the honour to represent. That riding is composed mostly of old country people, particularly the north end1 of it, almost solidly, and they have enlisted en masse. I know of one family by the name of David Seggie, of Harvie avenue, Toronto, a Scotsman who came over here from the old country, his blood being of that, martial strain of old Scotland; his seven sons enlisted voluntarily. Four of them are in Italy, I believe; two of them in Britain and one here in Canada. That is the whole family. If the Prime Minister still continues as Prime Minister
Family Allowances

and does not call an election too soon, I hope that he will consider some decoration or consideration for the families who have sent all their sons, either one son or more, because the mother and father who give their only son cannot do any more, and the man who sends all seven sons-oh, I cannot see anything for him but the kindest consideration when he has made a contribution of that magnitude.
I am not clear as to just where the father, a young Canadian who was born and raised here and who went to England and married an English girl, or on old country girl, English, Irish, Scotch or Welsh, or whatever it may be, and has children over there, fits into this picture. I cannot see why his children should not come under this legislation. If they do not I hope the Prime Minister, because he has a big heart, is generous and has as much love for these children as anyone in the country, will look after this matter. I cannot think of him barring a child bom of a Canadian father overseas.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is no
intention that I know of. I do not know whether my hon. friend is referring to cases of children who continue to live abroad indefinitely. That, I think, would have to be provided against. But certainly from the moment a child is back in Canada it will apply.


John Ritchie MacNicol: They will be over there for two or three years. Their father is still a Canadian; he cannot come back. I know quite a number of them, the Seggie boys, for instance, who have been over there for four years, one of them for almost five years. If they married and had children over there they would be Canadian children in every sense of the word. Fathers cannot come back. The state does not want them to come back. The state wants them to stay there to do their manly duty in winning this war. They want to stay there to win this war. If the bill is not clear on that I have no doubt that it will be cleared up. I just wished to say a word on that. I did not speak on the second reading of the bill. Had I spoken I would have dealt with that aspect of it. I had no intention of rising to oppose the bill.
One other suggestion was made by my leader, who himself endeavoured to take part in the last war. I do not know whether or not he was overseas, but I do know that he endeavoured to get into the army. In the course of his speech he suggested something with which I am heartily in accord. It may not be possible to accomplish, but I hope the Prime Minister will give it consideration. The suggestion was that this legislation be made applicable at once to the children of the
TMr. MacNicol.J
*ft.
soldiers who are on active service to-day, many of whom have been wounded and gone to hospital, and some of whom have died. I understand that under the dependents' allowance legislation the government has complete power to make this legislation applicable to the families of those soldiers at once, and I do not see why that should not be done. I do hope the Prime Minister will find some way of making this measure operative as soon as possible with respect to the children of soldiers serving in any theatre of war.
I believe that is all I have to say. I had just those two thoughts, in regard to children born to Canadian parents overseas and children of soldiers on active service. If some way could be found to permit them to obtain these benefits immediately, I think that would be a wonderful step in the right direction. I do not see why they should have to wait until next year. Our men overseas are going through what tongue cannot describe. All we see is pictures in our daily press or illustrated magazines. How human hearts and flesh and blood can stand what these men are going through in the front line and on our fighting ships is something I cannot comprehend. God Almighty in his wisdom strengthened the hearts of humans to stand what must be stood, and out of respect for the great contribution these men are making I hope the government will be able to find some way to make this legislation applicable to the children of those men now.


Thomas Langton Church: For five minutes I wish to refer to the first section of the bill only. Last night I gave my views on the totalitarian and socialistic aspects of the matter dealt with in this legislation. I gave qualified support to this measure on second reading because I believe it will help the small wage-earners who have large families and who are suffering at the present time. I have seen the situation as it exists in the Toronto district. The large number of members we have on this side of the house came from the province of Ontario, and mainly the Toronto district which is suffering most at the present time because of a lack of housing accommodation. I urge the government to call a conference immediately with the provinces and the larger municipalities with regard to this bill. The bill was not referred to any committee. I do not want to say anything now that might cause differences of opinion here, because the house has approved the principle of the bill, but I wish now to urge the government to take action along four or five lines.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, up to the present the municipalities have had to do the greatest share of the work in connection with

Family Allowances
social services to our citizens. Measures of this kind have been loaded upon them after every war. The very same conditions arose in 1803, when the Addington administration came into power, and the same thing has occurred since-a demand for material things of all kinds. The materialism of the age has become apparent; people want the government now to look after all sorts of agencies. As I said last night, prior to the South African war one of the glories of the Victorian era was the belief that the state had no money except what came from the taxpayers. The Victorian era built up assets for the future, which we have squandered on many services, some unnecessary. In those days the people kept the state. To-day, with the teachings of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation we are heading for the time when the state will keep the people. Let us get back to basic principles in connection with this bill. The first thing to be done is to eliminate the duplicate control system and do away with all these big bureaux here in Ottawa. The relief bureaux of our municipalities can do this work. We made a start in 1935, on my select committee, the committee "on housing and reconstruction", which made a report to the previous administration. When the new government came in, it adopted very largely a low cost housing scheme, on which it spent $80,000,000. We should spend $200,000,000 on housing immediately, because under this legislation not one cent will be spent until after the next election. The first payments will not be made until July 1, 1945. In the meantime aid housing and a fuel supply. The interval between now and July 1, 1945, should be devoted to further investigation of all provisions of the bill in the manner I indicated last evening, namely, at a conference with the provinces and larger municipalities.
The burden of debt of these social services of all kinds must be lifted from the municipalities, because the ordinary municipal tax rate contains at least three to five mills for purely social services, and some of the burden of debt must be removed from real estate. We must have low cost housing, cheap light and power, transportation services, hospital accommodation, and so on; and all these matters could be dealt with at a conference such as I have suggested. I do not want the government to consider this matter ended with the hip, hip, hurrah of the vote this afternoon. It takes far more than an act of parliament to secure a cent for the poor from this bill. This is far from the end of it. The government need not go throughout the country and say, "We did it", and all that sort of thing. The whole bill is nothing but a gesture to the left, and I have never yet made any gestures to the
left. I can tell you this, that if we adopt the proposals of the C.C.F. we shall have a totalitarian socialist state in which everybody will work for the government and under which all liberty, all freedom, and ownership of private property will go.
We have not a perfect bill here; far from it. As I say, no allowance will be paid until July 1 of next jmar. In the meantime the government have a chance to do something for the municipalities by assuming the whole cost of all social services, including hospitalization, relief, and the burdens now on the municipalities. One result of the vote to-day will be to dry up all subscriptions to charities, churches and other organizations. I believe we could cut down the cost of this legislation considerably by providing gainful employment, social security and aid along the lines I have indicated. The state has no money for all these ventures, except what it gets from the taxpayers; one of the sections of this bill provides that parliament must vote annually the necessary funds. We should let the federal authority take over the whole cost of these social services from the municipalities. Let the federal authority pay for them and in that way relieve the municipalities and real estate of the cost, and help as a substitute for this bill by extension of these social security measures.
Last evening the junior member for Halifax said I had stated that we had power to make these payments. I did not say anything of the kind. I referred to the various reports that have been made during the last number of years; to the work of the committee on industrial relations in 1926, 1927 and 1928, and to the references to the courts and then to the privy council, to the Rowell report, and so on, and said they all came back to the words "public debt and profit" back to the basic principle of the federal authority to vote all funds they wanted under these words. I discussed the question of whether, by agreement with the provinces, we could vote any sums of money we wished to meet the cost of social services, in connection with technical education, old age pensions and that sort of thing, under the words "public debt and property", feared that, unless improved, the bill would wind up in the law courts.
I am opposed to a socialist, totalitarian state, the doctrines of which would be foreign to the will and soul of Canada, as they are foreign to the will of the mother country. The key to happiness, as it has been in the past, should lie in the ownership of private property, and we must work to relieve private property of the burdens in restraint of trade which have been placed upon it. The key to
Family Allowances

happiness lies in work and thought for others, and not in the searchings after material things and in gainful employment.
I believe the right to possess private property is derived from nature, and not from man, and that the state has no right to abolish it, but can only regulate its use. This burden of $200,000,000 could be reduced to one-tenth that size, or to $20,000,000, if we were not to have a large administrative set-up in offices all over this country, and only those who need it were to secure it. All this money could be distributed to the municipalities throughout the provinces to administer on a national standard plan. The work could be conducted by the various welfare organizations already established in the provinces, and by the welfare boards in the municipalities. If this were done we would be able to eliminate much of the burden of debt now imposed on real estate by this enlarging of social services across Canada, and save duplication and waste.
I support what the government has done for this city of Ottawa, because it has followed out a policy dear to the Prime Minister's heart. I do not object to the expenditure of money in Ottawa, and other places doing the same should get the same aid, but I think three or four mills of Ottawa's tax rate could be put on driveway widenings and on the parks system, and to improve housing conditions here. Other cities doing like work get no federal aid. Vast improvements could be made in our social security measures. Possibly the improvement of housing is the key to the whole social security system, since it relates to the health and happiness of the masses. The modern, small house is greatly needed.
In Toronto to-day we need 25,000 of those houses. Less than one per cent of houses are vacant, and I am informed that 600 soldiers could be put out of their homes to-morrow. However, a court order has been issued postponing the evictions. We could accomplish much more in respect of social services, as the British government has done, if we had a proper housing system, with proper fuel and proper transportation, light, power and other civic services.
I have made reference before to a hospital of which members and ministers' families are well aware. I have in mind the Sick Children's hospital of Toronto, and the magnificent work it has done for the poor people in that city and in Ontario. That work has been done through public subscription. True, they do receive a per diem allowance; but the work that hospital is doing for children from all parts of Ontario has resulted in saving the lives of many of those children. That work is done solely by private subscription and the
(Mr. Church.)
aid of a per diem allowance, and with no federal aid whatever. I know the daughter of one hon. member, who sometimes presides in your absence, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Huron-Perth (Mr. Golding), a former mayor, was a nurse in that hospital, and a very fine nurse, too. In its social services scheme the government could give something toward the upkeep of such wonderful places which have brought such joy and health to the sick children of Ontario.
I know that eighty per cent of the patients at the Sick Children's hospital of Toronto do not pay one cent, and the other twenty per cent pay very little. The out-door patients pay practically nothing. As I travel on the street cars I see them going to the hospital to receive treatment. These are largely poor people who cannot afford to pay for it. .
As I have said, I believe we could effect a great economy in the operation of this measure, and that we could do it for possibly only one-tenth of the $200,000,000. I should hope the government would consider these suggestions during the recess of parliament. No doubt the bill will pass, but I have raised these objections because I have all my life supported reasonable, sound services adapted to our circumstances and I have always supported the work of the social services. I am not a mere beginner. I have been in it all my life. I appreciate that much has been done by some of the municipalities and by the provinces along this line. I believe the provinces and municipalities could be linked up into a joint united scheme and could thereby effect great economies, without setting up this great .spending department here in Ottawa, and thus remove federal burdens from real estate. We might eliminate some of the abuses in our social system which have ' crept in during the war, and we would go a long way toward promoting better social conditions for the working classes in this country.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: The observations of the hon. member for Davenport and the hon. member for Broadview prompt me to make a few comments. They have referred to the late Mr. Woodsworth, and to the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in particular. I have no doubt that the hon. members are most generous in their home communities, but the fact remains that they did happen to be in parliament when their party was in office between 1930 and 1935. I do not think that any government ever received a clearer mandate from the people, or that any government has ever had a worse record in dealing with the problems we have been discussing in the last few days.

Family Allowances
The hon. member for North Battleford made some reference to her personal experience during those years. At that time I was in one of the pioneer communities of Canada.
I cannot think of any government in any country of the world which was more heartless than the Conservative administrations both provineially and federally during that period of time.
I received a call a few days ago from one of my constituents who has just returned after spending nearly four years overseas. This man was a veteran of the last war, having spent two years in the armed services before he was nineteen. He was unfortunate enough to have to live in northern Saskatchewan and to have to seek help through the Conservative government. The very best he could get was $5 a month for himself and wife, and an extra dollar for his child. Those were the family allowances available in Saskatchewan during that period of time-a dollar a month per child, with $5 for the parents. If there were five children in the family they might look forward to receiving $10 a month, which was the maximum relief allowance in the bush.
I recall looking into the case of a widow with four children. I discussed this matter with the Conservative minister of agriculture of Saskatchewan, who happened to be our local representative at the time. It was this family's misfortune to have lost the father, as a result of impaired health, following a most distinguished career overseas with the Canadian army. He left this small family of four children, two of whom were twins. The mother was English and was not familiar with the problems confronting the pioneer in the north. That family found a home in our community. Their income was slashed from $35 to $24 a month. I remember the figures vividly, because they represented a slash of over thirty per cent.
About that time the provincial treasurer was replaced on orders from Ottawa, because apparently he was too generous with the people's money. Another provincial treasurer took over the strong-box, in order that the money might be spent cautiously. Hon. members will understand that a widow who has to buy everything -she eats and all she wears must be even more skilful than the Minister of Finance, if she is to manage a family of five on $24 a month.
I have in mind another case. These people went into the northern country in 1919. The father had served during the Boer war, and again in the great war. His wife looked after the family while he was overseas. When they first went in there they were about fifty-eight miles away from the railway. They managed
to give their children a good education, but it was a very hard and long pull. The government of the day gave assistance m that community on the basis I have indicated, but could not see that adequate health and educational services were required. There were those at the time who felt that frontier people did not deserve any more. I should like to remind the committee that the people in those pioneering communities have made a wonderful contribution to the life of this country. Young people from those communities have joined the services.
The family I mentioned that went back fifty-eight miles has had a most unusual record. As I said, the father was a veteran of the Boer war, a veteran of the great war, and joined the veterans' guard of this war. They educated four children. The eldest boy joined the air force before the war started. The younger boy ' joined since and has been invalided home. Unfortunately the older boy will never return again. The mother, who is also a grandmother, joined the C.W.A.C. and is making an outstanding contribution during the present conflict. I had the pleasure of introducing her to the Minister of National Defence when she was last in Ottawa. Surely such people deserve better than we gave them in the thirties.
I think the Prime Minister is to be commended for introducing legislation of this kind on the assumption that people such as I have mentioned are just as important as people on St. James street, Montreal, or on Bay street, Toronto. When citizens in a community, whether it be Hudson Bay Junction or in the Peace River country, are obliged to live under conditions where $5 a month for the family is the maximum amount available, it is a reflection upon the entire country. I* do not feel that the Prime Minister was on strong ground when he intimated that he did not have public sentiment with him previously. I think there have been many occasions during the past twenty-five years when public sentiment would have been with the government had legislation of this kind been proposed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is the hon. member aware that in 1929 a motion was moved in this house by Mr. Letellier, seconded1 by the former leader of. the present C.C.F., Mr. Woodsworth, proposing that the question of family allow-tamces be referred for committee consideration, and the whole question was referred to the committee on industrial and international relations? That committee, of which Mr. Woodsworth was a devoted member, decided to do nothing about the matter. I just mention that as an indication of the sort of thing the Prime Minister had in mind.
Family Allowances


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I have no doubt that what the hon. member says is correct. I am sure that if the late Mr. Woodsworth was a member of that committee he felt that something should be done, but unfortunately he did not have the majority he needed to take action.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to read from the report of the committee dated Friday, May 31, 1929. The late Mr. Woodsworth was a member of that committee, as was the hon. member for Broadview, who, I believe, is the only member of that committee who is still a member of this house. The report of that committee concludes with this paragraph:
Your committee begs to submit the evidence of these witnesses on the subject matter of investigation, and recommends that (a) as this proposal is new in Canada and requires more careful consideration, no immediate action shall be taken.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I thank my hon. friend for the information he has given.
In conclusion, I want again to express my personal appreciation of the legislation which has been brought forward. I hope the Prime Minister will continue to bring in the other social legislation he proposed twenty-five years ago.


Alfred Henry Bence: I should like to refer again to a matter I brought up last night when I was speaking on the second reading. I asked what consideration had been given by the administration to the whole matter of the taxation fields and the question of reallocation of responsibility as between the provinces and the dominion, particularly in view of the fact that the provinces have agreed to give up certain fields of taxation for the duration of the war in order to assist the administration 4 in the prosecution of the war. As I said last night, I am particularly concerned about the eventual implementing of the report of the Sirois commission, and I am concerned that the decision of the administration at this time to bring in this measure, with the tremendous amount of taxes that will have to be levied and the tremendous amount of money that will be paid out, may militate against the future implementing of the report of that commission dealing with the reallocation of responsibilities and the establishment of social services.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The finance department has given careful consideration to the financial implications of this measure as it affects the dominion treasury and the relations between the provinces and the dominion. The view the finance department has taken in a broad way is, as I understand it, that

this measure is calculated to assist the revenues of the country, that it will bring about a considerable increase in production and employment which will be a contributing factor toward increasing the national income.
This is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the federal government, but as my hon. friend says there are relations between the provinces and the dominion that apply to all matters that affect finance. Those will be duly considered at the right time. I know the department has explored the aspect to which my hon. friend has referred and it feels that those relations will not be embarrassed by proceeding at this time with this measure.


John Horne Blackmore: I believe that this is the time when man's mind must be directed toward the solution and methods and techniques-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend probably heard the conversation that took place between the leader of the opposition and myself when the house went into committee. There seems to be an understanding on the part of some members that my reference of last night to continuing with some other measures after this measure had been disposed of referred to the second reading of the bill and they made their arrangements in the light of that understanding. I think in those circumstances it would be advisable to continue with other measures after eight o'clock and further consideration of this measure can be continued at a later time. In the meantime, I am anxious to make a brief statement to the committee in reply to questions that have been asked in regard to the destruction of United States stores in the northwest, and if my hon. friend will not think I am impolite I should like to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


John Horne Blackmore: If I could have two
minutes-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes; if my
hon. friend will take two minutes and not more.


John Horne Blackmore: Remarks have been
made which I believe we should answer. My first remark is a general reference to the statement of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar that he has advocated measures of social security. I would draw the attention of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and his followers to the fact that the Social Credit party has advocated measures of social security equal if not superior to those advocated by the

Civil Service Superannuation
C.C.F. But the C.C.F. party are endeavouring to do their utmost to destroy the Social Credit party.
The Social Credit party has a method of financing which, in my judgment, is of world significance. The Social Credit party has advocated a method of financing which has not been advocated by any other group in Canada. The method is unique and is sound, and it will be proved so by history just as sure as we sit here. But the C.C.F. are trying to destroy that method of financing along with the Social Credit party.
I now turn to the hon. member for Davenport. There is a great tendency on the part of a lot of men to think that you just cannot have social security methods except by setting up some great big unmanageable state. They think you cannot have social security in Canada unless you concentrate all the power in Ottawa and take all the power away from the provinces. They assume that the men in the provinces, Anglo-Saxons, Britishers, intelligent men, do not know how to manage the affairs of a province. That is a stupid idea. If the hon. member for Davenport will remember that if the power to create money in the hands of the dominion government be exercised and the resultant money be distributed equitably among the provinces, all the other matters pertaining to social security and economic well-being can safely be left to the intelligent men of the provinces who have been elected to take care of their affairs.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house met at eight o'clock.


CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION
[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Jaistice) moved the second reading of bill No. 171, to amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act.
Mr. G. L. BOUCHER (Carleton); Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to rise and give approval to the bill brought before the house by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley), through the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent). I hope hon. members will give it unanimous approval, because it is another step in ironing out the great number of difficulties of employees of the dominion government. I believe that in these days, when we are all considering changing the old order and thinking more of human beings than of material things, and are facing reconstruction day where changes must be brought about, and, when, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said this afternoon, a new order must be brought into existence, we should first attempt to remove a number of handicaps and the difficulties of the old order.
I approve the provision in this bill allowing many servants of the government who have served for many years to enter the civil service superannuation fund and partake with their fellow servants of the crown in the benefits of superannuation. Superannuation is a matter in which the government should give a lead, and we should extend it so far as we can. I am sure that many hon. members and, indeed, many people in the country at large have little knowledge of the difficulties which arise in the administration of civil service affairs and of the inequities which prevail there, even though it is run by the government of Canada as the employer. The government should be a model employer of labour and of help and set an example for the rest of the employers of the country to follow. I do not think the dominion government should require persons who have served the crown faithfully for from one to forty years to retire at an advanced age without adequate means of support for themselves and their dependents. It would be a black mark upon our national life and our national pride if such conditions were to continue.
I have thought that in this bill we could have gone farther. In various departments of the government there are employees whose status is temporary simply by virtue of statutory enactment and regulation. Some of them -and I could quote statistics from a pamphlet I have received recently from the printing bureau-have been employed by the government for from forty-six to fifty years; yet they may still be temporary employees.
I believe that this bill will go a long way toward remedying another situation, mainly, that of those who are commonly known as prevailing rate employees. A great many civil service employees are engaged through the civil service commission. I think the present state of affairs is fairly satisfactory so far as those receiving appointment through the commission are concerned. The great difficulty arises over those who are not appointed under the Civil Service Act but are prevailing rate employees. I regret that this bill does not go quite far enough in the interests of those
Civil Service Superannuation
[Stage Direction]
who are not permanent but are temporary and may or may not be on prevailing rates. They need not necessarily be permitted to enter the superannuation fund, but will have to contribute under the retirement allowance provision, so much being deducted from their pay, without assistance from the government. There is a provision in the bill in this regard which can be discussed when we come to the relevant sections, whereby, upon recommendation of the treasury board, they may be brought in either individually or as a class to partake of the privileges of the superannuation fund.
I would point out how unfair it is to have employees working side by side under different arrangements, with different rights and different privileges upon retirement. One matter which has come to my attention and to which I should like to refer is an illustration of other conditions of a similar nature. Many of our returned soldiers of the last war were privileged to secure employment under the soldier settlement board in 1919. In that branch of the government they were not entitled to become permanent employees or to partake of the privileges of the civil service superannuation fund, until that privilege was granted to them in 1932. They were then permitted to receive the benefits of the civil service superannuation fu*d upon the condition that they would pay into that fund what they would have been required to pay if they had been permanently employed since 1919. These sums have been deducted from their salaries since 1932 to meet the total payments which they would have made from 1919.
Another situation with them which I think is particularly undesirable at this time is that, even though they thereby get their superannuation arrears paid up to, date, when the time comes for their retirement on superannuation it is governed by the ten-year period preceding their retirement. Yet in>
the government service at the present time are employees other than these returned soldiers who entered the service of the government prior to 1932-say, in 1923, 1924 or 1925-who were allowed to subscribe to the superannuation fund, and whose retirement allowance is measured on a five-year rather than on a ten-year basis. This means to say that their superannuation allowance is calculated upon an average of' the last five years of their service to the crown. So that others who were not returned soldiers and entered the government service in 1923 or 1924 under different conditions have the advantage of the five-year period, whereas returned soldiers who came in in 1919 and were allowed in 1932 to participate

in the fund were placed on the ten-year basis. In my humble opinion that is discrimination.
I believe it is definitely unjust, because it makes quite a bit of difference, particularly if civil servants earn promotion. If that promotion comes within the last few years, instead of close to ten years from the time of their superannuation, it makes a big difference in the amount of superannuation allowance they can get. I suggest that the government would be well advised to take this matter under review.
There is another matter which perhaps does not come exactly under this bill, but it certainly is pertinent to it, namely, that of temporary employees who remain for many years under the status of temporaries, although to all intents and purposes, other than that of statutory enactment, they are permanent employees, or their jobs are secure to them from year to year, and there is no definite reason to give why they should not be permanent.
The other matter to which I wish to make reference is that of classification. I do not think I should go into the subject of classification to-night, but I feel that it is something that we as a parliament should be very considerate about. The dominion experimental farm is located in my county. There are men working there as temporaries and classified as labourers who have been doing skilled work, even to the tune of building machines for particular purposes, doing particular handicrafts, having worked up a particular skill in these handicrafts in their years of employment. I believe they are still classified as labourers. If they had been working for an industry other than the government they would merit promotion by reason of their skill. They would have served their apprenticeship and would have qualified for that more advantageous classification and higher rank of pay and better benefits under the act. I do not wish to delay the house in giving second reading to the bill, but I felt that I should at least point out the two things in the civil service that should be attended to at this particular time.
In closing, I should like to urge that we as a parliament should clean our own house; we should thoroughly clean our own house by administering our own affairs with our own employees with the utmost fairness to give an example to the whole country to follow. I believe that it would be only a matter of giving the lead and it would help materially to advance a more human era than a .material one. I am pleased indeed to give support to this bill in every way I can. I think the

Civil Service Superannuation
hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) threw out his chest with pride at the fact that it was the Liberal government that had brought in this measure. I rather bow my head in shame to think it was the government of Canada that has let this thing run for twenty or twenty-five years, knowing that this reforrp was needed, particularly in view of the fact that the Liberal party of which he is so proud has been in power for so many of the last twenty-five or thirty years.
Stanley Howard Knowles: a month. I repeat; she was told that she would receive these cheques monthly during her lifetime or until she remarried.
Obviously the lady could not live on SI 1.96 a month, so that in November of that same year, the year in which her husband died, she secured char work in the dominion public service. From November 16, 1936, until June 1, 1941, a period of four and a half years, she drew two cheques, her superannuation cheque of $11.96 a month and her wages, which amounted to S55 a month. When it is realized that those two cheques together, prior to the addition of the cost-of-living bonus, totalled only $66.96 a month, no one can complain about the fact that she was receiving two cheques from the federal government, and until December 24, 1940, this was quite in order as far as the laws of the land were concerned. On December 24, 1940, however, the government passed order in council P.C. 21/7609, forbidding-amongst other provisions -widows of civil servants to draw two cheques from the government, in other words to draw a pension such as this widow was receiving and at the same time receive payment for work such as she was doing. However, the case of this widow did not come to the attention of the government until some months later, so that she continued1 to draw both cheques until June 1, 1941, at which time her superannuation was suddenly cut off. As a matter of fact on June 13, 1941, she received a letter asking for her to refund superannuation payments that had been made to her for the period from December 24, 1940, to June 1, 1941. To the honour of the government on this minor point I must say that a little later they passed another order in council removing the necessity for refunds of that kind. Certainly they could have done nothing less in this case, for this widow was in no position to make any such refund.
I came into the picture, as far as this particular case was concerned, in January, 1943, when I began to write letters and got in touch with the department concerned to see if something could not be done for this lady. It seemed to me that the claim of the widow was based on a definite contract from the government under which she was to receive $11.96 a month as long as she lived. Only one stipulation was made when that superannuation was awarded to her, namely, that she must not remarry, and she had not done so. On February 11, 1943, the government passed another order in council, P.C. 5/1111, in which they reversed the position taken in the order in council passed in December of 1940 and granted permission to the widows of civil ser-

vants to draw their pensions and also receive pay from the government for work in the public service, provided that the two together did not total more than $3,000. As soon as I saw that this order in council had been passed I quickened my activities on behalf of this widow, and it was not very long before the superannuation branch restored her pension rights as from February 1, 1943. Since that time she has been drawing her pension of $11.96 as well as the monthly cheque she receives for her char work in the public service. I emphasize the fact that for four and a half years, up to June 1, 1941, this widow drew the two cheques totalling $66.96. Also, since February 1, 1943, she has been drawing the two cheques. But during the interval of twenty months she was denied her superannuation payments. When I read the notice in which employees were advised of the order in council of December 24, 1940, I found in it words to the effect that superannuation payments of this kind were suspended, and would be treated as deferred benefits. The widow in question, and I with her, dared to hope that this meant she would get it again later on. That was what we thought "deferred benefits" meant, namely, that it was money being held to her credit which would be paid to her at a later date. In due course, however, I learned from the superannuation branch and from the Minister of Finance that this was not the case; that by "deferred benefits" in the order in council the government meant that the payment of the superannuation was suspended until such time as it might be restored by another order in council, or until such time as the widow in question might terminate her employment in the public service, but the amount withheld was never paid to her.
I have had a considerable volume of correspondence in connection with this one case, partly because I have felt that this woman has suffered a particular injustice, and also because of the information conveyed to me by the Minister of Finance that there are hundreds like her. It has a particular way of getting under my skin when I find people of this class and this standard of living being taken advantage of in this way. My complaint to the Minister of Finance was to the effect that a contract had been broken. In one of my letters to the minister, dated May 18, 1944, I said:
May I call your attention, as I have done before, to the terms of the letter which Mrs. . . . received from the Department of Finance, dated December 28, 1936. when she was advised that her allowance of $143.56 per annum had been granted; it included this sentence:	"This is

Civil Service Superannuation
payable during your lifetime or until remarriage." I contend that this contract has been broken.
The Minister of Finance replied on May 30; he dealt with other points I raised and then gave attention to the paragraph in which I complained about the breaking of the contract. This is what he had to say:
On the question of contract, as stated in my letter of May 4, the effect of order in council of December 24, 1940, was to give pensioners the option of continuing to take their pension without working for the government, or entering the public service with a forfeiture of pension while the higher income was being received.
Of course it is a bit risky to paraphrase what someone else has said; I know when people paraphrase my words I am seldom satisfied that they do it right. Nevertheless I am going to paraphrase what the minister has said. It seems to me that in effect his statement, as far as the contract is concerned, was this: "We said to these people with whom we had made a solemn contract for life, 'We now give you the privilege of having that contract suspended in order that you may continue to receive from the government this other cheque, or if you wish the contract kept you will have to cease work'." The Minister of Finance in this and other letters made the point that there would be a good many people like her. I shall quote from his letter of May 4, 1944:
I am told that in all probability hundreds, possibly thousands of widows joined the civil service after the passage of the order in council ol December 24, 1940, preferring to receive tile substantially larger income which came to them m the form of pay for their services, than their pensions would have given them.
The minister went on to point out that because there were so many he did not see how he could deal with the case I had referred to him, without dealing with all these cases. My contention is that if contracts have been broken in a good many cases, the request to have one of them corrected should not be met with an answer like that. It should be met with an attempt on the part of the government to correct the situation wherever a wrong has been done, no matter how many instances there may be.
There may be cases where widows have been able to secure employment in the public service at quite high salaries, which would make the continuance of the pension unnecessary. But in cases like this, of widows doing char work, their total remuneration amounting to only S50 or $60 a month, making it difficult for them to get along, it seems to me that the government has gone a little too
far in passing an order in council of that kind, and that it should reconsider this whole position.
I point out that by the order in council of February 11, 1943, P.C. 5/1111, the government admitted that it passed an unfair order in council in P.C. 21/7609, on December 24, 1940. I raise this case, following the tremendous amount of correspondence I have already had over eighteen months with respect to this matter, in the hope that further consideration may be given to it. The amount involved in connection with the widow about whom I have written is only $239.20. But that amount means a good deal to a woman in her situation, as it must to many others in similar circumstances.
She still has in her mind the memory of the deductions made from her husband's salary when he was employed in the public service years ago. As a matter of fact I have before me the letter dated July 19, 1922, which he was given, telling him that five per cent of his salary was to be deducted for the purpose of providing a retirement allowance for him, or for his widow if he should die first. She has in addition to that the letter she received after his death telling her that this was her allowance for lifetime, unless she remarried. There was a period of four and a half years when she received both cheques. She is receiving both now; and yet she is told that for that period of twenty months between June, 1941, and February, 1943, the contract was broken, that the money has simply gone back into the consolidated revenue fund and that at no time in the future will she be able to get it.
I earnestly hope the government will give reconsideration to the effect produced by the order in council of December 24, 1940, which was partially corrected by the order in council of February 11, 1943, but which job was not completed.
In closing, may I say, as I said when discussing the same subject two days ago, that in these times when the government is saying so much-and rightly so-about the desirability of establishing social security and fashioning a new order, which needs must come following the suffering and sacrifice our people have gone through, surely the place for the government to begin that sort of thing is right on its own doorstep, and without continuing any cases of injustice, such as the one to which I have referred.


Ralph Maybank: Mr. Speaker, there are one or two aspects of this bill to which I should like to address myself, and concerning which I would
Civil Service Superannuation

make a few remarks. In the first place I think this is an excellent piece of legislation, and I am pleased indeed to see it introduced at the present time. I should have been glad to see it introduced at any time; in fact it would have pleased me to have seen it introduced some considerable time ago. I am not saying that in any critical spirit, because everyone knows that we have had a very great deal of good legislation in the past couple of years, and1 particularly in the present session.
I know that all things cannot be done at once.
I welcome particularly the additional opportunity being given employees of this government to transfer their superannuation arrangements from the retirement fund to the superannuation fund which, I believe it will be agreed, is one of the best superannuation schemes extant.
It is in that connection, however, I wish to draw one or two matters to the attention of the government. I observe that in the last several years, since the beginning of the war, there are great numbers of civil servants who have not been allowed to receive increases in salaries or promotions. If one pictures the situation in respect of any one of them, as an illustration, he will see that it comes down to this: The civil servant was under contract with the government, expecting to receive certain regular increases or, when opportunity came and he qualified1, to get promotions and increases.
For reasons which we shall assume were quite adequate, all of that was discontinued during the war. Certain exceptions have been made since, but in the main that is still the picture. At first sight it would seem that the civil servant about whom I have spoken should make that much contribution to the war, and that it is not too serious a load to put upon him. That might reasonably be the first reaction of anyone who examined the picture. But there is one other serious disqualification which is placed upon this man, one other serious burden resting upon him, and it is this: He draws his superannuation based upon a certain number of years of service. I believe it is the average over five years. At one time it was ten years but, generally speaking, it is now the top five years.
Under the arrangement I have described not only does he suffer the loss of his promotion and increases in salary, but as long as he lives he will be paying a price which quite probably other citizens in the community will not be paying. As long as he lives he is being called upon to take a superannuation which

will be less than might reasonably have been expected.
It seems to me there is a chance of correcting that situation. Perhaps it might be done by way of requiring him to put in a larger contribution over the years, the government matching his contribution dollar for dollar, as they do now. I do not know if that is the best way to do it. I think it will be agreed, however, that men of the sort I have mentioned are going to have to pay more than most other citizens in the community, by reason of the fact that as long as they live their incomes will !be less than they had a proper right to expect they would be.
Similarly a situation exists with respect to a large number of civil servants who have been receiving a war bonus. Take the man who was a high placed civil servant-it does not really matter where he stood in the list-he could not get a promotion or an increase in salary. However, because of the type of work he was doing or because he had been transferred from one department to another, a war supplement was quite properly granted to him. That is part of his wage upon which he pays income tax, and yet he is not permitted to make a contribution to the superannuation fund on that, nor does the government pay anything into the fund with respect to that war supplement. It seems to me that if that is the man's true wage, as undoubtedly it is according to the tax gatherer, it ought to be taken into consideration in effecting superannuation. If it is not so, then he could well receive a superannuation less than it otherwise would be and less, I submit, than it ought to be. As long as he lives he will be paying more than he should properly be paying, having regard to the situation of all other citizens in the country.
I draw these matters to the attention of the minister in the hope that they will receive consideration. I do not speak critically about these matters. The bill is an endeavour to do justice. It is a very fine bill and it does render a great measure of justice. But such being the case, 1 feel it is proper to point out any additional feature or item that might have been overlooked because it would be entirely consistent with the government's attitude to take into account matters such as I have mentioned.
I agree with several speakers who have referred to the impropriety of taking superannuation away from any person who has been called back into the government service or who has entered the government service, particularly when they are acting in a low-paid capacity. I have run into many cases

Civil Service Superannuation
where women have had small superannuations coming to them, superannuations which had been earned and paid for. These were not enough to keep them and they had to go to work, sometimes as charwomen and sometimes in some other capacity. In such cases the superannuation was taken away because they had gone to work for the government. I submit that that is not just. A superannuation which a person receives when he is superannuated or, in the case of a woman, when her husband dies, is something which has been earned. It should not be taken away merely because the person in question enters the employ of the government.
That covers the case of the person who goes to work for the government, but everything I have said with reference to that case applies with much greater force to the person already in the employ of the government who has a notice served upon her that she will lose superannuation or be discharged from employment. That is definitely unjust. It is simply a case of a strong employer using economic force upon a weak employee and I cannot condemn that too strongly. I do not think the consequences were adequately observed in such cases. It is wrong to use your strength to effect what you desire to effect because of some general policy.
That is practically all I have to say in this debate. I again say that I welcome this bill most heartily. Every once in a while matters concerning the civil service are up for discussion, and for some members this is of great concern. I believe the best way to keep a satisfied personnel and, what is even more important although it amounts to the same thing, have justice rendered to your personnel, is to encourage active and intelligent trade unionism. I believe if you had a trade union in each department of the government service you would find that the grievances which are always being publicized and made much of in the newspapers, grievances that are lowering the general standard of work in the services, will largely disappear. I have seen trade unions at work for a long time. I have been a member of a trade union for many years and I am still an honorary member of the trade union with which I was associated. I know that in all the intricacies which an employer faces the assistance of a trade union gets him out of trouble and generally keeps him out of trouble. I believe the most salutary thing this or any government could do would be to encourage trade unionism among its employees.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Mr. Speaker, I just want to add a word to what has been said, mostly by way of questions.
I have not studied the bill particularly to see whether it covers what I have in mind. In Toronto, and perhaps more so in Montreal, there is a large number of civil servants. Sometimes the local members here in Ottawa get the idea that all the civil servants in Canada are in Ottawa, but that is far from the case because there are a great number in Toronto and Montreal. Civil servants have come to me on several occasions with their troubles and I should like to give one case which illustrates many. This condition may have been changed lately, but I do not know.
Under the civil service regulations pertaining to postal employees an employee may obtain permission to retire on annuity, but that annuity dies with the man:	I know of
many cases where men have retired and accepted an annuity which was fairly substantial. But after a year or so they died and their widows then received nothing. That certainly is not the intention of the government or any government. If this bill does not cover such cases I hope an amendment will be made or another bill introduced to cover such cases. Men who have served in the civil service for twenty-five, thirty or forty years should not have their widows left destitute merely because their husbands accepted an annuity which died with themselves after a year or two.


George James McIlraith: I did not quite understand why the widow did not receive the superannuation payment.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I qualified that by saying that the situation may have been changed. I do not know whether the situation has been changed whereby in the case of a postal employee who had retired on annuity and who, as happens so often in all walks of life, the railways and elsewhere, died shortly after, his widow would be left without an annuity.


George James McIlraith: I am interested in the point raised by the hon. member and I cannot understand from what he has said why the widow would not receive the superannuation benefit.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The husband had accepted an annuity. I had these cases up with the postal authorities and they tell me there is nothing they can do about it. The husband, when living, accepted an annuity. He took what he thought was the best at the time. He died and that left the widow without anything, for the annuity expired with the husband.


George James McIlraith: Was that prior to 1927?
Civil Service Superannuation

Mr. MaoNICOL: The cases I am speaking of have come to my attention since I came to Ottawa, so that this case must have been after 1927 because I did not come here until 1930.
Returning to the point brought up by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I know a number of employees in the mechanical branch at the printing bureau.


George James McIlraith: They are covered by the bill.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have known one man in particular for a great number of years. He comes from the same part of the country as I do. He came to see me the other day and brought with him a brief on superannuation submitted by the mechanical employees of the department of public printing. Do I understand that the bill covers these men?


George James McIlraith: It covers their case precisely.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am glad to hear that, and there is no use in my proceeding farther 'with their case.
There is, however, one other class of employees that I want to bring to the minister's attention. I am speaking of the ordinary postie delivering letters on the street in my own city, or any other city for that matter, but I will confine my remarks to Toronto. He has a very difficult job, particularly during the war because the walks of the posties have been so extended that these men are almost worked off their feet. The result is that many of them have to retire earlier than they otherwise would. I would suggest that the postal employees, particularly the man doing a walk, should be permitted to retire on full pension at least five years earlier than is now permitted, or perhaps even more than five years. I believe that they have to serve to-day for thirty-five years before they can retire on full pension. That is a pretty long time to ask anyone to serve in the government employ before he can be retired on full pension, and that period should be shortened.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Since so many Conservative members will shortly be due to be retired, may I ask if they are protected by any annuity system?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is what you think.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If the hon. member is asking me, I can tell him that I will be back here.


Thomas Vien: Order. I must remind hon. members that 'we are not in committee but on the second reading of the bill.


George Black: I think my hon. friend has confused the superannuation allowance with annuities. When a civil servant who is under the superannuation act dies his widow receives fifty per cent of the pension he would have received, whereas in the ease of an annuity, if the husband is the annuitant, and it is not a double annuity, the annuity ceases on the husband's death.
I think the bill before us is a very desirable piece of legislation. It is legislation that many civil servants have been hoping for, I know, for years past. Sections 7 and 9 of the bill will make it possible for civil servants not now under the superannuation act to come in under the act on fair terms.
Other members have spoken of the position of temporary employees. I know a great many cases of government employees who are rated as temporaries when, in fact, they are permanent in every sense of the word, and the heads of their departments and the government intend that they shall be permanent. This bill should contain a clause putting a time limit on the length of time that a government employee or civil servant shall be rated as a temporary. After a certain period he should automatically become' permanent.
I am glad that the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) is in charge of the bill to-night because there is something that I wish to [DOT] bring to his attention which he might find it easier to deal with than the minister in whose name the bill appears. I would call the minister's attention and the attention of the house to the fact that salaries and wages of employees of the federal government are not liable to attachment for debt. They are a favoured class in that respect in this Dominion of Canada. They can go into debt and their earnings cannot be attached to pay their debts. I have known employees on federal construction work to run up bills with merchants in the district and then decline to pay them, and the merchant had no remedy whatsoever. That is not the case with provincial government employees or with territorial employees. Their pay is subject to attachment. This provision would not be needed to be made applicable to federal employees if they were all honest as most of them are, but there are a few who do not pay their way, who run up bills and who do not pay them, and there should be a remedy provided in law so that creditors will have some protection just as they have in the provinces and in the territories. I submit to the minister that before this bill is finally passed he should consider adding a section which will have that effect. I shall have more to say when we are in committee on the bill.

Civil Service Superannuation


Mr. G. H. ROSS (Calgary East):: I have no desire to delay the passing of this bill. So far as I have had a chance to peruse it I am entirely in sympathy with it. The only question in my mind is whether it goes far enough. There are many persons employed by the board of grain commissioners, a number of them in the city of Calgary, in positions known as seasonal temporaries, also labourers who are continuously employed by the board. One of these employees, whom I shall call Mr. A, started work with the board in 1918 and has been steadily employed with the board since 1928. Another, whom I shall call Mr. B, entered the service of the board in 1922 and has been steadily employed since 1924. I could give many other examples. These men receive none of the benefits of a civil servant- no sick leave, no superannuation, and only this year was provision made to grant them vacations. For some unknown reason their vacation leave was limited to one week, whereas civil servants as a general rule receive three weeks vacation leave. I wonder if this amendment provides for these men. From a hurried perusal that I have made of the bill I think it does provide for them to some extent, but I doubt very much if it goes far enough. I wonder if Mr. A, who entered the service in 1918, has been steadily employed since 1928 and is still in the employ of the board of grain commissioners, will benefit under this bill, and the same with Mr. B. If not, I hope that the government will give consideration to cases such as this and make it possible for these men to be confirmed in their positions in a permanent capacity so that they can obtain the benefits to which civil servants are entitled. I submit that after twenty years continuous service they are entitled to some consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
On section 1-"Civil servant."
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Before hon. members commence a detailed consideration of this bill I should like to state that I intend to ask one of my colleagues to move that, instead of being operative from 1st October, 1944, only, it become operative on the 15th August, 1944. On looking over the bill I noticed that there were provisions which were extending additional privileges to members of the civil service, and it seemed to me that it would be unfortunate if any member of the civil service retired or died before the 1st October, 1944, and did not get the benefit of provisions which parliament had recognized to be proper provisions. I suggest that
wherever it is necessary in the bill as we consider the clauses, amendments be made to render it operative from the 15th August, 1944, instead of the 1st October, because I hope that by mid-August it will have received the royal assent and become the law.
Mr. BOUCHER:: I am not sure of the actual meaning of section 1. It seems that, as worded, it limits those who can take advantage of the amendments to those who are on a yearly or annual salary. I am not sure if I read the section right, but it seems to me that a person who is not permanent may be granted by the treasury board the privilege of going under the superannuation act, but that it may be possible that even these persons cannot get under the act unless their salary is on a yearly basis. If such is the case I can see no reason why treasury board is authorized to grant special privileges to temporary officials and yet not to permanent officials who are not paid on a yearly basis. I should like the minister to consider that quite carefully and say whether my interpretation is the right one.
The other point which I should like to draw to the attention of the Minister of Justice is, why either temporary employees or those paid on an annual salary must go to the treasury board. We are here setting up a body which really, in law, has no official status, whose personnel at least is but little known to anybody, and giving them authority to exercise their discretion untrammeled and unhindered, with arbitrary power to say, "you shall get certain benefits" and "you shall not". I do not think it inures to the benefit of the government or the people of Canada to endow a board of that kind with such arbitrary power and open up a possibility of so many injustices.
A short time ago an amendment was made that certain civil servants should come under the superannuation act, certain others should get holidays, et cetera, subject only to the approval of the treasury board. I do not wish to give illustrations, although some are in my mind, but one can see where three men working for the same length of time on the same job in the same place could have varying judgments and differing privileges handed out to them by virtue of someone taking their case to the treasury board and getting its approval, where the others could not. If it were a matter wherein the interests of a class, and only a class, could be determined by the treasury board, the decision to give one in a class or to a number would apply to everybody in that class; but to be able to pick John and leave Tom out is not
Civil Service Superannuation

quite fair, and I feel that at this particular time a great deal of resentment is aroused against the treasury board. I believe that the name of one individual figures all too prominently, because the fault is not all his, but that a board that is largely an unknown quantity, who do or do not confer around a table should give judicial decisions which affect the welfare of the people of Canada, is not a very satisfactory state of affairs. I believe, for instance, that if an application is made whereby the discretion of the treasury board is sought, that discretion should be exercised at a hearing open to the public, with full knowledge of whose case has been heard before it. I am one of those who believe that publicity is one of the best assurances of justice; and in matters of this kind, with treasury board being given such absolute power, some measures must be taken to guide the exercise of that power in a better way, by giving it publicity, so that we and any person whose application is handled by the treasury board may know for what reason his request is or is not allowed. I believe also that there should be an appeal of some kind from the treasury board when it is not acting as a responsible government body, and that that appeal should be public.
I suggest that the two points which I have drawn to the minister's attention should receive his most earnest consideration, and I should like to have his explanation as to the first matter I raised.


Mr. NEILL:: I endorse what has been said by the hon. member who has just taken his seat. I was sorry to read in the bill language which is carried on from previous acts-"stated annual salary." That might be a vehicle of injustice. I recall a case which occurred a number of years ago; there is no reason why I should not give the details. There were telegraph agents some of whom had been working for twenty to twenty-five years, drawing an annual salary payable so much a month. It was thoroughly acknowledged that they were really permanent employees, although they were "permanent temporary" employees; it , was reported in the estimates that they should get $1,200, say, a year, and they were paid monthly at that rate; yet by some peculiar quirk of the regulations they were not drawing "a stated annual salary" and therefore were not eligible for superannuation, and I had a great deal of difficulty and had to do a good deal of wirepulling to get that very simple act of justice performed and have these people put on a stated annual salary, so that they would get superannuation. The obstacle was, I think, that the board referred to by my hon.

friend would not do it; they said it would require-oh, I forget; a change of the British North America Act or something almost its equivalent. But all of a sudden the justice department or somebody discovered that they did not have to do that, that by a simple resolution, I think of the minister, it could be decided that these people would hereafter be on a stated annual salary and, by virtue of that, enabled to get superannuation. A great many classes were excluded from the benefits of the act by this "stated annual salary" business.
I have in mind the linesman, whose work is very similar to that of the telegraph agent; but the telegraph agent gets superannuation, while the linesman, who may have been on the job for thirty or forty years, has no opportunity at all to be superannuated. I am afraid, the way the section reads, it still requires the person to be on a "stated annual salary" and also to get the consent of the treasury board. What that amounts to is that all the power is put in the hands of one man; the treasury board is only a figure of speech.
I should like an explanation about that "stated annual salary" business, because I am afraid it is going to be a stumbling block in the extension of the principle. I am not suggesting that the person who is hired to do a little carpenter work at intervals of two or three weeks or months should be eligible for superannuation. But when you see people going on for ten, twenty or thirty years, and they form the class known as-and the very language indicates the absurdity of it-permanent temporaries-under what language can you define a person as being a permanent temporary? Some consideration should be given to them.
While I am on my feet I should like to put in a plea for a class of people whose case has not been brought up here to-night. From the remarks that have been made here I gather that this bill is to be widened, and therefore these people may now be eligible. I refer to a class of people who are permanently employed on board the government boats, although they are not paid a stated annual salary. That matter was taken up a number of years ago on the Pacific coast. I am not familiar with the Atlantic coast. It was decided that the officers, the mates and the engineering staff, would be eligible, but not what you would call the technical men of the deck crews, such as stewards or carpenters or, I suppose, the coxswain. They were not eligible because they were not styled officers. Many of these men are just as permanently employed year after year as the officers are, but they are not eligible for superannuation.

Civil Service Superannuation


Mr. POTTIER:: Following the remarks of the last speaker may I say that we have a number of those on the Atlantic coast. I think they are known as prevailing rate employees on the government boats. I think that from the stewards down they were not given the right to come under the superannuation act as amended a few years ago. I believe a number of representations have been made in their behalf, and they may now be given an opportunity of coming in.
I gather from paragiaph (b) of section 1 that the treasury board will be able to rule, if it wishes, that they be designated as individuals or classes who may be brought under the act. Would the minister when he replies refer to this?


Mr. MAYHEW:: I have a case somewhat similar to that which has already been referred to, but it is a recent one. It is that of a gentleman who was an electrician and who retired at the age of sixty-five after haying served for thirty years. I brought it to the attention of the department and I received from them the following reply dated the 13th of this month as follows:
I beg to advise you that Mr. Ward, as an electrician, is a temporary employee, and as such he cannot be brought under the superannuation act, there being no provision in the act to cover temporary employees.
This man had been working for the government for thirty years. He was retired at sixty-five. I bring this before the committee as u definite case, but it is by no means a peculiar one or different from many others that we have in the government employ particularly or in the public works department. Then there is one class that is employed at the dry dock in Victoria that I have been trying to get adjusted ever since I became a member. I thought I had become more or less of a nuisance. I have avoided mentioning it in the house before, because I hoped to get it properly adjusted; but a member, when he gets a letter like this saying that apparently because a man is an electrician and doing what might be called manual labour and employed by the month, even though he be employed for thirty years, he is still considered a temporary employee, becomes a little discouraged. I hope that such men will come under the act.
There is another matter to which I should like to refer-I do not know whether it is covered by the bill or not-namely, the adjustments of salaries of post office workers and those in the treasury board, particularly in the customs department. They have not had an adjustment since 1927. There was a commission known as the Beatty commission
which sat in 1929 and which recommended certain adjustments. But the hard years came on, 1930 and 1931, and that recommendation was set aside. There has been no adjustment in the salaries of those people since 1927. Is there anything in this bill to indicate that these men are to be taken care of?
Another class of people to which I should like to refer-I do not know whether they are covered in this bill-is that of men who pay into the fund for a certain number of years. I had the case of a man referred to me just last week. He had been in the civil service for six and a half years and had paid into a superannuation fund something like $297 when he was obliged to retire on account of illness. The government refused to acknowledge the $297 he had paid into the fund. Surely he is entitled to at least his money back after paying in for six and a half years.


Donald Alexander McNiven: I notice in paragraph
(b) of section 1 that there is a reference to a stated annual salary and that in subparagraph (i) of that particular paragraph there is another reference to salary as follows:
(i) is in receipt of salary computed at an annual rate of at least six hundred dollars.
I was wondering whether there was anything contemplated in the different language that is used in these two definitions. Will the minister deal with that angle when he is replying? Along with others may I urge the minister to see to it that the group of permanent temporaries who have been spoken of so frequently here to-night and yesterday shall be taken care of. I do not think we should pass this definition of civil servant until we are absolutely sure that that very large representative group of civil servants who have rendered excellent service over a long period of years are included in the benefits of this act.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	It would seem that
some hon. members are viewing this bill with a considerable degree of suspicion as to its purpose and what it can do. I can assure the hon. members that it was prepared in a sincere attempt to meet the reasonable representations that had been made by the officers of the various civi\ servant bodies, and that if it had not been the desire of the government to meet those representations and to give satisfaction to this class of citizens of Canada and to recognize their very efficient and patriotic service to the state, no bill would have been introduced. It was not prepared for the purpose of giving occasion to bring before the house any indefinite number of specific cases; it was intended to meet the situation which had been carefully considered by the officers
Civil Service Superannuation

of these various associations and about which they had made representations to the treasury board, and then to the minister in charge of the civil service commission and afterwards to a special committee of the cabinet appointed to meet them and to discuss with them those representations and the manner in which they could best be met in the interest not only of the personnel of the civil service but of the public, because the members of the special committee-I had the honour to be one of them-felt that it was in the interest of the Canadian public that reasonable satisfaction be given to the thousands who perform such an important function in the life of the nation. Perhaps it will allay some of these suspicions if I place on Hansard an appreciation I received this morning from the president of the civil service federation of Canada; he had gone over the bill very carefully and compared it with the representations that were submitted, and, after doing so, he wrote in the following terms:
May I refer to bill 171, an act to amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act.
Our executive realizes that this bill represents a very broad study of the general question of superannuation as well as a study of the present superannuation act, made by the parliamentary committee of 1938 and 1939, by the advisory committee on the Civil Service Superannuation Act, by the treasury hoard and by the government. We are convinced, not only that the bill represents very careful thought, but that it will make for improved superannuation administration, and in the course of time, for improved administration in the public service generally, while at the same time rectifying several of the shortcomings of the present act to which we have called attention from time to time.
It is our very sincere hope that the amending bill may commend itself to both houses of parliament, and that its enactment into law may be a matter of only a short while.
Taking the bill as a whole, though not all features of it are by any means to the advantage of civil servants, we feel that the measure should be highly satisfactory, both to the government and its employees, and we very much appreciate the fact that the government found it possible to proceed with this matter at this time.
I think the very competent gentleman who is president of the civil service federation of Canada, and who made a careful study of this bill just as soon as it became available to him, was right in the view he took. Just to illustrate, let me answer the point made by several hon. members who have referred to the fact that the words "a stated annual salary" are still used in section 1. If hon. members will take the trouble to read the whole of paragraph (b) down to (i) they will see that it provides for three classes who may be placed under the superannuation act. In the first class are permanent employees

with stated annual salaries. As to those nothing further needs to be done. The second class is:
. . . any other officer, clerk or employee in the civil service who is certified or determined pursuant to regulations made under this act, or who is designated individually or as a member of a class by the treasury board under this act, to be for the purpose of this act a permanent officer, clerk or employee, if such permanent or other officer, clerk or employee . . .
Then the other conditions are set out. Therefore those who have stated annual salaries are in. There are regulations which will take in classes. There may be still, then, some individual cases, probably some of those which have been referred to by hon. members, this evening or like cases which have merit and which would not fit into a general regulation or classification. For the purpose of the superannuation fund they shall be deemed to be, "for the purposes of this act, a permanent officer, clerk or employee," because of course the principle of superannuation is compensation on retirement from a permanent position. Whatever they may be called for other purposes, any officer of the civil service may, for the purposes of the superannuation act, be treated as a permanent officer; that is to say, may be made a contributor and consequentially a beneficiary under the superannuation act. Evidently the president of the civil service federation, when coming to that conclusion, had looked at a section which will come before hon. members a little later, commencing on page 8 of the bill and going over on page 9. That section authorizes the governor in council to make regulations. For what purpose?
(g)	prescribing in respect of officers, positions or employments in the civil service for which salaries other than stated annual salaries are paid, the manner in which such offices, positions or employments shall be certified or otherwise determined to be positions the duties of which are of continuing indeterminate duration.
Then paragraph (h):
(h)	prescribing in respect of officers, clerks or employees in the civil service who are in receipt of salary other than a stated annual salary.
(i)	the manner in which their appointments shall be certified . . .
And the manner and conditions under which they will be classed, for the purposes of superannuation, as permanent officers, clerks or employees. I think that might well be considered by the committee as a bona fide attempt to meet the situation and to determine those who shall receive the benefits of the superannuation act. Parliament has already said that it should include permanent employees with stated annual salaries, and as to

Civil Service Superannuation
that class there can be no question at all. Others have been designated in practice by those words which are contradictory in terms, "permanent temporaries." That is an absolute contradiction in terms; nevertheless, because [DOT]of arbitrary usage, those words do designate a certain class. It would hardly be proper to provide in the statute that "permanent temporaries" were to be included under the superannuation act. The regulations will prescribe classifications which will bring them in; they will use language that will be appropriate to include those who are to receive such benefits. Then it may be that there are certain individual cases for which it would be difficult to prescribe by regulation and classification, but which, because of the special circumstances, it would be proper to describe the employees as persons who had been or are to be for a continuing indeterminate duration in the service *of the crown. They can be dealt with by a minute of the treasury board.
For a good many months now I have been a member of the treasury board. In my experience it has not been the one-man institution some hon. members seem to believe. My [DOT]experience has been that decisions are arrived at by the members of the treasury board, which, after all, is nothing other than a committee of the cabinet. Someone has said that the treasury board has no legal existence. It is the only committee of the cabinet that is provided for by statute and is given by statute some special functions. There are officers who attend the meetings of the treasury board, but in my experience the information they [DOT] supply to the members of treasury board is not as to the merits or demerits of the question that has to be decided, but as to the effect such a decision may have upon other matters that are not immediately involved. That is something for which it is necessary that we have expert advice and recommendations. I would not venture to express an opinion as to whether such a case which is submitted should be dealt with in a certain way, without having information about the class from which that case comes, how large a class will be affected, and in what way it will be affected. From my experience that is the information which is supplied to members of the treasury board by the officials thereof for the purpose of assisting them in coming to their conclusions.
Here, of course, I would not attempt to deal with some of the cases to which hon. members have referred. I have not come prepared to do that. I came prepared to discuss matters which are directly pertinent to the amending legislation. But as to the merits or demerits of the special cases concerning which there has been long correspondence with the Department of Finance, I am sorry I am not in a position to give any opinion. I have not one. I do not know the
facts.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South will notice that, while I did not feel at the resolution stage it would have been proper to read the bill, the matter he wished to have included is in this section now under consideration. He will find it at line 5 of page 2.


Clarence Gillis: Yes, I have noticed that, and I am quite satisfied. Will that be retroactive? Will that cover the cases which have been outstanding?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am not sure that I can answer in general terms. This will operate from the date which will be set. I shall ask someone to move that it be August 15, 1944. It will not in its present form operate from confederation. It will take care of all cases which have to be decided after it becomes law, but I do not think it would apply to persons who have severed their connections with the civil service in years gone by.


Clarence Gillis: I do not mean that. I have in mind a case which dates back to 1941. A contributor had a stepmother who inherited his estate. His superannuation should have come to her. Under the old section in the act it could not be paid, because the stepmother was not included. I am wondering if this amendment will enable those administering the act to clean up this case?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No; this will not apply to a case of that kind. That type of case would have to be dealt with on compassionate grounds by estimate or by special order in council. This will apply only to situations which arise after it comes into force. But the hon. member need not be told by me that when it is recognized for the future, it makes it easier to argue that it should have been the same in the past, and that there should possibly be some compassionate view taken of a situation which occurred before and which, if it occurred now, would be dealt with in the manner provided by the statute.
Mr. BLACK (Yukon)1: As I understand it, we are now considering paragraph (I) of section 1 which deals with salaries. This paragraph is worded in very clear language:
Salary" of a contributor means the regular salary or compensation paid in respect of his service-
And I would ask the committee to note these words:
-together with the value of living and residential allowances-
Civil Service Superannuation

This amended section is the same as the original section passed in 1924, except that it has the underlined words "or compensation" after the word "salary". In effect, the section is just as it was.
I should like to tell you, Mr. Chairman, and I should like particularly to tell the minister just how that section has been administered, because of contradictory opinions given by a former deputy minister in the minister's department. I shall quote first from a letter written by the financial controller of the Department of the Interior on November 21, 1924, to the director of the Department of the Interior:
Re deduction of 5 per cent from the amount of living allowance paid to Yukon officials Who elect to come under the Superannuation Act, 1924.
In reply to your memorandum of the 27th September last relative to the above subject, I am to advise you that a number of rulings concerning the new act have recently been received from the Department of Justice, and among them there are two touching upon this subject. They are as follows:
Contributions must include 5 per cent of the value of living and residential allowances, both in respect of past service and in respect of future service.
The sum of 5 per cent must be deducted monthly from both the salary and the living allowances from the date of election.
Most civil servants in the Yukon are paid what is termed " salary," and in addition to that a living allowance of a fixed sum. For instance, a part of their remuneration termed salary will be $2,000, and the living allowance $1,500, as provided by this paragraph (1) of section 1.
As I have said, the deputy minister of justice said that the five per cent must be deducted not only from the portion of remuneration termed " salary " but that termed " living allowances" which, under the terms of the section, is also salary.
Here is a letter from the same deputy minister referring to one civil servant in the Yukon who was employed by the Department of Justice, notifying the controller of the territory as follows:
I am therefore to request that monthly deductions of 5 per cent be made from his salary and living allowance, and the amounts be remitted to this department in the form of cheques payable to the receiver general along with your monthly statements of expenditures connected with this department.
That put the deputy minister on record, without doubt.
What happened? Deductions were made from the total amount of the remuneration. Civil .servants were retired on superannuation terms based on those contributions. They were

superannuated on that basis. Civil servants died and widows were pensioned. Their pensions were computed on that basis. That is commencing in 1924, and continuing that way fairly and properly and legally as fixed by this deputy minister of justice down to 1930.
I would ask the minister to note this: Then a few of the civil servants in the Yukon were transferred to Ottawa, where they no longer were paid living allowances. They conceived the brilliant idea of having returned to them the five per cent that they had paid while in the Yukon on their living allowance. That question was put up to the same deputy minister, and he met their wishes, regardless of the plain meaning of the act. Regardless of the law, he swallowed himself, reversed his decision and said that living allowance was not part of salary. And those men were allowed to draw out of the superannuation fund, illegally and improperly, their payments which had been made into it. I say that that action by the deputy minister of justice and the action of the ministers and deputy ministers of the other departments who acted on that reversed opinion of the deputy minister of justice have been inconsistent and unfair. They have been cruel to those remaining in the civil service and to those who retired subsequently to 1930. Those remaining in the service had their contributions returned and in many cases have been retired on miserably small allowances. The widows of deceased civil servants have been given pensions that are pitifully inadequate. I should like to read a letter written by the widow of one of these deceased civil servants to the public administrator of the Yukon. This reads:
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter to me of April 14, 1941, which only reached me on June 4, due to its being incorrectly addressed.
With that letter you sent me Canadian Bank of Commerce cheque payable to me for $400, being the return of the contributions made by my late husband, P. M. Kelly, from his salary as a civil servant, to be applied on his retiring allowance, or on my pension after his death.
This amount of $400 should not be paid to me but should be applied to the superannuation fund, to which it was paid, to be taken into account in computing the amount of superannuation allowance or pension payable to me as the widow of a contributing civil servant.
I am aware that the matter has been taken up with the government on several occasions and that the government has refused to do justice to those involved, with the exception of George P. McKenzie, and the late George McLean, but I decline to accept Mr. Jeckell's statement, as quoted to me by you, that there is no chance of getting the government to reverse its decision.
The cheque for $400 is accepted by me under protest and with ithe knowledge, which you and

Civil Service Superannuation
Mr. Jeckell share, as does the government, that it is not legally payable to me. but as above stated, is and should be part of the superannuation fund.
When the matter is justly dealt with and superannuation allowances in proper and increased amounts are paid to those entitled to them, I am willing and will expect this $400 to be debited to such increased superannuation allowance or pension as I may then receive.
Yours truly,
Kathryn V. Kelly.
Referring to McKenzie and McLean, referred to in the letter, under the reversed decision McKenzie was granted a retiring allowance of $2,560 and McLean got $2,773. The minister of the department, knowing how improper and incorrect the ruling of the deputy minister of justice was, was not content to let these men have this miserable retiring allowance. He had orders in council put through giving McKenzie a retiring allowance of $4,000, and McLean, $4,774. Those are the only two civil servants who have retired from the service in the Yukon since the deputy minister of justice reversed that decision who have been fairly dealt with.
On the reversed decision of the deputy minister of justice the value of living allowance of $1,500 is not salary or income for the purposes of superannuation under this act. But if you go to the Department of Finance and the Department of National Revenue you will find that living allowance is considered as salary and income and an income tax is imposed. Can you imagine such inconsistency between two government departments? In one the living allowance is not income or salary, while in two others it is income and they grab income tax on it. That is difficult to explain.
The civil servants of the Yukon petitioned for a fiat for leave to refer the matter to the exchequer court for an interpretation of the section I have read, subsection (1) of section 2, but the fiat was refused. The wrong was continued and it is continuing to-day. I appeal to the Minister of Justice to right the wrong. This can be done by a proper interpretation of the section. It seems to me that the language of the section is so plain that, you do not need a lawyer or a judge to interpret it. The subsection reads:
(1) "salary" of a contributor means the regular salary paid in respect of his service, together with the value of living and residential allowances.
What plainer words do you want than that? Unless the government rights this wrong as a matter of course, I am considering having this widow petition the crown-this would be regulated by the Department of Justice-for leave to submit this question to the exchequer court. I appeal now to the Minister of
Justice to grant that leave so that the question may be settled finally and a grave injustice remedied.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am very sorry the hon. member has seen fit to impute the motives he did to the deputy minister of justice who gave this opinion in 1930. He was not deputy minister of justice when I came here, but I have known him for a great many years. From my knowledge of him I am quite satisfied that he was absolutely incapable of making a ruling in his official capacity for the reason suggested by the hon. member. The hon. member has spoken of a wrong, and I think it is a grave wrong to Mr. Edwards to have asserted in this place, after the many years of honoured and valued service he rendered to the country, that he made a ruling for the motives suggested by the hon. member. As to whether or not the decision was correct I have no opinion to express, but I can say to the hon. member that the ruling given in 1930 was not a ruling upon any specific case. It was to this effect:
I am, accordingly of the opinion that the interpretation of the definition of "salary" in sec. 2 (1) of the -act which the committee has suggested in its report, is correct, namely, that only such living and residential allowances are to be reckoned as part of the contributor's salary for the purposes of the act as are, in the same sense as the contributor's regular salary, paid or allowed "in respect of his service": in other words, really form part of the compensation or emoluments attached to the position in which the contributor is serving.
Thereupon it was referred to the civil service commission to examine the various positions to determine what were the allowances paid that should be classified as compensation for service. Some of the allowances paid in the Yukon were not classified as compensation for service but as compensation for the hardships of having to fill positions in that remote part of the country. It was considered that that was not compensation for service, that it was compensation for having to live there and that when one retired it need not be continued. A retired civil servant was no longer required to live there, and if he chose to live there he was not entitled to receive additional money because of his own free choice in doing so.
If the hon. gentleman wishes to advise any one to apply for a fiat there will be no fiat refused. But the applicant for the fiat will have to envisage the legal position which results from this act and which makes this a grant or gratuity, and the hon. gentleman will take the responsibility of advising whether or not, whatever be the interpretation that the exchequer court might put on the section, there is any jurisdiction to render judgment.

Civil Service Superannuation
That is a matter on which I wish to express no opinion, but I can assure the hon. gentleman that if the fiat is applied for it will be granted.


Alan Webster Neill: May I go back to what the minister was speaking about before? His remarks were, I am sure, very informative and a revelation to many of us who are not familiar with the new measure. So far as I personally am concerned, if the minister would guarantee that he is going to be on that treasury board, I would have every confidence in his handling of the matter. In explanation of my remark that the treasury board was somewhat of a one-man position I recall that a number of years ago I went to see the then Minister of Finance, not the present one, and made some proposals about some of these matters, and he told me bluntly that he would not grant my request. Then I said: "What about the treasury board? May I submit it to them?" He said, "well, I am the head of the treasury board, and there is your answer." This made me think that the treasury board was more or less of a one-man proposition, but if the minister tells me that the situation is different I can possibly live on hope.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There are men sometimes with such strong personalities that they do get their way even with several colleagues.


Alan Webster Neill: I will take a chance on the strong personality of the minister if he guarantees that he will look into anything that I bring to his attention.
I want to bring to his attention a weakness of all people who make laws. They introduce a very nice bill, but there is always in it somewhere a joker, and the joker in this bill I find is on the. page to which the minister referred where power is given to make regulations. I do not care who makes the act if you will let me draw the regulations. Then it will be my act-especially when the regulations are drawn by civil servants. Further evidence of that is in paragraph (c) which says that the positions will be defined by the governor in council; that means by an official. I have seen instances where the bill said one thing and the regulations said the very opposite, and it was the regulations, made by an official, that counted when we tried to get some justice.
The minister has said that the head of the civil service association has expressed his approval. Yes, but he is a big man and he thinks only in terms of Ottawa or of the big centres and of the civil servants who come more particularly under him. He is a long

way from British Columbia. It is not my constituents who are out there that he is thinking of.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I think the hon. member will permit me to say that those who are his constituents are also the constituents of the president of the federation, which comprises civil service groups throughout Canada from one ocean to the other.


Alan Webster Neill: That may be so, but I would like to bring before the minister the position of the deckhands on the government ships.
I have not the act under my hand, but I have a very strong conviction that these men by some provision are kept out of the civil service. I am speaking subject to correction, but I am fairly certain that the men employed on government ships as deck hands are not eligible to come under the act.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I think the hon. member's memory is substantially correct, but he has not put it in quite the same form in which it appears in the act. The officers on these ships were affirmatively included. There was no exclusion in terms of other ranks than officers, but that was the result.


Alan Webster Neill: The result was that these deck hands were not eligible?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	They were not
included, but now they will be eligible if they are by the regulations declared to be eligible because of their having served for a long period.


Alan Webster Neill: Then you have to trust to the tender mercies of the regulation maker and he cannot do anything wrong. May I impress on the minister that it is only fair and just that these deckhands should come under the act. They work for long hours in all weathers and some of them have long periods of service, five, ten and fifteen years, and they are entitled to superannuation benefits. If the minister gives me the assurance that they will be eligible for superannuation under this bill I will be quite satisfied.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The only assurance I can give is that before they were not eligible; now they will be eligible, and if the regulations do not include them the administration will be subject to the criticism of this house, because if it is a class which the administration should include they will have the power to include them.


Alan Webster Neill: And the minister will keep a finger in the pie?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The minister will convey my hon. friend's recommendations to the electors of Quebec East.

Civil Service Superannuation


George Russell Boucher: With reference to the point I raised about annual salary my memory goes back to Rabbie Burns' lines:
The best laid plans o' mice and men Gang aft agley.
The president of the civil service association and the government may have the desire to do the very thing we want, but in paragraph (b) the words used are "annual salary" of any officer and the same paragraph says "permanent officer". If it were to say that for the purposes of this act a permanent officer in receipt of an annual salary would be eligible it would be much clearer. Then (b) (i) says:
is in rfeceipt of salary computed at an annual rate of at least six hundred dollars.
If it were to say, if he is in receipt of a salary computed annually to the amount of six hundred dollars, it would be much clearer.
I am not impressed with the minister's suggestion that because clause 9 gives certain powers to make regulations, the regulations can go beyond the act itself. If paragraph (b) of clause 1 limits the scope of the application of the act, as I think it does, I submit that no regulation can enlarge it. I believe that the minister's intention is all right, but I think he should reconsider the language, because- under the present interpretation the salary must be an annual one to bring the recipient within the confines of the act. I wonder whether the minister would not reconsider it.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If the hon. gentleman will look at it he will see that it deals first of all with:
any permanent officer, clerk or employee in the civil service who is in receipt of a stated annual salary-
And,
-any other officer, clerk or employee in the civil service. . . .
other than those in receipt of an annual salary. What can it mean if that is not what it means?


George Black: In reference to what I said with regard to the ruling on paragraph (1) of this bill, which was given by the deputy minister of justice in 4930, he was not referring to specific cases. Nor was he referring to a specific case when his original ruling or opinion was given in 1924, which opinion I read to the committee and I will read again. He was not referring to any one particular case or any one particular civil servant, but generally; he was interpreting the wording of that section.
Contributions must include 5 per cent of the value of living and residential allowances, both in respect of past service and in respect of future service.
The sum of 5 per cent must be deducted monthly from both the salary and living allowances from the date of election.
Those original decisions and opinions went without question until 1930, until that group-came here to- try to get their money back out of the superannuation fund; and I did not wait to come into the House of Commons to use such efforts as I could. I said it to the deputy minister personally. If the minister cares to have the files looked up he will find my letters on record. I communicated with the Minister of Finance of that day, the Prime Minister and the chairman of the treasury board.
I will give another instance of how far it went. All the civil servants of the Yukon at that time were not paid salary in two ways, part as salary and part as living allowance; some got a complete salary headed as "salary". One of them getting a salary died. Then, came the calculation of what his widow's pension would be. Instead of calculating that on the five per cent which had been paid by that civil servant on his salary they saidf "If he was not paid a living allowance, part of what was paid to him as salary should have been living expense; therefore we will pension this widow as if it were part salary and part living allowance", and that went through the treasury board until I showed them what they were doing in robbing that woman. They could not believe it, and asked whose responsibility it was, and I said, "Your secretary". You can find who the secretary was at that time. They righted that wrong; and the wrong which is being done to civil servants and retired civil servants and widows should: be righted, and they should not have to ga to the exchequer court to get it done.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was very glad that the-Minister of Justice placed on record a letter he received from the president of the civil service federation of Canada. I am sure that we are glad to have that statement of their satisfaction as an organization with the bill which has been brought in. I think, however, the members of the civil service federation and civil servants generally would feel that we as members of parliament are not absolved by such a declaration on their part from closely scrutinizing the bill and1 asking the questions which come to our minds from a study of these various sections.
So far as section 1 is concerned, the wording of it is quite clear to me; I interpreted it along the lines that the minister explained. It takes care of the permaneht people on a stated' annual salary, as was already the case, and it goes farther in that it gives the treasury

Civil Service Superannuation

board power for purposes of superannuation to designate certain other groups. So far so good. It goes farther: it stipulates conditions which these other groups must meet in order that the treasury board may so designate them.. But the thing it does not do is to declare that all groups who rfieet the specifications set down in subparagraphs (b) (i) and Kii) shall be so designated. That is the reason why some of us are asking questions.
Let me be concrete. Let me name two groups of persons who, I feel, meet the requirements of subparagraphs (b) (i) and (ii). First of all, there are my own colleagues over at the printing bureau to whom I have referred on two or three occasions. They are in receipt of salary or wages which in a year amount to at least $600, so that they meet subparagraph (b) (i). They are also required to devote the whole of their time to that work, and there is not sufficient time left in the year for them to engage in some other remunerative occupation; so that they meet subparagraph (b) (ii). In other words, the treasury board may designate the printing employees as for the purposes of this act entitled to superannuation. Now we would like to know whether they are to be so designated. Maybe the minister can tell us; maybe he will say that we shall have to wait until the treasury board decides, but I hope the former is the case.
Let me refer to another group; I have already referred to them in the course of the debate on this measure-the men doing char work in this building. They receive a salary during the course of the year which is at least $600; therefore they meet subparagraph (b)
(i)	. They also meet-at least some of them do-subparagraph (b) (ii), for they are employed the year round except for two or three weeks' holidays; at any rate they are employed a sufficient part of the year that they cannot go somewhere else and engage in some other remunerative employment. In other words, they meet subparagraphs (b) (i) and
(ii)	exactly as do the employees over at the printing bureau. Yet, there are rumours around-we do not know where they come from, but they are in circulation.-that the treasury board will bring the printers under this legislation, but that the men doing char work in this building are not to be brought under it. I hope the former rumour is true and the latter one false, and that the minister may be able to give us some statement as to what is the likely action with respect to these two groups.
While I am speaking of various groups let me refer also to some that I referred to the
fMr. Knowles.]
other day when the minister, prompted by a minister who was sitting behind him, made the comment that this bill was not designed to bring everybody in Canada under civil service superannuation. I refer to the stenographers who work for members of the House of Commons.
I should like also to refer to another group, the amanuenses who work up on the third floor-those charming young women, if I may say so-who type out the speeches made in this house after they have been taken down in shorthand on the floor of this chamber by the Hansard reporters. Those young ladies, along with the stenographers who work for members of the house, work only the part of the year that the house is in session. Therefore they do not meet subparagraph (b) (ii), although they may meet subparagraph (b) (i). Therefore, even though the treasury board might be interested in these people, under the terms of this act they cannot become eligible; yet I believe that they should.
If I may take -a moment on the side, I was interested in learning that when this House of Commons first started, that term, "amanuenses", fitted the employees who bore the name a little better, perhaps, than it does to-day. Seventy years ago the Hansard reporters took down in shorthand the speeches that were made in the House of Commons, and the amanuenses were young men outside the chamber who transcribed those notes into longhand-this was before the days of satisfactory typewriters-and then Hansard was printed from that longhand.
Here is the case. The Hansard reporters- so far as I am concerned, very deservingly so-are put on an annual basis. They are permanent employees; they receive an annual salary, and they are covered under the superannuation act. But since parliament is not sitting the whole year, they have the privilege, when parliament is not sitting, of engaging in some other remunerative employment, such as court reporting, for example. Technically they would not meet subparagraph (b) (ii), and they would be debarred from superannuation if they were not already covered aS civil servants in receipt of a stated annual salary. Yet there is this line of distinction between the reporter who takes the shorts hand notes here on the floor of the house and the amanuensis who puts them into typescript on the typewriter. I feel that some consideration should be given to them, that they, too, should come under civil service superannuation. We expect them, as we expect the stenographers who work for members, to come back year in and year out. Some of them have been here for a good many years and

Civil Service Superannuation
yet, despite their long term of faithful service, they are not acknowledged as permanent employees and are not covered in the Civil Service Superannuation Act. I am suggesting that these people about whom I am now talking, the stenographers and the amanuenses, are still not covered by this bill, but they should be.
If I may traverse my steps for a moment I am suggesting that so far as the printers and the char men are concerned they may be covered, but it is up to the treasury board. We hear that the treasury board will include the printers, but we have had no assurance that they will include the char men and messengers who are working here in this building. I hope that the minister-I will forgive him for what he said yesterday by way of a crack on this point if he does not do it again-will not make some comment about our interest in making security in this measure widespread being too far-reaching. After all, this sort of thing is becoming quite the concern of the government at the present time, and I feel that some effort should be made to extend coverage to these people.
While I am on my feet, and while I am speaking about the employees of the House of Commons, there is one other suggestion of a more immediate nature that I should like to make. This session of the house has lasted for some considerable time, and it has now been decided to sit right through until eleven o'clock on Saturday nights for the remainder of the session. That may be all right for us. We agreed to it the other day, but it seems to me it is a little too much to ask of these young boys around here, the pages who serve us so faithfully and well and so willingly. It is a little too much to ask them to work the long hours they have been working, from early Monday morning right through until eleven o'clock Saturday night. I hope that someone, the Clerk of the House or His Honour, the Speaker, may be able to make some arrangement whereby a number of them can be let off at one o'clock to-morrow, and others of them next Saturday. Let us have just two or three of them around here for Saturday afternoons for the remainder of the session.
Would the minister answer my question about the likely action of the treasury board with respect to the specific groups I named?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: In spite of the blandishments and the inducements of the hon. member and the admiration I have for the amanuenses and all the other charming young ladies one sees about the halls of this building, I cannot undertake to say what regulations will be made and what classes will be included. I cannot go beyond saying, as I said before, that
100-350J
this bill has been brought into the house to provide machinery whereby the representations that have been made and given serious and sympathetic consideration can be met and satisfactorily settled. I cannot go beyond that. I was told that there was one class of employees where the turnover was very, very rapid. There was an average of perhaps not more than three or four months' service. I do not know which one it is, and I am not in a position, without investigation, to express even an opinion for myself and much less am I in a position to express for other members of the treasury board what their judgment would be upon a factual examination with respect to any class.


Mr. EDWARDS:: 
Agar Rodney Adamson: There was a time when the employees of the library, some of whom had been actually working there, I understand, for ten or fifteen years, were classed as temporary employees under the Civil Service Act. Is there a section in this bill that will prevent that? Is there a section that will permit an employee of the library or any other branch of the service who has been employed for a number of years being made a permanent employee? This was brought up in the library committee a year ago. I do not know whether any satisfactory answer has yet been given.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The employees of the library are employees of the House of Commons, I understand, and also civil servants.
Civil Service Superannuation

Whether they are for other purposes called "temporary" or not, the purpose of this bill is to give authority to the governor in council to take care of the cases of all those who are in the service of the government for a reasonable length of time. I think there was an order in council passed in 1933 which said that the quota of permanent employees must not be more than eighty per cent of the total number of employees, so that the word "temporary" got a meaning somewhat different from its original meaning. Originally it meant someone who was there just provisionally and was not going to stay, but now it means someone who is there and is going to stay, but has not yet got into the eighty per cent quota. Because of the use of the same word in the superannuation act, the order in council and in other acts, such persons were kept out of the superannuation benefits. The purpose here is to give the governor in council the right to make regulations that will take them in. It was not felt possible to put in a bill all the classes to which it would apply, because it requires an examination of fact. You cannot say that every temporary employee will be under the superannuation act. You have to examine the actual situation; but what is meant is to have something that will enable the governor ir council to make regulations and the treasury board to apply them in such a way as will enable the government to satisfy the House of Commons that it is doing the right thing.


Agar Rodney Adamson: If the governor in council makes a regulation that the employees of the library shall be classed as permanent employees it can be done in that way?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That can be done by regulation. It will mean that they will be permanent officers, clerks or employees for the purposes of the superannuation act, and it will not have any effect with respect to anything else.


Agar Rodney Adamson: That was the nub of it; these employees were not under the superannuation act; they were debarred from seniority and the pension to which they were justly entitled.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I should not like my remarks to be taken as dealing with any specific case in which I have not examined the facts, but the legislation is for the purpose of enabling the government to make and apply regulations in such a way that we can come to the House of Commons and say we have done the right thing by all these servants of the crown.
rMr. St. Laurent.]


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would direct the
minister's attention to lines 32, 33 and 34 on page 1, which contain this clause:
. . . but saving all rights and privileges of either house in respect of the control or removal of its officers, clerks and employees;
I should like the minister to give us some explanation as to the meaning of that phrase.
I can understand that there may be a few highly placed officers of either house whose removal should lie with the house or the government, but for the most part it seems to me there should be a little more protection than that for the employees of parliament. I have in mind those to whom I referred the other day, the charmen who were dismissed after the election in 1935, although following a fuss in this house they were rehired. It seems to me that people doing this sort of work should have something of the same degree of permanency that civil servants have. Could the minister explain the meaning of. that phrase?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There is a committee to assist His Honour the Speaker in the administration of this house. So far this house has never consented' to submit the exercise of its control over its personnel to any but itself; and for the purposes of superannuation they will be deemed permanent if they are put in that class by the governor in council, but that will not give them any greater tenure of office or any more vested interest in their office than they have under the statutes and rules which apply to the Senate and the House of Commons.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then do I understand that in this building the men who operate the elevators are employed by the Department of Public Works and are permanent, while the charmen are employed by the House of Commons and are subject to removal?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I do not know whether the men who do the char work are employed by the House of Commons. I know there are certain persons, from the Clerk of the house down, who are looked upon as servants of the commons, and who are dealt with by His Honour the Speaker in his capacity as head of a department of government.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Medical certificate where not appointed under Civil Service Act.
William Henry Golding: An Amendment has been moved by the Minister of Transport, that section 2 of bill

Civil Service Superannuation
No. 171 be amended by adding thereto immediately after the word "was" in line 20 the word "not".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 3-Contributions.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There is an amendment to this section, deleting the words *"first day of October, 1944" wherever they appear and inserting in lieu thereof the words *"fifteenth day of August, 1944," because it is intended that the act shall operate from August 15, 1944.
Mr. MICHAUD:: I move accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Are we carrying this whole section, which covers several pages, or are we taking it subsection by subsection?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If the hon gentleman wishes them carried separately I would have no objection.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wish the minister would point out, so that we may identify it definitely and not miss it, the section which gives those now under the retirement fund the right to transfer.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: We have not yet come to that. In these subsections we give those who had service prior to appointment the right to bring in that service by making the appropriate contribution. The transfer from the retirement fund to the superannuation fund is dealt with on page 12 of the bill.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 4-Regulations by governor in *council.


Alan Webster Neill: Would the minister deal with one point; I have no doubt it is just a matter of explanation. I understand that any person who decided to come under the superannuation act when it was introduced originally was permitted to do so by paying the required sum of money, with interest at the rate of four per cent?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: And that later on, around 1939, that rate was increased to five per cent?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No; it is still four per cent.


Alan Webster Neill: Then the rate of contribution was increased, was it not?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The contributions, as a result of the report of the committee of this
house, in 1939, were left at the same rate for male emplo3''ees earning SI,200 or less, increased to 5i per cent for male employees earning from $1,200 to $1,500 and to 6 per cent for those earning more than $1,500.


Alan Webster Neill: This is the point I wish to make-
Mr. ST. LAURENT: And they were left at 5 per cent for female employees.


Alan Webster Neill: It always comes down to an individual case. Supposing the man I am thinking of elects now to come in under the plan. Of course he has a lot of back years. Will he have to pay the original 4 per cent interest on the back money, or will it be increased to 5 per cent-or whatever the rate is?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It will be at the increased' rate. We shall come to that section later on.


Alan Webster Neill: Not for the whole period?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes; that was the committee's recommendation.


Alan Webster Neill: And that is the way it will be?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes; that was the recommendation of the House of Commons' committee. It was found upon investigation that the rates were not sufficient, and in order to make the fund solvent and keep it solvent it was necessary to increase the rate. The committee felt at that time it would be improper to take in any more at a rate that had proved to be insufficient.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was it necessary to
change the date October 1 to August 15 everywhere it occurred?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	Everywhere they
occurred in section 3. There is only one place we shall leave the provision for October, and that is in section 11C at page 10. That is done because there are still two or three provincial employees who have not yet been transferred, and we want to leave that open until October.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was the amendment an omnibus to change them all?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It changed all those in section 3. The hon. member will notice that section 3 changes four sections of the original act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Running from page 2 to page 8.
Civil Service Superannuation

Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes; that is correct.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 5-Treasury board direct payment in certain cases.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I move:
That section 5 be amended by striking out the words "first day of October, 1944" where ;hey occur and substituting therefore the words :'15th day of August, 1944".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
On section 7-Right to elect to become contributors.
Joseph Enoil Michaud: I move:
That section 7 be amended by striking out the words "first day of October, 1944" where they occur, and substituting therefor the words "15th day of August, 1944".


Stanley Howard Knowles: I take it there are no exceptions at all in the provisions of this section? Any civil servant under the old act may transfer within a year after August 15 without an.y restriction?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes; that is correct. It is intended to give a full year fom the time the act comes into force, to anyone who is .in the retirement fund and who wishes to transfer to the superannuation fund. He transfers automatically what he has in the retirement fund, and that pays his contribution up to date in the superannuation fund.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 8-Funds transferred to superannuation account.
Joseph Enoil Michaud: I move:
That section 8 be amended by striking out the words "first day of October, 1944." where they occur and substituting therefor the words "15th day of August, 1944."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 9-Right to elect to become a contributor.
Joseph Enoil Michaud: I move:
That section 9 be amended by striking out the words "first day of October. 1944," where they occur and substituting therefor the words "15th day of August, 1944."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 10 agreed to.

On section 11-Coming into force.
Joseph Enoil Michaud: I move:
That section 11 be amended by striking out the -words "first day of October, 1944," where they occur and substituting therefor the words "15th day of August, 1944."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Golding in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
357. National research council-salaries and other expenses of the national research council, $920,529.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Before we deal with this item, would the Minister of Mines and Resources give consideration to the suggestion I made a moment ago-I do not know whether [DOT] he was in the house-namely, that so far as possible the page boys be given time off tomorrow afternoon and evening and the remaining Saturdays of the session? I think we could get along with a skeleton staff.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is a matter for Mr. Speaker and not for the government. I have no doubt His Honour will take note of my hon. friend's suggestion.


Alan Webster Neill: I suggest that the members be given time off from six o'clock. That is always done, but at the last minute.


James Garfield Gardiner: If we get through tonight we may be through at six o'clock.


Ernest Edward Perley: Will the minister explain the increase in this item?
Hon, J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce): The increase in the item is- ' due to increased work and increased staff.


Ernest Edward Perley: The details on page 193 of the estimates show a decrease in the staff. In 1943-44 the total was ninety-three; in 1944-45 it is eighty-eight.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
358. Expanded research on the utilization of farm crops, $325,000.
Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: I have always been interested in this particular work and I notice that this is the first time we have had an appropriation for it. When the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture were up I asked' him what we were doing in this connection..

Supply-Trade and Commerce
The hon. member for Moose Jaw made a fine speech in the house some time ago in connection with this matter. Like other hon. members he had been in the United States and had seen what that country was doing. There are not details for this item, but I do not think enough money is being voted. This work affects not only the people on the farms but those in the city, and it is very important in connection with post-war activities.
In 1938 the United States appropriated a tremendous amount of money, but it was small in comparison for what is appropriated by the chemical industry of that country for research work. That industry appropriates between two and three per cent of its total sales values and there are industries in Great Britain which appropriate like amounts. You have to keep up to date in research. The Minister of Agriculture can correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that in 4938 the United States appropriated about one-seventh of one per cent of the value of their crops. We should have a full statement from the minister so that we shall know just what is to be done.


Ernest Edward Perley: I was going to speak along the same line and ask the minister to explain exactly the nature of this expenditure. I should like to know what part of this research work will be carried on in western Canada where many farm products are produced. What staff does he propose to set up?


James Angus MacKinnon: I do not know just how extensive a statement hon. members would care to have, but I can make a concise statement as to what is proposed. This item is to deal with one particular development that the national research council has under way at the present time. The government considers it essential that there be an expansion of research work for the utilization of agricultural crops including the establishment of a branch laboratory in western Canada to study industrial uses of surplus crops. This will involve the construction and equipping of a laboratory building located in western Canada and the provision of additional staff at Ottawa and at the new laboratory. For 1944-45 it is estimated that work on the erection and equipping of the western laboratory will cost $200,000 and that a further amount of $125,000 will be required for operating supplies and staff.
The need for this expansion was discussed at a recent meeting of representatives of the federal Department of Agriculture, the provincial departments of agriculture and the provincial universities of the three prairie provinces and the national research council.
It was recognized, and a resolution was passed recommending that steps be taken immediately to provide for this expansion. It was understood that this expansion programme would not in any way interfere with scientific work now being carried on in the west by the federal or provincial governments.


Ernest Edward Perley: Where will the laboratory
be located? '


James Angus MacKinnon: I propose recommending that it be located where it can best serve the agricultural research needs of the three western provinces.


Ernest Edward Perley: What about the centre of Saskatchewan?


Percy Ellis Wright: The minister did not state the type of research that would be done by this laboratory in western Canada. He said that it was to do research in the utilization of surplus farm products. Can he go farther and state specifically some of the research work that it will do?


James Angus MacKinnon: I am not in a position to go into technical questions, but generally it is for the utilization ff surplus farm products of all kinds.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: What farm
products? I should like to know just what is to be done, and why is it limited to the western provinces? There are so many farm>
products which industry could use and turn into products for reshipment to the farms. One of our problems to-day, of course, is to get more people back on the farms, and there are a lot of ways in which that can be done. We have, of course, to make the farm more attractive. But then there are products that can be grown on the farm which could be utilized in the factories of Ontario, for instance. Take soya beans in Ontario. Is there a reduction plant for soya beans in Ontario?	How many of those reduction
plants have we? What other products is it proposed that we should grow on the farms to be utilized in the factories of Ontario? We have a year of sunshine and we should use it to the full. We are using fifty million years of sunshine when we use coal and oil, and it takes comparatively little labour to do that. We should see to it that we utilize to the full the one year of sunshine that we get on the farms, so that we may put as many of our people as possible to work. The minister has enlightened us veiy little. Skim milk is another product that can be used in factories. Would the minister give us a comparison between what is being done in Canada
Supply-Trade and Commerce

in research in this direction and what is being done in the United States. We need more information before we can pass this item.


Alan Webster Neill: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, you called item 357 and declared it carried before we had a chance to find it in our books and speak on it. Would the minister permit a question now on item 357?


James Angus MacKinnon: The item is passed, but I do not mind one question.


Alan Webster Neill: Thank you. It is so kind: of you. I understand that a body in British Columbia interested in research has submitted a long brief to the minister asking for a grant of $400,000 from the dominion to assist them in establishing research facilities in British Columbia. The immediate demand was for $400,000 and a larger sum later. While I do not suggest that we are entitled to that sum now, although we would like to get it if we can, would the minister state whether item 357 will cover any of the demands that were made in that brief?


James Angus MacKinnon: I spoke on that when my estimates were up a day or two ago. I received a brief from the minister of lands and mines of British Columbia, and I have replied to him to the effect that I propose to submit his request to a meeting of the committee on scientific and industrial research which I have called for Tuesday night. A grant of $400,000 has been asked for, some $300,000 of which would be for the erection of a building. I cannot say anything further about the matter until it has been discussed at the meeting.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: We are on item 358.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The hon. member for Lethbridge has brought up the matter of sugar beets on several occasions. Is any research to be made on that question? When we are asked to pass a vote of $325,000 we want to know what it is for.


James Angus MacKinnon: The $325,000 is for the establishment of a research unit in western Canada to serve the three western provinces. So far as research for farm crops to be utilized1 in factories in Ontario is concerned we have the national research council located here in Ontario.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: What are we doing about it?


James Angus MacKinnon: That is a question apart from this item.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I do not know whether it is apart from this item at all.


Ernest Edward Perley: The minister stated that more than half of this vote would be used for a laboratory and equipment and he said that it would be established in the central part of western Canada.


James Angus MacKinnon: I did not say that.


Ernest Edward Perley: He said that it would: be as nearly as possible in the central part of the three prairie provinces where it would best serve their needs. I think the Minister of Agriculture will bear me out in that.


James Angus MacKinnon: I would suggest that the hon. member leave that question where it is for the sake of his own province.


Ernest Edward Perley: For the sake of his own province? If it is to be established fn the central part- of the three prairie provinces I am sure that it will be somewhere in Saskatchewan. The three prairie provinces were represented at the meeting where no doubt this question was discussed. Can the minister be a little more definite and say just where the laboratory will be located?
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Saturday, July 29, 1944
The house met at eleven o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Second report of special committee on reconstruction and reestablishment.-Mr. Turgeon.
Third report of special committee on social security.-Mr. Macmillan.
Fifth report of standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Moore.
. PRIVILEGE
mr. ross (st. papl's)-press reports on final

Douglas Gooderham Ross: I rise to a question of privilege. An article appearing in the Montreal Gazette of Friday, July 28, reported the radio committee on broadcasting as tabling a unanimous final report in the House of Commons. Also, Mr. Speaker, from other reports in the press which have had wide publicity, and from a radio announcement on Thursday night it is made to appear that the report was unanimous. I desire to make it clear that the report was not unanimous.

Labour Conditions
Certain portions of it were unacceptable to the Progressive Conservative members sitting on the committee, and I desire to make this known both to the house and to the country at this time.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. C. BLACK (Cumberland):: Has the Minister of Labour any report to make with respect to the progress of negotiations in the settlement of the strike at the Halifax shipyard? I wish to point out that this trouble spreads beyond the Halifax shipyards and is of interest to labour organizations in other parts of the province. I have resolutions from the United Mine Workers Union in my own county who are concerned and ask that the shipyards be compelled to accept the decision of the board. I should like a statement from the minister. I wish to express the hope that progress is being made towards a settlement and that it will soon be arrived at.


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I have nothing further to report, except to say that I think: my hon. friend is aware that the issue in dispute is the checkoff and maintenance of membership in the agreement. This company has had an agreement with the employees for the last three years. I understand they are quite prepared to sign the agreement with the exception of the check-off and maintenance of membership clause insisted on by thfe organization. That is the only issue in dispute. It is not a question of union recognition. Along with my hon. friend I hope that good sense will prevail on both sides and that the dispute will soon end, in view of the nature of the industry down there.


Percy Chapman Black: Is not the
check-off a statutory necessity in Nova Scotia?


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not know. There is a local law down there. I could not answer that. There is a provincial collective bargaining act and I think in some respects in conformity with the act it is mandatory. But there are technicalities in the way. That is my understanding.


CANADIAN FORCES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Gooderham Ross: On various occasions in the house I have asked the Minister of Labour if he would be good enough tc clarify the intent and purpose of section 3 of the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act. There is much controversy over this matter in connection with the words:
To reinstate him in employment at the termination of his service in such occupation and position as would be consistent with the true intent and purpose of this act and under conditions not loss favourable to him than those which would have been applicable to him had he remained in the employment of that employer.
Would the minister be good enough to make a statement in clarification of this section?' If he cannot do so now, he may take this as a notice.


Thomas Vien: This is not a question that should be asked on the orders of the day.


Gordon Graydon: As long as it is not lost by the procedure that is now being taken I think the Minister of Labour ought to make a statement in clarification of it later. Perhaps the' minister would take the hon. member's question as a notice.
Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's) I raise this question only because I have had so many letters in connection with the matter. It really should be clarified.


CIVIL SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
ATTACHMENT OF SALARIES FOR DEBT-REFERENCE TO REPORT IN OTTAWA Journal OF JULY 29
On the orders of the day:
George Black: I should like to direct attention to the fact that in the Ottawa Morning Journal the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) is reported to have referred to the fact that the salary or remuneration of federal civil servants is not subject to attachment for debt. The hon. member has drawn my attention to this report. He did not say anything of the kind; he made no reference at all to the matter. I was the hon. member guilty of making that statement, which is correct, and I am prepared to take the responsibility for it.


FARM PRICES
[Stage Direction]
PROVISION FOR STABILIZATION, PURCHASE OF [DOT] STAPLE PRODUCTS AT APPROVED PRICES, ETC.
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of bill No. 168, for the support of the prices of agricultural products during the transition from war to peace.
He said: At the very beginning I wish to call attention to a mistake which has been made in printing the bill, because it may be
[Stage Direction]


Farm Prices
in the minds of hon. members as they discuss the matter. It will be noted that at page 5314 of Hansard for July 25 I moved the resolution upon which this bill is based. The second paragraph of that resolution contains this statement:
To provide further that the governor in *council may authorize from time to time payments out of unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund, up to an aggregate of two hundred million dollars . . .
I notice that in the printed bill that amount is given as two million dollars. I wanted to indicate that mistake in the very beginning of the discussion. When the bill is in committee it will be amended to read two hundred million dollars.
In moving second reading of this bill I would first of all call attention to its title: an act for the support of the prices of agricultural products during the transition from war to peace. At the same time I should like to call attention to some misunderstandings which I think are in the minds of people generally, unless they have been somewhat recently checking the figures with regard to the transition period following the last war. For example, in going over the records of prices during the last war I find that generally speaking the prices of farm products did not reach the level of the prices of 1941 until the third year of the war. Therefore the years which are comparable as far as prices go during the last war would be 1915-16 with regard to grains and 1916 with regard to other products for which the records are kept on a calendar year basis. Those would be comparable with 1941-42 during this war, so far as grains are concerned, and with 1941 for other products the records of which are kept on the basis of the calendar year. Taking those price levels during the last war and during this war, I should like to make some comments; and with the permission of the house I should like these tables placed upon Hansard in the form in which I have them before me, in order that they may be brought to the attention of hon. members and of the country.
It will be seen that the price of oats, for example, which of course enter into the feeding of live stock, in 1915-16 was 45-6 cents per bushel, basis Fort William, while in 1941-42 the average during the year was 49-1 cents. The price of barley in 1915-16 was 64 cents and in 1941-42 it was 59-8 cents, or almost 60 cents. Then when we come to butcher steers, basis Toronto, the price for good butcher steers in 1916 was 8-4 cents; in 1941 it was 8-7 cents. Bacon hogs sold at Toronto in 1916' for $10.54 and in 1941 for $10.20.

The price of cheese at Montreal in 1916 was 19-8 cents; in 1941 it was 18-2 cents.
Richard Burpee Hanson: That is without any bonus?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is figured with the premiums which then existed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In both cases?


James Garfield Gardiner: There were no premiums in the first case; there were premiums in the second. Butter sold in Montreal for 35-1 cents in 1916 and. 33-7 cents in 1941. Eggs sold at Montreal for 39-5 cents in 1916 and 34-6 cents in 1941. I would call attention to the fact that in the following year during both the last war and this war, there was a considerable increase in prices generally. For example, in 1916-17 oats went up to 61-9 cents. In 1942-43 they were pegged, of course, at a ceiling of 514 cents and the average price was 49-2 cents or approximately the same as in 1941. It will be recalled, however, that the following year we added 10 cents a bushel to the ceiling price, which brought the average up to 61-5 cents, so it was not until 1943 that the price of oats was raised to a figure comparable with the price in 1916-17. At the same time I would recall that without any controls during the last war, in the year which is comparable with 1943-44 oats went up to 81-8 cents and the following year dropped back to 78-9 cents. That was the year in which the war ended.
The story with regard to barley is a little different from the story with regard to most of the other products, and I am not sure that I can say why that should be so. The price of barley went up much earlier in the last war than did the prices of most products. Barley in 1915-16 was 64 cents. The next year it was $1.06 and the next year it was $1.37. Then, in the year the war ended, namely 1918-19- and it ended early in that crop year-barley dropped back to $1.07.
There is one point to which I would draw attention in connection with the price of barley in that particular year. There was a variation in the price running from an average of $1.21, low, in one month to $1.81 high in another month. In other words there was a great variation throughout the year in the price of barley during that period of time.
In this war, while barley started at very nearly the same price-approximately 60 cents a bushel as against 64-it was only 59-8 in the year 1941-42. It was pegged at 64f under our ceiling price structure, and it was the same in the next year, 1942-43. It was up to 79-8 after the premium of 15 cents was added in 1943. It is 79-8 at the present time. Perhaps I should use the term "returns" rather than

Farm Prices
"prices", because in bom those cases it includes premiums or subsidies, or whatever one wishes to call them, which are now paid on barley. Some of this barley is sold in the United States, and we guarantee an additional payment of 15 cents to cover any profit that may be made up to that amount. Then above that there are participation certificates.
With respect to live stock, which to some extent depends upon the cost of the products about which I have been speaking, the price of butcher steers at Toronto in 1917 rose from $8.42 in 1916 to $10.73 in 1917, $13.29 in 1918 and in 1919, the year following the war, $13.66. 'Then, in this war the price in 1941 was $8.70, in 1942, $10.29, which is comparable with the
1917	figure; and $11.76 in 1943, which is somewhat lower than the 1918 figure. Then, the 1944 price, up to date, is $11.76, which is comparable with the $13.66 in 1919, the year following the war.
Bacon hogs are an outstanding example of where prices were higher during the last war than they have been during this one. The *price of bacon hogs during the last war stood *at $10.54 in 1916, $15.55 in 1917. $18.16 in
1918	and $18.71 in the year following the war, 1919.
Mr. CASTLE,DEN: That is at Toronto?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Was not wheat another example?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not included in this *bill, so that I am not now discussing it.
In this war, in 1941-42, the year the ceilings were put on pork, the price of live hogs was $10.20; in 1942 it was $11.97; in 1943. $12.90, and in 1944. $14.10. That is the price including the premium we have now placed on hogs in 1944.
The cheese prices perhaps most nearly approach the same levels in both wars, because we find that the cheese p'rice in Montreal in 1916 was 19-08 cents; in 1917. 22-08; in 1918, 23-02 and in 1919, 28-01. In this war the price was 18-02 cents in 1941; 24-05 cents in 1942; 25-07 in 1943, and in this year, 1944, it is 26-01.
Butter prices in the last war were these: In 1916, 35-1 cents; 1917, 42-2; in 1918, 46-6, and in the year after the war the price was 57-4. In this war these are the butter prices: In 1941, 33-7 cents; in 1942, 39-9; in 1943, 40-9, and in the present year, 1944, 42-5.
Wholesale to retail egg prices at Montreal at the time of the last war were as follows: In 1916, 39-5 cents; in 1917, 51-8; in 1918, 59-5 and in 1919, 63-3. In this war the egg prices have been as follows: in 1941, 34-6; in 1942, 40-6; and in 1943, 44-8. The price this year is running at about the same as it was last year, or about 45 cents a dozen.
I have said I would like to have this table put on Hansard, in the form in which I have it. I believe I have read, practically all of it to the house, in order that hon. members may have before them all the figures they would want, when discussing the matter later in the day.
The table in full, therefore, is as follows:


PRICES LAST WAR AND THIS
[Stage Direction]
Last W ar	This W ar
'Oats (Ft. Wm.). .. .	1915-16 .. c 45-6	1916-17 61-9	1917-18 81-8Barley (Ft. Wm.) ..	.. c64	106	121-181 137Butcher steers	1916	1917	1918(Toronto) per lb. .	.. c 8-42	10-73	13-29Bacon hogs B1 (Toronto) (live)..	..c10-54	15-55	18-16-Cheese (Montreal) ..	.. c 19-8	22-8	23-2Butter (Montreal) . .	.. c 35-1	42-2	46-6Eggs (Montreal) ... .	.. c 39-5	51-8	59-51918-19	1941-42	1942-43	1943-44	1944-4578-9	49-1	49-2	61-5 64-8	61-5107	59-8	59-8	79-8	79-81919	1941	1942	1943	194413-66	8-70	10-29	11-76	11-7618-71	10-20	11-97	12-90	14-1028-1	18-2	24-5	25-7	26-157-4	33-7	39-9	40-9	42-563-3	34-6	40-6	44-8	
There is another point to which I would call attention at the present time, and it is this. The high price levels resulting from the last war did not come during the war. The "figures I have read will show that the prices were considerably higher on most of these [DOT]products in 1,919, the year following the war, than they were during the war years. It 100-351J
might be said that the same condition continued throughout 1920, and on some products even into 1921. But there was a decided reduction in prices, particularly in prices of live stock products, during 1921 andi 1922. However there was a considerable revival in the prices of farm products generally throughout the twenties, and more particularly again
Farm Prices
[Stage Direction]
in the price of live stock products. That revival began about. 1922, and continued right up until 1928 and 1930. The real reduction in farm prices came in. 1931.
In other words the prices during the later twenties were more nearly comparable with the prices we had during the latter part of the war and immediately following, than were the prices for the first two years of the twenties.
I have another table here I should like to place on Hansard, without reading the whole of it., which demonstrates the point I have been making. However I should like to read a few of the prices which prevailed in 1931, and compare them with the prices in 1919.
This table shows that in 1919 the price of oats was 7S-9 cents, and in 1930, 58 cents. It dropped to 29 cents in 1931.
Barley stood at $1.07 in 1919, and at 56 cents in 1930. It dropped to 28 cents in 1931.
Butcher steers stood at 13-66 cents in 1919 and 10-16 in 1929, with a drop to 8-97 in 1930 and to 5-93 in 1931.
Bacon hogs in 1919 stood at 18-7 cents; in 1930, 12-32 and 1931, 7-39.
The cheese price in 1919 was 28-1 cents; in 1929, 18-6; in 1930, 16-4, and in 1931, 11-7.
These were the butter prices: In 1919, 57 cents; in 1930, 30 cents; in 1931, 24 cents.
And for eggs: In 1919, 63 cents; in 1930, 45 cents; in 1931, 34 cents.
The complete table follows:

[Stage Direction]
Oats	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1928-1930	193199-3	58-4	47-9	40-9	65	58-8	58-8	29Barley	161	95	63	54	71	56	28Butcher Steers,	per lb. e 13-66	12-89	7-58	7-36	6-95	10-16	8-97	5-93Bacon Hogs Bl.	(live) c 18-70	18-90	11-72	12-63	9-76	12-27	12-32	7-39Cheese	26-7	18-4	17-1	19-2	21	18-6	16-4	11-7Butter	58	42	35	37	39	30	24Eggs	66-8	51-1	45-1	47-4	48	45	34
George Hugh Castleden: Where do those prices prevail?


James Garfield Gardiner: Fort William for oats
and barley; Toronto for butchers' steers and bacon hogs, and Montreal for cheese, butter and eggs.


Thomas Miller Bell: The minister is not
giving the all-time low which came a little later.


James Garfield Gardiner: No. The prices which
I have quoted for 1931 are reasonably comparable with those that prevailed for a continuous period of years following. They were lower in 1932 and 1933 and they were up a little in other years, but there was no con-siberable rise in price until we got close to this present war.


Percy Ellis Wright: Are those prices to the
consumer?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are wholesale
prices. I wanted to place these figures before hon. members this morning because some are inclined to think that we went through the last war with rather high prices and then immediately following there was a slump. That was not the case. I recite these facts in order to show that in a bill of this kind it would be impossible to determine at this stage when a slump in farm prices is going to come as a result of our going through a transition period

from war to peace. It ivould be most difficult to put times or dates into this particular legislation. It is phrased in indefinite terms as is indicated by the title, which is, "An act for the support of the prices of agricultural products during the transition from war to peace."
In order that there may be available at all times the statistics and facts which represent the conditions during this war, in order that it may be possible to compare those facts and figures with those prevailing immediately following or for some time following the war, this bill provides for the setting up of a board to be composed of three members. It is my intention to recommend to the government, and I make the suggestion to the house, that we should content ourselves for the time being with the appointment of a permanent chairman and take two officials of the department and make them pro tem members of the board.
Our intention is that the board shall immediately begin to study the relationship of the conditions which now- exist to the prices which now exist and that all facts with regard to matters of that kind be made available for use immediately the war is over. If I am the minister at that time it is my intention to appoint two permanent members of the board to act with the chairman when the operative part of section No. 9 is brought into effect.

Farm Prices
In this connection there arises the question raised the other day by the hon. member for York-Sunbury with regard to the fisheries board, which applies as well to this board. The question was as to what kind of representation was going to be given the producers in connection with a set-up of this kind. The bill provides for the appointment not only of a board of three but of commodity boards. If the government in its wisdom decides that we are going to have floor prices under dairy products, for example, it would be possible under this bill to appoint a dairy board, just as we have a dairy board to-day, to handle those particular products. If we were going to set floors or certain prices under meat products, then we may have a meat board, as we have a meat board to-day. In connection with these commodity boards there would be an opportunity for regional representation, producer representation and perhaps representation of the business concerns handling the particular' product. I suggest that it would be difficult to have the board which is to administer the act sufficiently large in membership to take care of all those who probably should be represented.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister is suggesting that it would be too large or unwieldy.


James Garfield Gardiner: And too expensive.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That same argument does not apply to the fisheries board.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is a matter which the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Bertrand) can discuss.
In addition the bill provides for an advisory committee. I stated on a previous occasion that when appointing an advisory committee to the food board we had left to the agricultural producers or the Canadian farm federation the question whether they would prefer to have one member on a board of three or five or six, or be adequately represented on an advisory committee. After some discussion with their own organizations the president reported to me that they preferred to be represented on the advisory committee. We proceeded to appoint the president of the federation as chairman of the advisory committee, and I referred to the fact the other day that this committee was to meet, as it did during the last two days. We appointed two other representatives who were nominated directly by the federation, and then other members of the federation were selected by provincial governments across Canada. I think it is generally considered that they have adequate representation on this advisory
committee of twelve. This bill makes provision for the setting up of an advisory committee of that kind. I think it is possible to have the kind of representation which would be most helpful to the producers on a committee of that- kind as well as on some of the commodity boards.
There is an obvious reason-this is one which I suggest myself, and it may not be the reason the federation would suggest-for selecting an advisory committee rather than a permanent administration board to provide representation for the producers. The best reason I can think of is this-and it is sometimes stated by members of the house. When a producer has been on a board or in the department for two or three years he ceases to represent the producers. If you were going to try to satisfy the producers that they are represented on a board of that kind at all times you might be required toi change the membership so often that probably it tvould not function very efficiently.
In addition I do not believe that anyone who is in the pay of the government drawing a salary from the government, is nearly as free to criticize the government as the man who is not paid a salary by the government, and so I believe that the producers are in a much stronger position when they have adequate representation on an advisory committee, where they can give their advice to the government through the minister or through the board, and where the minister or head of the board can sit in with them and give the views of the government with regard to the matter under consideration. While these matters are discussed in a committee which meets behind closed doors, and the advice is given just as the advice of officials is given to the government, yet these men are free to go back and advise their own people and give them the reasons why certain things are not being or are being done, and their own organizations are perfectly free to criticize the government for anything which the government has decided to do after considering the advice given to them by the committee. In other words, we d* not always follow the advice that is given b>
the committee, and we seldom follow their advice one hundred per cent. Sometimes, too, before the committee give their advice they call in the minister or a board to ask them to state why a certain thing has not been done, and in many cases after all the facts have been placed before them they agree that what was proposed is the proper thing to do. In other cases, we agree to disagree on occasions and go on with the task, believing that the responsibility in matters of policy rests with the government and that they must take that responsibility. I believe that a system of that kind
557S
Farm Prices

works successfully in getting the proper kind of administration. It brings before the government the advice of those immediately concerned and makes it possible for the government to act upon it or give reasons why it should not.


Gordon Graydon: I presume that a good deal depends upon how close a liaison there is between the committee, the government and the board which happens to be concerned. I take it that if the advisory committee were meeting only once a year and did not keep in close liaison with the government its value by virtue of that fact would be diminished.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes it would be, but I would suggest that governments in a country like ours are dependent upon public opinion for their existence, and they could not very well stand up against the fact that they had set up an advisory committee which they never called together, or an advisory committee whose advice they did not try to follow where possible. Each time that the chairman of the committee already discussed has suggested that we might have a meeting, we have arranged to have it. I was very agreeably- I will not say surprised, because this is what I expected would happen-affected by the fact that this committee has never asked to be brought together at expense to the government except at times when it was important that they should be here. For example, when this bill was coming up, they thought it was important that they should be here during this week, and they suggested that they would like to convene here around July 26. We.said: All right, convene. The committee was called together. That is the basis on which we have been working. It is the basis upon which we can continue to work no matter what government is here, and if that practice is continued the producers will have adequate representation in connection with this kind of legislation.
There is one other thing I would like to call to the attention of the house, and that is the great variations in farm income over a period of years. I have before me a sheet which is got out by the statistics branch from time to time, showing the gross agricultural cash income, that is the receipts from the sale of farm products, over a period of years. I should like to read a few of these figures in order to impress upon the minds of hon. members the great variations that there are in the cash income of farmers in Canada as between one year and another and one period and another.
The average annual gross cash income of farmers all across Canada during 1926 to
[Mr. Gardiner.J
1929 was $970-5 million. The highest figure that we have ever reached down to the present war period was $1,063-8 million in 1928. The lowest figure we have ever bad during a period extending back over many years beyond what this table shows was $383-5 million in the year 1932. We have gradually come up from that point until in the year just before the war, in 1939, it was $722-3 million. It was not until 1942 that there was a considerable increase above that. It is true that we were up by about $200 million in 1941, but in 1942 the income rose * to the highest figure on these records up to that time, $1,114-9 million, or approximately $1,115 million. In 1943 the gross cash farm income was $1,396-6 million. In the present year through which we are now passing the gross cash farm income for the first six months was twenty-five per cent higher right across Canada than it was in the first half "of last year. So that if that continues on until the end of the year, and the tendency is for it to run higher during the last half of the year, it would be at least twenty-five per cent higher than that.


George Hugh Castleden: They delivered the grain in the first six months of 1944.


James Garfield Gardiner: They will deliver a lot more in the last half of this year than l^ist, because they have a better crop this year than last year. But I was going to refer to that in a moment, in order to deal with something else. I wish hon. members would take these sheets and go back over the years show-ing the variations in income in the different provinces. It will be found, for example, that one of the reasons why we had a gross cash farm income of $1,063 million in 1928 was that that was the biggest year of wheat production in the history of this country down to 1942, and along with that high production we had high prices. The income that year was higher than in the year before or in the year following. The gross cash farm income in 1927 was $934 million; in 1928, $1,063 million; in 1929, $926 million. It dropped right back in 1929 to about where it was in 1927. The increases shown in this table were due to the fact that there was an increase in Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan, where this wheat comes from. But as I said at the beginning, wheat does not come under this bill, and I make that observation in order to point out that if one were going to take the comparable figures in the different provinces over a period of years one would have to allow for the fact that under this bill we are dealing with the other products rather than wheat.

Farm Prices


Percy Chapman Black: Will those figures be placed on the records by provinces?


James Garfield Gardiner: They can be put on just as they are if it is the wish of the house.


Percy Chapman Black: I would like to see them put on by provinces.


James Garfield Gardiner: They are:
GROSS AGRICULTURAL CASH INCOME: RECEIPTS FROM SALE OF FARM PRODUCTS, 1926-1943
(Does not include all Subsidies Paid)
-	P.E.I.	N.S.	N.B.	Que.	Ont.	Man.	Sask.	Alta.	B.C.	Total
	(Million Dollars)									
Average- 1926-29	8-34	15-06	13-95	100-35	260-32	81-52	282-34	179-31	29-33	970-51926	8-46	13-70	15-67	96-15	254-61	89-79	291-18	162-50	25-48	957-61927	8-45	14-77	13-55	95-93	252-68	79-72	271-47	170-00	27-46	934-01928	7-99	16-20	13-19	107-16	269-08	82-97	321-55	213-67	31-96	1,063-81929	8-45	15-56	13-35	102-15	264-90	73-61	245-14	171-08	32-43	926-71930	7-32	16-24	12-86	82-67	216-62	48-31	122-39	95-42	30-27	632-11931	4-21	12-70	9-04	62-28	163-40	31-32	70-63	70-96	20-56	445-11932	2-88	10-28	6-62	47-64	123-31	28-62	77-64	68-79	17-73	383-51933	3-30	12-64	6-95	47-74	129-37	32-29	76-62	69-07	18-57	396-61934	4-11	13-18	8-78	60-36	145-55	43-34	93-47	95-28	21-20	485-31935	3-83	13-86	8-85	64-59	155-09	36-13	108-10	98-91	21-93	511-31936	516	14-29	10-46	72-10	184-80	47-23	125-84	94-85	23-48	578-2'1937	5-97	17-58	11-83	85-51	215-99	74-90	84-29	122-17	27-50	645-71938	5-27	17-70	10-84	89-85	219-02	65-06	93-41	133-92	29-25	664-31939	6-53	13-12	12-12	101-49	217-92	64-75	158-06	120-17	28-17	722-31940	7-24	17-17	15-52	120-68	233-42	64-98	150-85	127-19	28-80	765-81941	8-55	20-06	19-45	144-88	286-49	81-65	161-96	154-41	36-65	914-01942	12-70	25-96	27-30	176-91	355-11	101-32	195-47	175-56	44-67	1,114-91943	15-92	30-94	34-45	200-03	389-14	136-14	311-44	223-08	55-81	1,396-6
Index Numbers Receipts from Sale of Farm Products 1926-29=100 (Per Cent)
Average- 1926	101-4	91-0	112-3	95-8	97-8	110-1	103-1	90-6	86-9	98-71927	101-3	98-1	97-1	95-6	97-1	97-8	96-1	94-8	93-6	96-21928	95-8	107-6	94-6	106-8	103-4	101-8	113-9	119-2	109-0	109-61929	101-3	103-3	95-7	101-8	101-8	90-3	86-8	95-4	110-6	95-51930	87-8	107-8	92-2	82-4	83-2	59-3	43-3	53-2	103-2	65-11931	50-5	84-3	64-8	62-1	62-8	38-4	25-0	39-6	70-1	45-91932	34-5	68-3	47-4	47-5	47-4	35-1	27-5	38-4	60-4	39-51933	39-6	83-9	49-8	47-6	49-7	39-6	27-1	38-5	63-3	40-91934	49-3	87-5	62-9	60-1	55-9	53-2	33-1	53-1	72-3	50-01935	45-9	92-0	63-4	64-4	59-6	44-3	38-3	55-2	74-8	52-71936	61-9	94-9	75-0	71-8	71-0	57-9	44-6	52-9	80-0	59-61937	71-6	116-7	84-8	85-2	83-0	91-9	29-9	68-1	93-8	66-51938	63-2	117-5	77-7	89-5	84-1	79-8	33-1	74-7	99-7	68-41939	78-3	87-1	86-9	101-1	83-7	79-4	56-0	67-0	96-0	74-41940	86-8	114-0	111-3	120-2	89-7	79-7	53-4	70-9	98-2	78-91941	102-5	133-2	139-4	144-4	110-0	100-2	57-4	86-1	125-0	94-2-1942	152-3	172-4	195-7	176-3	136-4	124-3	69-2	97-9	152-3	114-91943	190-9	205-4	247-0	199-3	149-5	167-0	110-3	124-4	190-3	143-9*
Note: Revised figures, Dominion Bureau of Statistics. 22/2/44
Farm Prices

What I wish to say in that regard is this. They could be taken without wheat, but at the same time, may I say that this board that is set up will be taking into consideration what is happening in regard to wheat. That is, while they do not control, still, all the facts in relation to wheat will have to be kept in their proper relation to the provinces in which wheat is grown, and in relation to the farm income of Canada. All that will have to be kept on the records of the board.


Richard Burpee Hanson: To give effect to a levelling of farm income, to balance things.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will give something relating to that in a moment.


Percy Ellis Wright: Why does the government not place wheat under the control of this board?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is an old story that dates back to 1897 and I would not care to review it all. We passed a grain act known as the Canada Grain Act, which had its origin in the discussions that took place around the beginning of the century. The bill was introduced in 1901 and was passed in that year, known as the Canada Grain Act, and it was placed under the administration of the Department of Trade and Commerce. It has been under that administration ever since, and under .that administration there was, before this war started at all, a board which was doing or attempting to do in effect some of the things which this board may do now. That is to say, they had a floor price, a pegged price or advance payment set, and if wheat went to the wheat board the farmer would receive that minimum price no matter what the price was on the market, and he also had the advantages of participation.


Percy Ellis Wright: Why are not other grains under this board?


James Garfield Gardiner: Some years ago it was provided in the act as originally drawn, the wheat board act, that they might handle oats and barley, but that was removed from the act a few years later.


Percy Ellis Wright: Is the minister proposing to have other grains under these boards that he is now setting up?


James Garfield Gardiner: In practice what we would do would be this. If the government did find it necessary to put floors under oats and barley after the war, the administration in
[Mr. Gardiner.l
that connection, the commodity board appointed, would be the wheat board. That would be the natural thing to do.


Percy Ellis Wright: And these boards that the minister is now proposing-


James Garfield Gardiner: I wish the hon. member would allow me to finish the statement I am making. He can ask questions afterwards in committee. I would like to get on the record the system as it is intended to operate, and afterwards hon. members can ask any questions they like. I have reviewed shortly the facts which are on this sheet with regard to the gross cash income from farm products but I would call attention to the lower part of the table, which should be published along with the other, which gives the index number, receipts from the sale of farm products, 1926-29 being 100, and it gives the percentage figures. These again are given by provinces and it will be found that for example in the province of Saskatchewan, which produces a greater percentage of grain in relation to all its farm products than any other province, the figure for 1926 is 103, and the figure for 1932, the low year, is 27-5. The figure for 1939, the last year before the war, is 56 and the figure for 1943, which is the last year for which I have figures, is 110-3. In other words, it is back to a little higher level than in 1926. But when you read the table either way from that, you find that is the low point for all the provinces in Canada.
Mr. B'LACKMORE: Which is?


James Garfield Gardiner: Saskatchewan. That is the low figure. If you go west from Saskatchewan, you find that Alberta is 124-4, which is the second lowest; British Columbia 190-3; and as you go east from Saskatchewan you find that Manitoba is 167; Ontario is 149-5 and Quebec 199-3. You note that the poor crop of last year did seriously affect the province of Ontario. New Brunswick, you find, is 247, Nova Scotia 205 and Prince Edward Island 190-9. That will give some idea of what the relationships are. But while the increase in the first six months of this year of cash income was 25 per cent for all Canada-I understand that the figures are not yet available finally-for western Canada, speaking from memory the figures for Saskatchewan show over 60 per cent of an increase this year as compared with the first six months of last year. That has some relationship to the statement made by the member for York-ton, namely, that much of our grain, even grain not grown in 1943, was delivered in the early part of this year as a result of the increas-

Farm Prices
ed quotas. The increase in the west is greater than it was in the other parts of Canada, so that this year our index figure for Saskatchewan and Alberta should be considerably higher than it was in any of the preceding years as compared with the other provinces, and we believe it will be reasonably comparable with those figures during that time.
I recite these figures in order to emphasize one or two points. The first is that we have production variations affecting income and we have price variations affecting income. The production variations are greatest in connection with cereals or grain crops, as has been emphasized by questions that have been asked. The meat variations run in cycles. It takes about three years to increase or decrease the cattle population and about a year and a half to increase or decrease the hog population, and therefore the meat figures or variations in quantity run in cycles. Dairy products are more constant than any others. If one checks the different provinces and finds that the index figures are fairly consant, one can attribute it to the fact that certain of these farm products are produced in a certain area and others such as grain in other areas where there are greater variations. There is another variation that is to be considered in the figures compiled and that is the price variations, and that leads me to say that not only will it be necessary to stabilize prices as between the war period and the post-war period, but it will be, as it has been, necessary to stabilize prices seasonally. That is to say, taking dairy products, butter is produced in the summer months, and so is cheese. It is carried over in storage in the winter months. The consumption is just as high in one part of the year as in another. As a result of that there has been a great deal of speculation by those who have had to store their products in one part of the year and carry them over into another part of the year. Under this bill it is hoped that it will be possible to level out these prices and to stabilize them on some fair level which will make it possible for, let us say, the commodity board handling dairy products to take control of the storages of butter during the months of May, June and July and to carry those storages over into the winter months, and thus have some control over the prices during those periods in case the trade is not prepared to do so on a basis of fair price levels.
That is all I wish to say with regard to the variations in prices. But there is one thing which I think should be dealt with at this -stage, and it is the fact that when the war is over we are going to be negotiating with
other people for the markets that are going to be necessary to the marketing of our farm products at any prices-


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is the export trade.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the export trade. I suppose some critics of the present plan would. suggest that we may be setting up something to which other countries will object, namely, two price levels, one for our own people and one for the people we are to trade with. In other words, when we have great surpluses here we may sell them cheaper some place else than the price at which we sell them in Canada. I would just like to say in regard to that that we would have a lot of very good company if we did that. Australia and New Zealand were doing that before the war started. The United States did it for a year or two before the war started. One of the chief reasons why we had such low prices on grains particularly was the fact there were great surpluses in the United States and they were prepared to sell them to some other-countries at very much lower prices than those at which we could produce wheat. Therefore I call attention to the fact that there may be criticism to the effect that if we went too far in the direction of controlling we might find more difficulty in dealing with others. All the facts in relation to that will again be collected by this board, and will be available to the government to be placed before others when we are negotiating any such contracts or entering into any arrangements as to the exchange of our agricultural products after the war.
I should like to say that there have been a number of announcements made all foretelling this particular legislation. It is not something that has been rushed into the house without the public knowing it was coming. We have not left the public in the dark as to whether we were going to have it or not. There was considerable discussion on the floor of this house from time to time with regard to measures of this kind, and since that is on the record I am not going to attempt to place it there again; but I shall call attention to what has taken place recently with regard to matters of this kind.
There was a convention held in Ottawa-a Liberal convention, incidentally-on September 27 and 28 of last year. That convention placed before the government their views with regard to a number of matters. Among other things they said this:
We advocate a policy under which Canada will (h) provide security for farmers and fishermen by safeguarding against inflation now and by guaranteeing minimum prices for their products against collapse of prices after the war.
Farm Prices

That recommendation was made to the government and was considered by the government. Speaking at London, Ontario, on October 15, I made this statement as Minister of Agriculture when speaking to a group of people, representatives of agriculture in that area, got together by the Kiwanis club, as reported in the Windsor Star of October 16:
In placing ceilings upon products, with limited subsidies now, the government is assuming responsibility to maintain floors until this country is reestablished after the war. The government owes this ito the farmers who have maintained production under ceilings, and also owes it to the men and women who will return from the services to the farms.
On December 2, 1943, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), speaking over the radio said:
As an essential part of its post-war policy the government intends to ask parliament, at the next session, to place a floor under the prices of the main farm products.
In the speech from the throne this statement was made:
To ensure economic stability for agriculture, you will ibe asked to make provision for a price floor for staple farm products.
The bill which is based upon all of these statements is the bill which is now before the house, and I submit it to the house, Mr. Speaker, for second1 reading, with the suggestion that in the committee stage I shall be prepared to answer any questions I can that may be asked by different members of the committee.


Ernest Edward Perley: The minister has given us a lot of information and a very complete statement, so to speak. I wish we had had that statement on the resolution stage. It would have been much easier for us to make our few comments at this time if we had had the figures before us and an opportunity to review them.
The minister has referred to a period mentioned in the title of the bill, the transition period from war to peace. I was going to say that I was not satisfied with the provision with respect to that period because I think the bill should come into force at once. I feel that this board, having had the time to consider all these matters that have been mentioned this session, should be able to operate right away. As I see it, there are actually three periods, the period1 of the war, the transition period, and the peace-time period, and at the end of that period the section of the bill which brings it into force could contain a paragraph to terminate its operations when that period is over. The operations of this board should

commence right away. This war, we regret to say, is not ended, and it will be some time before we reach the transition period.
The minister. gave us comparisons of prices during the last war, at the end of the war and in the last year of the war, and then the periods following. The figures were all very interesting, but I would say that he is making a comparison with periods that are not comparable. In a great many respects this war is not at all comparable with the last war. It is not comparable with respect to marketing, and I do not think it will be comparable with the last war with respect to the transition period. Marketing conditions of this war have not so far been comparable with marketing conditions of the last war.
The minister gave us figures with respect to oats, barley and live stock. I am not going to deal with them now, because he read them quite rapidly and it was difficult to take them down as they were given. The barley figures were most interesting, and the wheat figures would have been interesting also, but the minister did not go into that question. But in making these comparisons between prices in 1918 and in 1930 I should like to know what the minister was trying to prove.


James Garfield Gardiner: Would the hon. member like an answer now?


Ernest Edward Perley: I should like to know also whether the minister will forecast what will happen in the twelve years following this war. He made a comparison between 1918 and 1930, a period of twelve years. What does he forecast will take place with respect to prices between the time this war ends and 1956? It would be interesting if the minister would tell us that.


James Garfield Gardiner: I stated my reason when I gave the figures; it was in order to show that it would be impossible to have this bill run for a stated number of years, because the real drop in prices after the last war did not come until 1931. That was true not only in this country but in all other countries.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What does that prove?


James Garfield Gardiner: It proves that you cannot say this legislation should last for only three years or only five years. It must be left to the government of the day to determine how long it should be retained. We are not attempting to say now that this legislation will be retained for only three years or five years or any definite period. For the same reason I

Farm. Prices
would not try to prophesy what will happen between now and 1956. We are setting up this board to keep track of what happens.


Ernest Edward Perley: That is what I wanted the minister to admit, because I think he was trying to suggest that the previous government was more or less responsible for prices in 1930.


James Garfield Gardiner: No. If I had wished to make that suggestion I would have said so. My hon. friend is emphasizing the fact. I did no,t blame that upon the government, and did not suggest it. I have sent to my office for as many copies of these tables as are available. They are in print; anyone could have them in the same way that I received them. I have put them on record every session since I have been here. Hon. members may see the figures for themselves.


Ernest Edward Perley: I just wanted to bring that point to the attention of the house. The government of that period has been greatly criticized in connection with the low prices of farm products, and I have always contended that the government was not responsible, that it was during the years prior to 1930 that conditions arose which brought about that situation. The depression and the low prices did not occur only in Canada; they were all over the world. I just wanted to make that comment in passing.
The minister has said the board will consist of three members, with a permanent chairman. I am quite in agreement with that; we must have a board consisting of at least three. He referred also to the advisory committee, on which he said there would be proper representation. He also pointed out that it would be impossible to have the producers of all commodities represented, and I am in agreement with him there. But I would express the hope that this advisory committee will function more successfully than the advisory committee to the wheat board. In that case we have three members constituting the wheat board, who do not take the advice of the advisory committee. In the present instance the minister says there are to be twelve members of the advisory committee, which is a fairly large number. I hope he will see that the producers of western Canada are properly represented. The board is to consist of two officials, with a permanent chairman. We are not told who is to be the chairman, but some people have surmised who he may be, and if the gentleman I have in mind is appointed I think he can do a good job. I do hope, however, this board
will take the advice of the advisory committee. Just in passing, in reading over the bill I see the minister has retained almost complete control himself.
The minister dealt with the question of export trade after the war, and at that point referred to the fact that while this bill was forecast in the speech from the throne in January, a Liberal convention was held in this city last fall at which certain suggestions were made to the government. I believe the minister is trying to take a little credit for the fact that the government has accepted some of those suggestions and is putting them in the form of legislation.


Mr. WARD:: Are you opposed to the bill?


Ernest Edward Perley: Not at all. If the hon. member will just keep quiet I will tell him my position. I should like to remind the minister that in December of 1942 a convention was held in the city of Winnipeg at which a policy was drawn up dealing among other things with agriculture. If he will look over that policy he will discover that it contains many suggestions which under this legislation the board will have power to carry into effect.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is what the
Conservative party always do; they finally advocate what the Liberals who bring in these things have been advocating.


Ernest Edward Perley: Then the minister will admit that a year before the Liberals met in Ottawa the Conservatives drew up a programme containing nine or ten proposals with respect to agriculture. I commend that policy to the minister, for it also advocates the setting up of a board such as this. That policy will be put into force at the first opportunity, which may come sooner than many of us think. The first item of that agricultural policy is:
To consult and enlist the assistance of agricultural interests in formulating and putting into effect policies for the promotion of the welfare of agriculture;
That might cover the advisory committee. The next recommendation is that farm prices be maintained which will give farmers a monetary return bearing a fair relationship to the cost of production.
The minister went on to speak of the increased return to the farmers in recent years. There is no particular point to be made there. We have had a war on; the prices of farm products all over the world have been increased, and it is only natural that the incomes of our farmers should have
Farm Prices

increased considerably in the last year or two. If the minister had accepted the proposals I made on the floor of this house in 1938 we -would have had increased returns ever since. Last fall he raised the price of wheat to S1.25. I am not objecting to that; I think it was the right thing to do, but it should have been done a long time ago and the price might have been raised even more.
Coming back to the Progressive Conservative agricultural policy, the next recommendation is:
To promote the efficiency of Canadian agriculture by a comprehensive programme of conservation-
And so on. And again:
To give primary producers adequate representation on all boards set up to market farm products.
That is what we have here, a board to market our products, and we have said that the farmers should have proper representation on it. Again:
To encourage farmers' organizations for cooperative effort in marketing farm products and in the purchase of supplies and obtaining of credit.
So it will be seen that this convention, held a year before the Liberal convention, advocated practically everything the minister suggested or read into the record.


Mr. HENDERSON:: We had a Liberal
convention in Saskatchewan the year before that suggested these things.


Ernest Edward Perley: I am glad the hon. member mentioned that.


Gordon Graydon: And we had an election
in Saskatchewan a few days ago.


An hon. MEMBER:: Were you there?


Ernest Edward Perley: I am glad that was mentioned, because while they had a Liberal convention out there which favoured this programme, this government paid no attention to it.


Charles Albert Henderson: And what did your
government do about your proposals in 1932?


Gordon Graydon: Are these people rising to points of order?


William Henry Golding: What about yourself?


Gordon Graydon: And you, too.


Thomas Vien: Order.


Ernest Edward Perley: Oh, I do not mind the interruptions, so long as they are just talking among themselves.
Coming back to the point I was making, we should have had this measure two or three

months ago. It should be in operation now, for the months of July, August and September are important months in connection with the marketing of the grain and live stock products in western Canada. The farmer should have this information; he should know all about it before he starts to market in August.
The minister made it clear, as also does the bill, that wheat does not come under this measure, but that coarse grains may. At the present time operations in connection with coarse grains are under the control of the wheat board. This measure sets up another board and, as I have said, if it is properly organized and operated it may be of great benefit. But in my view it should be set up; and we should have the assurance of certain prices for farm products over a given period, and that period should begin right from this date.
Under the measure the minister has wide powers. I shall not take time now to discuss the details of the bill, but if hon. members will look at it they will find that the decisions of the board have to have the approval of the governor in council-and that is really the minister-from time to time. In this connection I would direct the attention of the house particularly to paragraphs (a), (c), (e) and (f) of section 9, which set out the powers the board is to have. Not only is it to buy, sell and control production, but under paragraph
(e)	it has power to package, process, store, ship, transport, export or insure any agricultural product.
In my view it should have more control over processing in packing plants. If that is not done, this measure may develop into what may be described as a measure to establish floor prices for packers. If there is not more control over packers than there is at the present time, that may be the development. There may be a certain amount of juggling, but what we want to know and what we want to have is a definite price for a definite period of time. I can well understand that between spring and fall months there might be changes in prices of farm products. But at least a fair price could be set on practically every product of western Canada.
As I have said, this measure could prove to be just the setting up of another board; on the other hand it could be made worth while, and with that end in view I trust there may be proper representation from the producers on the advisory committee.
I have referred to the policy set out in Winnipeg in December, 1942, and I suggest that the minister would do well to look over that policy. On many occasions from, the floor of this chamber I have suggested a policy of

Farm Prices
55S5
floor prices on farm products of all kinds, particularly grains. If hon. members will review what I said, even as far back as 1938, they will see that that was my stand at that time.
In conclusion I would say-because I think we would do well to get on with the bill and discuss the sections-that agricultural products are the basis of an expanding national economy. In my view the principle of this bill is right; we must preserve farm, prices and see that those prices are maintained at certain standards.
Prices of grain and live stock form a more logical base for the standard of living of all people in Canada than do any other products in any other industry. Therefore, as the minister has said, this measure which sets up a board, the operations of which will be similar to those of the wheat board or the grain commission, is an important one. I wish that contained within the bill there were powers to control processing in packing plants, so that the measure will not result in the establishment of floor prices for packers. It would be my hope that it would result in setting up proper prices for live stock and grain throughout the year.
As I said at the outset, we would have been pleased to have at an earlier stage the figures the minister placed on Hansard. However when the bill comes before the committee we shall have seen them, and at that time we shall have further questions to ask.


Percy Ellis Wright: Mr. Speaker, this is another bill which like that providing family allowances, will receive the support of most hon. members. We may feel that certain sections of the bill, or certain methods to be used as set out therein, are not as we might wish to have them. Nevertheless I think all groups in the house will support the principle behind the measure. It is my understanding that that principle is the stabilization of prices on agricultural products. As the minister has shown in the figures he has given the house, there have been tremendous fluctuations in those prices, not only as between different periods, but as between different seasons. I believe that has been brought about, as the minister has said, by differences in production from year to year caused by weather conditions. As everyone knows, we do not control the weather; when a farmer sows he is never sure he will reap. He may reap a good harvest or may reap a very poor one.
Food requirements throughout the world remain fairly constant. They increase in ratio to the improvement in nutritional standards in various countries.
In my view this bill for the stabilization of the prices of farm products is absolutely sound. One feature I do not like in it is that apparently the minister has limited its time of operation to the period of transition between war and peace.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did the very opposite. I pointed out that it could not be limited.


Percy Ellis Wright: Well, the title of the bill would leave the impression I have indicated- "an act for the support of the prices of agricultural products during the transition from war to peace." That >is a poor title, and I suggest it would have been much better had it been entitled; an act for the maintenance of fair prices for agricultural products. Probably it was the minister's intention that that should be the purpose of the bill, but such purpose certainly is not reflected in its title. Neither is it shown in the last section, which states:
Section 9 of this act shall come into force on a date to be fixed, and remain in force for such period as may be determined, by proclamation of the governor in council published in the Canada Gazette.
Apparently the government may at any time, simply by passing an order in council, wipe out this measure which we propose to put on the statute book at this session of parliament, I do not like that feature of the bill. In my view when the bill becomes law it should remain in force until such time as parliament decides it should be taken from the statute book. For these reasons I think the minister has not given himself a fair deal, so far as the title of the bill and the section to which I referred are concerned.
The minister has stated that this policy was adopted by the Liberal party, and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle has stated that it was accepted by the Progressive Conservative party. They both gave the times at which it had been adopted by their parties. I should like to read into the record evidence to show that this policy was adopted by the party for which I stand, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. It appears in the Regina manifesto issued when the party was first organized in 1932.


William John Ward: Is that the manifesto repudiated the other night by the hon. member?


Percy Ellis Wright: No. I never repudiated the Regina manifesto, nor has it been repudiated by any member of this group at any time or at any place in Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: It just proves that you are all becoming Liberals.
Farm, Prices


Percy Ellis Wright: The manifesto reads:
Encouragement of producers' and consumers' cooperatives; the restoration and maintenance of an equitable relationship between prices of agricultural products and those of other commodities and services; and improving the efficiency of export trade in farm products.
And later on:
The substitution for the present system of foreign trade, of a system of import and export boards to improve the efficiency of overseas marketing, to control prices, and to integrate the foreign trade policy with the requirements of the national economic plan.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is pretty general; you could drive a coach and four through that.


Percy Ellis Wright: It is not any more general than this bill. Section 9, subsection 1, paragraph (g) reads:
to purchase at market or contract prices and export any agricultural product under any contract between His Majesty in right of Canada and any other government or agency thereof and to do all things necessarily incidental thereto;
I think the principle of export boards for agricultural products is a sound one. It is a principle which will have to be followed if we are to stabilize the prices of agricultural products not only in Canada but throughout the world. As the minister has stated, there have been tremendous fluctuations. These fluctuations have been caused not only by differences in production from year to year but by the results of speculative marketing. When there has been a surplus in a certain season of the year or in certain years these speculators have been able to come in and buy up the surplus at low prices, which forces down the prices, store or process it and then reap the reward later on. I think the government should endeavour to have this board take the place of the speculative markets which have formerly controlled the prices of agricultural products. That should be one of the objectives of this board.
The minister has stated that the board is to consist of three members. He says that he proposes to appoint a chairman immediately and to have two men from the department assist him until the board starts to function. The board in the meantime is to gather statistics. I agree with the minister so far as the immediate appointment of a chairman is concerned, but I believe the other two members should also be appointed immediately. One of these should represent the consumers of Canada and the other the producers. There should be a secretariat set up to gather these facts and figures and place them not only before the chairman of the

board but before the consumers and the producers of the country through their representatives. I think the board would be more efficient if that were done than simply to appoint a permanent chairman at this time and appoint the other two members temporarily.
The commodity boards to be set up under this legislation should be controlled by the producers, by the cooperatives which have been set up in various sections. I realize that agriculture is perhaps not sufficiently well organized to be able to appoint all the commodity boards, but it is well enough organized to appoint a great many of them. With proper encouragement and education by the government, these cooperative organizations should handle this phase of the matter for the government. I make this suggestion because I think it is important that these commodity boards should be representative of the producers of Canada. They can be representative of the producers of Canada only if the producers are prepared to get together and organize their own cooperatives. I suggest what I have suggested before, that this be taken into consideration and where cooperative organizations exist, and they do in some cases, they should be used as the commodity boards to handle particular products.
As the minister has stated, the necessity for this bill is due largely to the fact that we have had ceiling prices. The figures placed on the record by the minister show quite clearly that during the last wTar and eighteen months thereafter, when there were no ceiling prices, the prices of agricultural products rose much higher than they were allowed to rise during this war. Because ceiling prices have been placed on agricultural production it is only fair that there should be floor prices during the transition period.
We all know that when price ceilings were first established in 1941 the ceiling prices of agricultural products were too low. It was only after organized agriculture had made representations to the government time and time again that the ceiling prices were Vaised to a point where they were on a par with other ceiling prices. Therefore agriculture has something coming to it because of the ceiling prices established in 1941. If this legislation is used properly it should take into consideration some of the differences which existed in the early years of the war.
I do not think this board will be able to operate successfully if we continue to permit speculative markets in Canada. It is only by taking the selling of agricultural products from the speculative markets that we can

Farm Prices
hope to have the board operate successfully. In one section of the act it is provided that the board may set prescribed prices for agricultural products and may pay to the producers the difference between those prescribed prices and the average prices at which products may have sold during a given period of time. That may mean a different floor price to different people who are selling a particular product.


Mr. WEIR:: A different price?


James Garfield Gardiner: Depending on where they are living.


Percy Ellis Wright: Depending upon when they sell and where they are living. Take peas in eastern Ontario as an example. When they go to the market in the fall, let us say, they sell for $2 per bushel. Later on they may go to $4 per bushel and the government may prescribe a price which they consider to be fair of $3.50 per bushel. They will take the average price between $2 and $4 and pay to the producer the difference between the prescribed price and the average price, and some producers who have sold these peas for the prescribed price will receive that difference. That is just an illustration. I do not think the act can work in a speculative market. It is only when commodity boards or cooperatives have control of their own product and pay the average price for the whole season that a government board can operate equitably to all who are producing that particular product.
There are other sections of the bill which I believe should be amended, and we of this group propose to move certain amendments as the sections are reached.
With regard to the export of agricultural products, I understand that this board is to take the surplus off the market and that it may export the surplus to any part of the world where it can find a market. The fund that is to be set up will therefore be a fund which will to a certain extent be used to subsidize the export of the surplus products, I am wondering whether it will be used to subsidize not only their export, but also the home market as between different seasons of the year.
A great many questions arise in one's mind as one reads the bill. The bill may mean very much or it may mean very little. Whether it will be successful or not depends entirely on the attitude of the government which may be putting the act into force. I would suggest that in the past the old-line parties in this house have not been any too favourable in their attitude towards agriculture. Otherwise
we would not have found agriculture in the position in which it was when the war started. Agriculture was the lowest paid group in the Canadian economy when the war broke out, and nobody denies that. It has only been within the last two years that our farmers, largely through the efforts of their own organizations, have been able to force this government to raise the prices of agricultural products to a point where they are anywhere near to being on an equitable footing with the other economic groups in this country. I suggest that the people of this country take that into consideration so that when they are given an opportunity they take care to see that a government is put into power which will express their viewpoint and see that this act is sympathetically considered and given a sympathetic administration.


Hughes Cleaver: Mr. Speaker, the measure we are now discussing is a bill to secure floor prices for farmers during the transition period after the war. While I am not a farmer, I have lived in a farming community all my life and I believe I know quite a bit of the farm problem. I wish to direct the attention of the house in its consideration of this measure to one part of the farm problem which this measure does not directly touch upon, and which is that the over-all picture of the return to the farmer is not directly covered, nor is it intended to be covered, by this measure.
As I understand the measure as it has been explained by the minister, its purpose is to take care of the extraordinary conditions which will arise as to prices of individual farm products in the immediate post-war period, and it does not deal directly with the general farm picture. I want to say at once that the farmers of my riding with whom I have been in contact have been very greatly encouraged by a measure of this kind being introduied in the house because my farmers believe that it indicates that in the future scientific weapons or measures are to be used in facing up to the farm problem. I should like to express the hope that this bill when enacted will work so satisfactorily that we shall carry its principles into our peace-time economy, using it as a permanent instrument or weapon to see that agriculture will secure its fair share of the national income.
I do not want to be considered as, a crepe hanger, but to my personal knowledge, looking back over the past forty years, the position of agriculture has been steadily deteriorating until it has now reached the point where you can buy a 100-acre or 200-acre farm in my riding for what it would cost to
Farm Prices

put up the present buildings on the farm. Less than ten per cent of the farmers in my riding can afford to employ a hired man. Life therefore on the farm has been reduced to what is practically drudgery. We all know that the live stock on the farm have to be fed and watered three times daily. The farmer without a hired man cannot go off with his wife for a holiday for a day or two or anything of that sort. One of them must remain on the farm to look after the chores.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Somebody has to milk the cows. It has been that way since Adam and Eve.


Hughes Cleaver: Right you are, but my
point is that there is no hired man on the farm to take his turn under present conditions.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He would not stay there to-day anyway, unless you chained him.


Hughes Cleaver: I have a suggestion that might keep him there, but I will come back to that.
In addition to the drudgery of farm life as it now is in Ontario-I am speaking only for the part of the province in which I live-[DOT] we find that the buildings and the fences on the farm are badly out of repair, not because the farmer wants them that way but because he cannot afford to repair them and cannot iiire the help to repair them. The weeds are not pulled out when they should be; the fences get out of repair. Drive through Ontario to-day and compare it with what it was forty years ago.
I think that all parties in this house agree that agriculture in Canada generally is in a depressed condition. I believe that there must be a fundamental and continuing and persistent reason why this is so. I suggest the reason Is that through the years we have exterfded protection to industry even during the course of low tariff governments. We have extended protection to industry which has brought about this disparity, with its inequalities, between the income received by agriculture and the income received by the rest of the people. I would like to put on the record, if I may, a statement I have received from the bureau of statistics.


Thomas Vien: With the consent of the house.


Hughes Cleaver: Perhaps I should give an outline of the information contained in the statement before asking the consent of the house to put it on. I take the last fifteen years from 1929 to 1943 inclusive. In the first column is given the net farm income, the

income originating in agriculture; in the next column the total national income of Canada; in the third column the percentage which the net farm income bears to the total national income of Canada. May I have leave of the house to table this statement without
reading it.
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
Income
originating
in
agriculture (millions) $ 868 575 377 297 319 423 466 529
596 676 723 880
1.324
1.126
Total national income of Canada (millions) $5,273 4.452 3,580 2.813 2.722 3,147 3,371 3.827 4.368 4.291 4.554 5.404
6.500
7.500 8.800
Percentage which farm income bears to total
13
10
13
14
14
15 13 13 17 13
Average of 15 years-13-8 per cent
Hon. members looking over this statement will notice, taking the whole fifteen years and adding them up, that the average net income received by Canadian agriculture, though it represents something over thirty per cent of the people employed in Canada, is 13-8 per cent; 13-8 per cent of the national income goes to something over thirty per cent of the workers. I agree at once that you must add to those figures the income in kind which the farmer and his family receive from the farm. He has a part of his living from the farm, and I have obtained from the bureau of statistics the figures with regard to that item. I will not trouble the house to give them all, because I understand that these figures may now be under revision. I have the figures from the bureau from 1929 to 1940 inclusive and they total $1,165-1 million or an average of $150 million a year. When you add that figure to the net farm income which I have already given you will find it brings up the net farm income figure to a point where it is still grossly below the share which this group in our economy should receive.


George Hugh Castleden: You should also deduct the depreciation.


Hughes Cleaver: I am coming to that. I
think I know what the hon. gentleman's suggestion is. There is also one other item which should be deducted, not added, when you take the net farm income figure, and that is the figure of wages paid to hired men where they are able to employ them. The bureau tells

Farm Prices
me that in figuring net farm income it is not net to the farmer, because included in that income is the wage to the hired man. I am told that a statement is now being prepared by the bureau and will be released soon showing the really net farm income figures. I hesitate to put the gross farm income on the record, because it would be only misleading, since the gross farm income includes all costs of production, out-of-pocket costs of production such as taxes, interest on mortgages to corporations, seed and feed, oil and fuel, repairs to equipment, binder twine, fertilizer, spray material, and the thousand and one other costs that are involved. I am pleased to learn that at long last a study is being made of the problem by the bureau and we are to have actual net figures, because I think they will conclusively prove the statement which I made a few moments ago, that Canadian agriculture is not to-day and ha9 not been through the j-ears, irrespective of what government has been in office, receiving its fair share of the national income.
It is only fair that I should comment on the fact that the lot of Canadian agriculture has of course gone up and down depending upon governments, depending upon crops, depending upon world conditions, depending upon trade agreements and tariff barriers. If you will turn to the years 1930 to 1934 inclusive, you will find in this five-year period that while it is true the world was going through a serious depression, it is also true that the government of that day had an unfortunate trade policy.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Only in your opinion.


Hughes Cleaver: I am trying to be frank and to place the facts before the house, and if there is anything wrong with any of my figures I shall be glad to have them corrected. It is only my opinion plus the opinion I have formed during the discussion of this distressing problem with hundreds of my farmer electors. However, if you will take the five-year period from 1930 to 1934 you will find that the average farm income was only $402 million, to at least 30 per cent of the workers of the country. Then if you take the four-year period from 1935 until the outbreak of the war, you will find that during that period there was a very sharp change in our tariff policy. Trade agreements were negotiated, trade started to flow again, and the farmers immediately began to receive the benefit of it, so that during those four years the average farm income increased from $402 million to S600 million. I say that $600 million is not good enough.


George Hugh Castleden: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair, I wonder if it might be
possible for you to consider releasing eight or ten of these page boys on Saturday afternoon in view of the heavy week they have had and the late hours they are compelled to remain here.


Thomas Vien: I have made arrangements.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.


Hughes Cleaver: When the house rose at one o'clock I was calling attention to the fact that farm income had dropped very sharply from $868,000,000 in 1927 to less than $300,000,000 in 1932. I should like also to call attention to the fact that the statement which I have already tabled shows that not only did agricultural income drop sharply with all other incomes in the country, but agriculture took a much more severe loss than did other industries of Canada, because the percentage of agricultural income to the total income in Canada in 1929 was sixteen per cent and in 1932 it had dropped to ten per cent.
In my community at one time farming was very prosperous. Our farmers built fine houses and bams. Our farmers were well to do and were able to set up their sons, when they came of age and married, on other farms. But unfortunately that condition has passed, and as I have said once or twice already, agriculture through the years has been steadily and seriously deteriorating. I agree that in time of war it is right to prevent the spiral of inflation which occurred in the last war and which would have been ruinous to our present war effort had it not been controlled; but having done that I do suggest, sir, that this is the logical time, the opportune time, for us to take advantage of the lessons we have learned from war financing, to take advantage of the weapons we have forged out of the necessities of war, to correct this serious inequality.
We all know that productivity in Canada, both industrial and agricultural, has increased very materially as a result of the war. I think that all economists now agree that if any country is to be permanently prosperous through the years the standard of living of the people must be high enough to consume the goods which are produced in the country, plus the imports which are received from exportable surpluses. I believe that to be fundamental. Therefore if this country is to be permanently prosperous in the post-war years we have no option, we simply must raise the standard of living of agriculture to parity
Farm Prices

with the standard of living of the other groups in this country in order that agriculture may be able to purchase its just share of this country's tremendous production.
As I view the bill now before us it is a scientific measure designed to meet our immediate post-war problems in agriculture. I should like to see it continued as a permanent measure to assure parity to agriculture. Agriculture is quite content to share depression years and prosperous years with other groups in this country, but I do not think it is fair that agriculture should be asked to bear the most serious part of a depression when it comes and then not participate fairly in the prosperous years. We all agree that the problem is there. My suggestion is that we should use the material which we have available to determine just what that problem is. We should compute the proper share of the national income which agriculture should receive annually and then we should set about in a scientific way to see that agriculture does receive annually its fair share of the national income.
As we move toward the end of this war and as we look forward to the post-war period we have not hesitated to profit by the lessons which the war has taught us in other regards. The measure which was passed by this house yesterday to provide for family allowances is to me one of the most heartening things that we have done. In that instance we have not hesitated to profit by the lessons of the past years and to look forward to the future with courage and initiative. We have not hesitated to bring forward an instrument which we hope will bring about the results that we desire. I should like to urge that we use the same courage and initiative in regard to the restoration of agricluture in this country to its proper position with respect to the income of the other groups. I shall go farther and say if agriculture should be restored to that position it would1 employ at least five hundred thousand of the men from the armed forces and; of the men and women now in war-time employment who will be seeking employment when the war is over. Do not think for a moment that the farmer does without a hired man because he wants to. A man carrying on mixed farming in Ontario without the help of a hired man is, as I said a few minutes ago, living a life of drudgery. It is a seven-day week job three hundred and sixty-five days of the year. Just as soon as the Canadian farmer has sufficient income with which to employ a hired man he is going to have one. Some hon. members ask me how he would keep him.

Well, I have a suggestion to make in that regard. I think that every hundred-acre farm in this province-


Richard Burpee Hanson: How would he keep him home on Sundays to do the milking?


Hughes Cleaver: Well, I think the present system, where the odd farmer has a hired man, is a fair one. The hired man is home one Sunday and the farmer is home the next Sunday. They alternate. My suggestion is this. Every farm in Ontario should have a second house on it just as good as the one that is now there. In the early years of married life while the children are young that house could be occupied by the hired man. There would be no diificulty in getting the proper type of hired man on the farm if his wife and family had a good house in which to live. Then as the children grow up and the eldest boy marries he wants a home of his own. That son of the farmer will then live in the second house. I can look back forty years. I well remember forty years ago that wheat and other grains sold at practically the same price as wheat and other grains were bringing in 1939. There has been no substantial change in the selling price of grain in that forty years. But look at the cost of hired help; it has gone up at least three hundred per cent. Look at the cost of farm implements and the cost of everything that the farmer has to buy. All these things have at least doubled and in many instances trebled. The return to the farmer from his basic products has not improved to anything like the same extent. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge that we scientifically determine the proper share of the national income that agriculture should receive, and then by way of subsidy, floor prices or in some other way, we should assure to agriculture annually just that amount.
A word in regard to export trade. I have had the thought advanced to me by farmers in my riding many times that in the past we have made mistakes. We have exported grain to other countries at less than the cost of production here, and in that way have permitted other countries to produce finished food products such as bacon to be sold in competition with our own bacon in the markets of the world. My farmers do not approve of that; they think that in future as far as may be humanly possible Canada should export only finished products such as flour, pork, beef, cheese and the like.
I have one word to say to our Minister of Agriculture before closing. When war came in 1939 it was only natural that farmers

Farm Prices
living in this country who had been farming during the period of the last war should anticipate that they would make very substantial profits out of this war. During the early thirties our farmers took extremely heavy losses, and when war came they thought they would have an opportunity of making good those losses by substantial profits during the present war period. It was only human nature that they should arrive at that conclusion. But this country decided upon an all-out war effort, and the necessities of that war effort precluded anything of this nature taking place. During the last war Canada's main contribution was the men in our armed forces. We did have substantial war production, but it was limited as to type, and any surplus we produced in this country was sold at a profit. When war broke out in 1939 the Canadian people decided that this time we would have an all-out effort; this time we were to mobilize wealth as well as man-power, and that has been done. Our production has not been confined to shells and foodstuffs. We have built and equipped a Canadian navy and a Canadian air force. We have produced not only shells for our army but practically a full range of modern army equipment; tanks, planes, guns and the like. This time we have given [DOT] to our allies, under mutual aid, all our surplus production. When we planned an all-out war effort it necessarily followed that prices had to be controlled if we were to avoid a spiral of inflation which would be ruinous to that effort. So that instead of allowing agricultural prices to rise as they did in the previous war we have controlled prices, and by the payment of subsidies have tried to give our farmers reasonable prices, and only reasonable prices for their products. But we have treated everyone alike; we have done the same to industry. We have restricted the profits of industry through the excess profits tax. We do not'tax .the excess profits; we take them all, and that is as it should be.
As a result of the fact that the farmers were denied the prices they expected they would have, some of them in my part of the country are blaming the Minister of Agriculture for letting them down. Nothing could be further from the truth, and nothing could be more unfair. Then, too, some people in Ontario are criticizing the minister because they say he represents western Canada and does not understand the problems of Ontario and eastern Canada. Once again I say nothing could be further from the truth and nothing could be more unfair. It is true that the minister represents a western riding and that for many years he was premier of Saskatchewan, but it is equally true that he was bom and
brought up in Ontario, and that he is operating a farm in this province. I do not think we could find anywhere in this country a man more conversant with all branches and details of agriculture across the entire country than the present Minister of Agriculture. Fortunately, however, I do not need to rely upon my own opinion; the facts speak for themselves. Notwithstanding the fact that we have recruited something over 500,000 men from agriculture for our armed forces and war industries, our agricultural production since the outbreak of war has gone up and up until to-day it is more than fifty per cent greater than before the war.
As to the charge of favouritism to western Canada, I should like to cite one instance of which I have personal knowledge. As hon. members know, the fruit and vegetable industry has special problems of its own. In this instance I know the facts, because I live in the centre of a fruit and vegetable producing district, and I want to tell the house that the fruit and vegetable growers in my district are trufy prosperous to-day. I admit at once that they are well organized, and that from time to time they have given the minister good advice. But that does not detract one whit from the fact that he has taken that advice and that in every instance he has been more than fair to this specialized branch of the industry of agriculture of which I have personal knowledge. It is inevitable that in times of price controls, rationing, and so forth, grievances and emergency conditions should arise from time to time. Individual groups of producers in this country have often been annoyed at the minister and at this government because of some incident that has touched them for the time being. But I would urge that we look at the over-all picture of what this country has done in time of war in the production of foodstuffs; and, looking at that over-all picture, I think we have a right to be very proud of the industry of agriculture in Canada. I think we have a right to be equally proud of our Minister of Agriculture and of the staff which has assisted him to bring about these results in Canadian agriculture. And so I say that so long as the present Minister of Agriculture is in the saddle, to organize that industry properly, I have high hopes for its future.
In the bill before us we have a scientific weapon which will take care of the post-war transition period. I should like to see that measure continue on. I think the rest is up to the producers themselves. Under this bill ample provision has been made for the producers to express their views and to give their advice to the minister and the department.
Farm Prices

If the industry organizes and presents to the department the true wishes of the farmers, we can look forward to the future with every confidence. I believe that the farmers themselves can solve many of their problems through self-imposed controls. But I do urge again that in the period following the war we should be bold and courageous in our planning, and take full advantage of the lessons the war has taught us.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I have listened
with not a little interest to the remarks of the hon. member who has just taken his seat. The faith he has expressed in the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is, I fancy, the kind of faith that members of a political party have when a minister makes the kind of remarks he made.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is a lame-


Gordon Graydon: Now, I wonder if the
official interrupter will kindly keep quiet for a few minutes. I want to bring one or two things to the attention of the house. The first is that I believe the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver) perhaps unconsciously expressed a feeling which has been prevalent in his part of Ontario and in other parts of Canada when he attempted in his own way to deal with criticisms which for some considerable time have been directed against government policy. I think however that he did not over-emphasize in any way the criticisms which are abroad-criticisms which I believe any hon. member would be able to describe very freely so far as this government's policy in agriculture is concerned. But when he spoke about the qualifications of the Minister of Agriculture, stating that the minister was a westerner who had been born on an Ontario farm, he unconsciously, again, littered a small word of recommendation respecting a man in the public life of Canada, who comes within the category my hon. friend has described, a man whom we propose to make the prime minister of this country so that for the first time we would have a farmer prime minister. I refer to the Hon. John Bracken. The qualifications which my hon. friend from Halton unconsciously gave as being very good ones for a man in public life are the ones found in the present national leader of our party.


Mr. MUTCH:: He lacks one quality-a seat in the house.
Mr. GRAY'DON:- Perhaps you have supported your party so long that you find yourself in a difficult position.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: He was always hard to elect.


Gordon Graydon: In this debate we have
heard a good deal about agriculture. There are many farmers throughout Canada to-day -and I think rightly so-who feel that it is time in Canada that we had a farmer prime minister. We are very proud, and perhaps at times we might be given to just a little bit of boasting-because in the midst of what goes on across the way it is not noticed-


Percy Ellis Wright: I would like to ask where
he ever farmed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Mr. GRAY'DON:	Well, most of the deskthumping has been done by lawyers so far as I can see.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: And who is speaking?


Gordon Graydon: I would like to be allowed to answer the question, although I know the answer would not be very satisfactory to my hon. friend.


Percy Ellis Wright: I would like-


Gordon Graydon: Now you keep quiet. In answer to the hon. member for Melfort, the Hon. John Bracken, unlike so many others who have interrupted from time to time, has never been in any other line of endeavour than agriculture, except while he was premier of Manitoba. John Bracken himself is now an operating farmer in Ontario. He -came from an Ontario farm, worked on an Ontario farm, took up farming as a vocation. I fancy there is no one in Canada who has been better schooled in that profession.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: And he will be on the farm a long time, too.
Mr. GRAY'DON: Is the official interrupter going to have to be silenced again? Because after all there is a limit to usurpation of privileges:	Of course he has his eye on the
Clerk's job, I know, but for the present I wish he would listen to me.
I would say to the hon. member for Melfort that he has asked a question I am glad to answer. I was hoping someone would give me an opportunity to put upon the record the facts with respect to one man in public life in Canada to-day. He is the man, as I say, thoroughly familiar with farming in Canada-


Percy Ellis Wright: But he never farmed.


Gordon Graydon: May I have some order, please?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Why is he not here?
Mr. GRAY'DON: The interrupter is busy again.

Farm Prices


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Why is he not here? Why the remote control?


Gordon Graydon: I think I might say that the problem in the future will not be that of having a seat for John Bracken, but that of having a seat for the Prime Minister.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh, yes? The Prime Minister is here.


Gordon Graydon: And. let me go further than that. We also hear, through the press, that not only is the Prime Minister in danger, but, as pointed out by the premier of Saskatchewan, the Minister of Agriculture, who has so often been lauded by the hon. member _ for Halton, will not be here again to represent his present seat at Melville.


James Garfield Gardiner: And does my hon. friend accept the evidence of the leader of the government of Saskatchewan?


Gordon Graydon: Well, he seemed to be able to take the measure of the present minister a short time ago.


Walter Adam Tucker: And what about the Progressive Conservative party?


Gordon Graydon: May I say this, in the midst of these stormy interruptions-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Why bring this hash into the debate?


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, is it possible to have order? I have submitted to a good deal of interruption, and while I rather enjoy it, I should like to continue.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is hash.


Gordon Graydon: So far as agriculture is concerned, from time to time in this chamber we have heard far too much about rehabilitation and reconstruction of other parts of Canada; we have heard far too much about national endeavour and national enterprise, in comparison with the little about the farming industry in the post-war period. The job of rehabilitation and reconstruction in Canada is not confined to industry alone. It is not confined only to business. I believe I will have support when I say that without prosperity of agriculture in Canada in the post-war period, there cannot be a prosperous Canada. That I believe is one of the prime factors and one of the prime influences which will make for a greater Canada in the new era of a better world.
An attempt has been made by this bill to meet a problem which has been demanding redress for a long time. I am not going to endorse all the details of the bill before the
house. I desire only to say that it is a step in the right direction. But there are certain omissions from the bill. One of these was touched upon by one or two speakers who preceded me; I refer to the period which the legislation covers. The problem of agriculture is not a matter only for the transition period. The problem of agriculture is one which will have to be solved by a permanent and long-range plan. If I were to offer any special criticism of this bill it would be that it deals only in a temporary way with what I think is a permanent and long-range problem.
There is a justifiable feeling in the rural parts of Canada that the agricultural income through the years has not been on a fair level, having in mind the returns obtained by other branches of industry. Look over the personnel of this house, if you will. You will see men who came here directly from many professions but who were born and raised and brought up in rural parts. Look at the various professions in Canada, the various industries. You will then see the tremendous contribution which has been made by the men and women who have come off the farms of this land. You will not find the same influx into agriculture from other activities and professions in Canada. Why? It is true that from time to time there are men who have made their money in other businesses and who go into farming in order to lose some of it, but that is not a normal influx into agriculture. I refer to this merely to show that the test as to whether or not apiculture is getting a square deal in Canada is the extent to which people are anxious to leave it, or on the other hand are anxious to go into it. I think that is the best test that should.be applied.
Perhaps it is fortunate that agriculture has produced men and women who have entered other forms of industry. Most of these left the farms because they did not like the life, because of the inconveniences, because there was not enough cash return in it. Those of us who came off the farm know what our parents in those early days wanted for their boys and girls. You know it; so do I. Time after time they stated the reasons why they wanted an education for their children. They did not want their boys and girls to go through the drudgery and hard work, to suffer all the inconveniences and uncertainties that they had had to suffer. We may as well face that. Agriculture was left in that position while industry, the professions and so on were returning higher rewards. Some of these men and women I think could have achieved the same success in agriculture as they did in the professions or in industry. The important thing is to have a proper and decent balance in respect to the income received by agricul-
Farm Prices

ture and by other parts of our national life.
One of the great difficulties facing agriculture is the fact that when the farmer wants to sell something, somebody else sets the price. That is one of the complaints that was made when I was a boy on the farm, and it is still being made. The law of supply and demand has been allowed to operate with respect to agriculture, but in scarcely no other type of activity in Canada has the law of supply and demand worked unhindered, unprevented and untrammelled. While somebody else sets the price for what the farmer has to sell, somebody also sets the price of what he has to buy. In between those two influences and those two factors the farmer attempts to make his plans, attempts to carry on and do his part in the national life of this dominion.
The farming population of our dominion is one of a few sections of our national economy that is not able to make its plans having regard to the long-range view of the industry. I ask you what industry there is that could survive if it were not able to plan any farther ahead with respect to prices and markets than agriculture. That is what is asked and that is what is done by the farmers of the Dominion of Canada year upon year and decade upon decade.
There are those who are not familiar with farming problems who will say from time to time, "Why should not the farmer have his prices controlled in the war period?" I am not going to go into a discussion with respect to that at the moment, bu*f there is one cardinal factor which always remains in the farmer's mind. In time of peace the farmer has to assume more than a fair share of a lower demand for his products which operates upon the price level. In time of peace the farmer is largely in a depressed condition. In time of war there is a demand for agricultural products, but with man-power at a premium the result is that prices are allowed to rise. In between the depressed period of peace and the more buoyant period of war, provided prices are allowed to fluctuate in an ordinary way, the farmer finds himself on a level which is more in line with the general level than at. the present time.
The difficulty we have in this war is that when the basic prices were set the prices of farm commodities were out of line with the price levels of other commodities. In many instances the wartime prices and trade board .set prices which actually meant a freezing of a set of unequal circumstances and inequalities. I want to say one thing. We should never again allow agriculture to get into the condition in which it was in the last worldwide depression, when farm income was
[Mr. Graydon.l
depressed, I am told, to fifty-five per cent of what it was previously, while at the same time investment income and income from other industries showed no such drop. I think that it is generally accepted that farm prices are always the first to fall and always the last to recover.
There is a problem in connection with farm purchasing power which the government through this legislation must endeavour to meet.
Production on the farm presents other difficulties. Successful production requires planning ahead. The average farmer wants to know ahead of time what markets are going to be available for his products and what prices are going to be for particular farm products. But he is not in that position to-day and has not been up to the present time, and considerable criticism has long been expressed by the farmer over that uncertainty that faces him. The result is that the average farmer who is engaged in mixed farming goes in for one thing this year, and then goes out of it and into other products the next year. It involves considerable cost in changing over from one type of production to another, and this uncertainty which the average farmer feels is reflected by farmers generally throughout the country. I hope that this legislation may have a part in remedying that situation. Undoubtedly this in-and-out-policy of going into one line of production one year, and then out of that and into some other the next year, ought to be replaced by proper planning, and this legislation if it is properly administered can go a long way towards helping the farmer in that respect. The farmer ought to be able to engage in that branch of agriculture in which he wants to engage, instead of being forced to depend upon the uncertainties of the laws of supply and demand to determine what line of production he shall go into this year, and what line next year. He ought to be assured of a market and of reasonable prices for his products so that he can make his plans a long time ahead.
The minister made some reference this morning to the fluctuation of farm prices. It is an old question. No other industry under the sun has suffered so much from the fluctuation of prices as has agriculture. I remember very well that in 1919, on a nine-acre field on our own farm, we took off ninety-nine bushels of cleaned sweet clover, and for that ninety-nine bushels of sweet clover produced on a nine-acre field we took in exactly $2,475 in cash. The demand for sweet clover seed was so great at that time that we had a local market for the whole ninety-nine bushels. We

Farm Prices
did not even have to carry it out of our barn. Prospective purchasers, I remember very well, would turn the fanning mill in order to make sure that they got their supply at $25 a bushel. Next year the price of sweet clover seed, if my memory serves me correctly, and I am speaking entirely from memory, ran somewhere around $2.50 a bushel, or just about one-tenth of what it was the year before. I mention that only as an illustration of the fluctuation of prices with which the farmer has to contend and of the uncertainty to which it gives rise. Therefore I welcome any measure which will check the rapid and violent fluctuations in prices, which are one of the biggest handicaps of agriculture to-day, because the farmer should know what he will get when he markets his stuff.
The government'of Ontario last fall set up an agricultural commission of inquiry to report on floor prices for farm products. That report was adopted on May 16, 1944, and I am sure that the minister has seen and given consideration to this report, which deals in an exploratory way with the whole question of floor prices of farm products. I should like to quote a passage to show what this group of qualified practical farmers placed on record in connection with floor prices for farm products. The report says:
To establish any sort of a workable base for the actual building of floor price plans, much more specific definitions of their purpose must be devised. The social objectives stated above can with some limitations be all incorporated into one or another of the following definite economic ends:
And this is what I desire particularly to place on the record as the objectives which these practical farmers say are possible:
(a) To give the farmer cost of production, plus a profit.
(to) To assure the farmer a financial return comparable with that of producers or workmen on the same general income level.
(c)	To maintain the farmer's income at a level where it will buy as much as it did in some past period when farming was considered profitable.
(d)	To call out the required volume of production of each of the several farm products.
(e)	To keep farm prices from declining to ruinous levels.
Therefore, sir, I want on the second reading to give my support to the general purposes and objectives of this measure. I think that there will be considerable criticism of certain provisions which the minister has incorporated in the bill, as there may be differences of opinion as to their value. If any general criticism is to be offered it is that we have neglected agriculture for so long that it got into -the position where the gross income of
the farmers pf Canada at one time in recent years amounted only to something like eleven per cent of the entire national income of Canada. That is a national disgrace. It is a national scandal which can never be allowed to recur.
I trust that in considering this measure on behalf of agriculture and other measures that may follow it we shall never forget that agriculture is still the major and perhaps the most important of all the enterprises in which the people of this country are engaged, and from many angles it is by far the most influential and the most valuable. When agriculture goes up, Canada goes up. When agriculture goes down, Canada goes down. The purchasing power of agriculture is great, and when the purchasing power of agriculture is maintained at a proper level, business generally throughout the country will be maintained at its very best levels.


George Hugh Castleden: I wish to make just a few brief observations in order to point out certain things in this bill which, in our opinion, instead of leading to an improvement in farm conditions, a betterment of the position of the actual producer and the ultimate consumer, could produce worse conditions than those from which these people are already suffering. Generally speaking, the appointment of an agricultural purchasing and export board is in accordance with the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation programme which has been endorsed by that organization for a good many years.
Like so much important legislation which has been brought before the house in the closing days of the session, this bill, I am afraid, as the previous speaker (Mr. Graydon) has said, comes a little too late. It is too little, and the powers which it confers can be used one way or the other depending upon the personnel of the board and upon the personnel of the government which appoints that board. The need for planning in our agricultural life is evident not only in the farming areas but also in the industrial centres. In fact the records of Canada in the matter of nutrition show that this country has never faced the problems of agriculture or the distribution of the benefits to be derived from, agriculture and which the people might enjoy.
It was interesting to most of us to note in the minister's remarks this morning the hint that this board might have the power to set prices in Canada and to control domestic prices. In view of the fact that the country's capacity for production in food very often, indeed in most cases, is from eight to ten times as much as the nation requires, this
Farm Prices

power is necessary. The governments of this country can never absolve themselves of the guilt of having seen want and privation in the midst of a land which has the potential capacity to produce so much, and which in the past has produced so much. The fact that we could, in wheat alone, produce ten times as much as the Canadian people could consume in a year and still have a large number of young people, of older people, and generally those in the lower income groups actually suffering from want of food, never knowing what it was to have sufficient bread, is something which speaks for itself.
The minister put some valuable figures on the record this morning to show fluctuations in farm prices, but his figures were largely those which revealed wholesale prices. I should like to put on some figures to show exactly what happened to the farmer's income -not wholesale prices, but the farmer's income. His net income for a period of years, as recorded in the national income study prepared by the commission on dominion-provincial relations, and given in appendix 4, table VIII C. at page 86 of the report follows. This relates to our own province of Saskatchewan, for individual enterprises, showing income so far as agriculture was concerned. This is the net income for agriculture after we have taken out cash expenses, income in kind and depreciation on buildings and equipment.
In 1926 Saskatchewan's income was $203-8 million, 1927, 184-2; 1928, 228-4; 1929, 158-1;
1930,	33-9. In 1931 it was minus $8-1 million, which meant that the people engaged in agriculture in that province received $8 million less than operating costs, in other words there was a drop of 104 per cent between 1926 and
1931.	It continued in the minus column, so that in 1932 it was minus 7-4; in 1933, 3-5 million; in 1934 it had improved to a net income of 20-1 million; in 1935 it was 35-5; and in 1936 it was 60-2. But even in 1937 it had only reached a net income of 22-7, about ten per cent of what it was in the year 1926, and during that period the depression had continued. The actual living conditions were so bad that the population of Saskatchewan had deteriorated. It was the one province in the whole dominion where the population had actually decreased as shown by the census of 1931 and the census of 1941.
The minister clearly demonstrated to us today that he and his department understand the condtiion of the farmer. They know what the farmer's income is; they understand his cost of production; they know what the plight of the farmer is and apparently they know a very great deal about the causes of
* Mr. Castleden.]	,
that plight. But the people of Canada are asking this question: why has not this been remedied before? One of the Liberal members said to-day that we had learned a great deal during the war about these things. The fact is that we knew these things before the war; and the steps now proposed could have been and should have been taken before the war. We can only regret that these things did not come sooner.
There are many features of the bill which might result in the bill meaning absolutely nothing. In the first place, the board when appointed only sits during the pleasure of the governor in council. Om the face of it-


James Garfield Gardiner: The appointments are
to be at the pleasure of the governor in council. The hon. member said the board only sits.


George Hugh Castleden: They shall hold office pnly during pleasure of the governor in council. The bill uses a vague phrase when it states that it is for the support of prices during the transition from war to peace. I venture to say that if the act is properly administered in the welfare of producer and ultimate consumer alike, instead of in the interests of those people in between, the processors and the distributors, who have such control over these products, the continuation of this type of thing can well be considered. There is the fact that this board as set up will have only three members on it, so that it must be carefully picked. If the personnel of the board has the attitude that we may support the rights and privileges of so-called private enterprise, which in many cases, so far as food for example is concerned, are monopolies, then we can expect mighty little from this act.
A good many of the boards that have existed heretofore have given the people little cause for hope that there would be anything effective, and the powers of the board are so complete and exclusive that it could actually become a very dangerous weapon in the hands of those who have not at heart the final interests of the producing and! consuming public. This board has the power to prescribe prices at which it may purchase products. It has the power to purchase those products. It has power to pay to the producers of an agricultural product directly or through such agent as the board may determine. It has power to sell those prdoucts or otherwise dispose of them. I hope we shall not have any more of that type of disposal that we had in the hungry days of the thirties, with fruit out in the Okanagan valley, and barley in Saskatchewan worth about six .cents a bushel on the Winni-

Farm Prices
peg market and farmers burning it in their furnaces rather than coal because they could not afford to pay for it. The boardi may package, process, store, ship, transport, export or insure any agricultural product. It may enter into contracts or appoint agents to do anything authorized under this act. Apparently these agents may enter into agreements with other governments and purchase at the request of any department of the government supplies that are required. It has the right to appoint commodity boards or other agents to undertake the purchase and the disposition of agricultural products. In fact the whole agricultural industry, the processing and distribution of goods in this country, comes immediately and completely under the control of this board. They have within their hands the fate of agriculture; they have the fate of the Canadian people in their hands with regard to whether or not the people are to be able to purchase the necessary nutrition. In the hands of the proper people this can be a very valuable board. In the hands of the wrong people it will actually be dangerous.
I am asking everybody to study this bill carefully and notice the powers. It is of most vital importance that the people of Canada see that the right people are in control of the boards that have so much of the welfare of so many people within their power.
. Mr. W. G. WEIR (Macdonald): I should like to say a word or two with respect to the present measure, which is an act to provide a revolving fund of two hundred million dollars to assist in the matter of adjusting farm prices through the transition period following the war. I think it is reasonable that the farm people of this country and our general economy should expect to have some governmental assistance where necessary in the interests of this Country during that time. I say that particularly for the reason that we as a government and as a country have during the period of the war instituted price ceilings. If the one was necessary for the general interest of the country on the one hand, it is reasonable to suggest that the other is equally necessary in the period during the transition after the war.
The measure provides for the appointment of a board, the functions of which were outlined by the minister this morning. As I understand it, the board is to operate in two ways, one by establishing the price at which the board may take over goods and market them, and the other by establishing a price and letting the market function, and pay the difference between what is deemed to be a
fair price, or whatever price is decided upon, and the general price. I have not thought my way through as to exactly how that would work out, but I suggest that here is the place where our cooperative movements can be of real assistance. I hope that their machinery and organization can be brought into play in much of this marketing organization, particularly in carrying out the purposes of this measure. If we are to try to devise a price structure that is to carry on from year to year, the cooperative organizations in themselves will provide a very good type of machinery for. doing that very thing. I am not suggesting that the state should enter into the picture in the sense of being similar to a cooperative organization, because I submit that from the point of view of competitive activity, of judging the merits or the demerits of an organization, there is a healthy balance to be achieved between well-established business organizations working in competition with cooperative organizations; and from these types of organizations I think in actual practice we can get the very best possible results.
Many have expressed a great deal of fear with respect to agriculture in this transition period. There is one aspect of the present agricultural situation-which will be of particular importance during the period of transition from war to peace-that is entirely different from' the condition that prevailed during the last war. I believe that one of the greatest difficulties that agriculture suffered from in the last war was the inflated prices of land and the creation of debt which many farmers experienced. That situation is now entirely reversed. Farmers generally have been paying off debts to a very creditable degree. That being so, their position is much healthier to meet the period of transition at the close of this war than it was in the last war.
One other aspect of the price situation which should be kept in mind is efficiency of production and of marketing. It is not sound policy for us to devise a price structure in this country which will leave opportunity for careless management or keep sub-marginal lands or units of operation that are not economical in operation. Therefore the board when established must have due regard for efficiency of and economy in operation so far as the production of agricultural products is concerned. I believe that will be kept in mind.
On the question of parity prices which has been urged on many occasions by hon. members in this house, I hope that the idea does not get abroad that we should attempt to maintain throughout what is looked upon as

Farm Prices


Mr. L. E. CARDIFF (Huron North):: It
is not very often, Mr. Speaker, that my voice is heard in this chamber, but as one of the farmers elected to this house I thought perhaps I should add something to this debate.
This is a measure to support the prices of agricultural products during the transition from war to peace. If it is being brought in only for election purposes, of course it will do no good. If it is an honest attempt to do what it purports to do, then I support it whole-heartedly. Something of this kind is long past due. Being an agriculturist, and never having made any money in any other way, I know perhaps as well as any hon. member in this house just how much money is being made in agriculture to-day. Of course I am supposed to make more money now because of the indemnity I receive as a member of parliament, but I should like someone

Farm Prices
to tell me how anyone can live in Ottawa for six months of the year and make anything on $2,857, which is what I have left of my indemnity after the income tax is deducted. It is impossible for a member of parliament to make anything out of his indemnity.
The board to be set up under this bill is to consist of three members, one of whom is to be the permanent chairman. If the right kind of board is set up I believe it can do a great deal of good. Then there is to be an advisory committee of twelve, and in the appointment of these men the minister will have an opportunity to put the right men in the right place. If that is done I have no doubt at all that this legislation will be of great benefit to the country. On the other hand if the wrong men are selected, this legislation will fall short, as other legislation designed to increase the income of the farmer has come to grief.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver) a short time ago. This was the first time I ever heard him make a speech in which I thought he really talked sense. As hon. members know, he is one of the lawyer members of this parliament, and he made that speech only because we are on the eve of an election and he realizes that his only possible chance of coming back is to secure the vote of the farmers. I am in a different position myself, since I happen to be a farmer. However, I agree with many of his statements, and I hope they did not fall upon deaf ears.
As the hon. member said, the farms of this country are being depleted because of the lack of labour. That is very true. I can remember . very well, years ago, when my grandfather would take the scythe and go out to crop off the weeds that grew up in fence corners and along the fence bottoms. We do not have time to do that now, and that is why when you drive through the country you see a great many farms polluted with weeds. A farmer may be alone on his land, with a dozen cows to look after and his ordinary chores to do. He cannot get his nose off the grindstone long enough to do these odd jobs, and he has not enough money for a hired man. As a result these weeds are allowed to grow unchecked, and everyone knows that when a farm is allowed to go to weeds it is only a very short time until it is not productive at all.
In my opinion this bill, when it becomes operative, will help farmers to obtain the things they need and should have had long ago. Floor prices should have been established when ceiling prices were imposed. I contend that during the period on which the ceiling prices were based, the prices of farm commodi-
100-352J
ties were not high enough. That is one reason why it is more than ever necessary to have floor prices during the transition period. Ceiling prices have not been high enough, but if we are protected by floor prices following the war the agricultural situation may be stabilized.
Everyone says we are entering a new world. Whether we like it or not the boys who are coming on are not going to farm as we did. They are bound to farm with machines, and operate their farms differently from the way we operated ours. For that reason they are not going to be content with the hours we have been compelled to put in from year to year. Their remuneration may be greater, because they intend to farm by machinery. Unless they are paid for the labour they put in, we shall not have any farmers. We might as well make up our minds that farm prices must be stabilized to the point where they will induce the next generation to stick to the farms. Otherwise this country will go down, down, down.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I intend to deal with one or two matters in connection with this bill. One observation I would make at the beginning is that it is passing strange that legislation as important as this should have been brought down so late in the session. When one considers that this bill will empower a board to control $200,000,000, that it is introduced on a Saturday in the dying days of the session when by reason of long hours of sitting during the week members are necessarily tired out and unable to give the bill as much attention as it should receive, it seems only right that protests should be made against this sort of procedure.
The hon member who preceded me in the debate referred to the fact that the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver), a lawyer, had spoken in regard to this matter. Well, I must say that if it were not for the lawyers in the house this afternoon-because they are very much in the majority, when compared with those who follow farming as an occupation' this bill could not possibly be considered in detail.


John Ritchie MacNicol: There would not be a quorum.


John George Diefenbaker: I am in accord with the principle of setting up any scheme whereby, when the war is over, reasonable prices may be assured to farmers. All hon. members realize that in the last two or three years resolutions have been passed calling upon the government to do something in this regard. I
Farm Prices

believe the Regina board of trade was the first organization' in Saskatchewan to place before the government-in December last, I believe it was-a resolution, reasonable in terms and reasoned in attitude, calling upon the government to set up some type of machinery whereby farmers would be assured after the war, and for a reasonable period of time, prices in keeping with costs of production.
All hon. members know that six months after the cessation of hostilities measures which to-day are being utilized to maintain prices, but which are effective only through the operation of the War Measures Act, will be at an end. One hon. member stated that something should be done toward having a definite fixation of prices by the board at this time. While this matter has been referred to on other occasions, the minister has not yet assured the committee that the board would have the power in question. I can understand that it would have power to go into the market and make purchases, as apparently under this bill it is empowered; but I do not believe that it could set prices, for that legislation based upon any scheme such as that would be legally effectual.
This bill seems to follow a definite scheme on the part of the governnient, that of introducing skeleton bills, bills containing titles and preambles and wide delegations of power, but from which no hon. member can possibly tell in advance the course to be adopted by any board set up, the controls to be put into effect, or the scheme of operation or the philosophy which would control a board operating under such measure.
Against this procedure I protest. The hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden) referred to this point in some detail a few moments ago. It is a serious situation when a bill is brought before parliament which does not set forth the basis upon which moneys belonging to Canada are to be expended, or the basis upon which the board for which it provides will operate. In effect it is a blank cheque to the board, the operations under the measure depending upon the circumstances prevailing or the exigencies at the time of its application. In other words some will say that the bill will ensure parity prices, when in fact, there is nothing in the bill to indicate that parity prices will be the aim of the board in the price levels which it will set. This measure sets a floor price by an indirect method, that of permitting the board to go into the market and make purchases, but the level of prices at which the board will make those purchases is not indicated. The farmer understands floor prices to be prices set at a level which

will assure him of a reasonable profit over and above his cost of production, although some consider them to be the same as parity prices. Under this measure the board is empowered to make purchases, and to set the level of prices at which it makes purchases, regardless of whether that level may be below the level of the cost of production or not. To be fair to the farmers of Canada, and not hold out to them hopes that may not culminate in action, the minister should set forth in this bill the principle that prices paid in respect of farm commodities shall be based upon costs of production and a reasonable profit. That would not require his setting price levels to-day to be effective in the post-war period. But if this bill is to be anything more than the promise of a hope, there must be something in it to show that the prices farmers are to receive will assure them of reasonable costs plus a fair return.
I realize, of course, that if definite prices were set for a period of years after the war there might be constitutional difficulties in the way. Great Britain is setting prices to-day for agricultural products after the war at a level that will assure a fair and reasonable return. Under this legislation the farmers of Canada may hope that the price they are going to receive will be a fair one. And a year hence or two years hence may realize for the first time that under this legislation there is no mandatory requirement on the board to assure our farm population a fair return for products they produce.
We have had ceilings in war time and the provision of post-war floor prices is to be a corollary of that. If the farmer has been willing to accept price ceilings in time of war h6 must be assured after the war that there will be price levels which will secure for him a fair and proper return.
I should like to ask the minister some questions. Is it his conception that in the operations of this board, in order to effectuate the various sections of the bill, quota systems will be set up? Will prices be fixed from year to year on a contract price basis, or what in general has the minister in mind as to the means whereby the fixation of prices will take place? Finally, what is the basis upon which these prices are to be fixed? Are they to be fixed upon the basis of farm prices in other countries, or are they to be fixed by negotiation between farm representatives of this country, the Canadian council of agriculture, other farm organizations and the board itself?
I have looked over this bill, and in my opinion it represents a continuance of the trend that has been evident during the past

Farm Prices
few years, that is, a continuance in peace time of bureaucratic control of this country. Section 4 of the bill provides:
The board may, with the approval of the governor in council, employ such professional, technical or other officers, clerks and employees, as it may deem necessary for the conduct of its business.
There is control in a board independent of parliament except that it must report to the minister from time to time. Section 9, paragraph (a) reads:
(a) to prescribe from time to time, with the approval of the governor in council, prites at which the board may purchase agricultural products in the market.
Paragraph (d) provides that the board may have authority to purchase at such prices any agricultural products as meets the standard. Paragraph (c) provides:
To pay to the producers of an agricultural product directly or through such agent as the board may determine the difference between a price prescribed by the board with the approval of the governor in council for such product and the average price.
The three powers I have mentioned must be given to the board. Then the next paragraph states that the board may sell or "otherwise dispose of" any agricultural products purchased by the board. Why the necessity of empowering the board to give away if necessary the farm products that it has purchased? Why those words, "or otherwise dispose of"? The power that is given under this section permits the board unequivocally to dispose gratis of products that have been secured.


George Hugh Castleden: It might burn them.


John George Diefenbaker: I think that method of disposing of extra production is a thing of the past, although it prevailed in all parts of the world between 1930 and 1939. The next subsection reads:
To package, process, store, ship, transport, export or insure any agricultural product.
As a matter of fact what the hon. gentleman said is perfectly true. The board has power to do anything with these products. The statement of the hon. gentleman indicates the width and the amplitude of the board's powers. We have no idea as to how the provisions of this subsection are to be used. We have no indication of the philosophy behind it. Somebody recommended this, some departmental investigation has taken place in regard to this whole question, and I think we should know to what extent the government expects that this board will take over the processing, storage and packing industries of this country. We do not want a repetition of what took
place in connection with the rental of our terminal elevators to private companies during the war-government-owned elevators rented to private individuals and in them government wheat stored for the period of the war at a cost three or four times the total amount of the annual rental.
How does the government intend this board to operate? I realize that it is impossible to give every detail, but it is important that any board that is given the power to purchase up to $200,000,000 worth of farm products and to dispose of them in any way, to store them and so on. must have some instructions as to how it will operate under this section.
Not only do we delegate power in that regard, but we delegate to the board the power to redelegate certain powers. Under section 9 (i) this board has the power to appoint commodity boards or other agents to undertake the purchase and the disposition of agricultural products. In other words there is a delegation of power by parliament to a board, with the power being given to that board to redelegate the powers that it has received. I have no objection to paragraph (j), which gives power to appoint a committee or committees to assist the board in an advisory capacity. I believe that is necessary, because it in no way implies the exercise of executive authority.
Then there is the section with regard to the price the farmer is to receive. Is there, to be a system of participation certificates? When this board purchases from the farmer at a certain price and sells or otherwise disposes of the product at a profit, will that profit go to the farmer? The reason I ask that is that under section 9 (i) (c)-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hesitate to interrupt my hon. friend but I want to direct attention to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, second edition, paragraph 759, which reads:
On the motion for the second reading, it is out of order to discuss the clauses seriatim.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am endeavouring to cite particular sections of the bill with a view to ascertaining what the philosophy is going to be in the operations of this board. To discuss the bill in detail is the only way in which I can show, as I am endeavouring to do, that too great power is being placed in the hands of too few without the necessary controls being imposed by parliament.


Thomas Vien: The hon, member knows, of course, that it is the principle of the bill that is discussed on the second reading and
Farm Prices

that the clauses cannot be discussed seriatim. I am inclined, however, to think that the hon. member is making a general argument with respect to the bill, although he is going into a -little more detail than I would want him to do.


John George Diefenbaker: I was referring to individual sections, Mr. Speaker, for the sake of clarity so that the minister can follow my argument.


James Garfield Gardiner: You have covered all that there are.


John George Diefenbaker: There are so few
sections dealing with so important a matter that we have to ask these questions for the purpose of ascertaining the philosophy underlying this bill and what is to be the method of operation. There is a title to the bill, a preamble, a delegation of authority-


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no preamble.


John George Diefenbaker: As a matter of fact the minister is correct. The government have actually extended themselves and have done away with the preamble, and preambles are usually used by the courts to ascertain the purpose of the legislation and the method of operation. Just in that connection let me say that there is one section, 10 (3), which refers to the possibility of a profit being made. I would like to find out from the minister just how it is expected that this board, if the farmer is to receive fair and proper prices, can possibly expect a profit in its operations. That requires elucidation and, if there is any profit, under this section it is apparent that it goes not to the farmer but into the consolidated revenue fund. One section provides for the possibility of the farmer receiving the highest possible price less the costs of administration, and another section provides for the possibility of there being a profit.
There is one other matter to which I wish to refer, and that is in connection with grain farmers. The grain farmers in western Canada to-day are not as well off proportionately, even taking into consideration present day prices, as other groups of farmers across this dominion. As a matter of fact, the grain farmer has benefited least of all in the period of the war by the prices that are being paid to-day. The prices which the wheat farmer and the other grain farmers are receiving today are far below the level of 1926-29.


James Garfield Gardiner: The prices for grain today are not below the 1926-29 levels.


John George Diefenbaker: I always believe in having a witness to call in support of the

statements which I make. I am now going to call as my witness the Minister of Agriculture himself. In the Regina Leader-Post-


James Garfield Gardiner: That was some months ago.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, but there has been no change in grain prices since last November.


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, yes.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister will be able to explain afterwards. The farmer is still receiving the initial price of $1.25. There have been slight fluctuations in the prices of certain other grain products, but this is what the minister said when he was speaking in Regina last November-not on a political platform, but addressing a delegation from the Saskatchewan wheat pool, and there of course he was speaking to grain farmers. He is reported in the Regina Leader Post as follows:
Mr. Gardiner quoted figures compiled by the bureau of statistics to show that the grain farmer had benefited least of all classes of farmers in price advances which had taken place during the war years, and was still well below the average of the 1920-29 period.


James Garfield Gardiner: The 1943 prices were not available at that time. I had in mind at that-time the 1942 prices. I handed the sheet to my hon. friend a little while ago with the 1943
prices. Put those figures on the record.


John George Diefenbaker: The statement of the minister as reported by the Regina Leader Post is scarcely in accord with the statement that he made here to-day. There may be an explanation, but the statement he made to-day had to do with products other than grain products. I am dealing now with grain products. I quote further from the Regina Leader Post. The minister said:
Taking the 1920-29 price levels as the -base and designating this period by the index figure 100, Saskatchewan was the only province that was below that mark-20 points below to be exact after including acreage payments.


James Garfield Gardiner: That was for 1942.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister can give the 1943 figures when he comes to reply. Let me finish what he said on that occasion, on November 10, 1943:
By provinc.es he quoted the index figures in relation to the 100 representing the 1920-29 average as follows: Prince Edward Island, 124: Nova Scotia, 100: New Brunswick, 170: Quebec, 105: Ontario, 132: Manitoba. 124. Saskatchewan, 80.
In other words, when the minister was speaking, and it was a matter of only a few months ago, the grain farmers of the province

Farm Prices
of Saskatchewan were receiving prices 20 points below the index figure of 1926-29. I am bringing this up not by way of criticism but for the purpose of showing that something must be done to raise the level of prices for the grain farmers at least to parity; for it seems to be inexcusable that Saskatchewan is the only province in the dominion that is receiving grain prices below the basic price of 1926-29. The minister said:
It is all very well to say that there are g#od prices for eggs, cheese, butter and live stock products, but the figures determine one thing, that there is one type of farmer not dealt with on the same level, the grain farmer.
I mention this for the purpose of asking the minister to consider raising the standard level of prices paid to the grain farmers to the end that our farmers in Saskatchewan may attain parity price, or a reasonable price above that amount having regard to all the circumstances.
I welcome this bill as a step in the right direction. Its aim and purpose are commendable. The criticism that I offer is designed only to the end that improvements be placed in the bill. Above all, we in this parliament should put a stop to the perpetuation of bureaucratic controls after the war is over. We have accepted war controls. Every one is legislating to-day, controllers, deputy ministers, heads of departments. It got so bad that the government had to appoint a controller to control the controllers; and yet, Mr. Speaker, that trend is being continued into peace time under legislation such as this. Not only is the trend being continued, but we are delegating authority in this case to a board which in turn has the right to redelegate that authority. We have had some experience of boards during the period of the war which indicate the grave danger of placing power in the hands of individuals removed from parliament and from effective control by the representatives of the people. I ask therefore, so far as the powers of redelegation are concerned, that they be not proceeded with. I ask that this legislation, before it is passed, should give in detail an indication of the circumstances and terms under which it will be operative, to the end that we shall not be in a position of promising much to the farmers, who are expecting much from it, without having at the same time something within the terms of the legislation which will ensure that the prices that are set shall be determined upon such a basis that the farmer will receive not only costs but a fair and reasonable profit.
One thing more, and I pass this on to the Minister of Agriculture. In the post-war period, as all of us believe, the demand for
agricultural products will be tremendous in volume during the first two years or so in the rehabilitation of the countries of Europe. That was the attitude taken by the conference in Atlantic City. Under the provisions of UNRRA, all the countries of the united nations to-day are contributing to a common pool, in order to make available the resources of our various countries in the rehabilitation of the countries of Europe as they are recovered from the enemy. In Canada's contribution, in my opinion, too small a portion is devoted to agricultural products. The other day I saw figures in connection with the United States contribution to UNRRA, and it would seem that the proportion of agricultural products that Canada is contributing to this fund for the rehabilitation and relief of the conquered countries is made on a basis which does not take into consideration to a proper extent, as has been done in the United States, the necessity of reestablishing in those countries in Europe a potential market for our farm products once those nations find themselves in a position again to become a potential market for Canadian farm products. I would appreciate it if the minister would indicate why it is that in this scheme of UNRRA, Canada's contribution of a greater proportion of farm products is not provided for. During the period of the war we have industrialized the country. We in the west have not benefited to the same extent as industrial eastern Canada by war industry. Little have we in the province of Saskatchewan. Out of a matter of almost a billion dollars in capital assistance, to industry, the capital assistance to industry in Saskatchewan has been less than $2 million. Eastern Canada, and to a lesser extent the Pacific coast, has become greatly industrialized in the period of the war. The central western provinces have not benefited to the same extent. I appeal to the minister to endeavour to secure as large a proportion as possible, and certainly a greater percentage than to-day, of farm products in all future contributions or in all future assignments on the part of Canada to the UNRRA mutual aid and the like so that western agriculture may benefit in the post-war period.
I agree with the principle of the bill, but I do think that certain controls are necessary not only in the interests of the people as a whole but in order to assure the farmer that the hopes being built up by reason of this legislation shall be realized and that after the war the price he will receive will be in keeping with the fact that, through his patriotism in time of war, he has consented to his prices being kept down.
Farm Prices


Mr. J. L. DOUGLAS (Queens):: Since I represent a constituency in a province which is largely agricultural I am naturally interested in this legislation supporting farm prices. It is essential that the farmer, upon whom we depend to so large an extent, should be protected from any collapse of prices of his marketable products during the readjustment period following the war. Through the wisdom of the government in its price ceiling and other measures during the past few years, farm prices have not become unreasonably high, in fact, scarcely high enough to offset, in some instances, the additional cost of production. In some instances the farmers have paid twenty-five per cent more in wages than in former years; nevertheless, despite ten years of low farm prices which prevailed prior to 1941, the farmers to-day are in better financial circumstances. This measure introduced to support the farmer up to or about the level of production is vital to the welfare of the dominion as a whole. It is a broad one that requires careful consideration, because cost of production varies in the different ' provinces. In Prince Edward Island we are subject to heavy freight rates and other handicaps not found except in a province separated from the mainland. Our principal marketing crops are potatoes, both seed and table stock; dairy products, hogs, poultry and eggs. Fish, of course, will be dealt with in another important bill.
The knowledge and experience I have gained from both farming and marketing convinces me that there is no other way by which we can protect the producer in the annual outlay of cash necessary to maintain production than by establishing a minimum price under the direction of a board so that he will not be made bankrupt. A board wisely constituted should be able to protect both the farmer and the government, or the consolidated revenue fund. This fund should be sufficient to meet all such needs.
For some time there will be a large demand for most food products. This demand will ensure at least a price equal to any floor that may be set. Other farm products which vary greatly in yield one year with another from the same acreage are, in years of heavy yield, sold at low prices. Take potatoes, for instance, a crop that varies greatly, depending on the weather and the infestation of fungus disease. In Prince Edward Island potatoes constitute our main cash crop. We produce a good quality of both seed and table stock, and without a reasonable revenue from this crop our farmers are not prosperous. Hon. members know that eighty per cent of the certified seed .potatoes are produced in
TMr. Diefenbaker.]
Prince Edward Island. The production of those potatoes requires special and scientific methods, which are more expensive than growing ordinary table stock potatoes. Production in Prince Edward Island, as in other provinces, has been increased twenty-five to thirty per cent. This is remarkable, especially in my own province where out of a population of 95,000 people 12,000 of our young men and women have enlisted in the armed forces, probably the highest percentage of all of Canada. The fathers and mothers at home have worked long hours, most of them from daylight to dark, to meet the needs of producing more food.
Since transportation is linked closely with production, we in Prince Edward Island are handicapped by ice conditions in the Northumberland strait in certain months of the year. February and March are the months in which the greatest difficulty is experienced. We hope that when the new car ferry, which is under construction, is brought into service in a few months' time it will improve the service between our province and the mainland. Our twenty-nine year old car ferry, which was built in Newcastle-on-Tyne, where many great ships are built, has done wonderful work. A great deal of credit is due to the crew who in some instances work day and night to keep the freight moving.
The people of my province have faith in the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and in his department, which has dealt fairly with all provinces. We appreciate the relief he has given us in the subventions on fertilizer and feed, the bonuses paid on dairy products, and so on, which, I am sure, all our people in that business appreciate.
It would be foolish for me or for anyone else to attempt to outline what minimum prices should be set for the various products, and as I have already said, a wisely constituted board will arrive at those conclusions. I wish to say, in conclusion, that I most heartily endorse the principles of the bill.


John Horne Blackmore: The principle underlying this bill is apparently the one that it is the duty and responsibility of the federal government of Canada to establish and maintain equitable and stable prices for agricultural products. That principle is sound. Apparently the technique involved in this bill is that of taxing the money from the people of Canada in order to attain the stable and equitable price level. That principle is unsound.
On the whole one must support the bill because the objective of attaining stable and equitable prices is so important that one

Farm Prices
would be very foolish to oppose it from any consideration whatsoever. It seems that during the debate thus far a good many members have taken pains to point out to the minister how long ago it was that they or their party began to advocate this particular principle. Probably it would be well for me to say just a word on this score also. When social credit proposals were first advocated the great founder of the proposals, Major Douglas, advocated a just price. When the campaign was being waged in Alberta perhaps the most attractive aspect of the campaign was the second principle of social credit, that of the just price. This is exactly the principle which apparently the minister and his department have been aiming to establish in this bill.
There are three principles of social credit. The first one is the free flow of credit; the second one is the just price, and the third one is the issue of consumers' purchasing power in the form of a dividend or in some other form that would increase the purchasing power. This principle was apparently actuating the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) when he introduced his bill with regard to family allowances.
I do not wish to bore the house or the country by elaborating once more that the objectives which the government is aiming at in most of the legislation which is coming forth now are the objectives which were clearly indicated as desirable objectives by the social credit movement many years ago, as long ago as 1923; and if those objectives had been- recognized as sound in those days and had been greeted with any sort of respect instead of universal derision, doubt and disrespect by the Liberal party, conditions in Canada would have been far different from what they have been.
May I now raise one question to which I believe the minister should give a great deal of attention? In his well planned and informative speech this morning he drew to our attention the fact that in 1927 the income of the farm population of Canada was $934 million; in 1929 it was $926-7 million, and in 1932 it was $383-5 million. If he takes the last figure from either of the two other figures he will have a sum in the neighbourhood of $600 million. It will be a most interesting mathematical problem for the minister to give the members of the cabinet, and also his department, as to how the difference between $383-5 million and more than $900 million could be met in any year by the expenditure of $200 million. I think it must, be apparent that to deal with a national problem anything
like that which confronted Canada in 1932, this figure of $200 million is pathetically inadequate.
Another question which I think needs to be asked right at this point is, where is it proposed to get this money? If we are to have money for family allowances, for reestablishment, for servicing a debt of over fourteen billion dollars, and so on, this is a really serious question to ask. Where is the money to come from?
Another important question is raised by the bill. It may not be exactly involved in the measure, but certainly it is associated with it. Where are the markets to be found for the produce which will be available as a result of these measures which are designed to stimulate the production of agricultural commodities? Are these markets to be found abroad, or are we to depend upon the home population for our market? It seems to me that this matter must be given a great deal of earnest thought. Suppose the foreign market should be found quite inadequate to absorb the generous production of agricultural products which most certainly will result from a sincere application of the principles contained in this bill. What devices would be adopted by the government to deal with a situation which would leave vast surpluses of a wide variety of commodi-* ties on the Canadian market, with all the disruptive effects on prices that would naturally result from such surpluses? I think this matter ought to be given a great deal of attention, and no doubt the minister will discuss it in considerable detail when the bill is in committee. We shall be listening to what he has to say. Once more may I suggest that, if foreign markets fail, the home market can be expanded to any degree desirable by the use of a dividend, and I would suggest to the minister that the sooner he gets his colleagues in the cabinet to discuss with him quite earnestly the matter of a dividend and how it can be paid in Canada, the sooner he will be placing the whole economy in Canada on something like a sound foundation.
So far as I have been able to discover in reading the bill, nothing is said as to what is to be done with respect to the cost of production of the various commodities. Very likely provision is being made somewhere else in this regard, but as yet I have not discovered it. The cost of production is a matter that has greatly embarrassed the farmers of western Canada. Anyone who has followed with care the reports of the Searle Grain company and has seen therein the statement of the rising costs of the commodities farmers have to buy, will have been impressed with the fact that between 1914 and 1935 the cost of the 147

Farm Prices

commodities western farmers buy increased from 100 to something in the neighbourhood of )133-5 or 134. That increase in the cost of living, and consequently in the cost of production for the western farmer, constituted a great source of irritation and perhaps temporary ruin financially. In reading over the bill I just wondered if the minister had made adequate provision for taking care of the rising cost of production, whether he had any device similar to the social credit compensated discount, by the application of which he could prevent the cost of production from rising. This is another avenue thoroughly worthwhile exploring.
Raising the question of where the money is to come from brings to mind a matter that seemed to be disturbing the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). He was afraid of the increase in centralization and regimentation in this country, of the increase in taxation, of the tendency to level people down, to redistribute poverty or scarcity. He did not use those words but I think those were his ideas. May I point out to the minister that wherever centralization of power takes place, wherever there is a tendency to tax people more and to level down the general income of the country, these tendencies are socialistic and consequently are directly contrary to democracy. The greatest danger that can arise under socialism is the destruction of democracy. I say that in no passionate way whatever; it is a simple, straightforward fact. The hon. member for Lake Centre went into considerable detail to show that there was a tendency toward the destruction of democracy through centralization and greater taxation. I do not know whether the Liberal government feel very happy to think they are lining themselves up with the great socialistic trend in the world, but they must face the fact that to the extent they have shown in this bill what their technique is to be, they are doing that very thing. The people of Canada hardly need to bother about building up and electing a Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party in order to get socialism in this country; they need only to return the Liberals next time and probably they will get all the socialism they can endure. I have no grounds for believing that the people would fare any better under a Conservative administration, either, because apparently the Conservatives think along exactly the same lines-. They think there is only one way in the world to get money, namely, by taxing it out of the people. They are obsessed with that foolish notion. According to them, it does not matter what goods and services we have; it does not matter how much 'the real wealth of the country increases, there is no other way to 
get money. Apparently they seem to think money is a divine thing which has to rain down from the skies. It cannot be created in accordance with need-impossible, according to their ideas I They will have to outgrow these ideas, or the results of their efforts- both Liberals and Conservatives-will be socialistic, just as definitely as will be those of the C.C.F.
There are one or two other questions which I think should be propounded for consideration at this stage, while we are considering the principle of the bill. Is it the aim of the bill, in a general way, to guarantee the farmers of Canada against loss? Or is it the aim to guarantee them an adequate income? The minister will correct me if I am in error when I say that I assume the object is to guarantee them a good income. And since he does not contradict me-


James Garfield Gardiner: I am waiting until you have finished.


John Horne Blackmore: I am asking the minister a question.


James Garfield Gardiner: And I will answer it;
but I cannot answer it yes or no.


John Horne Blackmore: I assume the minister has answered that the object of the bill is to guarantee the farmer a good income. If that is the object, then, of course, the increase in production in nearly every kind of agricultural product in Canada will be tremendous.
I have no objection to that; I have no fear of abundance. I can see plenty of places in Canada and in other parts of the world where abundance can be used, if the government can discover the proper technique of distributing that abundance. But if the government stupidly persists in being unable to see the method of distributing an abundance of goods, then there is a serious danger arising from that abundance.
When a few minutes ago the hon. member for Lake Centre said that we never again would see destruction of goods he probably was just a little out of contact with realities in his reasoning; because the advocates of scarcity, the men who think scarcity will do anything under the sun, except discover a means of distributing abundance, will do almost anything except use that abundance. They will keep producers so that they cannot deliver more than so much of their goods, and the goods will sit out in the field and spoil. Even the minister, with his enlightenment, has been guilty of that.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, no.

Farm Prices


John Horne Blackmore: Has not the minister
paid a wheat acreage reduction bonus?


James Garfield Gardiner: Not to reduce production; it was to increase production-and it did increase it.


John Horne Blackmore: Oh, this is a most
interesting kind of reasoning. It must be unique. One ordinarily supposes that if you pay a man to keep a certain area out of production, it would decrease production.


James Garfield Gardiner: He was not paid to
keep it out of production; he was paid to take it out of wheat, and put it into something else.


John Horne Blackmore: What would happen
if we had a surplus of everything?


James Garfield Gardiner: He would change to
something else.	[DOT]


John Horne Blackmore: The minister is thinking along a profitable line. If he would keep along that line, I would point out to him in a very few minutes how without any serious effort at all we can produce of most things more than Canadians can consume, and more than we can sell to the peoples of the world. I shall refer, for example, to my favourite subject of sugar.


James Garfield Gardiner: Do not start on that.


John Horne Blackmore: I do not propose to
start on it; but it is a good thing for the minister to bear such things as this in mind. Let him bear in mind that the total consumption of sugar in Canada to-day could be produced in Alberta alone, south of Calgary, without seriously affecting wheat production. That is one of the things we have to face.
I shall just refer to one or two others which occur to me. Take the production of alcohol. Everyone in Canada must have wondered why we have had to have a shortage of gasoline, and why we could not produce alcohol for fuel purposes. Surely everyone has wondered why it is we have been so careful not to produce freely of synthetic rubber, notwithstanding the fact that apparently we have an ideal set-up for such production.
Surely these examples are enough to indicate the potential capacity of Canada in connection with agricultural products. And those potential capacities will be opened1 up, if this bill is sincerely administered. I am not saying that it will be sincerely administered. I do not know. It may be administered somewhat as the meat board was administered this year in connection with beef in Alberta. That, of course, would be an entirely different matter.
But if it is sincerely administered, as the
wording of the bill would suggest, then this bill will stimulate agricultural production from coast to coast in Canada in a way which I believe will constitute a genuine embarrassment to everyone who persists in thinking in terms of scarcity. The question now ought to be raised: What would we do with these surpluses? Would we destroy them, or forbid further production, or give them away? How would we pay for them'? All these questions have to be asked.
I am wondering this: As a result of the application of the principles of this bill in maintaining a floor price, are prices to be raised to the consumer? For example, supposing we see fit to pay, we will say, ten cents a dozen on eggs, so as to put a floor under the price of that commodity, would the ten cents be charged to the consumer? If it would not, that would help. But suppose the government raised the price from twenty cents to thirty cents a dozen, paid the difference of ten cents a dozen, and then charged the - consumer thirty cents, when the consumer could otherwise have bought them for twenty cents from the producer. The result of this, of course, would be a matter which should be given consideration, before we plunge too far into it.
Another matter which I suggest should be considered at this stage, is this:	Is if the
intention to make Canada more self-sufficient, or to leave Canada more or less non-selfsufficient, as it is at present? That is, is this bill intended to be applied so as to cause the people of Canada to produce successfully certain agricultural products which at the present time it might appear could more profitably be imported from abroad?
Let us suppose we are dealing with butter. Would the object be to raise the price of butter to producers in Canada, so that it would not be profitable for anyone to import New Zealand butter, thereby tending to shut out the New Zealand product? I give this just as illustration. Would that be the general idea? Would the idea be to raise the price of wool to producers in Canada to the point where it would pay the Canadian wool grower so well to produce wool that the country would produce all our requirements of that commodity? These serve as an illustration of the .point I have in mind.
I think the government has to decide definitely, before long, whether it proposes to make Canada a more and more self-sufficient country, or a country more and more dependent upon foreign trade. If it does not make a definite decision in this respect, then its policies will be at variance with each other, and there will be a lack of consistency in the moves the government makes.
Farm Prices

I can quite readily understand how a bill like this could be used to make Canada more self-sufficient.


James Garfield Gardiner: Is that what you wish
to have done?


John Horne Blackmore: Perhaps the minister would like me to make a pronouncement so that the Liberals could use it. I know he would. I have propounded certain questions-


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not afraid to say what I think about it. What do you think about it?


John Horne Blackmore: I am glad the minister is not afraid; and I am not afraid to say what I think about it. But I will say it in a way which cannot be distorted on some remote platform. I am going to say that in a general way it is a dangerous and an uneconomical situation for any country to be dependent upon external sources for the products it needs to support the lives of its people. The minister will readily get that. Time and time again I have advocated a greater beet sugar production in Canada, thereby laying down a principle which I hold to be completely sound. I think I have answered the minister, and he will understand.


James Garfield Gardiner: You are in favour of making the country self-sustaining.


John Horne Blackmore: I am in favour of the principle I have just laid down by implication. If this Bill is sincerely applied it will aid greatly in the attainment of that desire, but we shall have to deal with the serious problem of where the money is to come from. An amount of $200,000,000 will not begin to maintain prices where they ought to be. Prices in 1929 and 1927 were not high enough to give the agricultural population of Canada their fair share of the national income. I think every one in this house will agree that w'hat the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver) said this afternoon-I congratulate him upon saying it-is applicable to this situation.
From 1905, when I first began to take an interest in these matters, down to the present time, the farmers of Canada have not had a fair deal. Their situation has been getting worse. Their situation was not happy in 1927, 1928 and 1929 when prices were good. If the government are to undertake to correct a situation similar to that which existed in 1932, if they are to attempt to support prices, they will need much more than $200,000,000. If the country should fall upon evil days, such as we had from 1930 to 1935, the amount of money which the people could pay in taxes would not be very great, and one can imagine

the clamour that would be raised against the taxation which would be necessary to supply even $200,000,000.
I believe that all thoughtful members will be impressed with the need of a careful examina^-tion of the question of where the money is to come from. It must not be taxed from the Canadian economy because:	the Canadian
economy just will not stand it. If the sponsors and drafters of>
this bill really mean to put it through, if it is not just a means of deceiving the people, then they must be sure that they have a source of money which will yield much more than $200,000,000 and which will not constitute a tax burden on the Canadian people over and above what they are called upon to endure.
Having said that, I have just one more statement to make. If the object of the bill- I imagine the minister proposes to tell me this in a minute or two-is to grant the Canadian farmer an adequate income, I suggest that it is a matter of considerable importance that the minister define what, in his opinion, constitutes adequate. There are altogether too many wage-earners and income earners in Canada who are getting less than $1,000 a year. There is a scandalously large number of Canadian people receiving less than $500 a year to support their families. The other day the Prime Minister gave us some figures which have an impressing bearing on that statement.
What is adequate to-day? Does it mean that when the average farmer gets done with his year's work he will have a $500 balance in his favour? Does it mean that he will have a $2,500 balance in his favour? What will be in the minds of the men who are to determine what that adequate income shall be and who, therefore, are to determine what the prices shall be which the farmer will receive and wLat the prices shall be which he must pay for the items that enter into his cost of production?
I think I have indicated the line along which I desire a considerable amount of information. May I say once more that I support the principle of this bill in so far as its objectives are concerned, namely, the introduction and maintenance of equitable and suitable prices for agricultural products throughout this country. I support that principle, but I oppose the principle of the technique o.r the method by which that objective is to be attained, namely, the levying of a tax burden upon the Canadian people.
The taxation structure upon the Canadian people is altogether too destructive right now and it must be relaxed. Otherwise such a thing as freedom will leave the shores of this country if it has not already done so. To

Farm Prices
contemplate seriously adding more taxation to the people under a condition like that is simply to contemplate something which borders on lunacy. I repeat that I oppose the principle of the technique, namely, the taxation by which it is apparently proposed to attain the objectives of this bill.


Hughes Cleaver: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. When taking part in the debate the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Cardiff) threw out the implication that I as the member for Halton had been neglecting the farmers in my riding, and he made the statement that I had made the speech which I made to-day only because we are on the eve of an election. I should like to remind the hon. member and the house that I came here as a new member in 1936 and I made my maiden speech within one month of the convening of the house. At that time I supported agriculture when I spoke on the Canadian-United States trade agreement. From 1937 down to the outbreak of the war, whenever I felt that I could make a constructive suggestion in regard to legislation being dealt with by the house with regard to agriculture, I spoke upon the matter. It is quite true that since the outbreak of war the few speeches I have made have been in regard to the war effort.
If my hon. friend was referring to the fact that I have not participated in the general free-for-all discussion which takes place yearly on the agricultural estimates he is 100 per cent correct, because I have always felt that I could make a more effective contribution to the welfare of the farmers in my riding with respect to departmental matters by making my representations direct to the heads of the different departments rather than by taking up the time of the house. I have consistently followed that practice, I think with only one exception when I made a short speech a year ago in support of an increased grant for research and experimental work.
I considered that I was quite within my rights in rising to-day to present some views which I thought would be helpful to the house and by passing on to the membership of this house the views of the farmers of my riding with respect to the important piece of legislation we are now considering. I ask my hon. friend1: Could I have made the speech any sooner than I did? I feel that I was quite within my rights, that I had a right to make that speech without having any slurs cast upon me for making it. I say to my hon. friend that the statement he made that my speech was made only because we are on the eve of an election is untrue.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: In answer to my hon. friend on the other side I may say that unfortunately the hon. member he is criticizing is not in the house at the present time because he had to attend an important meeting. I must say this on the question of privilege. It is difficult, Mr. Speaker, to understand the hon. gentleman because nearly every time he speaks in the house he makes a political speech.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak again on the second reading, but a number of questions have been put to me to which I assume the members expect answers before the bill goes to the committee. Most of the questions I think can best be answered when we are dealing with the different sections of the bill in committee, but there were one or two general matters raised to which I think I should make reply at this stage.
In the first place I wish to deal with the statements which were made by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) toward the end of his remarks when he referred to a Statement which I had made in the city of Regina in thei latter part of 1943. It is obvious to anyone who considers that statement that it could be made only with reference to the statistics as they existed at that time, and it is equally obvious that a speech delivered in 1943 could not be based on the final statistics for the year 1943 because they were not issued in final form until after the end of the year.
I have in my hand the revised figures of the dominion bureau of statistics, as of February 22, 1944, giving the final figures for 1943. The statement which I made at the wheat pool meeting in the city of Regina, and a newspaper report of which was read by the hon. member for Lake Centre, referred, as I said across the floor of the house a few minutes ago, to the figures for 1942. The index figure for Saskatchewan at that time was 67. Those figures have been revised up to a later date, and the latest figures that I have in my hand show that the Saskatchewan figure is 69-2 for 1942, which is two points higher than the figure which was contained in the statistics that I had in my hand at the time I was speaking in Regina. In addition, there is paid in western Canada the wheat acreage payment, and this payment at that time increased the returns to the farmers of Saskatchewan to an index figure of 80. I assume that since the basic figure of 67 has since been raised by two points, the new figure will now be 82. But the most important part of my statement made in Regina was that
Farm Prices

which prophesied that when we had reached the end of the year and had the figures, the index figure for Saskatchewan would be past the 100 mark. I have now the 1943 figures, and they show that the index figure for Saskatchewan is 110-3, as I gave it to the house this morning.
I even went farther when I was speaking in Regina and pointed out that the price of wheat had been increased to $1.25 a bushel on September 28 last, and as I was speaking about two months later that increased price could have had little effect on the index figure of returns to the Saskatchewan farmer. The increased payment of fifteen cents on barley and ten cents on oats had just been established. What I was really saying to the western farmers at that meeting, and I said it at twenty-five different meetings, was that they had not had their proportion of returns during the war down to 1942, and the statistics indicated that, but that the reason why they had not received returns down to that time was that we had not the information with regard to the sales of live stock products generally across Canada, and with regard to the sale of fruits and other products, and, therefore, that we were not in a position to make a proper comparison until we had those figures; and that as soon as the complete figures for 1942 were in our hands we made adjustment of the returns on grain, which, as I stated at that time, would bring the index figure past the 100 mark, and I prophesied that by the end of 1944 Saskatchewan would be on a comparable basis with the other provinces. I repeated that statement this, morning; and I am. quite sure; knowing as we do now that the income in Saskatchewan is up by over sixty per cent in the first six months of the year, whereas the increase across Canada is up by only twenty-five per cent, that there will be a considerable adjustment of the index figures relating to the grain growing provinces during the year 1944 and in all probability the figures for Saskatchewan will be as good as the figures for most of the other provinces. That is the point I was wishing to make at that time. That is what the hon. member for Lake Centre himself says should be the objective of this government, and since we hope to reach that objective during this year I trust that when the election rolls around he will support the government on that particular matter of policy.
A number of other questions were brought to our attention. One was the question raised by the hon. member for Lake Centre whether this legislation is intra vires. Along with that he quoted at some length the title of the bill, and I am not at all surprised that when he

read the title he thought it was a preamble because it takes two lines to recite the title to the bill, which reads: "An act for the support of the prices of agricultural products during the transition from war to peace." The reason why this bill has such a long title, and the reason why the title on the inside page of the bill appeared to the hon. member to be a possible preamble to the bill, is the fact that in order to make the bill intra vires it had to be made absolutely clear that this is not a bill to set prices. This house has not the authority to set prices on goods which are produced within the different provinces and which are consumed in those provinces, and we do not presume under this bill to do anything which we have not the authority to do, which would only result in having the bill thrown out of court before it could come into operation. So that it is made perfectly clear that the bill does not intend to set prices. It does not set prices. It merely places within the power of a board which is to be set up under the bill the authority to prescribe prices which will do certain things. Those are the prices at which we are prepared to purchase products, and the purchasing of the products will do certain things. In this way we are accomplishing what we have stated on previous occasions we would accomplish, namely putting floor prices under the goods which are being produced in the dominion and which have been affected by ceiling prices during the time the war was on.
I have been asked whether this would involve the setting of quotas. I do not know whether the hon. member for Lake Centre had in mind the placing of quotas upon production, but I assume he had that in mind from the references that he made. Or perhaps he had in mind the setting of quotas such as we have put on during the war, whereby after Jhe products have been produced we put a quota on their delivery to the market. That was particularly true of wheat and some other grains. We put a quota on their deliveries during the year. But I think what the hon. member for Lake Centre had in mind was the old question whether we were going to say to the farmers, "This is all you can grow, and if you grow any more you will not get this particular return on it; or.if you produce any more the government is not prepared to take it." II that is what he had in mind, that is not what the bill intends to do. We do not intend tc say to the farmers, "If your production happens to run high next year, or the first year following the war, only a certain percentage of that production will be taken."

Farm Prices
That is one of the reasons why it is not possible in this bill to do some of the things which it has been suggested ought to be done somewhere sometime. It may lay the -basis upon which other legislation can be built up later on, or other actions taken later, which may accomplish some of the things that some hon. members have in mind. But this bill is intended to do exactly what the title says it is intended to do-an act for the support of prices of agricultural products during the transition from war to peace. Then, as we read everything which is in the bill, and everything which has been said from time to time, the intention is to take into consideration all the things that have been done in relation to farm products during the period of the war and particularly during the period of price control, and then in any transition period following the war, whenever it is declared that the terms of the bill be applied to a product during that period, we apply the terms of this bill in such a way as to see to it that anything at all that the farmer was denied by way of price through control during the war is made up to him during the period of transition after the war, in order that he may maintain his position among the different producers and consumers. That, in general terms, is the object of the bill and that is what we have in mind doing.
Many questions have been asked with regard to different subsections of section 9, and I think those can be best dealt with in committee. However, it might be necessary to call attention to certain remarks made with reference to paragraph (c) of subsection 1 of section 9. In that there will be found some reference to how certain products may have to be handled, and the question is asked, particularly by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), as to whether under that we are to set a price to consumers in Canada and whether we are to pay subsidies over and above these particular prices, or what is to happen, or what may happen under this legislation.
That clause was intended to deal with products such at cheese. Cheese is handled in a certain way in this country. It is largely produced by the cheese factories which are under control of the farmers who deliver their milk to the cheese factory, and their cheese is marketed -before boards. They obtain certain price levels for- that cheese. If nothing is done about it at all, cheese will go on to this market at the price level established before these boards, but it is conceivable that a price level of that kind may not be as high as the price level ought to be to take care of the circumstances then existing. In such circumstances the price would be paid by the factory to the farmer, and the factory would be reimbursed by the board.
That is a possibility under that clause of the bill, in which case it would result, to all intents and purposes, in a subsidy being paid to the producer. It has been stated that if that were carried to the extreme, and if the other powers given- here were applied in certain ways, one might get certain- results. I have no doubt that if the price were retained at too high a level, or the return at too high a level, one might get a greater production of some commodity than was desired; but in placing this -bill -before the house, I would impress upon hon. members that during the period through which we have been passing, and which we wish to have taken into consideration in deciding what we are to do in the transitional period, no one has been preventing the farmer from producing as much as he possibly can of the products we are discussing in this bill. The reason, for that is that there has been a market for all these products. The only one for which we have not had an unlimited market is wheat, and that is not dealt with ' under this bill. But there has been up to date an unlimited market for all farm products we are discussing under the bill. I submit that it would not be just to the farmers to say to them, " In the first year after the war you must cut ten., twenty or twenty-five per cent off your production-, and at the same time not provide that you should obtain a floor price for all the product you do -produce, if that floor price may be above cost of production; because there has been- a time during this war when some of our products were sold under cost of production. You may have to make an adjustment which is not based on cost of production alone."
That is another reason why the bill is applied to the transitional period. That does not mean that when the transitional period is up, any government which happens to be in power at that time is in duty bound to do away with the legislation in its entirety, that it will have no right to amend that legislation in any way. Of course, any house that may be here at any time after the war has the right to amend the measure in any way it may see fit. But this particular bill is for the purpose of dealing with a situation that does exist, as it exists, during the transitional period between war and peace. I hope that our markets for farm products for a period of years, possibly two or three or more, for most of our products, will be sufficiently good- that we shall be able to obtain a price which is comparable with the price we are now obtaining
Farm Prices

for our farm products of different kinds. If so, the board that is in existence during that period of time will be keeping a check on what is happening during that period, comparing it with what happened during the war period; and immediately there is any necessity for taking action in connection with any farm product, authority is given the board under this legislation to purchase a surplus of that farm product at the floor price which the government of the day considers to be a reasonable floor in the light of all the facts existing in connection with the case.
I am asked, what will they do with all that, will they get rid of it? I can assure hon. members that if I am minister charged with the task, there will not be any of it that will be burned or dumped into the ocean or into the lake. One thing has been demonstrated to us during the war, and as a matter of fact we have always known it. We have always known that there are areas in the world where there are famines from time to time. There are areas where great masses of the population are never properly fed', and there has never been a time when it would not have been possible to take all the food commodities of Canada and send them to some place where someone could have made use of them. Unfortunately, in the past we have kept our actions of that kind limited pretty much to the people that we know most about. But we are entering upon a period when one can leave his home in any part of the world and be in any other part of the world in which he wishes to land sometime within the next twenty-four or forty-eight hours. Therefore the radius of our activities and our friendships and all that kind of thing will be very much wider when this war is over than they have ever been before. I am not worrying about finding some place where we can put the surplus food of a country that has only twelve million people in it to start with.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


James Garfield Gardiner: Before the dinner recess I was dealing with some of the points that were suggested by hon. members opposite, particularly the questions raised by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore). Perhaps I can best sum up the answers I should like to give to those questions by saying that it would not be fair to the farmers of Canada to do certain things in the
IMr. Gardiner.]
transition period. First, I should say it would not be fair to order them, immediately the war is over, to reduce production to the level at which it is certain the commodities could be sold at a given price. I was asked what we were going to do, provided that we had great surpluses, and I call attention to what I have just stated as an answer to that question, and to repeat what I said just before the dinner recess. During this war period we have been asked to increase production to the limit in order to provide food to those of our allies who require it, as well as to our own people. I repeat that it would be unfair to the farmers, immediately the war is over, to say they must reduce their production to the point where everything they produce can be disposed of at a given price. And I would state that this bill contains provision for dealing with a situation where a given price is essential for uncontrolled production during the transition period.
Then I should say it would be unfair to the farmer immediately to require him to sell at the cost of production, without considering at all any losses he sustained because of the war or any returns he was denied through the controls established during the war. The suggestion was made that farmers had been denied returns in the earlier part of the war and that just at the time when in the ordinary course of events, according to the experiences of the last war, he would1 have reaped some returns which would have been helpful to him, ceilings were placed upon prices, as a result of which he was denied as great a return as otherwise he might have received. All those matters would have to be taken into consideration during the transition period along the lines I have suggested.
Then, too, I should say it would be unfair to hold that because a farmer had an exceptionally good crop during the transition period he should be prepared to accept a low return per unit, and I make that statement also based upon what I said a few moments ago. During the period of control, in 1942 the farmers had one of the best crops they ever grew. They had a very fair crop in 1943, and it seems likely that this year they will have one of their very best crops again. During these three years we have had prices controlled. I am not at all sure, and neither is anyone in this house, how many years longer those controls are going to remain in effect, but up to the present the production of field crops has been far beyond what we had any right to expect at the time those controls were established. I make that statement in reply to the suggestion of the hon. member for Lethbridge this after-

Farm Prices
noon, that because we had suggested that wheat acreage be reduced for the time being we were really paying the farmers to decrease production. If he had applied that statement to the efforts of the government in relation to wheat only, it would have been a statement of fact; but when one takes into consideration the further fact that the government made those payments in such a way as to increase the production of feed grains and in turn increase the production of live stock products, it cannot be said that the policy was intended to lower the production of food products. If the policy had been adopted for that purpose it certainly failed, because in 1942, 1943 and, as far as we can tell, in 1944, as was stated this afternoon by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver), our production has increased by at least fifty per cent. While hon. gentlemen opposite may not agree I venture to say that, making allowance for the fact that we had good weather in some of,those years, these results have come about almost entirely from the policy that was announced and put into force by this government in relation to agriculture. So that I say the fact that we shall have had two very good crops and one average crop during the period of price ceilings should be taken into consideration in the post-war or transition period, and that farmers who were denied higher returns during war time should not be denied a fair return on their products simply because in some of the years following the war the yields may be very high.
One of the questions asked directly was this: Is this bill intended to make this country self-sustaining? I would put it in a little different form and say, if the question is whether this bill is intended to promote the production of everything we need in this count try, or all the food products that we might desire to have in this country, then those of us who had to do with the drafting of the bill had no such idea in mind and did not intend that the legislation should be used for that purpose. The hon. member for Lethbridge was very much concerned as to how we were going to raise the money. He spoke of this $200,000,000 as an amount of money that had to be found somewhere in order to carry on the activities contemplated by this measure. Of course the $200,000,000 is a revolving fund. If a market can be found for all the products over which the government may take control, owing to the fact that they have taken charge of those products at floor prices through some of the organizations provided for in this legislation; if the government can dispose of all those products at floor prices, it will not
be necessary to raise any money by taxation or in any other way. In other words, the $200,000,000 is provided in order to have a fund from which to purchase the commodities, or with which the purchase of commodities may be made. Those commodities may be some I mentioned in my speech this morning. One commodity might be butter purchased in the months of May, June and July, put in storage, and put back on this market at possibly the same price in the winter months with the costs added to it.
If the whole $200,000,000 were used for transactions of that kind, then, of course, it would not be necessary to raise money from taxes, or to issue paper money, or to do anything else of that kind, in order to get the money that would be necessary with which to carry on activities under the bill. But if, on the other hand, in dealing with some of these products we were to find it necessary in order to provide floor prices, which we think are essential to give the farmer a proper return, to place the products on this market in Canada, or on any other market at a price lower than that which we had paid under the floor, then it might be necessary to take part of the $200,000,000 in order to make up the difference between the price paid to the farmer for the surplus, and the price received from whatever country we were sending it to. In other words, there might be part of the money which would have to be found by general taxation, or in some other way. But to the extent that products can be disposed of at any price at all, the price received for them, or the money received for them, will go into this revolving fund. And if we make up $200,000,000 through transactions, it would not be necessary to raise anything by taxation.


Grote Stirling: In connection with a transaction such as that referred to, would the storage costs be paid for by money provided by parliament, or would they be charged against the $200,000,000?


James Garfield Gardiner: I should not like to be too definite in my answer, because this is a matter which would be placed under a board, and which will be dealt with by the governor general in council from time to time. I should judge, however, that if the transactions in the products make it possible to have a balance, the costs would be taken out of the transactions in the products themselves. But if there were a case where a certain amount of money was being paid in order to maintain the price at a certain level, then I would not wish to be too definite as to what the board might decide to do. Just as is being done now, I think different products might be dealt with in
Farm Prices

different ways. Some products are now bearing all costs; with others some of the costs are being charged.
For example, we took over grass seeds some time ago. In providing for taking them over we took them over at a certain price level, and we are selling them out at a certain price level, in order to have the two balance. But the government is bearing the cost of administration in connection with it, and that means that to the extent of the administration costs there is really a subsidy on the product. There are some other products dealt with in that way, and some dealt with in the other. But they are all dealt with in the light of conditions surrounding the transactions.
The only other point I wish to deal with is a question raised by hon. members who have spoken from the other side of the house, and that is the question as to who is responsible for this kind of legislation. Well, there is only one thing I can say, so far as this piece of legislation is concerned, and it is this: I am absolutely certain as to who is responsible for its drafting. I am also just as certain as to who is responsible for bringing it into this house. I am also absolutely certain, as a matter of fact, that I would not have brought it into the house if it had not had the support of the whole government. So that there can be no question as to who is responsible for having this legislation in the position in which it is at the present time.
I am fairly certain of another thing. I do not recall at this time a single piece of social service legislation that ever got into this house through any other medium than that of the Liberal party.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is all very well to be able to go back to conventions, to be able to go back to meetings at which people spoke here and there throughout the country, and quote what was said, and what was to be done, as indicated in the form of resolutions. But the fact remains that every piece of important social service legislation that has ever been brought into this house has been brought in by a Liberal government.
The outstanding illustration of that-and I think it is an illustration which demonstrates conclusively what I say-is this: When family allowances were first announced they did not have the outspoken support of any one of the political parties sitting opposite. Every one of them gave support, but with reservations, when those family allowances were first announced.
I have noticed, too, in connection with this legislation, that there has not been a single member on the opposite side of the house-
IMr. Gardiner.]
and I am not referring to hon. members sitting in the comer of the chamber to your immediate left, Mr. Speaker-not a single member rising on the opposite side of the house has unreservedly supported the legislation. They have said, "Oh, the principle is good. If you are going to do with this legislation what we think you are going to do, then it is all very fine, and we are all for it. But if you are going to do something else"-and I do not know where they got these other ideas, because certainly they are not in the bill-


Clarence Gillis: Just from past experience.


James Garfield Gardiner: They say, "If you are going to do something else, then we would not be in favour of it." What I point to is this, that they are just hoping that something will develop that they will be able to hang themselves on, when the time comes.


George Hugh Castleden: We will hang you with it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, my hon. friend says they will hang me with it.


Ernest Edward Perley: It will hang on your past record.


James Garfield Gardiner: I know the record of the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden). He used to live in my town. As a matter of fact he used to support me. And you do not need to take my word for it, because it is on the record. I know some of the reasons why he does not support me to-day, but it certainly was not that he was ever able to hang me anywhere.
The situation in this matter is simply this, that right back through history, as far as you wish to go, it will be found that Liberals advocate a certain policy over a certain period of time. They eventually put it on the statute books, and it works well. Then our Conservative friends agree with it. In other words, right through the history of the development of our democratic institutions within the British empire, the Liberal party has been the leader in reform-and the Conservative party has had to be convinced.
I am pleased to have lived to see the day when all that the leader of the Conservative party can find on which to hang an appeal to the. people at the present time is policies which have been advocated and put into effect by the Liberal party, over a long period of years. In other words, we have apparently succeeded in doing what was done in Britain about a hundred years ago when the leader of the Conservative party, although he was leading the government, was persuaded for the first time to become an advocate of free

Farm Prices
trade in commodities being passed to and from Great Britain. While it is true that after that both parties agreed with the policy, that did not alter the fact that those of the Conservative point of view-I have not any great criticism of them for holding that point of view other than to say that it tends to retard reform-have always tended to hold on to the things they have just as long as they possibly can. Then when they find they cannot hold on any longer, and the great majority of the people are in favour of it, they come in and agree. I said the other day when the leader of the socialist party-I say that advisedly

socialist party, not socialistic party-


George Hugh Castleden: Cooperative Commonwealth Federation to you.


James Garfield Gardiner: I hope my hon. friends are not becoming ashamed of the term "socialism".


George Hugh Castleden: We are not, but you call us national socialists.


James Garfield Gardiner: I sometimes believe that they are. Every piece of socialistic or social service legislation which has been brought into this house, and almost every piece of socialistic or social service legislation which has been brought into the provincial legislatures of this country, have been brought in by a Liberal government.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is not true. What about workmen's compensation?


James Garfield Gardiner: You can make a speech some other time. I have listened to you saying a lot of things I thought were not true. The other day I said across the floor of the house that if our hon. friends of the socialist party had joined the Liberal party they would be farther away from Toryism than they are in the socialist party, and they questioned me. Every student of history in this country knows that Conservatism, or to go back beyond Conservatism to Toryism, had its birth in an attempt to hold the land and everything else in Great Britain under the ownership and control of the crown. In other words, the ownership of property and everything else in the original days following Norman rule in Britain was based upon the principle of state ownership. The whole battle between Liberalism and Toryism in Britain was a battle against state ownership and control. For that reason I say that when our hon. friends, in order to obtain what they consider to be reforms, base their ideas upon that of state ownership, it is a retroactive step and not a progressive one
that they are attempting to take. I believe that the Progressive Conservatives of to-day are more advanced Tories than are the socialists.
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury)-: That is a kind of left-handed compliment.


James Garfield Gardiner: That brings me to this. We have only the Liberalism left. These other groups who are claiming credit for everything that has been brought forth in this session under the name of Liberalism either do not know their history or are simply attempting to occupy the position which the Liberal party has occupied throughout the history of this country and throughout a considerable part of the history of Great Britain.
I am quite sure that in spite of the fact that they have had some encouragement- this applies more particularly to our hon. friends opposite to the extreme right-they should again read the history of this country. One has only to look back a few years to find the time when we had only one representative from Saskatchewan; one has only to look back to the same year to find that there was not a single representative of the Conservative party from that province; yet in the intervening period there has not been a member who was associated with the group which at that time swept the province elected to this house. In other words, there are certain principles related to the carrying on of government which abide in spite of all the intervening attacks that are made upon them. One of the principles which have remained in the minds of a great many people in this country is the principle which has established Liberalism, not only in Great Britain, not only in this country, but in the Atlantic charter and every other great charter that has been drawn up as a result of the activities of this war.
When I say that I give answer to the question asked me by the hon. member for Lethbridge, in which he associated himself with the hon. member for Lake Centre. The Liberal party does not believe and never has believed that we could advance the welfare of the human race by producing all the things that are necessary to our existence within the bounds of our own country. We have never believed either that we should produce an economy in this country or in any other country where all the activities should be associated with the production only of things that we ourselves require and want and need.
The hon. member for Lethbridge would like to know why we are not more concerned about the production of rubber, why we are not
Farm Prices

more concerned about the production of some other commodities. The answer is to be found in the history of the last twenty or twenty-five years. During that time certain nations tried to make themselves self-supporting or self-sustaining, and the penalty was the building up of the greatest war machine the world has ever known. I am not one of those who would associate himself with the idea that appeared to be in the mind of the hon. member for Lethbridge when he suggested that unless we did certain things, unless we provided ourselves with the commodities that we might be able to obtain from some other part of the world, we were going to find ourselves some day in the midst of another war when we would not be able to obtain the things we have not been able to obtain easily during this war.
I want to say that the only principle which will end war is the principle that the people of every country should put all their force to work producing the commodities that they are most suited to produce. They should produce them in abundance and then they should exchange those commodities with the commodities that other people can produce to better advantage than anyone else. If we all do that there will not be any necessity for war. People fight for food; people fight for shelter; people fight for clothing, but give them the things which they desire to have and which they need in order to live, and people cease to fight.
We have proof of that in the history of the British empire, since they adopted the policy of moving commodities as freely as possible. We have proof of that in the United States where forty-eight states have joined together instead of living on half the continent as half a dozen different countries, and where there is the freest movement of their products among the different states that is to be found anywhere in the world. The same principle is being demonstrated again to the peoples of the world through the different conferences and activities that are being carried on in connection with this war. In my opinion, the only principle that is going to establish that period of peace for which we are all hoping is that very principle which is accepted by peoples of liberal minds and people of conservative minds in Britain, by free men generally and by democratic countries the world over. I hope that as a result of this struggle which has brought us all nearer to one another in distance than we ever were before, these principles may be applied to the whole world and, if they are, I am convinced that we shall have the resulting peace that we all desire.
	*


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Chairman, on this section perhaps I might be permitted to say a word. I refrained from taking part in the discussion on the second reading of the bill because I felt that there were many in this house who were much better qualified than I to discuss the important subject matter of this bill. I am surprised that the minister has just made the type of speech which he has on a bill which, so far as I could observe, had no partisan considerations invested in it.


James Garfield Gardiner: You should have been here this afternoon.


Richard Burpee Hanson: At least I did not approach the consideration of this bill on the theory that it was a partisan bill or that there would be any attempt made to make political capital out of its provisions. I regret that there has been injected into the discussion of the bill a spirit of partisanship which I believe is entirely uncalled for.
It has been urged on many occasions by many bodies, especially those interested in agricultural production and distribution, that having regard to the depressed conditions of agriculture in that great period of depression which began in 1929 and followed on for a period of ten years, and that great period of deflation!, some steps should be taken by this legislature to prevent a repetition of that disastrous era. With that theory I was in full accord because I know as a representative of a semi-rural community of the disastrous nature of that period to the whole national economy. I had given some thought to this very problem and I was hopeful that with the staff at the command of the minister, those versed in economic problems and especially the problems, of agriculture and the economic aspects of production, and especially of distribution, a scheme would be evolved for the peace-time period to which we are all so devoutly looking forward that would have brought some specific remedy for the situation which may be envisioned as time goes on.
I recall the statements which were made in the speech from the throne. I recall having read the speech of the Minister of Agriculture in London to which he referred this morning; I recall other declarations which have been made from time to time on this subject matter, and recalling these things I thought something affirmative would be produced which would lay down certain principles by which

Farm Prices
the objectives sought would be attained. And what have we? We have a measure based on the if, as and when principle.


Mr. KINLEY:: It is a good principle.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, it is a measure of what it may be expedient to do in a given period of time in a somewhat remote future. It is a matter, therefore, of entire speculation. I must confess that sympathetic as I am to the objective of all of us I am disappointed that no real solution of this problem has been reached. I have reflected- on this matter, and I have come to the conclusion, because of the inexorable laws of economics, the principles of supply and demand-and here I find myself in agreement 'with the minister when he said that we should not do anything to retard production of agricultural products in the post-war period- because of the very nature of the problem from an economic point of view, while I had hoped that a specific remedy would be found, that no formula can be adopted1 that would be entirely satisfactory or hold out the promise of that which we all desire to attain.
Canada is an agricultural country. We have large surpluses and those surpluses must be exported. [DOT] They are subject to world competition and world prices, and unless we are prepared to resort tremendously to the principle of subsidies in peace time-and I do not think the minister or anybody else likes that kind of economy-I do not think any real solution of this problem in peace time can be found.
I have always thought that in a peace-time period the best prices that could be obtained for our butter, we will say, were obtained when our domestic consumption of butter just about equalled our production. When we had a surplus there was bound to be a drop in the price of this important farm product. Therefore, so far as my intelligence carries me, I have reached the conclusion that no economic formula can be adopted which will carry with it the objective that every one of us would like to see attained. I daresay that is also the result of the minister's own investigations and the investigations of his advisers. Perforce he has been driven by the old laws of economics, which are in peace time more or less inexorable, to adopt a policy which, after all, in its final analysis means subsidization. I cannot see anything else for it. I must confess, therefore, to a certain degree of disappointment with the measure that has been brought down which is now before us and which we have been debating to-day; yet, to be absolutely fair about the matter, I
do not know what else the minister could have done. I am going to pay him that compliment. He may think it is a left-handed compliment, but it is not intended to be. It is intended to show that if this is his considered judgment, that it is the only thing that can be done and that no other legislation is possible, then I think the country ought to accept it. I thought it was in that spirit that we were debating the matter to-day. I am a bit disillusioned by the minister's speech, because I thought he went out of his way to make a political dissertation over a matter that should be far beyond the realm of party politics. I suppose he will not pay much attention to that; he has said that he has not paid much attention to things that I have said in the past with which he has not agreed. Be that as it may-


James Garfield Gardiner: I just said that. I did not say they were untrue.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I understood the minister did not want to be interrupted; that was his way of settling me for the time being, and I am not disposed to quarrel with the position he has taken.
May I now, having dwelt on the principle of the measure, refer just for a moment to the political aspect of the minister's speech. I know' that this is outside the rules, but ! ask the Chairman to forgive me. The minister is quite in error when he says that the only social legislation ever introduced into this house was introduced by the Liberal party.


John James Kinley: Passed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No; he said "introduced into this house." That, of course, is not a correct reading of history. He was not here between 1930 and 1935-


James Garfield Gardiner: I qualified it with the word "important".


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is not important either. I recall to his mind that a very earnest and sincere attempt was made on the part of the government of that day to introduce social legislation, and I will say this further that we thought it was based on sound, legal, constitutional considerations. The courts declared otherwise, and we have to abide by the result. But the minister must not think, and I do not want anyone in this house to think, nor do I believe the country thinks, that the membership of the Liberal party has a monopoly of all the virtues, that it has a monopoly of all fine feeling for the well-being of the people of the country, for that is not true. He talked about Liberalism as they had it in England, and about reforms instituted in England. I wonder if his reading
Farm Prices

of the history of England is the same as mine. I recall to him that, nowithstanding the fact that the so-called reform measures were first introduced in England in 1832 by what might now be termed a Liberal government, it was the great Disraeli who really gave reform to the electoral system in England and extended the franchise far beyond anything that was ever thought of by the Whigs of that day. History does not bear out what the hon. gentleman said, and I have read my history too.


James Garfield Gardiner: I gave Peel credit.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am
reminded that perhaps the greatest reformer of the last century, Lord Shaftesbury, was not a Liberal. He was a son of an old Conservative family, or Tory if you like, in Britain; yet he has to his credit the advocacy of more reforms in the United Kingdom than any Liberal government headed by Gladstone or anyone else.


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: That has nothing to do with this bill.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I quite agree that it has not; neither had the minister's remarks. Nearly all the remarks he made to-night were irrelevant to the bill, but he took the opportunity, after the debate had been closed, to chastise and castigate those of us who profess Conservative principles, and to show that we were as dust under the feet of the Liberal party and had no place at all in the sun.


James Garfield Gardiner: I was answering what was said when you were not here.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That may be true, and yet I cannot let these things go unchallenged if I am given an opportunity to reply to them.


George Hugh Castleden: You only went back a hundred years; he went back a thousand.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes. He went back to the time of the Norman Conquest and blamed the Tory party of England for the system of land tenure that was set up by William of Normandy.


James Garfield Gardiner: No. I blamed them for defending it, not for setting it up.


Richard Burpee Hanson: My recollection of history is that the defence came more from the Whigs of the last century and the eighteenth century than from any other part of the nation.


James Garfield Gardiner: You and I have not
been reading the same history.	'


Richard Burpee Hanson: That may be true, but my recollection is that there was a time when the crown as such was battling manfully against the Tory party of the day for various aspects of land tenure.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I rise to a point
of order.


Richard Burpee Hanson: All right.
I have said nearly all I want to say on that.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I have the floor on a point of order. I have spent the whole of this Saturday afternoon in the house; I am going to stay here until eleven o'clock on Saturday night; and I say that this bill, one of the greatest on behalf of the farmers of Canada, should be proceeded with. I do not care a hoot what happened a thousand years ago. Let us get on with the bill.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The point of order is well taken. I will not for a moment dispute that. But the minister took time out himself to raise these issues and I am entitled to a little leeway. If the minister is to have that leeway' I claim it for this side of the house. I am in the hands of the chairman. If he decides that I may not proceed any longer I certainly will not.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The hon. member for
York-Sunbury qualified his position in this connection before he stated it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: He has gone back a thousand years.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I thought he had the
unanimous consent of the committee to make the statement he did, and that was why he was allowed to continue.


Olof Hanson: I have
said nearly all I want to say in that regard.
I wish to make just one or two further observations about this bill. The minister has correctly stated that the fund to be set up is to be a revolving fund and that it is to be used in the discretion of the members of the board who are to be appointed under the authority of the measure to buy surplus commodities. I assume that is perfectly practicable in connection with certain commodities, but I assert that with respect to other commodities it will be found wholly impracticable. I am not referring especially to agricultural products at the moment, but more particularly to the products of the fisheries, and perhaps I shall have something to say with respect to that when a similar bill comes down which is being sponsored by the Minister of Fisheries. Yet this whole thing is to be left on the basis of the judgment of the board, advised, if you

Farm Prices
will, by the advisory council set up under the bill, a board which will have very large powers. It will not be subject to parliamentary control, and not even to ministerial control.
I think that is one of the weaknesses of the bill. What supervision has parliament, which will have to vote the money, over the authority of this board in peace time? I put that query to the minister and he may answer it when he comes to the appropriate section. We have in war time delegated authority to boards and commissions that are not responsible to parliament. We have done so under the theory that this is necessary for the effective prosecution of the war. I suggest that we cannot apply that policy to peace time and vacate the authority of parliament; yet, as I have said perhaps twice before, I have given considerable thought to this bill and to the provisions of it, and having at heart the objective which the bill was intended to reach, I must confess to the minister that I do not know that anything could have been done but to introduce this bill. I do not pretend to be dogmatic about the matter. I do not pretend to know enough about the science of economics to say that another and more complete plan could have been brought before parliament; therefore I did not oppose this bill in any way. I am sympathetic to the bill, and I do not think we ought to be chastised because we are critical of certain specific methods that are to be adopted w'hen we all want to see something accomplished along the lines that have been indicated in the debate.
I was very much interested in the figures which the minister gave this morning. If they showed anything it was this, that in what we call the transitional period there is not going to be very much danger of a sharp decline in agricultural products. That is my recollection of what happened after the last war. What we have to fear in this country more than anything else is that there may be a period of inflation after certain controls are removed 'which, I think, the people will clamour to have removed; that there will be a period of inflation such as we had from 1925 to 1929, a period of inflation that was absolutely uncontrolled in Canada, and I do not think it could have been controlled, because of conditions in the United States.


Percy Ellis Wright: I do not think there was any inflation so far as agricultural products were concerned.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No; I did not say there wTas inflation with regard to agricultural products. The inflation I am referring to was inflation in the stock market which had its reflection on every part of the economy of the whole continent. That is the thing that I am afraid of more than anything else, and that is the thing we ought to keep our eye on. I have a feeling that in what we term the transitional period, which will be from the cessation of hostilities until, we will say, demobilization is completed-


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, longer than that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It may be. I hope that demobilization will not be carried out in as hasty a manner as it was after the last war, due, I think, largely to the desire of the men in the armed forces to get out of uniform under any consideration. That, I believe, is quite true-


Humphrey Mitchell: Will they not feel the same way this time?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I daresay they will, and that is the biggest problem that the government will have to meet. There will be, of course, the intense desire on the part of the men who are at present in uniform to get back home and be done with this cruel business once and for all, to return and become reestablished in civil life; and yet I hope that the period will not be rushed. I hope that wise counsel will prevail and that a substantial time will intervene between the cessation of hostilities and total demobilization. I have no idea how long that would be; it may be one year, two years, three years or four years. I do not think it could run beyond two and a half years. When these men get back into civil life and production of consumer goods has been started in a big way, I think this country is going to have good times, and I believe agricultural produce will be in great demand. I fancy, if there is anything in Europe with which to buy our commodities we shall have a fine export market. I am just a little bit afraid that the impoverished nations of Europe will not be able to buy the produce of our farms. I am just afraid that the starving population of Germany that must live if they are to survive at all by producing those goods which they can produce and exporting to this country-


Humphrey Mitchell: The same for Great Britain.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, I am just taking Germany as an example because she cannot survive unless she is allowed and encouraged to produce and to export. Those goods that she will produce and export are bound to come into rampetition with the industrial life of the new world. That is what
Farm Prices

I think the leading industrialists in the United States visualize. Therefore, unless the peoples of Europe can find money to buy the products of our farms I have great fears as to our being able to establish and carry out a substantial export trade.
I think the people of this country, notwithstanding the high praises that the minister has tendered to his own party and its political philosophies, will be willing to wait and see how this legislation works out. I think they will be willing to give anything a trial that the best brains of the country say is the best . that can be produced. Yet I am not satisfied that it is the best that can be produced. I offer no alternative; I do not know enough about the situation to offer an alternative, and in that I am entirely honest and frank. Therefore, while I think we are 100 per cent behind the objective of this bill, yet I believe that the minister should not have gone out of his way to give us all a lecture at this time in the house, and that is really what I wanted to say.


George Hugh Castleden: I believe that our time would be much better spent in looking forward rather than in looking at the history of the past. In order to keep the record straight I should like to say something in regard to the reference that the minister made to myself. He said that I had previously supported the Liberal party. It was 1926 when I first went to his town that I supported the Liberal party.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am talking about 1929.


George Hugh Castleden: I went to your town in 1926.


James Garfield Gardiner: The time I was talking about was 1929.


George Hugh Castleden: I supported you in 1929. If proper social legislation had been forthcoming from the Liberal party in this country I might have been supporting it yet.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You will do it again.


Humphrey Mitchell: You will come back to earth.	.


George Hugh Castleden: It was the failure of the Liberal party which caused us to build this new cooperative party.


James Garfield Gardiner: You changed while we were not in power.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You have a long life ahead of you.


George Hugh Castleden: The minister has not been defeated since 1914.


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


George Hugh Castleden: And you were Premier of Saskatchewan in 1929. It was because of the failure of the Liberal party that we found it necessary to start building a new democratic social party.


Humphrey Mitchell: What is new about
socialism?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Now that is
straightened out, let us get on with the business.


Joseph William Burton: I did not take part in the debate on second reading of this bill for two reasons. One was that I was in full accord, as were the other members of this group, with the principles contained in the bill. The second was that other members of the group had previously stated our position, and I did not think it necessary to take up any of the time of the house on second reading of the bill. However, I say that while I enjoyed listening to the minister in his first speech on introducing the bill and enjoyed still more his speech when he closed the debate, yet, like the hon. member for York-Sunbury, I feel that it would have been a better speech had he left out some of the things which he felt it was necessary to bring in toward the close of that speech. It seems to me that the minister is not satisfied, even though he has support for his bill from all sides of the house; he must have unqualified, unquestioned support for the dot over every "i" and the cross over every "t". With his experience in the legislature and in parliament he certainly knows it is the duty of those sitting in opposition to help the government to improve legislation that is presented to the house. When we offer criticism in committee of the whole, which is the proper place to deal with the details of a bill, we are not only exercising our right but performing our duty as we should. So that if the minister has not known it up to the present, we are serving notice that we are not sheep in his fold. While we are in agreement with the principles contained in this bill, still we contend that certain parts of it need to be improved if it is to come up to the expectations of those whom it is designed to help.
The minister questioned the wisdom of those who suggested that this legislation should remain in effect beyond merely the transition period, that it should be of a more or less permanent nature. He contended that it would be required only during the period of transition, and that if it were found necessary to extend its life that could be done by the government of the day. I should like to point out to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the

Farm Prices
members of the committee that this bill contains a provision authorizing the government to bring the legislation to an end by order in council. The hon. member for York-Sunbury dealt briefly with what took place following the last war, and I should like to enlarge on that a little. The transition period then was from 1918 to the early twenties. It is quite true that in the early twenties we had a little slump, but I am sure hon. members will agree that if nothing worse than that had had to be contended with, we would have come through pretty easily. Certainly by 1925 the period of transition from war to peace was ended; and if this legislation had been in effect at that time, and the then government had held the views of this government, an order in council would have been put through suspending the measure. But what happened after that? We all know what took place after the boom period from 1925 to 1929, and that is what may happen again. Therefore I say that in connection with some sections of this bill we consider ourselves justified and, in fact, in duty bound to suggest to the government that it be strengthened in certain details.
I am a new and comparatively young member of this house. The minister went back a very considerable period of time, but he did not quite go the length of trying to tell some of us that he had thought of this kind of legislation while we were in our cradles or in kindergarten, although he got very close to it. I want to tell the minister that we are quite prepared to give him and his government credit for having brought in this bill, but I want to tell him further that the people out in the country have been asking for legislation like this for a long time, and have not had it. I may not be as old and as experienced as the minister, but I have been told many times that it does people good to go through trials and tribulations because it makes them face up to their wrongdoings in the past. Yes, it is very often quite beneficial to face sinners with the consequences of their wrongdoing. The only trouble is that very often the sinners see the error of their ways too late. However, if even at this late date we can help to make their repentance complete and sincere, we shall have performed our duty as an opposition.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Before we proceed further I must state here that the Chair has a duty to perform. I believe I am voicing the sentiments of the great majority of the members of this committee when I suggest that we should come down to earth now and discuss the bill which is before us.


Ernest Edward Perley: I did not intend to say anything at this stage, Mr. Chairman, but I was very much surprised this evening-


James Garfield Gardiner: Did you change your mind a^d. decide to make another speech?


Ernest Edward Perley: I did not interrupt the minister when he was making his speech, although he had three shots at this measure.
I was surprised when the minister took advantage of the opportunity, at this stage of the proceedings, to make what could only be termed a political speech. I should say he made a campaign speech; perhaps it will be the last one he will have a chance to make here.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I just gave a ruling, by which I would ask the hon. member to abide. The hon. member for York-Sunbury qualified his statement before making it, by saying he knew he was out of order and asking for leave to make a few remarks. However, I would ask hon. members to discuss the bill itself.


Ernest Edward Perley: Then I shall refer to the section you have called. The principle underlying this bill is similar to the principle underlying the wheat board act of 1935. Why was that bill brought in? Because we were facing a situation similar to the one we are facing to-day with respect to the marketing of wheat, the chief product of our agriculture.


Mr. HATFIELD:: Wheat is not under the bill.


Ernest Edward Perley: No; but the underlying principle is the same. On that occasion the measure was brought down early in the session and, as I said this afternoon, this measure should have been brought in much sooner. Then it could have been sent to the committee on agriculture, where it could have been considered section by section. We could have had before that committee men like the present chairman of the bacon board and others who have had something to do with the marketing of these products for the last two or three years. I protest once more against this important measure being brought in at this very late stage of the session. We have to find a solution of this important problem of the marketing of agricultural products. We shall not find it along political lines, or in listening to political speeches. We must work as a united parliament.
I just wanted to make this statement before we went farther. I think it would have been a fine thing if this bill had been referred to the committee on agriculture early in the session, where it could have been thoroughly studied. I am in favour of the principle, but 'o closing let. me sav that vou will not see
Farm Prices

the opposition to this bill that we encountered in connection with the wheat board act. At that time an amendment was brought in providing that the measure should not become operative until August 1, 1936, a year later. You will not get that in this case, because we want this bill to operate properly, to take care of the post-war period.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.
Heber Harold Hatfield: I should like to know why all agricultural products in a processed and manufactured state are not included in this bill. In my opinion that is the only way we can take the surplus off the market, namely, by processing and manufacturing agricultural products. In my view all agricultural products should be included in paragraph (a). All that are included are processed meats, and dairy and poultry products. We use the surplus potato crop by manufacturing the potatoes into potato starches and flour.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is intended to cover all agricultural products, except wheat.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Including corn?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, including corn.
"Agricultural products" means any products of agriculture, except wheat, designated by the governor in council, and includes processed meat, dairy and poultry products if so designated.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Why "meat, dairy and poultry products"?


James Garfield Gardiner: There was some question is to whether certain products, when some distance removed from the farm-and we had in mind corn flakes and things of that kind- might properly be included. I wanted to make absolutely certain that there would be no question about dairy products, and products of that kind. Those words were inserted for that reason.


Percy Ellis Wright: When the minister spoke upon introducing the bill I asked some questions as to what was included. I mentioned specifically coarse grains, and the minister then suggested that they were under the control of the wheat board, and would not come under this bill.


James Garfield Gardiner: No; I said that wheat was not under the bill at all. But I did say that if it were declared by the government that we required floor prices under coarse grains, in all probability the wheat board would be appointed as the commodity board to handle oats and barley-but after decision

had been reached under this bill, and they had been appointed the same as any other board must be appointed.


Mr. BRYCE:: Will honey and honey
products come under the bill?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is possible for any agricultural product, with the exception of wheat.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Why does not wheat come under the bill?


James Garfield Gardiner: Because there is a wheat board act which involves the same principle, and is applied to wheat now.


Gordon Graydon: I have no doubt the answer I shall receive from the minister will be in the affirmative, but I ask the question for clarification. I would assume that horticultural products would be included under "agricultural products". When we refer to horticultural products we generally have in mind all garden and orchard crops.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is possible for them to be brought under the bill. They are natural products of agriculture.


Gordon Graydon: There has always been some question as to whether the broad word "agriculture" does include "horticulture". My view is the same as that held1 by the minister, namely, that the word "agriculture" can be interpreted to cover the field of horticulture.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Percy Chapman Black: Could we have a more definite statement from the minister with respect to fruits, and certain other agricultural or horticultural products? I have in mind apples, which would be of particular interest to Nova Scotia. In former years prices of strawberries were depressed considerably below the cost of production. What about blueberries, and commodities of that kind? There should be a clear and definite statement from the minister as to whether, under the bill, floor prices will be established to protect the products I have mentioned.
I might refer to peaches as a horticultural product; we should have some statement with respect to them. Some years we have a surplus crop of peaches, and no market for them. The question arises as to whether there will be a guaranteed or protected price on peaches, along with the other commodities I have mentioned.


James Garfield Gardiner: The definition is as plain as it can be made. It includes any agricultural product, except wheat. There surely cannot be any doubt about that, because it covers

Farm Prices
them all. Of course, if I am asked to say to-night that there will be a floor price under any particular product, I could not do so, because I would be going far beyond what it is possible for me to say under the bill. The fact is that we are setting up a board to make recommendations to the government, and decisions, based upon those recommendations, are finally made by the governor in council.


John Horne Blackmore: Just to make it definitely sure-and I know the minister has been specific, but what he has said sounds almost too good to be true-I am wondering if this applies to any agricultural product, in either its natural or its processed state. That is, could the bill be used, for example, for the support of sugar, flour, starch, canned vegetables, canned fruits, bran, shorts, flax seed, various kinds of foods for animals, and all that kind of thing? Would they be included, in either their natural or their processed state?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not wish to start
limiting the definition. It Refers to any natural farm products. I said a few minutes ago that some question had arisen as to whether it would be wise to include products such as corn flakes. I would not like to say that it takes in every possible form of processed products. That is something we must leave to the judgment of the board, the advisory committee, and others, at the time a matter is being dealt with. I would not like to say definitely that it includes everything of that kind. But the intention is that all agricultural products, in all the forms in which they are generally sold, will be included, so long as they can be related to the feet that they were produced on the farm. They will come under this bill.


John Horne Blackmore: I am particularly
concerned about this question, because under section 9 (1) (c) we find this:
To pay to the producers of an agricultural product directly or through such agent as the board may determine. . . .
We will suppose that the bill applies both to a canning company that is canning beans and peas, and to the people who are producing those beans and peas to be canned. My question arises as to whether the primary producer or the processing producer would be paid.


James Garfield Gardiner: There would be no payment made, except under conditions that the money advanced would go to the original producer. Take the ease I mentioned this afternoon, the cheese factories. Payment would be made in such a way that any subsidy paid would go to the farmers.


John Horne Blackmore: One reason why this
will stand out in the minds of my constituents is that it reflects indirectly upon the beef question over which we had trouble in the spring. The producers of beef had the idea that purchases would be made directly from them, but as a matter of fact they were made from the packing companies, the processors of the beef, which was an entirely different matter. There are possibilities of great misunderstanding and unhappiness unless the whole matter is clarified.


Joseph William Burton: The minister stated that if coarse grains were desired the government could declare them as being under this legislation. They could bring butter in for a certain period, or barley, or apples, which the hon. member for Cumberland mentioned. All the commodities would not necessarily be under the bill for the same length of time; it would depend upon what the governor in council set for each commodity.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not catch the last part of the question.


Joseph William Burton: All commodities would not necessarily come under the bill for the same length of time.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think there is any one in the house or any one outside the house who is interested in agriculture who has any intention of doing anything under this bill to bring down prices to the farmers. As long as the price is satisfactory, as long as conditions are such that a floor'is not required, I do not think any one is going to suggest that we do something which might suggest to some one else that there should be less paid for that farm product. As has been stated right through, the duty of this board will be to study conditions existing now and conditions that exist during the transitional period. As long as the product is being sold, under whatever is the system of doing business, at a price which is either satisfactory or more than satisfactory to the farming community, there would be no necessity for the government to maintain a floor price. The different commodities will be studied at all times, and it is possible that in some areas there may be only one product under which it is necessary to put a floor, or there may be half a dozen. The recommendation will be made by the board as to the level at which the government should be
Farm Prices

prepared to take the product, and then that will be established as the floor for whatever season is required.


Joseph William Burton: Would the government intend under this bill to say at the beginning of each season that a particular commodity comes under the bill?


James Garfield Gardiner: The board will have
authority to act at any time. On any day of the week they can make a recommendation to the government. Take butter, for instance. As I have said on a number of occasions during this discussion, the peak production is in May, June and July. The tendency before the war was for butter to sell at about twenty cents a pound in the summer and at about thirty-five cents a pound in the winter. I would hope that it would not be the intention or desire of anyone who may have control over this legislation to permit that to happen during the transitional period. If there were any chance of it happening, say around May 1 or in the middle of April, the board could make its recommendations to the government and action could be taken. That action might be necessary only down to October and then from October on it might only be a matter of selling the butter or putting it back on the market at whatever price level had been decided upon.


Heber Harold Hatfield: My understanding of
this bill is that if the price of an agricultural product goes below the cost of production the board immediately takes action to remove the surplus from the market or to bring the market price up to the cost of production, perhaps by taking the commodity off the market, putting it in storage or processing it. Is that right?


James Garfield Gardiner: I was careful to see that there was nothing in the bill which said that we were going to base any decision on the cost of production. The cost of production may be only part of the consideration. I think it is possible the board might determine that the farmer should have considerably more than his cost of production because of some other experience he has had in order to get through the transitional period in a proper position.


John Horne Blackmore: What we are concerned about is that the time may come when the board may force the farmer to take less than the cost of production.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would hope that that time will not come and I do not think it is likely to under this bill.


William Scottie Bryce: The minister has mentioned butter as an example. There is a ten cent
fMr. Gardiner.J
subsidy on that and I should like to know if this board will blend that subsidy into the price? The butter producer gets the ten cents a pound because he cannot produce economically without it. Will this board have anything to do with that?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is difficult to say what the position will be at the time. The hon. member for'York-Sunbury said that he was looking forward to the time when many of these controls will be taken off. He is not looking forward any more anxiously than I am, or than I imagine many members of this house are. I would hope that at some time not too far distant some of the controls we now have will be taken off. It is just possible that some of those we would like to see removed may not be removed for a longer period than others.
The position in relation to butter is a peculiar one. We have never attempted to produce butter for export from this country; we have always tried to produce just enough to supply our own people. We make mistakes in that connection sometimes. It is just possible that if we were trying to control the price level of butter we might find ourselves with a short supply and have to purchase butter from the places other people have had to buy it in the past, namely, New Zealand or Australia. In that situation some money might have to be spent in certain directions, but I would hope that the matter could be regulated in such a way that it would be possible for the people in this country to pay for their butter at what the butter is thought to be worth. The simplest way to carry on the transaction under those circumstances would be to have the butter taken at a certain price and to dispose of it at approximately the same price, with whatever difference is necessary in order to carry the expenses of the transaction.
Then, if we have to deal with cheese, the other dairy product, we find that seventy per cent of the product is sold outside the country and only thirty per cent consumed in the country. The situation is somewhat different and would have to be handled in a different way. There is no possibility of having any price arrangement in Canada which would take care of that product entirely.


William Scottie Bryce: Milk is in the same category because it is something that is used 365 days in a year. Milk is being subsidized so that the consumer will buy more of it. Everybody tells us that we have prosperity to-day, and nobody denies that; I do not deny it myself. But what a price we have to pay for the prosperity we have! In one township in my

Farm Prices

riding we had nine boys killed at war in the last week alone. Farmers do not want prosperity like that. We want to get back to the basis where we have a square deal and a fair price. No farmer wants to charge extortionate prices. I hope that this bill will result in a square deal and fair prices. Let us make whatever amendments may be necessary to bring that about. If the bill does not do that you are going to come to the end of your tether and we shall be back where we were.
I hope the minister will take that into consideration.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the authorities under the bill will have those considerations in mind.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Agricultural prices support board.
John George Diefenbaker: It seems to me that subsection 1 is loosely drafted. I should like to know whether or not the meaning of this clause is that the board shall be subject to the direction of the minister, or alternatively, that the board shall only be set up should the minister so direct. If the minister will answer my question I will make my suggestion.


James Garfield Gardiner: The meaning is that the board in its operations will be under the direction of the minister, and through him under the direction of the government.


John George Diefenbaker: Then I suggest that the clause as drafted does not convey that meaning. I suggest that it should read as follows:
There shall be an agricultural prices support board consisting of three members, including a chairman and a vice-chairman, to be appointed by the governor in council and who shall hold office during pleasure, which board shall be subject to the direction of the minister.
It appears to me that the clause, as drawn, is capable of only one meaning, that the board shall not obligatorily be set up but rather shall be set up only on the direction of the minister.


James Garfield Gardiner: The clause was drafted in the justice department. The Minister of Justice is here. The clause reads:
There shall be, under the direction of the minister, an agricultural prices support board. . . .
It does not give the minister any part in setting up the board.


John George Diefenbaker: I think it is loosely drafted.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think it means what it is intended to mean, but the other would mean that, too.


Gordon Graydon: The change suggested by the hon. member for Lake Centre is a very simple one and would make the clause absolutely clear. I am impressed with his suggestion, which would involve adding no new words but simply be a transposition of one part of the clause. Or you might say: "There shall be an agricultural prices support board under the direction of the minister," and so on. I do not know whether that meets my colleague's suggestion, but I think that the clause is badly drafted. I am quite 6ure that the Minister of Justice had no personal responsibility for it.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No, the Minister of Justice had no personal responsibility, but he would not like to admit that it was bad drafting. There can be no serious objection, I think, to adopting either the suggestion made by the hon. member for Lake Centre or the suggestion made by the leader of the opposition.


Gordon Graydon: They were both intended to cover the same thing.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: As I listened to them I thought the directions of the minister were not coming in at quite the same place. I am sure that we are all agreed as to what is intended, and if it is felt by any members of the committee that the clause will be clearer by putting the words at the place suggested I would be prepared to move accordingly.


James Garfield Gardiner: That would be to insert
"under the direction of the minister" directly after "board", so that it would read:
There shall be an agricultural prices support board under the direction of the minister, consisting of three members. . . .
And so on.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I move accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John George Diefenbaker: In view of the great responsibility which the board will have and the necessity of assuring the farming population of Canada that the interests of agriculture will be properly looked after by the board, I make the suggestion that one of the appointments to this board should be that of a member of organized agriculture such as the Canadian Council of Agriculture. I know that suggestion has been made in the past and I pass it on to the minister at this time.
With regard to subsection 2 of section 3,
Farm Prices

I ask, for information only, why it is stated that the board shall be "a body corporate and politic." What is the reason for the addition of those two words "and politic"?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The hon. member has been puzzled by that as I have been. It has been handed down through a great many years and I have found it in the oldest books.


John George Diefenbaker: I am asking for information.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I have never found any good reason given for the necessity of it.


Percy Ellis Wright: When I was speaking on the bill before I said I thought the board should be appointed immediately. The minister has said that the proposal is that the chairman be appointed and that two technical men from the department be appointed pro tempore as the other members of the board to secure the necessary data with respect to agricultural products, which will be necessary before the board can render any decision. I said then that I thought, and I still think, the other two members of the board should be appointed now, and that there should be a secretariat to obtain information; otherwise the chairman, after you have appointed the permanent members, will be the only member of the board who will have all the figures available. I suggest that it would be wise to adopt this proposal because the board, we hope, will be functioning within a short period of time. I would also suggest, along the lines submitted by the hon. member for Lake Centre, that the board should not be entirely composed of technical men. There should be on it a representative from the producers and one from the consumers with a government chairman. That would give better satisfaction than if you appointed three men for their technical ability.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 4 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
On section 8-1931 c. 27 to- apply.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Shall the section carry?


William Scottie Bryce: You are going too fast for me, Mr. Chairman. I was waiting until you read . the sections. I would like to go back to section 3 if I can have your permission.


An hon. MEMBER:: That section was carried.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: With the permission of the committee I will call the section. Section 3, agricultural prices support board.


William Scottie Bryce: I want to ask a question with regard to subsection 9, oath of office. Why is this necessary? We are always asking producers to go on committees. When an organization such as the Canadian Federation of Agriculture or any other producers' organization sends a man to act on such committees the members of that organization want to know what he has been doing and when he comes back, if he has taken an oath of office, he will not tell them what he has been doing. I do not think there is any Canadian sitting on one of these committees who would reveal anything that he should not, but he should be left free to report to the organization that sends him, if the government has sufficient confidence in him to appoint him to the committee.


James Garfield Gardiner: Someone says that he might be compelled to make known some things he might not wish to make known. I can assure the hon. member that this is for the direction of the treasury and for some other reasons.


Percy Ellis Wright: This is an important matter. During a war there is excuse for the oath and the promise of secrecy, but during peace time I do not see any reason why a member of an advisory committee appointed to a board should take an oath of secrecy. It is ridiculous in peace time that such a provision should be put in. I can see some sense, in war time under conditions that make it necessary to maintain public morale, that the proceedings of the board should not be made public, but I do not see the force of such a provision in peace time. I think we should have soma further explanation.


James Garfield Gardiner: This has nothing to do with the members of the advisory committee; it refers to the three members of the board. They are required to take the oath the same as any other employees of the government.


William Scottie Bryce: Advisory committees that
have been set up under your department have had to take it.


James Garfield Gardiner: They are not compelled to by the passing of this clause, which has reference only to members of the board.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Shall section 3 carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: We are on section 8.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Will this be a new board, or will there be members of the special products board on it?

Farm Prices


James Garfield Gardiner: I said this morning in introducing the bill that it was my intentiop to recommend to the government that we should appoint the chairman immediately, that is, a full-time or permanent chairman, but that for a period at least we should have temporary appointees who are members of the staff of the department. We have two members in that capacity. My reason for so stating was that the period may be very short, as was said by the hon. member for Melfort. If it is quite short it does not make much difference which way it is done. It will be only a short time that there will be officials of the department on the board. If it is a period of considerable length there will be considerable expense which I do not think is absolutely necessary. However, I will take into consideration, and bring before the government, the suggestions made by members of the committee with regard to this point. One or two suggested1 that a full-time committee should be appointed immediately.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I presume, since this does not include wheat, the chairman would be an eastern man.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have enough divisions in the country now without putting that ill the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Oni section 9-Powers of the board.
Percy Ellis Wright: With regard to paragraph (b) of subsection 1, will the board be empowered to purchase products for which the provinces have set the standards? I believe there are certain products for which the provinces have set the, standards. Will the board accept those standards or set their own?


James Garfield Gardiner: So far as I can recall at the moment, in connection with most of the products such as live stock, the standards are set by the federal authority. The provincial authorities in some cases are cooperating with us. That is, if the commodity is taken in within the province and sold within the province we have no authority to do anything about it. What happens is that the provinces appoint our officials as their officials and they do work relating to the grading and standardizing of products. I think there will be no difficulty about having it operate in either way. I think in some cases it is done now. Where they are the authority they do the work; where we are the authority we do the work, and there is full cooperation as between ourselves and all the. provinces.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Will this board have
the power to buy and sell, manufacture, export and import?


James Garfield Gardiner: It can only purchase
Canadian products. H does not import. It deals only with Canadian products, but it can make any kind of arrangement for the disposal of farm products, whether by export-


Ernest Edward Perley: There is no provision anywhere in this bill for the purchasing of live stock products.


James Garfield Gardiner: While it does not so
state, it makes provision to cover every product of every farm.


Ernest Edward Perley: I think it would be worth while to have it stated in the bill that there is that power.


James Garfield Gardiner: The bill covers every
product on every farm.


Ernest Edward Perley: Can the minister state that there is power here under certain circumstances for the board to purchase live stock?


James Garfield Gardiner: They can, yes.


John George Diefenbaker: In connection with paragraph (c) I asked a question this afternoon whether it was the intention to establish participation certificates. This paragraph provides that the purchaser shall be paid the difference between a price prescribed by the board with the approval of the governor in council for such product and the average price, and a little later on in subsection 3 of section 10 provision is made that if there is a net operating profit to the board in any fiscal year it shall be deposited to the credit of the consolidated revenue fund. In what way would it be possible for a profit to be secured if the price that is being received on the sale of these products, less the administrative expenses, is paid to the producer?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, just reading it
hurriedly I do not think the proviso in subsection 3 of section 10 prevents participation certificates from being given. It states:
Provided that the net operating profit of the board in each fiscal year, as reflected in the said account, shall be deposited to the credit of the consolidated revenue fund as revenue; and provided further that the net operating loss in any fiscal year may be recouped to the said account from moneys appropriated by parliament for the purpose.
I would think, and I am just expressing an opinion'-I do not know whether the Minister of Justice will agree with it or not^-that, as the thing proceeds, anything that may be done under the other sections they have the
Farm Prices

power to do. Whether paragraph (c) restricts them or not I would not be certain just offhand.


John George Diefenbaker: Can the minister answer this question? Is it the intention to have participation certificates issued in order to assure that the producer will receive the average price that is secured on the sale of bis products less the cost of administration as provided for in section 10? For, Mr. Chairman, there can be no net operating profit if the farmer or the producer receives the final return of the profits that are ultimately made on the resale. As I understand these two sections, reading them together, one provides for a price being fixed at the time of the purchase, and later a provision is made that an average shall be arrived at on whatever is secured on resale and that average price shall be paid to the producer for that year; therefore it must be the intention to set up a system of participation certificates. If a system of participation certificates is set up there could be no operating profit.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is what I was trying to say in another way. If it is possible under this to set up participation certificates, the fact that the 'board did decide to do that with the consent of the governor in council would be taken into consideration in determining whether or not there were any profits. If the board has not decided to do that, then, of course, as has been said, there might be profits. Those would go into the account, and I can see some reason for it in some cases. What we are doing is we are guaranteeing the farmer a certain fair price for his products. We say we are going to buy those products. Let us say the product is barley which" can be kept for an indefinite period of time. We may find that in 1944, if this measure were in operation, we have a considerable supply of barley, and it is determined that the farmer shall receive a certain floor price on that particular product. We say to him: "You go ahead and sell it if you can at a better price, but if you must take this price for it we are prepared to take it." We take the barley and we put it in storage. We may not sell it for three or four years. In the meantime he has what we guarantee him, the floor price. Our costs of carrying it may run to more than we ultimately get, or they may run to a little less than we ultimately get. I would think in some of those cases it would be considered inadvisable to carry all accounts over that considerable period of time, and if there is a small amount, turn it back to the farmer at the end of the time.


John George Diefenbaker: This board is to be under the direction of the minister, Does the minister intend to ask the board to set up a system of participation certificates?


James Garfield Gardiner: It cannot be done at this stage.


John George Diefenbaker: I understand. That is one of my objections to this entire section. No one in this parliament knows anything about the general method of the operation of the scheme that the government has in mind. That can be ascertained only if the minister is able to advise the committee as to whether the farmer, having received the base price and the board later on selling at a profit, will receive the difference, or whether it is the intention of the government to take all the commodities together, put them all into one account, take the losses of one and balance them against the profits of another, and in the end make no further division, provided that there is a profit, among the vendors o>r the producers? That is the point I have in mind. Is it the intention of the government to put everything together in one fund? If that is done it would be impossible to set up a system of participation certificates. What in fact the government or this board would be doing would be simply taking all the profits and applying them against all the losses.


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course the last statement, that the government intend to put everything into one fund and! operate it in that way, is quite wrong; that could not possibly happen as the bill is drawn, because this legislation may operate with regard to a dozen different products in certain years, and may operate in a dozen different ways in regard to those products. That is, we may turn one commodity over to the wheat board and tell them to deal with it. In that case, if we turned oats or barley over to them, under their method of doing business they would require a separate account to be set up by legislation or by order in council. On the other hand we might simply say to a business concern, perhaps the people who export cheese, "We want you to do this job," and indicate what the job is. They will go ahead and do it. In another case we might appoint a commodity board to handle a product. The way a product will be handled will depend) very largely on what the product is. For example, if we were handling butter in the way I suggested a few moments ago, simply taking up surplus stores in the summer months and carrying them over into the winter, that transaction would be so different from the handling of oats or barley through the wheat board that there could not possibly

Farm Prices
be any standard way of carrying on, or any single decision made. It would have to be a matter of coming to a decision with regard to each product as we deal with it.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: I am somewhat concerned about the meaning of "producer" in paragraph (c). I can see that a farmer would get the advantage if he were selling a natural product such as potatoes, carrots or something like that. Under this section the board has power to pay a primary producer the difference between the floor price and the market price. When you come to a manufactured article, however, I am not so sure that under this section as it is drafted the primary producer is going to get any advantage, because here you are only providing that the producer of the manufactured article will be paid the difference between the fixed price and the market price. He might keep that extra amount, and the farmer producer would not get any advantage. I have in mind that after the word "producer" you might add something like this: "On such terms and conditions as may be deemed necessary to ensure that such payment reaches the farmer producer." That may be going too far, but if "producer" means the primary producer and not the person who manufactures the commodity, I am wondering what the effect will be.


James Garfield Gardiner: No; "producer" there means the farmer.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: The primary producer?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: This paragraph contains the words "at which such product is sold in the market." You have the word "product" there, and I am wondering if it could not be interpreted as relating to a manufactured product. In the beginning you have the word "producer" which might mean the producer of the manufactured product. I am wondering if that is what it means. In that event it might be interpreted in such a way that the farmer producer would get no advantage in connection with a manufactured product.


James Garfield Gardiner: The idea is that the board can package, produce, process, store, ship, transport, export or insure any agricultural product. We may even process it ourselves under that provision. Paragraph (c) was drafted precisely to make sure that the advantage in price would go to the farmer; that was the purpose of it.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: That is clear, then.


Percy Ellis Wright: As yet the minister has not stated whether it will be the policy of the government to issue participation certificates.


James Garfield Gardiner: I said that we shall have power to do so under this legislation, and the question will be determined when we decide to deal with any particular product.


Percy Ellis Wright: I wish the minister would explain how this clause can possibly work equitably in connection with any product on which there is a speculative price which varies with the season.


James Garfield Gardiner: Which clause is the hon. gentleman dealing with?


Percy Ellis Wright: I do not see how section 9 (1) (c) can work equitably in a case like that. If the product is handled cooperatively by the producers themselves, under some method by which they make an advance payment and a final payment at the close of the season, I see how the clause can operate.
I should like the minister to state whether it is the intention to have this clause apply to products which vary in price during the season, or whether it is put in simply to cover such products as cheese, where the producer pretty well controls the product, and where in many cases there is an advance payment and a final payment at the end of the season.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is intended to cover producer organizations such as cheese factories and other organizations of that type. The cheese factory organization is a farmers' cooperative in the broadest sense of the term. They do not necessarily call themselves cooperatives in all cases, but in principle that is what they are.


Percy Ellis Wright: Then is it the intention to have this clause apply to other products? I quoted an example this afternoon. I do not want to go all over it again, but I said that a product selling in a speculative market might have one price early in the season, and later on have that price go up by fifty or even one hundred per cent, as we have known prices of agricultural products to vary. Under this provision the government would prescribe a price and would pay the difference between that prescribed price and the average price brought by the product throughout the season. Some people might sell at less than the average price; some might sell at very much above it. All would receive the same payment from the board under this section. I do not see how it can work satisfactorily except where the cooperatives control the product, and where initial and final payments are made.


James Garfield Gardiner: I tried to deal with that point in my general remarks this afternoon
revised edition
Farm Prices

on second reading. This bill is not intended to cover any products except those we buy ourselves. In other words, we cannot set prices. We have no authority tb do so, in the sense referred to; the provinces have that authority. We simply say that we will buy a particular product at a particular price. I take it for granted that no one will sell to anyone else at less than that price; they will sell to us. Once we have bought the product, of course we have control over what is done with it. I should assume that if a cooperative organization were handling the product we would say to that organization, "We guarantee a certain price". Then the cooperative organization would do as the wheat board does now; it would make that the initial payment. If, later on, it should turn out that we did not get that much for the product, we would have to provide the difference. The company paid it out, and we would pay the company the difference. That is the answer to the hon. member for Vietoria-Carleton.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Is the board going to do this, or is it going to use the machinery already set up?


James Garfield Gardiner: I would say that the board can do it in either way. The board has authority to recommend to the government to do it either in one way or the other. In many cases they would handle it through the machinery set up. ,


Percy Ellis Wright: Mr. Chairman, I have something to say with respect to paragraph
To appoint commodity boards or other agents to undertake the purchase and the disposition of agricultural products.
When speaking this afternoon I said I believed that so far as possible these commodity boards should be cooperative organizations handling farm products. I said, further, that there are in Canada a considerable number of cooperatives which have practically complete control over the products they are selling. I mentioned particularly the fruit boards and vegetable boards in British Columbia. There has been a great growth in cooperative operations, and a great deal of thought given to this matter by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. They have considered carefully the idea of commodity boards controlling various farm products. I believe that where a vote is taken in connection with the control of a certain product, and where there may be a fifty per cent or sixty per cent vote in favour of complete control, such a product should come under their control, entirely, so far as collections

and the selling of their products are concerned.
I suggest that this section can be made into one which will assist the endeavours of agriculture to get control over the sale of their products. Toward that end I am moving an amendment to this paragraph. I move:
That section 9 (I) (i) of Bill No. 169 be amended by striking out all the words after the words "commodity boards" and substituting therefor the following words:	"Which shall
include representatives of the primary producers to undertake the purchase and disposition of agricultural products."
I believe this amendment will strengthen the bill, and will tend to assist agriculture in its laudable efforts to control its own products, and to see that through its own efforts it is able to obtain a fairer share in the economic structure of Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: Paragraph (i) makes it possible to have the business carried on through organizations of that kind, where they exist, and where it is advisable to have them. It does not compel them-that is all. The suggestion has been made, for example, that apples are handled in a certain way. Well, the government has had more continuous dealings with apples than with any other product since the beginning of the war. In the very first year of the war we made agreements with the apple board to handle apples in Nova Scotia, Ontario and British Columbia, and perhaps one of the most satisfactory arrangements we have had has been with that particular board. '
I should think there would be no possibility of any board set up operating in any other way in relation to the product under the control of that board. This simply says that we can appoint commodity boards, which means that they may be boards already in existence" boards in cooperatives, or in any other organizations-"or other agents". That is. we may say, if we are going to handle a particular product produced right across Canada, that this is a fair price. Anyone who takes delivery of that product at that particular price will conduct a transaction which will be recognized by the board. Money will be advanced in connection with it.
It may be that when we have taken products over in that way we may have to dispose of them at prices less than the prices paid for them. But they are guaranteed by us, which means that they can pay the initial price. But to make it compulsory, so that we could only operate through cooperatives, would make it so that it would be impossible to operate at all in some sections of Canada in respect of certain products, unless, of course, we saw to it in the first place that an organization of that

Farm Prices
kind was set up. It is not the intention behind this bill to insist upon that kind1 of organization.


Major James William Coldwell: This amendment, as I see it, does not insist upon that. All it insists upon is that the producer-the primary producer-shall be included on that board, or represented there. It does not necessarily force producers to set up cooperatives. It would encourage them to organize so as to have representation on a board so set up.


James Garfield Gardiner: But if we strike out all the words after the word "commodity boards", there are no other organizations than commodity boards which can handle certain products. That would not be the intention of the bill. If there were no other kinds of agencies handling products, it would be all right; but a very considerable part-probably by far the greater part.-of farm products produced in Canada are handled in some other way. It is not our intention simply to reconstitute the whole business set up in the country.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I believe the amendment changes the intention of the bill, because the words "other agents" are excluded.


Ernest Edward Perley: In my view this is a good amendment. When we leave the words "or other agents" in there we make the section pretty wide. Agents might be organized by a company to work in cooperation with this commodity board, and it would be giving too much power altogether. I certainly support the amendment, because it gives a chance to have the primary producer represented on commodity boards.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am sure if my hoi}, friend really understood this paragraph he would not be in favour of the amendment. I doubt very much if the greater part of farm produce in any community could be handled at all if we were to follow this amendment. It would mean that before we could take delivery of any farm product, through a commodity board, that board would have to be one on which there is farm representation; that is, a representative of the primary producers. That means that we would have to have primary producer representation on a board before we could take delivery of products. I do npt think we want to start out by insisting upon every little community in Canada having an organization of that kind before we could take the products from that community. We should have it open, so that we can say, "Here is the floor price; it does not matter to whom the farmer delivers the products. That organization is in a position
to take delivery of those products at a price,, and turn it over to the government at that, price, or to do what the government says ought to be done with it." They become the agencies of the government to conduct the transaction.
I would quite agree that where there is a considerable cooperative organization of producers, that organization ought to be the agency, and it would be one of the agencies that would do the job. There should be no other representation. The farmer should have the privilege of delivering to the cooperative or to anyone else and getting the same price. He should not be compelled to deliver to some particular agency in order to obtain the price.


Ernest Edward Perley: I think this amendment would set up boards which would carry out the principle of the Natural Products Marketing Act. It would give the farmers the power to organize and to have some say.


James Garfield Gardiner: They can do that, but we are not compelling them to do it.


Ernest Edward Perley: I think that is the principle the hon. member for Melfort wants embodied in this subsection.


James Garfield Gardiner: As my hon. friend will recall, the first suggestion in connection with the marketing act was just that. Votes were taken in the provinces and the votes were against it. The votes taken in the three prairie provinces were against being compelled to do that and'the compulsory feature was taken out of that act. Under that act the government was not guaranteeing anything, but under this measure we are undertaking to provide floor prices. We guarantee the price to the farmer and we say to him, "In order to get this commodity into the channels of trade or into storage, certain agencies will be appointed or designated in addition to the commodity boards, if we set up commodity boards, in order to carry out the activity.


Ernest Edward Perley: I think the minister has put a wrong interpretation upon the Natural Products Marketing Act. They appointed a farmers' committee.


James Garfield Gardiner: When the bill was first framed a vote was taken in the three western provinces to see whether they wanted it compulsory or optional, and the vote was that it should be optional. When the bill was brought down it was optional. The suggestion here is that we compel them to market their products through the agencies upon which there is producer representation. I do not think we should go that far.


Thomas Reid: The amendment before the committee deals entirely with wheat growing.
Farm Prices

It does not deal with agriculture generally. In British Columbia there are two localities where potatoes are grown, one in the interior and the other on the coast. We have never been in agreement with the man on the potato board who comes from the interior. There are only a few men growing onions or onion seed and there are a few growing alsike seed. If you are to have a man representing every little industry you will clutter up the thing so that it will not work.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think what the hon. member has in mind is that if we do set' up commodity boards, then the boards should have these members, but in order to do that he should strike out all the words after "or other agents." If we put the words he has in mind before "or other agents" I think it would achieve his purpose. It would then read:	.
To appoint commodity boards which shall include representatives of the primary producers or to appoint other agents to undertake the purchase and disposition of agricultural products.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was trying to draft something along the same line. I think it could be amended by taking the subsection exactly as it is and adding these words. "Provided that any boards appointed under this subsection shall include representatives of the primary producers." That phrase would refer only to the boards and not to the other agents.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister seems
inclined to accept the suggestion so why should not this clause be left over for redrafting?


James Garfield Gardiner: There will be no difficulty about drafting it because it can be done in a few seconds. There is just the possibility that we may want to appoint a commodity board of one in some case where it is just a matter of dealing with a product for a short period of time. We may want to put on some official and I do not know whether it would be advisable to make it absolutely compulsory. I can say this to the committee that it would be our desire to have representatives of the primary producers.


Major James William Coldwell: Could not you call such an official an agent, and where you have a commodity board you could include representatives of the primary producers? If you want to appoint one man, appoint him as an agent.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think this can be
safely left in its present form. I may say again that wherever it is feasible or wherever it is possible to do it we would desire to have primary producers on the board, but I can
[Mr. Reid.)
conceive of cases where it might be rather difficult or where it is possible that they would not desire it.


Major James William Coldwell: The only thing is that
this will be in the statutes, and we do not know who will succeed the minister if there is a sucegsion, if the government is changed. We have been told so often that it is the written word that prevails in the court of law. I think if we can safeguard the interests of the primary producers we should do so. If it is necessary to appoint one man to deal with an isolated commodity he could be designated an agent.	*


James Garfield Gardiner: If it is desired to make it more certain I think it could be done under paragraph (j) which gives power to appoint a committee or committees to assist the board in an advisory capacity. It could be stated there that there may be representation of the primary producers. I have in mind a matter about which there was some discussion in connection with the food board. We were given the power to put representatives of the producers on the food board and we suggested it to them.
I think it is acknowledged by all of us that the only persons that all parties will agree are producer representatives are officials of an official farm organization. When we go to an official farm organization and say that we want the full time of one of their officers as a member of this board they may say, "When he becomes one of your full-time officers he ceases to be one of our full-time officers." We might find it difficult to get the man that we desired to have or that they would desire us to have on the board, but the same man ^puld act on the advisory committee.
That advisory committee would consider the very question that is in the minds of hon. members. When it was decided to turn a product, over to a commodity board they would want to know hoto it was to be constituted and we would try to satisfy them in the setting up of the board. I do not think there will be any great difficulty, no matter what minister is here. I think under the pressure of public opinion in connection with matters of this kind it would be considered advisable that there should;be representatives.


Ernest Edward Perley: This is the advisory committee of twelve which the minister referred to this afternoon?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are twelve members on the food committee. I do not see how you can have an advisory committee of less than twelve members that would function properly..

Farm Prices


Ernest Edward Perley: You are suggesting now
that when you come to that you would have primary producer representation?


James Garfield Gardiner: That we put a provision in the bill that there may be producer representation on that committee.


Percy Ellis Wright: If you amend paragraph (j)
that simply has reference to the advisory committee and it would be saying that the primary producers shall be represented on the advisory committee. I think we can all take that for granted. No government would appoint an advisory committee on which the primary producers were not represented. But my amendment was rather designed to see that the primary producers would be represented on the commodity boards.


James Garfield Gardiner: We did not take it for granted in connection with the wheat board act. There was quite a battle over it.


Major James William Coldwell: But is there not a difference here? Paragraph (i) refers to commodity boards and paragraph (j) refers to the board, meaning the agricultural prices support board.


James Garfield Gardiner: The advisory committee is adviser to the board and to the minister. The advisory committee is called in to discuss all matters of importance relating to such questions as: Should this product be brought under this bill? That would certainly be discussed with the advisory committee. Then, after they have discussed it, the next question would be: How are we going to handle it? If the board in consultation with the advisory committee sayrs: We will handle it by commodity boards, then the question will arise: How are we going to constitute that board? I would think the representatives of the producers on the advisory committee would hold the view1 in most cases that there should be a representative of the producers on the commodity boards and would so state. Wherever it would be possible to have the primary producers represented, I think you would get that representation. But there might be a ease wThere the advisory committee and the board and the government would all think: We need only a board of one, and here is the man. It might be a producer or someone else. We should be free to do that; we should not be compelled to do the other.


Percy Ellis Wright: It was not my intention that the government should be restricted to commodity boards, and if my amendment has that meaning I ask leave to withdraw it so that I can move another that expresses my meaning more clearly.
Amendment withdrawn.


Percy Ellis Wright: I move, Mr. Chairman, that clause 9 be amended by adding the following words to paragraph (i) thereof:
Provided that any board appointed under this subsection shall include representatives of the primary producers.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am afraid that if the hon. member presses that amendment I must ask the committee to vote it down. I do not think we should be absolutely compelled to put a man on, no matter what the circumstances may be. If the hon. member withdraws his new amendment and would move an amendment to paragraph (j), it would be just as satisfactory from his point of view, I think, because it wrnuld get the same results.


Percy Ellis Wright: I cannot see that because paragraph (j) applies only to the advisory committee and my object is to see that there should be representatives of the primary producers on these commodity boards when they are set up by the government, representatives not only on the advisory committees but on the boards themselves.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think there will be in most cases.


Percy Ellis Wright: Then what objection is there to the amendment?
Amendment (Mr. Wright) negatived.


William Scottie Bryce: With regard to paragraph (j) I want to ask about the advisory committee that is to be set up in connection with this board. Will it be like the big committee there is now in connection with the food board, or is it to be like the committee in connection with the bacon board, or will it be like the advisory beef committee to the meat board, between the last two meetings of which there was an interval of twenty .months, which was not any good? When that advisory committee did meet, the board had pretty well made up its mind what it was going to do, and it brought the advisory committee here from away across the western provinces and told them what it thought should be done. The trouble we have had in the meat situation in Canada in the last eighteen months has been due to the fact that the advisory beef committee let twenty months pass between meetings. It was no good.


James Garfield Gardiner: Which committee is the hon. member speaking of? There are two of them.


William Scottie Bryce: The advisory committee to the meat board.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think it met oftener than that.
Farm Prices


William Scottie Bryce: Once in twenty months and I can give the minister the exact dates because I was there. The advisory committee to the bacon board was pretty well a farce too. That was the previous one before you set up the meat board which now takes them all in.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are two committees; one comes under the prices board and the other under the bacon board.


William Scottie Bryce: The new one that has been set up by the minister meets every two months. It is some good because the people know what is going on, but when a committee meets only once in twenty months you might as well have none.


Percy Ellis Wright: It seems to me that subsection 2 of section 9 is very weak. It states:
(2) In prescribing prices under paragraphs (a) and (c) of subsection one of this section, the board shall endeavour to ensure adequate and stable returns for agriculture by promoting orderly adjustment from war to peace conditions and shall endeavour to secure a fair relationship between the returns from agriculture and those [DOT] from other occupations.
It says: "the board shall endeavour." Why do we not say: "the board shall"? As it stands, we are asking the board in a half-nearted way to "try" to do these things. If they succeed, all right. If they do not succeed, all right. It also says: "by promoting orderly adjustment from war to peace conditions." That refers to the transition period following the war. I am going to move an amendment to strengthen the clause. I move:
That subsection 2 be amended by striking out all the words after the words "the board shall" in the second line and substituting therefor the following:	"ensure adequate and stable
returns for agriculture by promoting orderly marketing and shall secure a fair relationship between the returns from agriculture and those from other economic activities."


Major James William Coldwell: The subsection as it stands now is merely a pious hope. They shall endeavour to do something, but it does nut say that they shall do it. The amendment suggested by the hon. member for Melfort, whether in his wording or not, is one that deserves some consideration. As it stands now, the provision is peculiarly weak.


James Garfield Gardiner: It must be read along with paragraphs (a), (b) and (c).
For the purpose of this act, the board shall, subject t-o and in accordance with regulations made by the governor in council, have authority
(a) to prescribe from time to. time, with the approval of the governor in council, prices at which the board may purchase agricultural products in the market.
Then, we say that in prescribing prices under paragraphs (a) and (c) of subsection 1
t?fr. Gardiner.]
of this section the board shall endeavour to ensure. I do not think we can say that the board shall ensure. They try to ensure that the prices arranged will produce the results suggested here, but to say that they shall produce those results would leave room for a difference of opinion as to whether they had done so or not, no matter what wording might be inserted. Endeavour is as strong as you can put it. After all, what they really do is this. They bring a recommendation to the minister; he has to take responsibility for saying whether they accomplished what they were endeavouring to>
accomplish; he recommends it to the government, and the government has to consider whether they have accomplished what they endeavoured to accomplish. The government makes the decision; then the matter comes back to the board and they put it into operation. It is about as strong as you can put it.
Amendment (Mr. Wright) negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 10-Expenses.
John Ritchie MacNicol: What is the system of checking expenses in a case of this kind?


James Garfield Gardiner: All these expense accounts are checked by the auditor.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Are vouchers submitted?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. They are all checked by the auditor.under section 8.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: It has been moved by Mr. St. Laurent that subsection 2 of section 10 be amended by striking out the concluding words of the subsection, " two million dollars," and substituting therefor the words " two hundred million dollars."	.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Ernest Edward Perley: 
James Garfield Gardiner: There would seem to be some doubt as to the relationship of paragraph (c) to the latter part of subsection 3 of section 10, as suggested by the hon. member for Lake Centre. I would ask the committee to allow those two sections to stand and we shall take them up before third reading on Monday.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Paragraph (c) of section 9 and subsection 3 of section 10 stand.
Section stands.
On section 11-Regulations.


Douglas King Hazen: Is there any reason why these regulations should not be published in the Canada Gazette and also be tabled in parliament, if this house is sitting, or within fifteen days after it meets? There should1 be some way in which the public can be informed of what the regulations are, and I think an additional sentence should t>e inserted to provide that the regulations be published1 in the Canada Gazette and also tabled in the house.
I should like to call the attention of the minister to bill No. 134, to encourage the provision of intermediate term and short term credit to farmers which was recently passed in this hous<\ It provided that:
No regulation shall be effective until published in the Canada Gazette and upon such publication shall be effective and shall have the same force and effect as if it had been enacted in this act.
I should also like to call his attention to Bill No. 88, to establish the Department of Veterans' Affairs.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no objection
to that provision. We shall let that section stand along with the others.
Section stands.
On section 12-Coming into force of section 9 by proclamation.


Percy Ellis Wright: Why is authority given to the governor in council to discontinue this measure at any time? Most measures that are passed by this house remain in force until
repealed by the house. This measure can be repealed at any time by the governor in council.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is really not the meaning of it or the intention of it. It states:
Section 9 of this act shall come into force on a date to be fixed, and remain in force for such period as may 'be determined, by proclamation of the governor in council published in the Canada Gazette.
That is, a decision will be reached at the time that section 9 has been brought into effect whether it is possible to put a definite term in the bill or whether it is decided to put no definite term in it. Once that proclamation is issued there is no authority for the governor in council to discontinue it.


Ernest Edward Perley: Could it be set aside by an illegal order in council as Doctor Motherwell suggested the wheat board was?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Progress reported.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, July 31 1944
The house met at eleven o'clock. STANDING ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. H. GOLDING (Huron-Perth) moved-
That the fourth report of standing committee on standing orders, presented to the house on July 28, be now concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	Have any prosecutions been launched by or on behalf of the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation against any firms or individuals involving charges of bribery or attempted bribery of any employee or employees of the corporation?
2.	If so, against what firms or individuals have such prosecutions been launched and what specific charges have been laid?
Questions

3.	Are any other prosecutions, similar to those referred to above, contemplated by the corporation? If so, in how many cases?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1 and 2. An information was laid by Royal Canadani Mounted Police, against Samuel Gross and Reuben Gross, reading as follows: ". . . that Reuben Gross and Samuel Gross in the months of April and May in the year 1944 at the city of Toronto, in the county of York, unlawfully did corruptly give or agree to give or offer a gift or consideration to C. C. Cardoza, a person employed by the commodity prices stabilization corporation as an inducement or reward or consideration to the said C. C. Cardoza for doing or forbearing to do, or having done or forborne to do an act relating to the affairs or business of the commodity prices stabilization corporation or for showing favour or forbearing to show disfavour to the National Rubber Company Limited with relation to the affairs or business of the commodity prices stabilization corporation contrary to the criminal code, section 504 in such case made and provided."
An information was laid by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, against Maurice Levine, reading as follows:	. .that Maurice
A. Levine in the months of April and May in the year 1944 at the city of Toronto, in the county of York, unlawfully did corruptly give or agree to give or offer a gift or consideration to C. C. Cardoza, a person employed by the commodity prices stabilizaton corporation, as an inducement or reward or consideration to the said C. C. Cardoza for doing or forbearing to do or having done or forborne to do an act relating ,to the affairs or business of the commodity prices stabilization corporation, or for showing favour for forbearing to show disfavour in the, Inner Spring Mattress and Cushion Company Limited with relation to the affairs or business of the commodity prices stabilization corporation contrary to the Criminal Code, section 504 in such case made and provided."
3.	No similar cases have arisen.
. MOBILIZATION ACT-MARBIED MEN- MILITARY DISTRICT NO. 5


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	On what dates in 1944 were each of^ the 106 married men from military district No. 5 (as referred to in sessional paper No. 142 i, May 25, 1944), called up for service under the National Resources Mobilization Act?
2.	What are the names and ages of each of the said men?


Paul Joseph James Martin: 1 and 2.
Date of
Names	reporting Ages for military	
Lalancette, Jos. Rosaire..	... 27	training 21-2-44Tremblay, Ls. Joseph	... 28	21-2-44Desaulniers, Marcel	.. . 29	22-2-44Bouchard, Rolland	. .. 28	25-2-44Bourgeois, C. Issaac	. .. 28	25-2-44Guay, Georges	... 31	25-2-44Page, Fernand	... 29	25-2-44Paquet, Earl	... 28	25-2-44Simard, Maurice	... 27	25-2-44Tremblay, Rolland	... 33	25-2-44Bouliane, Joseph	... 30	28-2-44Carreau. Rosaire	... 27	28-2-44Davis, Normand	... 24	28-2-44Dery, Lucien	.. . 28	28-2-44(lagoon, Rolland	.. . 28	29-2-44Gauthier, Adrien	... 28	29-2-44Tremblay, Georges	... 28	29-2-44Ouellette, Henri	... 26	29-3-44Belanger. Romeo	29-3-44Doucet, Jules	... 29	29-3-44Oadoret, Emery	... 30	29-3-44Lachance. Alfred	... 31	28-3-44Boutin, Rio	... 26	27-3-44Bourgeois, Philippe	,... 31	N.R.Hamel, Joseph	.... 28	27-3-44Durepos, Aurele 	.... 27	27-3-44Tremblay, Ulderie 	.... 25	24-3-44Holmes, J. A	.... 29	23-3-44Lavoie, Adelard 	.... 26	22-3-44Gingras, Joseph 	.... 29	22-3-44Pelletier, Henri 	.... 27	21-3-44Vazeau, Arthur 	.. .. 27	20-3-44Gagnon, Arthur 	.. .. 26	13-3-44Menard. II	.... 29	20-3-44Gauthier, Paul 	.... 29	20-3-44Cote, Paul 	.... 27	16-3-44Plourde, Patrick	.... 28	16-3-44Bellemor, Frederick	.... 29	16-3-44Blackburn, Adrien	.... 29	16-3-44Guimond, Adrien 	.... 28	15-3-44Levesque, Patrick	.... 29	10-3-44Gingras, Borrome	.... 26	14-3-44Laberge, Oscar 	.... 27	14-3-44Gagnon, Arthur 	.... 26	13-3-44Bernier, Geo. A	.... 27	13-3-44Gagnon, Leopold	.... 28	13-3-44Poitras, Leon 	.... 28	9-3-44Blackburn, Rene	.... 29	6-3-44Bouchard, Gustave 	.... 28	6-3-44Levesque, Roger 	.... 28	3-3-44Girard, Daniel 	.... 29	30-344Giguere, Leonard 	.... 26	20-3-44Tremblay, Henri 	
26	20-3-44Simard, Jean Arthur ...	.... 27	14-3-44Tremblay, Laurent 	.... 28	13-3-44Girard, Roland 	.... 28	28-4-44Vaillancourt, Emilien ...	.... 28	26-444Rathe. Joseph Henri ...	... . 31	26-4-44Routhier, Lorenzo 	.... 30	26-4-44Cote, Fernand 	.... 27	24444Bernier, Roland 	.... 27	24-444Ducharme, Leo 	.... 30	20-4-44Dufour, Charles Joseph .	.... 31	20444Fradetfe, Francois 	.... 31	20-444Gagnon, Eudore 	
31	204-44Gauthier, Ulysse 	.... 31	20-4-44Giroux, Lucien 	.... 31	20-4-44Hamel, Lucien 	.... 31	204-44Hervey, Donat 	.... 31	20-4-44Laforge, Gerard 	.... 30	20-4-44
Questions
Names	Date of reporting Ages for military	
Larouche, Leopold 	.. 30	training 20-4-44Leelere, Romeo 	.. 31	20-4-44Guay, Davie 	.. 31	19-4-44Martel, Robert 	.. 31	19-4-44Rouleau, Noel 	.. 30	19-4-44Tremblay, Henri	. . 31	19-4-44Bourdeau, Jos. Geo	.. 27	18-4-44Lambert, Maurice Jean ...	.. 27	18-4-44Simard, Philippe 	. . 29	17-4-44Robichaud, Adrien 	.. 28	17-4-44Coulombe, Raymond 	.. 28	17-4-44Desbiens, Fernand 	.. 29	17-4-44Maltais. Richard	. . 29	17-4-44Duchaine, Paul Emile	. . 29	17-4-44Gagne, Joseph Armand....	. . 30	17-4-44Gagnon, Rosario	.. 30	17-4-44Larouche, Georges	. . 31	17-4-44Therrien, Joseph	.. 26	13-4-44Barbeau, Raoul	.. 26	12-4-44Charbot, J. Alphonse	. . 27	11-4-44Lefebre, Agenard	. . 27	4-4-44Tremblay, J. Charles	.. 30	4-4-44Yilleneuve. Paul-Arthur...	... 31	4-4-44Desbiens, Paul Emile	.. 29	20-4-44Girard, J. Arthur	,. . 30	20-4-44MacKenzie, Robert A	.. 30	20-4-44Maltais. Jean Isaie	... 30	20-4-44Minier. Lorenzo	.. . 30	20-4-44Hunger. Yvan	.. . 29	20-4-44Glen. Robert	.. . 29	20-4-44Rathe. Charles Omer	.. . 30	20-4-44Tremblay, Lucien	. .. 29	20-4-44Tremblay. Paul	.. . 30	20-4-44Turgeon, Laoreat	. . . 30	20-4-44Yilleneuve. Jean-Marie. ..	... 30	20-4-44Desbiens, Edouard	... 31	20-4-44


NATIONAL REGISTRATION-CHIEF REGISTRAR
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	When was J. K. Houston appointed chief registrar for Canada of national registration?
2.	What salary or remuneration is paid him kv the government?
3.	What are his duties?
4.	What was his occupation immediately prior to his appointment as chief registrar for Canada?
5.	Is he a civil sei'vant?
6.	Did he pass a civil service examination? If so. when and who were his examiners?


Mr. MARTIN:: 1.	September 1, 1943.
2.	$3,600 per annum.
3.	As chief registrar his duties are:
(a)	to exercise general direction and supervision over the administrative conduct, of the registration of all persons of sixteen years of age and over, held under the national registration, 1940, as amended;
(b)	to issue to registrars and other persons, employed in respect to said registrations, such instructions as from time, to time he may deem necessary;
(c)	to execute and perform all other powers and duties imposed upon him by the aforesaid regulations, including the charge and direction of the central registry and staff at Ottawa and the custody, filing, preserving, classifying and otherwise dealing with all official registration records and making available the information therein contained, as directed by the governor in council.
4.	Assistant to chief registrar.
5.	Yes.
6.	Mr. Houston's appointment as assistant to chief registrar was concurred in by the civil service commission. His appointment as chief registrar was by order in council P.C. 23/7430, dated September 22, 1943.


RADIO BROADCASTING-RECOMMENDATION AS TO NEW C.B.C. STATION AT HALIFAX
Mr. GILLIS:: 1.	Was a decision recently arrived at, or a recommendation made by the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, regarding the establishment of a new C.B.C. radio station at Halifax, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, what was the decision and/or recommendation and when was it made?
3.	Has an order in council been passed to ratify or implement the board's decision and/or recommendation ?
4.	Have any representations been made to the 'said board to reverse or alter such decision or recommendation? If so, by whom, and to what effect?
5.	Have any steps been taken by the C.B.C. toward establishing a new publicly owned station and has a transmitter been installed for that purpose?
Mr. LaFLECHE:
1,	2, 3, and 5: The subject-matter of these questions is under consideration, and no decision has been arrived at.
4.	No representations have been made to the board in this matter.


DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS-WAR RISK INSURANCE
Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: 1.	Did the Department of Public Works insure its properties against war risk?
2.	If so, What was the date of the effecting of this insurance?
3.	Was this insurance renewed or replaced on the expiry dates -and how often?
4.	(a) How many policies were originally effected; (b) how many policies were replaced or renewed on each expiry date?
5.	(a) What was the total original amount of the insurance placed and the amount of the premiums thereonr (b) what was the total

Housing

amount of insurance renewed or replaced on expiry dates, and the amount of the premiums thereon?
6.	(a) What was the amount of each policy originally placed, and the premium on each; (b) what was the amount of each policy replaced or renewed on expiry and the premium on each?
7.	(a) What company or companies or agents effected each policy of insurance originally placed; (b) what company or companies or agents effected each policy of insurance on renewal or replacement; (c) what commission and to whom was it paid on each of these policies ?


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: 

QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. STOKES:: 1.	Has the firm of McCarthy and McCarthy, barristers, of Toronto, or any member thereof, been employed by the dominion government from 1936 to the present time?
2.	If so, in what matters?
3.	What fees have been paid in each case?


LEGAL SERVICES-MCRUER, MASON, CAMERON AND BREWIN
Mr. STOKES:: 1.	Has the firm of McRuer, Mason, Cameron and Brewin, barristers, of Toronto, or any member thereof, been employed by the dominion government from 1936 to the present time?
2.	If so, in .what matters?
3.	What fees have been paid in each case?


BRETTON WOODS CONFERENCE
Mr. BLACKMORE:: 1.	What are the names of the people who represented Canada at the Bretton Woods conference ?
2.	By whom and upon whose recommendation was each appointed?
[Mr. Douglas G. Ross.l



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. R. LaFLECHE (Minister of National War Services) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1936, to provide that the chairman of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation shall devotte the whole of his time to the performance of his duties under the said act, and that he shall ibe paid such annual salary as may be determined by the governor in council.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. I'LSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That in order to promote the construction or new houses, the repair and modernization ot existing houses, the improvement of housing and living conditions and the expansion of employment in the post-war period, it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize the Minister of Finance:
* 1Ato wit!l aPProved lending institutions in the making of loans under certain conditions tor the construction of homes for prospective home-owners, and the sharing of losses, if any, in respect of such loans, the aggregate amount ol the advances to be made not to exceed one hundred million dollars;
2. to join with approved lending institutions m the making of loans under certain conditions tor the construction of houses to be rented to tenants and the sharing of losses, if any, in respect of such loans, and to make loans to limited dividend housing corporations under certain conditions to assist in the financing of low rental housing projects, the aggregate amount of the advances to be made by the minister for the construction of houses for rental purposes not to exceed fifty million dollars, to authorize life insurance companies under the jurisdiction of parliament to purchase land and construct thereon and manage low cost or moderate cost rental housing projects subject to certain conditions and to authorize certain guarantees in respect of such investments, and to authorize the [Minister of Finance under certain conditions to make grants to municipalities, up to an aggregate amount not exceeding twenty million dollars, for the purpose of assisting in the clearance of slums or blighted areas;

Canadian Forces-Recruits
3.	to provide special assistance in the contracts with approved lending institutions to encourage the making of loans in rural areas, and to enter into contracts with manufacturers of building equipment to assure the production of components for rural homes on an economical cost basis, provided that the gross liability of the dominion in respect of such contracts with manufacturers of components for rural homes outstanding at any one time shall not exceed five million dollars;
4.	to guarantee under certain conditions loans for the repair, alteration and extension of existing homes to an aggregate amount of one hundred million dollars;
5.	to carry on and promote technical research and investigations designed to lower housing costs and promote better housing conditions and the more efficient planning of communities;
and further to provide that the moneys required for the making of the said loans and grants and the payment of losses incurred under any guarantee or other contract authorized by the act shall be paid out of any unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund and that all other moneys payable under the act, including the salaries of technical and clerical staffs and all other expenses of administration, shall be paid out of moneys appropriated by parliament for the purposes of the act.
He said; His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition); Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services follow up the announcement he made to the press on July 26 last, in which he said:
A training base for ships of the Royal Canadian Navy has been established in Bermuda and will be commissioned August 1, as H.M.C.S. Somers' Isles.
Will the minister indicate to the house why such training base has been chosen outside Canadian territory, and the approximate investment involved in the undertaking so far as Canada is concerned?
Hon. ANGUS L. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence for Naval Services): Mr. Speaker, the selection of a training base for Canadian ships in Bermuda was made, in the first place, because Bermuda offers better all-year-round facilities than do our Canadian coasts. In the second place it offers better conditions for the training of ships in
the hunting of submarines. My hon. friend Wil: understand that there are certain waters in which the training of ships for submarine hunting can be carried on more advantageously than elsewhere. Bermuda offers excellent conditions in that regard.
As to cost, may I point out that this is a base which was formerly used by the Royal Navy. We are merely taking over their base and making some alterations which, we understand, will not cost more than £10,000, and perhaps considerably less than that.
The practice of training ships outside territorial waters is quite common. Many of our ships have trained in British waters, waters along the coast of England and Scotland, in cooperation with British ships and the ships of other navies. So that there is nothing new or unusual about the practice of sending ships outside our own territorial waters for training purposes.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Gooderham Ross: Mr. Speaker, I notice in this morning's Globe and Mail an advertisement in both French and English, the gist of which is this: Have I the guts? This appears in connection with a campaign to secure volunteers for overseas service. Was this advertisement paid for by the government? I should also like to know whether it is directed to the government or to the youth of Canada.


James Layton Ralston: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the last part of the question needs any answer whatsoever. The answer to the first part is that it is paid for by the government of Canada, and has formed part of a series of advertisements which were published under the direction of a committee composeu of men who have to do with and understand the subject, and have been directing publicity in connection with the recruiting campaign. This was part of that series of advertisements.


John George Diefenbaker: Is this advertisement being published in both languages, and in the newspapers of both languages throughout the country? In the article referred to there is a statement that that is not so, and if it is not, then it seems quite unjustifiable. The minister should clear the matter up.


James Layton Ralston: I do not understand my hon. friend's question.
Veterans' Insurance


John George Diefenbaker: Is that advertisement being published in both languages, and in newspapers of both languages?


James Layton Ralston: I cannot tell my hon. friend. As a matter of fact it is not being published; I understand the publication is discontinued. I think it was the last of a series of advertisements which were published as part of that campaign. I cannot tell -whether it was published in two languages or not.


Gordon Graydon: In view of what the minister has said, may I just indicate to him the information which appeared in the Globe and Mail this morning, to the effect that the language' employed in the advertisement so far as the French appeal is concerned is entirely different from and bears no resemblance whatsoever to the statement directed to the English-speaking parts of Canada. I refer to the part where it says, "Have I the guts?" I suggest the minister ought to clarify this matter, because it is considered seriously among English-speaking people, and perhaps requires some explanation from the government.


James Layton Ralston: I had not heard of that. However, I shall be very glad to look into the matter and ascertain, first, whether it is being published in English and in French, and, secondly, what the connotation of the French version is as compared with the English version.	.



VETERANS' INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved the third reading of bill *No. 170, to provide for the insurance of veterans by the Dominion of Canada.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from the house when this bill was considered in committee and before it is given its third reading, I should like to have from the minister definite answers to three questions.
First, how many types of insurance were considered by the Department of Finance, which nominally is sponsoring this bill? Second, was a national service insurance scheme considered, similar to the United States measure of 1940? If it was rejected, why? Third, what were all the types of insurance considered ?-*-that is, free insurance, cheap insurance for those serving and re-

turned soldiers, and veterans' insurance, which I believe is the only type being considered. Why was only the last type decided upon?
I consider it important that we have answers to these questions. During the course of discussion on Tuesday last the minister contended that the pension benefits in Canada were greater than those in the United States, and that the capitalization of the Canadian benefits amounted to $5,000 or $6,000 more than the capitalization of United States benefits. I have made some examination of the matter, and I do not think that statement is correct. I understand that Canadian insurance companies worked out the amount definitely for the department, and that they did not state that figure, but a smaller figure. The beneficiaries of the Canadian soldier killed on active service overseas are not in nearly as good a position as are the United States soldiers' beneficiaries under their measures. The dependents of the Canadian soldier killed in action get nothing in the way of insurance, but our men do receive a better pension than is paid to the United States soldiers. It has been figured out for me that the dependents of a United States soldier are $7,000 better off than the Canadian soldier. I am told further that the national service life insurance act of the United States, passed- in 1940, has been taken advantage of by 95 per cent of those in the army and 98-6 per cent of those who have proceeded overseas. That was a public statement made by the adjutant general of the United States army in April of this year. The average amount taken out by that 95 per cent was $9,600. The insurance provisions we are making for the veterans of this war and for the veterans of the last war who have enlisted are not anything like what the United States congress have done for their soldiers.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think I explained the whole situation- definitely and explicitly when the measure was before the house.. My hon-. friend is suffering from the obvious-


Thomas Vien: We are on third reading.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With the consent of the house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I had a right to make the statement I did on the motion for third reading, and I am sure the minister should be allowed to reply.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member was
entitled to make his speech, but if the minister wishes to reply to any other statements that are made, he should not speak now.

Veterans' Insurance


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I just want to add a few words adding to the representations I have made on many occasions during the past four years in regard to the establishment of a system of soldiers' insurance along the line of that in effect in the United States. I think it was three years ago that I brought up the matter, and again last year. The numbers who have taken out insurance under that system runs into several millions. Every man or woman who joins the armed service is permitted within the period named in the statute to make application for an insurance policy up to $10,000. If he or she is killed during service then the amount of the policy is payable to the beneficiaries named, payments being spread over a period of fifteen years in monthly instalments to amortize the total amount of the insurance.
I am giving every support to the present measure, but it does not protect the soldier who has gone overseas to the extent that the United States soldier is protected. Many of these men who are serving have no dependents and when they pass on, their parents, even though they are not dependent upon them during their lifetime, may have been looking forward with anticipation to later years during the soldier's life when they might have been assisted but will receive nothing. As I say, these men are not receiving the consideration they should.
It would not be a costly measure and it would not interfere with civil insurance. It has not in the United States. I brought this up on one occasion when the estimates of the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services were before the house, and at that time he stated that the matter would be brought to the attention of the authorities. Even at this late date I am going to ask reconsideration by the minister of the necessity and the need of bringing in such a system of insurance.
The present measure is a proper step. In effect it is bringing into being and extending the legislation that applied after the last war and which was taken advantage of by many veterans. The measure in effect in the United States applies not only to the veteran but it protects the man who serves in the armed forces when he is serving. Should he make the supreme sacrifice, his loved ones, even though not directly dependent upon him, will receive an allowance over a period of years. If the man returns he will have laid the foundation of an estate and he will have available an insurance policy that has been paid up for a number of years.
It may be that this could not be made-retroactive, but our casualties are beginning: to mount on a scale never before equalled in this war. Even if a measure were brought in at this late date I believe it would result in improving the morale of our men and make them realize that this parliament is doing everything possible. I know that much has been done on behalf of the men who are serving, and I am not one of those who criticizes what has been done, but more remains to be done, and I believe if the government were to accept this suggestion it would receive the support of hon. members on all sides of the house.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson), in discussing the third reading of this bill, has confused two entirely different principles, as has the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). The principle of this bill is veterans' insurance; it is a postdischarge measure. However equitable the representations of my hon. friends may be, and they are, they do not apply to the third reading of this bill. The principle of inservice insurance is entirely different from that of post-discharge insurance. The hon. member for York-Sunbury asked how many types of insurance were considered. I can assure him that every possible type of insurance was carefully considered, in regard to both in-service insurance and post-discharge insurance for ex-service men.
The hon. member asked if the principle of national service insurance, as described by the hon. member for Lake Centre as being applied to the United States, was considered. It was considered carefully and extensively for several months. The hon. member for York-Sunbury said that he had heard that the capitalized value of the Canadian pension system was about $5,000 to $6,000 ahead of the United States system. That is true. Those figures were given to us by the experts of a Canadian life insurance company in a conference "we had with them.
I must say that the leadership of this thing was not mine; it belongs entirely to my good friend who sits in front of me, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), who spent a long time and gave anxious thought to this whole problem.
It may be necessary yet to develop some other form of insurance, but a discussion of that matter is not germane to the third reading of the present measure. This is an advanced and broadened and widened improvement of the returned soldiers' insurance bill which we had after the last war. The ceiling
Farm Prices

has been raised from $5,000 to $10,000, and ihere are definitely improved benefits for the widows. Alhough I do appreciate the spirit in which they were advanced, I suggest that the observations of my hon. friends are not relevant to the third reading of this measure.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



FARM PRICES


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Saturday, July 29, consideration in committee of bill No. 168, for the support of the prices of agricultural products during the transition from war to peace- Mr. Gardiner-Mr. Bradette in the chair.
On section 9-Powers of the board.
James Garfield Gardiner: The question was raised on Saturday afternoon by the hon. member for Lake Centre and raised again on Saturday night by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle as to whether paragraph (c) of section 9(1), along with subsection 3 of section 10, permitted provision for participation certificates. The hon. member for Lake Centre raised the question whether it was intended to provide for participation certificates and suggested that if that was intended it was not provided for in the bill. I therefore asked that the section stand so that I could give further consideration to it. Since then I have gone through the bill and discussed it fully with the officials. I find that provision is not made for any agency which may be set up by the government to provide for the payment of participation certificates through the use of funds that are provided for in this bill. Provision is made in paragraph (c) for paying any difference between the floor price set by the government and any price actually paid to the producer by any agency of the government. In other words, provision is made for paying a subsidy to the producer above a lower pride which may be received by any agency of the government in order to bring the receipts to him up to the floor price.


John George Diefenbaker: Under what section is that?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is under paragraph (c) of section 9(1). Provision is made there to pay the difference between the actual price paid to a producer of cheese, let us say, and the price at which the cheese is sold to the consumer by the cheese factory; similarly with any other organization of that kind that may be set up. But there is no provision for taking out of the $200,000,000 provided funds with
I Mr. Ian Mackenzie.]
which to make good participation certificates. The reason for that is this. If we appoint an agency, a cooperative agency, let us say, to take delivery of a farm product at a floor price we guarantee that floor price to that agency. The agency in turn may have an undertaking, perhaps under our 1939 cooperative act, whereby they can pay the initial payment which is thereby guaranteed by the government, and then they can go on doing business on that basis and if they themselves make money they pay out the participation. Any dealing which they have with the government would be based on the floor price which we have provided, and they would no doubt provide the same floor price in their dealings w'ith the producers, so that when they make their accounting back to the government, as the agency of the government, there would be no profit involved at all.
There may be a limited number of cases where the government would be taking delivery of the product direct and where there might be the possibility of a small profit, but it is very difficult to conceive of any such cases, because all we do in this bill is to say that if no one else will buy the product at a price higher than the floor price the government will take the product and handle it at that price.


Mark Cecil Senn: Not in all cases.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is all we say in this bill, and that is all we can say. We say that if no one else will take the product at a certain price level, whether it be a farmers' cooperative or a private organization, we will arrange for the government by some method to take that product.


Mark Cecil Senn: That is not what paragraph (c) says.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend, if he will read the whole bill, will find that that is exactly what it says. It says that we can take this product over at that floor price. It is not anticipated that there will be any profit in any product which the government handles. We may incidentally make a few thousand dollars out of something we have, and if we do, it would go into the treasury. It is not anticipated. however, that there will be any profit made by the handling of any products by the government.


Percy Ellis Wright: There are participation certificates issued right now in the handling of coarse grains.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are right now, but under this legislation what we say in connection with coarse grains is that we are prepared to take the product at such and such a price delivered; let us say it is forty-five cents. If

Farm Prices
we said that we would take oats at forty-five cents a bushel there would be no possibility of our making any profit because we would not get the oats if anybody else would pay forty-six or forty-seven or forty-eight cents for them and still go on doing business in oats. But immediately the price dropped down to forty-five cents we would get the oats. As soon as the price went up to forty-six cents we would not get the oats. In other words, we would always be getting oats at the floor price and in all probability we would have to dispose of them at the same price, or lower, so that it is not anticipated that we would make a profit.


Percy Ellis Wright: It is probable that you would make a profit because the oats, would be held by you until such time as the price came back. You would not immediately try to dispose of them at the floor price. The wheat board has made a profit on grain which it bought at the floor price and then sold for a higher price later, and it is likely to do it again in the future. I see no reason why in such a case the growers should not reap the benefit of that profit.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am afraid that my hon. friend has not been following very closely the discussions that have been taking place recently in Saskatchewan. If he has I am sure he would realize that the government would not be permitted to make very much profit out of a transaction of this bind. Take our seed grain, for instance. We distributed oats at a price which gave no profit, and public pressure itself has made it impossible for a settlement to be made even on that basis. You will find pretty much the same here. If we took a product and carried it over as my hon. friend suggests, we would probably be carrying it because we thought that some day the farmer somewhere in Canada would be short of oats. I am assuming that what the hon. member has in mind is that our market for oats generally speaking is in this country.


Percy Ellis Wright: No.


James Garfield Gardiner: Generally speaking it is. We happen at the moment to have a market for a part of our oats in the United States, but usually and even now the greater part of our oats is consumed in Canada.


Percy Ellis Wright: What about barley?


James Garfield Gardiner: Pretty much the same, except malting barley. Our feed grains are pretty well consumed here. If we are in a position where there is so much feed grain on the market in the transition period that it
cannot be sold profitably by the farmer, then we say under this bill that we will set a floor price and take those oats at that price. I assume that in most cases it would be necessary for us to carry the oats over until there was a shortage. Then when there was that shortage we would have to put them back again on the market to the farmer. I am quite sure we would not be permitted to put them on the market in a maimer which would result in a profit; we would be expected to do so in a way which would probably keep down the cost to the farmer who has to buy feed at that time, just as is the position now; and that being so, there would not be much opportunity of profit. Also I am afraid we would have to set up so much machinery to handle participation on all products that we would be in exactly the same position as the wheat board got into in connection with Ontario wheat. I believe the year before last only one farmer delivered wheat to the wheat board, and as a result he would have had to bear out of his one little crop of two or three hundred bushels of wheat the expense of the whole machinery of setting up a system of participation. So that the wheat was simply turned back to him and the provision was not made. I think we should run into the same condition here. We would have to establish so much machinery in order to take care of a prospect of the kind that I do not think it could be contemplated under this bill.


Ernest Edward Perley: At a few minutes to eleven on Saturday evening I brought up this matter, and it is reported on pages 5634 and 5635 of Hansard. The minister agreed that the question should stand. At that time I tried t'o point out that there was no provision for participation certificates to producers of any one commodity. The minister has just mentioned oats and coarse grains. As oats are handled at the present time, the price is paid and then an equalization payment is made which is really a participation payment principle. I should like to have embodied in the bill a provision to the effect that if a profit was made on a certain commodity so taken, there would be provision for a participation certificate and a subsequent payment made to the producer. I am not very good at drafting, but I have drawn up an amendment which I am now going to propose:
That section 10, subsection 3, be amended by striking out all the words after "profit" in line 35 and adding thereto the following:
_ "with respect to the purchaising and marketing of any one commodity the board in that year shall distribute said profit by means of participation certificates,"
Farm Prices

Then follows the latter part of the section:
"and provided, further that the net operating loss in any fiscal year may be recouped to the said account from moneys appropriated by parliament for the purpose."


James Garfield Gardiner: If such an amendment
were to be put into the bill, this is not the place to put it. That is, it would come under the powers of the board. If we wish to give the board powers to set up an agency which would be in a position to make participation payments, that would go into section 9. But apart from that, I would call attention to paragraph (g) of subsection 1 of section 9:
to purchase at market or contract prices and export any agricultural product under any contract between His Majesty in right of Canada and any other government or agency thereof and to do all things necessarily incidental thereto.
Our contract on bacon, which was the one mentioned, is one of the contracts which is dealt with under that section. That is, if we were going to go on selling bacon under a contract such as we have to-day, all the provisions which are incidental to that contract are provided for there. The present position in connection with contracts of that kind is that any profits which are made in connection with it in one year are put into the price of the succeeding year, and do go back to the farmer; there never is any accumulation of profits. For example, the bacon board, in handling bacon in the earlier years of the contract, made it possible for a certain fund to be set up to take care of things which might happen, and when those things did not happen, when they set the price for the succeeding year, or just before they set it, for a few weeks the price was advanced beyond what otherwise could be paid. That was done during the season when the greater number of hogs were brought on the market, in the fall, as a part of the provision to prevent hogs going down unnecessarily during the rush period. The methods which do that are pretty well set up under the contracts that are made with the British government, or whatever government it may be made with, so that that is taken care of in so far as that particular kind of transaction is concerned.


Ernest Edward Perley: I mentioned bacon as an illustration. I could mention any other commodity-grains, or beef.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, I am mentioning it too just to illustrate the first point. But under the provisions we now have for participation, let us say as regards the wheat board, under the wheat board act we say to the farmers: "If you deliver wheat to the wheat

board there is an initial payment"-or there was such a provision-under the present practice farmers are compelled to deliver to the wheat board. "If you deliver to the wheat board there is a certain initial payment, and if that wheat is sold at a profit there will be participation certificates." Now, under this bill all we are saying is that there is a floor payment, and we probably turn the handling of oats and barley or any grain of that kind over to the wheat board and we say: "We authorize you to buy any such grain at a stated price", just as did happen in wheat during free marketing under the wheat board as now constituted; farmers would only sell to the board when they can get as much from it as they can get from anyone else. I would assume that the wheat board under those circumstances would require to have provided to them a special fund in addition to this $200 million we are talking about here. They would have to have an entirely new set-up which would handle oats on much the same basis as wheat is being handled at the present time, and the financing of that would not come out of this money at all, and could not.
As a matter of fact, one of the reasons for some delay in bringing the bill down beyond the delays I have suggested was that we had under consideration the question whether or not we should definitely say now what was going to happen if oats and barley came under the bill, and if we had undertaken to say that, we would have had to make new financial provisions in connection with the handling of that grain. If at any time in the future it is necessary to bring in oats and barley and turn over to the wheat board the handling of those products, we shall have to bring in new financial arrangements which will be altogether outside this $200 million. I am simply, pointing out that the $200 million is to take care of the kind of transaction I am speaking of, and that if we are involved in those greater transactions we shall have to provide more money for the purpose of handling it.


Ernest Edward Perley: Could not the minister
embody here the same principle with respect to bacon, beef and other products as he does now for the handling of coarse grains, where we have the equalization payment? The wheat board takes the oats and barley. It is delivered by the farmer. He receives what is termed an initial payment. There is an equalization payment which is the diffefenee between that payment and what the coarse grains are sold for. Could not the same principle be considered or taken in with a ceiling on the other products?

Farm Prices


James Garfield Gardiner: The difficulty of doing it is the one I mentioned in connection with wheat. You have to determine in advance of going into the area whether you can do that or not. You have to say to the farmer, "We are prepared to take anything you deliver at a certain price"; and if you pay participation on it you must have a complete record of all deliveries throughout the area you are concerned about. In order to do that you must set up machinery, and that machinery is very costly. If no one delivers, then of course the government, under the principle that has been established in the past, bears the burden of that expense; if anyone delivers at all, then the producer bears the burden of expense, and that expense is taken out of his products. If only a few people deliver, they cannot possibly bear that expense as it will take the whole of their product and more than the whole of it. So that to be informed provided there were deliveries, you must have all the records, and you will run up a high expense on account of every product even if the act is not declared operative on those products.
I brought down the other day an order under the war measures act for the handling of beans in Ontario, under which we propose to pay participation. Beans are grown in a limited area in Ontario and we thought there would be no great difficulty in setting up an organization to take care of them in that very limited area. But we find it is a most difficult thing to do. To try to spread it all over Canada and say we will take any particular product and will be bound to pay participation on it would be to make the bill unworkable.


Ernest Edward Perley: But that is what you are doing. You are setting up this board which operates all over Canada, and I cannot see that there would be required any greater number of officials than are engaged now in connection with the commodity marketing board, for example. No more machinery would be required to do what I ask.


James Garfield Gardiner: We do not need machinery at all until we act under the terms of this bill, and we need no machinery then if we say to the business agencies that are carrying on business, "Take delivery of any grain that offers at a price." But if we say in advance that we will pay participation provided there is a profit, even if that profit is only $1,000, if we say in advance that there will be participation, then we must set up machinery to have information at the end of the year in order to pay participation, whether, anyone delivers or not. For that reason I do not wish to have the amendment incorporated into the bill.


Percy Ellis Wright: On Saturday the minister said that oats and barley were coming under the bill, and now he changes his position. He says it is not intended to do this. If a floor price is set, there will have to be other arrangements than those in the bill. More particularly as regards grains, we are anxious to have participation certificates because it is more likely that there will be exports of a certain amount of coarse grains except in years of short crops. If the board takes over these grains at a floor price certainly they should be in a position, in a great many years, to make a profit on them and to see that the profit goes back to the, growers.


James Garfield Gardiner: To clear up the point, I am not changing my position at all. What I said at the beginning was that every farm product except wheat may be brought under this bill. There is a possibility of bringing in any farm product under the bill, except wheat, which is already under the wheat board; but there is no farm product under this bill immediately it comes into effect. They are brought in under section 9. The products are brought in under a method set up in the bill. There may be one product in in one year and out in the next, and another product in, or there may be a dozen products in one year, and coarse grains may be among them. So far as I can see, there would * be only one practical way of handling coarse grains, and that would be to appoint the wheat board as the agency to handle them, provided that coarse grains are brought in; and if we do appoint the wheat board to handle them they will handle them under the system of financing which they now follow with wheat. But at present they are handling wheat, and if they were required to handle oats and barley as well they would require some additional provisions for financing a product of that kind. It would have to be financed under those circumstances through the wheat board outside this $200 million.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it not a fact that under this section 10 (3) it would be impossible to have a system of participation certificates set up? Under section 10 (3) provision is made-


James Garfield Gardiner: It is intended to be impossible for the board that is created by this bill to set up an organization of its own that can pay participation, but it is not impossible for the board to deal with an agency which does pay participation.


John George Diefenbaker: Where in this bill does the board get the power to issue participation certificates?
Farm Prices


James Garfield Gardiner: The board does not get any power to issue participation certificates.


John George Diefenbaker: Under the wheat board act is there not provision for participation certificates right in the estate?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is a wholly different principle.


John George Diefenbaker: Under this bill as at present constituted, any board, the marketing board or any other, which is empowered to operate the act, will have the power to issue participation certificates. If that is the stand taken by the minister, well and good. When I raised the point the other day it was with a view to assuring the farmer of the largest possible share of the ultimate price. If it is intended, as section 10 (3) provides, for a fund to be set up known as the agricultural prices support account, into which all moneys will go from all commodities as they are disposed of, certainly there could be no power of issuing anything in the nature of participation. Would the minister consider adding the suggestion made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle? He could add to section 9 a provision empowering the board to make regulations. If that is not done, by the time the board commences to operate, the power will have gone for any such provision to be initiated by way of order in council. If the minister is serious in his view that it might be possible in so far as certain commodities are concerned that participation should or might be provided for, then I suggest to him that he grant that power now to the board to be used in its discretion. I can understand that if it were made generally applicable to all commodities it would not work out.
The minister has referred to the situation in Ontario as to the power of the wheat board to buy wheat in the province. If I understood him aright he said that one farmer alone had delivered to the board. Naturally no one wishes to build up machinery to cover contingencies such as that. Take any other major product where the deliveries necessarily will be large provided this legislation is to operate as we hope it will. I think provision should be made now for the board either to grant to the agency or to retain the power within its discretion to issue participation certificates. I think that is the most important matter and one which cannot be covered subsequently. We may find ourselves in this position. The war is.over and these measures set up under the War Measures Act inoperative after six months. We may find that participation certificates cannot be provided for.

Therefore I again suggest to the minister the necessity for that power being contained in section 9.


Percy Ellis Wright: I agree with the hon. member for Lake Centre with respect to this matter. The minister stated that it would be possible under this act to appoint the wheat board as the commodity board to handle coarse grains. I would point out that if that were done it would stop immediately the wheat board having the authority to issue participation certificates so far as coarse grains are concerned. They have that authority now, but once you appoint them as the commodity board under this act you would automatically put an end to that authority. I agree with the minister that we do not want participation certificates issued on every product which may come under the act, but I do think that certain products may come under the act on which the government may wish at times to issue participation certificates. Provision should be made somewhere in the act to cover that.
I would agree with the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle if it contained a provision- whereby the authority could be given to any particular commodity board, not necessarily to all, but to any the government wished, to issue participation certificates. We should have authority somewhere in the act for the government to do that. I do not see it in the bill at the present time. In fact it is impossible for them to do it under the present bill. The suggestion of the hon. member for Lake Centre to add another paragraph to section 9 to give the board that authority would meet the desires of hon. members in that regard.


James Garfield Gardiner: This bill, of course, is not intended to be a marketing act in the .sense that it undertakes to market all farm products at the highest possible price. This is what it says: We undertake to see that the farmer does not require to sell his product at an unduly low price. In order to avoid that, the government is prepared to take the product at a set price. Any of the cooperative organizations set up under the cooperative act of 1939, which handle now practically all the honey of western Canada, and the alfalfa which comes from the north country of Saskatchewan, and which have separate organizations now and make advance payments-any of them could with some justification-if the government sets a floor price under these products-claim that they were taking no risks whatsoever in paying that out as an advance payment and could go ahead and pay on that basis. If they make

Farm Prices
profits over and above that, they could pay out their participation just as they are paying now; if they did not believe they were able to make profits on that basis, they would no doubt come to the government far an arrangement under (c) of 10 to obtain the difference between the price they had paid out under our guarantee and the price they actually got for the product on the average over that year. They could do that under paragraph (c). Therefore the activities of organizations that are doing that kind of work to-day are safeguarded by this bill so far as their initial payment is concerned; and that is all they would ask for, because if they make a profit they will pay out participation; if they do not, they will come to the government under that paragraph to make arrangements with the government in advance. That is exactly the idea that has been involved in cheese that has been referred to. The producers of cheese have their cheese factories organized. We say that the producer must get a certain price for his cheese, but somebody else says the consumer cannot afford to pay that much. This bill makes it possible for the producer to obtain his price and then for the cheese factory to come back to the government and get the difference between what they sold the product for and what they paid the producer. Now, that operates all the way along the line.
In connection with coarse grains the only argument is that $200 million would not be enough, if you bring coarse grains under it. Then the question immediately comes up as to how you are going to finance, particularly if it is to be financed for two or three years, or if the grain is to be held for some considerable time. Well, it is obvious the only system under which you could finance it is the system that the wheat board is now using. In answer to the suggestion of the hon. member for Lake Centre that we may not have authority to do that when we bring section 9 into force, may I say that section 9 would have to be brought in during the six months' period after the end of the war at the latest, when we still have all the authority under the War Measures Act; and the only addition to this measure which would be required by regulation-and the government has the authority to pass regulations under section 11-would be a regulation to provide for the financing of any products that are not covered by the financing already set up here. That action can be taken if thought advisable during that period of time.


Percy Ellis Wright: The minister mentioned
alfalfa seed. Suppose we have a large crop of alfalfa seed in some years. Naturally at that time the price will go down. There may be a large production in other countries as well. The board decide to set a floor under it, and naturally they will get the most of the alfalfa that year, which they will dispose of in the domestic market. What they cannot dispose of in the domestic and foreign markets they will have to carry over another year. The next year there may be a complete alfalfa crop failure and naturally the price will go up. The government, having on hand this additional supply which they had purchased the year before under the floor price legislation, will dispose of it at a good profit. Under this act that profit will go into the consolidated revenue fund and will not come back to the producers. There should be something in this bill which would allow the issuing of participation certificates in such cases, so that adidtional receipts for the products would come back to the producer.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: May I ask my hon. friend a question? His remarks have been quite interesting. He cited a case where the producers of alfalfa seed may have a large crop this year and the board contemplated under this bill may establish a floor price and take it over. He then said there may be a scarcity of alfalfa seed next year, tlie price may advance sharply, the board make a profit on the seed it held, and his contention is that this profit should be distributed to the growers. Suppose in the second and third year there were large crops of alfalfa seed, and the board had incurred substantial loss on the amount they had taken over; how would he provide for that loss? Does he argue that the taxpayers-and I am only asking for information; I am not expressing an opinion- should put up the difference and provide for the loss? In other words, if the board's operations result in a profit, the profit must be distributed to the producers; but if they result in a loss, the loss must be borne by the taxpayers' is that it?
Mr, SENN:	Is that not what they are
doing already?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No.


Mark Cecil Senn: Oh, yes.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is not quite so. The principle of the wheat board act is that the wheat board will fix an initial advance, and it is regarded as an initial advance. That ad\ ance is fixed in the light of conditions as

564S
Farm Prices
they exist. The initial advance may be $1 in one year and 75 cents in the next, and 50 cents in the next. But under the act it is contemplated that the advance will be fixed on a basis which will enable the wheat board to market the crops without recourse to the treasury.


Mark Cecil Senn: It is not always done.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is the principle
implicit in the wheat board act; and if my hon. friend will read the speeches made by members of the government of that day,_ of which he was a supporter-made at the time the measure was passed-I am sure he will find I am correct.
This measure is not based upon that principle. It is based upon another principle, namely that a floor should be established on these agricultural products so that if the price goes down the board will purchase and protect the producers with the floor price; whether a profit or loss results, the government has to carry it.
As my colleague the Minister of Agriculture has said, such powers are broad enough. I am not sure but that recourse could be had to participation payments. And certainly if experience showed that it were desirable and the powers were not there, parliament at a future date could consider it. I think however that my hon. friend should clear up the question I have asked.


Percy Ellis Wright: I will clear it up so far
as I am concerned. I think we are establishing a floor on agricultural prices, and that that floor may amount to a loss to the treasury of Canada. I should say that if the government is going to establish floor prices it must accept the principle that the people of Canada as a whole may have to carry a loss in establishing those floor prices.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: This measure accepts that principle.


Percy Ellis Wright: No, it does not accept that principle, according to what the Minister of Mines and Resources has just said. He has just said we must not have a loss under this bill.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No.


Percy Ellis Wright: The minister has said that the wheat board proposes to level out the price.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend is quite
wrong, and he is also evading the question I asked him. This measure establishes a floor price on a commodity, for instance, such as

alfalfa seed. Now, if in taking over that product at the floor price the board incurs a loss in the disposition of the product, such loss, under the principle of this bill, is borne by the treasury. Surely there can be no dispute about that? But my hon. friend's contention goes farther than that. He says that if in a subsequent year a profit results, that is if alfalfa seed is held and a profit results from the sale of it, the additional profit should be paid to the producer. And I am asking him how, if that principle is to be adopted, he can justly argue that the taxpayers shall bear the loss.


Percy Ellis Wright: The minister is trying to
argue that the floor price they will establish will be a ceiling price also. That is, he is going to establish a floor price low enough to make sure he is not going to take a loss.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No; may I correct my hon. friend. I would call his attention to section 9(2) which states:
In prescribing prices under paragraphs (a) and (c) of subsection one of this section, the board shall endeavour to ensure adequate and stable returns for agriculture by promoting orderly adjustment from war to peace conditions and shall endeavour to secure a fair relationship between the returns from agriculture and those from other occupations.
That is the principle of the bill, the principle which guides the conduct of the board in establishing prices.


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes; and when I moved an amendment on Saturday night with respect to this matter, leaving out the word "endeavour" and substituting the word "shall", the government refused to accept it. Therefore I say the government, so far as I can see, under this bill intend to establish floor prices at such a low level that they know they are not going to take any loss.


James Garfield Gardiner: I cannot let that pass without saying something. The hon. member for Melfort is in the habit of getting up and making statements he knows are not right.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, and I know' I am unparliamentary in that statement, and I know I shall have to withdraw it immediately, but I am going to say it.


Major James William Coldwell: That is not proper procedure for a member in the house, to say something which he knows he will have to withdraw immediately. Surely that reflects very badly upon the Minister of Agriculture.


James Garfield Gardiner: And at the same time I can ask my hon. friend to withdraw the statement he just made. There is no such

Farm Prices
intention in the bill. What the bill says, as plainly as it can be said, is that the government is prepared to pay a price that no one else will pay-a price so high that no one else will pay it. That is what the bill says. And that is the only thing it says. It says if no one else will pay a price at a certain level, the government itself will pay it and take the loss. That is what the bill intends to say, and that is all it does say. It stands to reason that the only time the government will get products is when they are going to take a loss. They are not going to get products when a profit can be made. And that is all the more true if the products are of such a class as to require to be marketed within the year they are produced.


Percy Ellis Wright: That is a different thing.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is different only with regard to such products as oats and barley; it is not different in fegard to anything else.


Percy Ellis Wright: What about alfalfa?


James Garfield Gardiner: Any other products we are likely to handle will be products which are perishable within a very short time. I have in mind meat products, dairy products, fruits, vegetables and other products of that kind. There are only two products which have been placed in a position where this does not apply, and those are oats and barley, with the possible exception of a few beans and possibly alfalfa-and they are not produced to such a great extent. But so far as the others are concerned-


An hon. MEMBER:: Cheese.


James Garfield Gardiner: We will get cheese when no one can make a profit out of it, at the price indicated, whether it be through a cooperative organization or some other. We shall have no profit, because no. one else will take it at the price we are paying. So that to say that we are going to set a floor which will lower the ceiling, when no one can get more for the product, is to say what is not so. We are not doing that at all. We are saying to the farmer, " Go ahead and1 get all you can for your product. You sell it for what you like, and make all the profit you can out of it. But when it gets to the point where you are not being dealt with properly in the light of past and1 present experiences, the government will take your product at a floor price which has been prescribed." The only sense in which that can be termed a ceiling is that the government has offered a higher price than any other will pay.


Mark Cecil Senn: Would1 the minister say at
what stage in the marketing of any particular product that floor price may be set by the board?


James Garfield Gardiner: If the price is being forced down on any farm product to a point below reasonable level-when you compare the post-war conditions with the period through which we are comparing prices-then the government will take action through this board, and we will take that product at a price.


Mark Cecil Senn: That is very important.


James Garfield Gardiner: And when we have done that we will take the product as long as no one will pay more. But the minute someone else can pay more, and someone else will buy on the market at a higher price, it will be marketed in the usual way. In other words, it is almost impossible for us to make a profit out of these products. If it did so happen that we had1 $10, $15, $100 or $1,000 of a profit at the end of our period of transactions under this bill, that would go into the consolidated revenue fund. There is no question about what happens to. the losses. We would have already paid them and we would have to collect them from someone, and that would be the people of Canada.


Ernest Edward Perley: I think the discussion has
shown plainly that as far as grain is concerned we understand the situation and agree that there is no difficulty. As to coarse grains, the minister has stated exactly what he proposes to do. Saturday' night I was looking for a section to which I could move an amendment to provide for participation certificates, but I was not sure with just what section I should deal. It would appear that a new paragraph (k) should have been added to subsection 1 of section 9. However, I am going to make a suggestion to the minister. Instead of saying, "with respect to the purchasing and marketing of any one commodity" change "any one commodity" to "any product designated." If those words were changed I think it would cover what I intended to deal with.


James Garfield Gardiner: It would not make any difference where the amendment was placed; it would just make the bill unworkable. The amendment suggested is that with respect to the purchasing and marketing of each product in any one year the board shall in that year distribute said profit by means of participation certificates. The amendment would have to be worded much more particularly than that if we were even to contemplate accepting the principle of providing participation
Farm Prices

certificates. There' are a great many products where you could not possibly provide them, where it would be ridiculous to provide them. In addition, the period may not necessarily be a year; it may be three months or it may be more than a year. We may be dealing in a product for a particular period of time.
Following up what we were discussing Saturday night I have had handed to me a measure which was passed in Great Britain in 1535 and which provided for price fixing. They set forth a period of a few months and you cqp find that kind of provision all the way through this type of legislation. It may riot necessarily cover a year, and there is a possibility that the transactions may cover more than a year before the provisions of this subsection would some into effect. There is a possibility of dealing with organizations that can pay participation certificates and our government then would not become involved.
All section 10 provides is that there will be $200,000,000 there and that certain arrangements can be made to get some money out of that fund. Then when the arrangements are completed as between the board and somebody else, the money resulting has to be put back into the fund. Then it says that after the money is back in the fund, if a profit is shown then that profit goes into consolidated revenue fund. It simply says what is to be done with the money when the thing is wound up. If we gave consideration to this I do not think it would be possible to operate this legislation. We would just have to throw it out.


Ernest Edward Perley: Will you consider the
change in the wording that I suggested to substitute "any product designated?"


James Garfield Gardiner: That would limit it to products where participation certificates could be paid, and I do not want to limit it to that extent. I want this bill to be applicable to any farm product, not just those where we can pay participation certificates.


Percy Ellis Wright: The minister made a statement a little while ago that he could appoint as a board a cooperative association which had as its principle the payment of participation certificates.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not as a board-as an agent,


Percy Ellis Wright: As an agent under this bill. Would not that preclude the possibility of their using participation certificates? Unless

there is some change made in the bill, I think you might find that the organization could not pay participation certificates.


James Garfield Gardiner: We would only be asked to take action by any organization set up under the cooperative act of 1939 in cases where they knew they could not possibly make a profit. They come along to us and say, "If we are going to operate as we have been operating you will have to prescribe a price." We say, "All right; under this bill we will appoint you as agent to take delivery of the product for the government at a price higher than you or any one else knows can be secured on the market." They take delivery and pay the farmer that price. There is no necessity for any participation because there is no possibility of a profit. They pay the farmer that price and then come to us and ask us for the difference which we pay to them.


Percy Ellis Wright: The minister knows that in marketing in western Canada there are tremendous variations during the season. It is possible that in the early part of the season the particular organization could pay a price high enough. However, later on in the season the price might drop to below the floor price. The government would then appoint them as agent and they would carry on under this bill. But there might have been a profit made on what they had handled already, and I would say that under this bill they could not distribute that because they were acting as agent of the government.


James Garfield Gardiner: They were not acting as agent in the early part of the season when they did make a profit. When the price of a product drops to too low a level they come to the government and say, "Under the bill you have authority to set a floor price." We set a floor price on that product and from then on they do not make a profit. They simply take delivery of a product and pay out the price. Of course, there would be a cut-off at the time they took that action. When they were required to make their distribution to the membership of their organization, the profits to be distributed would be those earned in the first part of the season. In other words, the participation principle that applied to the organization could be carried on. This bill does not interfere with their right to pay participation under those circumstances.
Amendment (Mr. Perley) negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

Farm Prices
On section 10-Expenses.
James Garfield Gardiner: There is still subsection 3 of section 10.


Mark Cecil Senn: In the discussion this morning the minister referred to paragraph (c) of section 9. As I understand it paragraph (c) provides for the payment of the difference between the prescribed price and the average price when that falls below the price set by the board. The minister suggested a little later on that most of the activities of this board would be carried on in another way, that whenever the price of a product fell below the price set by the board, the board would take over that product. Evidently there are two ways in which this bill may operate. Does paragraph _ (c) mean that in certain instances we are going to pay what are really subsidies to bring the farmers' prices up to the board levels, and if so, on what commodities will it be considered advisable to do that, and on what not?


James Garfield Gardiner: The commodity that I used as an illustration was cheese, and my hon. friend knows probably better than any other member just how that operates. Without that clause I do not think you could get the cheese factories in Ontario and Quebec and elsewhere taken care of properly, .The same type of organization exists in connection with some other products, and may exist in connection with a great many more. If this ' is applied to any product at all, this clause may operate in connection with it. If we limited it to cheese, the clause could operate only with respect to cheese, but we have framed the clause in general terms so that it can operate in connection with any products. In other words, any organization that is taking in the products of the farmers at floor prices and has to sell those products below those prices can make an arrangement under this section and come to the government and get the difference in price. That product may come under this bill, and it does not make any difference what the product is.


Mark Cecil Senn: Then as I understand it, arrangements have to be made by the cooperative organization beforehand or the board would not consent?


James Garfield Gardiner: Take for example cheese. If the price is twenty cents and the producers of cheese say that they cannot sell cheese at twenty cents, we say: You are our agents, so go ahead and buy the cheese at twenty cents and sell it for whatever you can get for it. Then at the end of the period, whatever period may be fixed, we shall be required to pay the difference. I would not say
definitely that their accounts would be the only thing to be taken into consideration, because the clause says that we must take the average selling price for that period. One organization may have been selling the cheese at fifteen cents and another man may have gone out and sold it at ten cents. We do not say that we will pay the difference between ten cents and the twenty cents, but that we will pay the difference between the average selling price and twenty cents, and if the average selling price was fifteen cents we would pay the five cents difference. He will have to sell his product at whatever the market will bring and the difference will be paid under the arrangement set out here.


Mark Cecil Senn: 
James Garfield Gardiner: Of course the $200,000,000 is a revolving fund; money comes back into it as -well goes out of it. If we were considering oats and barley along with the other products there would be some justification for doubting whether $200,000,000 would be enough, but as I have stated-it is a matter of record in our discussions, and I want to make it a matter of record on Hansard- special provision would have to be made if we were required to deal with products like oats and barley. If we had been going to deal with wheat, for instance, we would have had to take into consideration what has had to be done in connection with wheat in past years. Twice this amount of money has been involved in the operations of the wheat board in a single year in connection with wheat alone. But as to paying subsidies such as have been paid on other products, even under
Farm Prices

recent legislation, it would not require anything like this sum. It would probably be something under 8100,000,000 that is involved in that kind of thing.


Mark Cecil Senn: That was last year. It will be more this year.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am quite sure that anyone associated with government knows that when these difficulties arise, if they do arise, they are generally dealt with, but I doubt if we shall get into these difficulties.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What the minister has just intimated is what I have had in the back of my head in studying this matter. If these boards are forced into the whole field of agricultural production in a time of great depression, 8200,000,000 would be just a drop in the bucket. This serves to emphasize the immensity of the field into which we are now entering. I wonder if the public realizes just what the possibilities of this whole thing are. Yet I have no doubt that public opinion wants something like this.
1 personally do, if it is at all possible; yet I have never been able to think the thing through to a successful conclusion. I am afraid of the whole thing, and yet I want to see something done. I am approaching it as objectively as possible. You know, Mr. Chairman, I am appalled at the extent to which this country is committing itself. Last week we committed ourselves to public expenditures in peace-time activities over and above those which are the ordinary inheritance of parliament to the amount of a billion dollars. That was commitments having nothing to do with the war, though some of the expenditures will possibly arise out of post-war problems, such as the export credit system. I wonder if even the government is impressed by the magnitude of the commitments of this country at this time. I just want to sound this note of warning as to where we are going. Where is it all going to end? There cannot be any relief for the taxpayers with programmes of this kind.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that section 10 has been carried, Mr. Chairman.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section l'l-Regulations.


James Garfield Gardiner: 1 stated the other night that we would agree to an amendment to section 11. The section now reads:
The governor in council may make such regulations as may be necessary for the efficient enforcement and operation of this act and for carrying out the provisions thereof according to their true intent and meaping.

It is proposed to amend that by adding thereto the words:
.provided that no such regulations shall be effective until published in the Canada Gazette.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I move accordingly, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John James Kinley: Does the minister anticipate any embarrassment under this legislation by what may be termed the dumping of products into Canada? I ask this question not that I have particularly in mind any article, although butter and eggs and corn comes to one's mind.
I had in mind rather the bill to establish floor prices for fisheries, which will come up for consideration immediately after this bill. There will be a certain amount of dumping of fish into Canada from countries with a lower standard of living. The Minister of Agriculture has had much experience in this type of, shall I say, managed legislation. Perhaps he would say something that would give us a lead with regard to the dumping of fish products.


James Garfield Gardiner: I said on the second reading that that matter had been considered and that there probably would be some objection, to the principle of the bill on the ground that it might have some effect upon our negotiations with other countries immediately following the war. But I pointed out that New Zealand, Australia, Great Britain-I am not sure about legislation, but in their practices, the United States also-have been doing that kind of thing, that is, having different price levels for products bought or sold outside the country as compared with those which are produced and sold inside. Sa that we are not breaking any new ground in that matter. I suggest that the discussions which have taken place this morning would indicate that the effect would be the opposite of that which is now suggested. We are saying to farmers under this bill that if we did not do anything the price -would be down at a certain level and that we are prepared to pay a certain higher price level for their product, but we are not prepared to pay that for the products of New Zealand or any other country; we will pay that price for these products in Canada in order that they may be sold at a lower price to consumers in this country. Under those circumstances it would be very difficult for any foreign exporter to dump here. Supposing we say that the producer is going to be paid 20 cents a pound for cheese, and the consumer can afford to pay only 15 cents -somebody else has decided that some place, or that is the condition-that is what they pay

Farm Prices
and it is all they can afford to pay. Well then, we say that we pay the difference between 15 cents and 20 cents. That would make it impossible for any other country which produces cheese to put cheese in here at any higher price than 15 cents. I think the same principle would apply in connection with any other product.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the minister think that that would apply in the case of processed or cured fish? I wondered about that. We are not the only producers, and if a floor is placed under Canadian production, suppose some country contiguous to Canada which is a very large producer of that type of food product were to say, "That price is good for us; we are satisfied with it," a difficult situation would arise. This suggestion is just an indication of a number of difficulties which will arise. Yet, as I have indicated, I do not wish to see the theory frustrated on that account, because I wrant something done. I am afraid of the post-war period-not necessarily the immediate post-war period but the period of deflation which in my view is bound to come. As I indicated the other day I do not think that any human being can devise a plan or formula which will take care of the position. I am not sure that this is the true way to do it, because in substance, after all, this is a bonus or subsidy.
Mr. SEN'N: I could give a very good illustration, it seems to me-


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: May I be allowed to point out that we are on section 11, and the discussion has to deal with the regulations, so that I think that as regards the last two sections it is out of order.
Mr. KI'NLEY: I assumed that there would be some regulations, and I thought that I was perfectly in order.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: In these matters I am in'the hands of the committee.


Mark Cecil Senn: Take the case of fruit, of early asparagus and other early vegetables coming in from other countries and which, because they arrive at the first of the season, command high prices. By the time our goods are on the market-and this applies especially to berries-we are met with the clean-up of the fields of some other country, which is dumped in here at any price that can be got. How is the minister going to deal with a case of that kind? Is he going to protect our producers under such circumstances?


James Garfield Gardiner: We are setting up a board to advise us how to do that. That is what the bill is doing.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That, I suppose, is an unfortunate admission. There is only one way to deal with that situation, and it is to prevent the stuff from being dumped on this market. I do not know whether the minister is prepared to go that far. Anti-dumping legislation has a place in the economy of a country, under extreme conditions. You may say what you like, but it is the only method by which you can handle this kind of thing.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is what I mean by saying that it is not a question I can deal with. It is not a question that the minister of agriculture, whoever he is, can deal with. It is a question which must be studied by the different departments and a report made as to what it is advisable to do under certain circumstances. The question whether what is spoken of is dumping or is not dumping is one I should not like to enter into this morning.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You have to make some decision.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is something which we have been discussing for twenty years or longer, and I do not know that we can get anywhere by discussing it under this bill.


George Hugh Castleden: I think the discussion this morning arose chiefly out of the desire of hon. members to see that the producer gets a fair share of the selling price of his products.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the principle of the bill. It is not something which hon. members this morning have brought up.


George Hugh Castleden: I said that the members have been discussing that this morning, and it appears to me that the matter might be settled to the satisfaction of everyone if, in determining floor prices for this measure the board used parity prices; there could then be no objection from producers. I thought that was the purpose of the whole bill. With a parity price I think the difficulty would be overcome, otherwise the floor price might possibly be set low because of prevailing conditions in the country at one particular time and if, while the government had the commodity in their control or in storage, the price did go up and profit accrued, the producer would then feel he had had his proper share of the selling price taken away from him. On the other hand, if the parity price were set as a floor price I do not think anyone would have any cause for complaint.


James Garfield Gardiner: What period would you base parity on?
Farm Prices


George Hugh Castleden: That would be variable, because it varies each year.


James Garfield Gardiner: How would you write
it into the bill, then?


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is what I should like to know.


George Hugh Castleden: The government has
facilities for determining parity prices. The board sets the floor price under this bill.


James Garfield Gardiner: You would have to have a basic period on which to establish it. Would you make that period 1909-1914, 1926-29,, or what would you like to make it?


George Hugh Castleden: You would have to
take into consideration the cost of production. the level of wages, and the price of production in each year.


James Garfield Gardiner: And would any of these periods make it high enough for the war period or the post-war period?


George Hugh Castleden: Conditions in the postwar period would have to decide that. But it could be set at least a year ahead. For the year 1945, I think, it would be quite possible to establish a floor level.


Mr. GARDENER:: But what parity, as I
understand it, really means-I am just asking the question- is taking some particular period of time and saying that the prices at which your farm products sold in some other period should purchase the same amount of farm ' requirements as they would in the previous period. Is that what the hon. member means by it?


Mark Cecil Senn: That is a trick definition.


George Hugh Castleden: My idea of parity is
the proper relationship between the cost of production and the price the farmer gets for his commodity at that time. For the year 1944 it will be related to the cost of production in 1944.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As compared with other economic activities.


James Garfield Gardiner: Would you be satisfied with that? That is what I am trying to get at.


George Hugh Castleden: If you establish in
this bill floor prices as parity prices, that would be satisfactory, I think.


James Garfield Gardiner: Would you be satisfied with that suggested period on the basis of 1926-29?


George Hugh Castleden: I suggested a period on the basis of cost of production in 1944, for 1944 prices.
M.r. GARDINER: I take it that politically you would like me to put 1926-29 in this bill and then say that is all they would get.


George Hugh Castleden: The minister has not followed what I said, or he does not want to.


Douglas King Hazen: When this matter came before the committee on Saturday evening I suggested that the bill be amended by providing that the regulations be published in the Canada Gazette and also tabled before parliament, if parliament were sitting, or within fifteen days thereafter. I had referred to bill No. 134, in which part of that provision was contained, namely, the part that the regulations be published in the Canada Gazette, and I was about to refer to bill No. 83, to establish a department of veterans affairs, when the Minister, of Agriculture said there was no objection to that provision. I thought that the amendment to-day would contain both provisions. The provision in bill 83 reads:
All regulations made hereunder approved by the governor in council shall be laid before parliament within fifteen days after they are made if parliament is then sitting, and, if not, then within fifteen days after the commencement of the next ensuing session thereof.
Does the minister object to having that provision added to the present amendment?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have no objection to adding that, but I would point out that in section 7 it is provided that I must lay before parliament all proceedings that have been taken. However, I would ask my colleague to move an amendment in accordance with the terms suggested.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I move that the section be amended by adding thereto the following:
All regulations made hereunder approved by the governor in council shall be laid before parliament within fifteen days after they are made if parliament is then sitting, and, if not, then within fifteen days after the commencement of the next ensuing session thereof.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And published in the Canada Gazette.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is already provided for in the amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
[Stage Direction]
Family Allowances
The house resumed at three o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, July 28, consideration in committee of bill No. 161, to provide for family allowances-Mr. Mackenzie King-Mr. Bradette in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Gordon Graydon: Before this section of the bill carries I wish to draw the attention of the Prime Minister, if I may, to a portion of bis remarks made during second reading of the bill. When he was speaking at the end of the debate he gave expression to certain remarks which I think ought to be corrected. They were remarks about which I feel rather keenly. This is what the Prime Minister said as reported at the bottom of the first column of page 5657 of Hansard:
I have been amazed-I must say that I speak of these things because I think they ought to be mentioned-at the fact that some men of high position in this country who were brought into the government service to help to carry on the war, knowing what they do about the seriousness of the situation, and how necessary it is that every man of ability who can serve should remain in service to help to win the war. should have left the government service in order, in the crisis of the war, to help organize a political party against the government. That, too. is something that the people of Canada will not forget.
As I see it, that, of course, if I may say so, is a direct reflection, upon the patriotism and the motives of the only one to whom it can refer, and that is Mr. Charles P. McTague. Having that in mind I think on reflection that the Prime Minister will want to withdraw any reflection upon the patriotism of Mr. McTague. The reason I raise it is that I think it is a stain and a stigma, particularly coming from the Prime Minister, upon a great Canadian citizen; because I think the Prime Minister would be the first one to agree with me during the last war Mr. McTague served for four years in an active theatre of war, during which time he was gassed and was one of the last to be demobilized after the war was over. He gave three and a half years of his time to government service during this war in connection with wartime activities. Even if Mr. McTague had not done anything in this war he would, I think, have fully discharged any obligations that he had to his country by the splendid service that he gave in the first world struggle. May I go farther than that and say that I do not think it is quite proper for the Prime Minister to reflect-I do not
think he surely could have intended it to be a reflection-upon Mr. McTague's patriotism, because at the very moment that the speech was being made, two of Mr. McTague's sons were fighting in the fighting services of Canada. In all fairness to Mr. McTague the Prime Minister should withdraw the statement, because it is definitely a reflection upon a Canadian who has given great army service in one war and whose family is now fighting for Canada again.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have not anything to withdraw from what I have said. I was speaking in general terms. My hon. friend has seen clearly to whom the reference is.


Gordon Graydon: So did you.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes; and may I say that-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Only one of the two.


Frederick Clayton Casselman: The other one has three sons in the service.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps I
should say to my hon. friend that I was told by Mr. Justice McTague his reason for wishing to resign was that he desired1 to return to the bench, that his services were required on the bench and that they were short of judges, and that he felt it was his duty to resign for that reason.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Have you any reason to doubt that he was sincere at that time?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Actions speak louder than words. May I say to my hon. friend that as the Prime Minister of this country I was entitled to be told, if Mr. McTague wanted to leave the service of the government at time of war to take up the duties of organizer of the Conservative party, that that was his reason for resigning.


Gordon Graydon: May I say to the Prime Minister that he has not shown the house that Mr. McTague left the government service to go into that job, because he did not go into that job when he left the government service. The Prime Minister knows that full well. In addition to that may I say this. If a man is to be condemned for attempting to build up one of the instruments of the democracy for which this nation is fighting, then I think we are coming to a pretty pass, because we know, and the Prime Minister himself knows, that the man who holds a similar position in his own party is a man who is in the senate of Canada. At the
Family Allowances

present time he is devoting, I understand, his entire time to the chairmanship or the presidency of the National Liberal Federation. Let us be fair in this matter. Let us not condemn one because he belongs to one political party and not condemn another.


Grote Stirling: I wish to make one more attempt to induce the government to meet the contention that if it be not competent for this parliament to pay old age pensions at the age of seventy it cannot be competent for this parliament to pay allowances at the age of ten. ^The method by which old age pensions are paid was settled at the time of the passing of the old age pension act. That was preceded by the inquiry of a committee which studied the question, to which was rendered the opinion of the Department of Justice by the mouth of the deputy minister who made it quite clear that in the opinion of the Department of Justice it was not competent for this parliament to enact legislation which would enable old age pensions to be paid by this parliament. The result was that the method adopted in the old age pension act was that the provinces should carry out payment to the pensioners and that this parliament should make a grant toward itJ In the earlier part, of the debate on second reading the Minister of Justice dealt with this constitutional question. But perhaps unfortunately for me his remarks have by no means convinced me. He dealt with what the courts did with another measure altogether which came before them, and he endeavoured to draw the parallel between those decisions and this question. To my mind the parallel does not exist. In the course of the debate the Prime Minister referred to it on two occasions. The first time he referred) to it as a smoke-screen. I do not know whether the Prime Minister or I is the better judge of whether or not it is a smoke-screen. But I would make this remark, that so long as we are living under so complicated a constitution as the British North America Act, the question of constitutionality is going to arise year after year. It appears to me that it comes with ill grace to say that the opposition of to-day is guided by the desire of putting up a smokescreen when the stock in trade of the Liberal party when they were in opposition was that pretty nearly everything brought up was unconstitutional. But whether others may consider it a smoke-screen or not, whether that may be the motive of others, I can assure this committee that it is in no sense of raising a smoke-screen that I raise this question. I ask the government to meet the contention

that if it is not possible for parliament to pay a pension at seventy, it cannot be competent for parliament to pay an allowance at ten.
Another word the Prime Minister introduced in connection with this matter is found at page 5653 of Hansard for July 28. He said:
The action of this parliament with respect to old age pensions only confirms what I have said about the right of this parliament to do what it pleases in the way of making grants.
And he goes on:
In that ease parliament made a grant to the provincial governments.
To me, Mr. Chairman, that remark just does not make sense. The method adopted in respect of old age pensions was that the dominion was ready and willing and anxious to make a grant toward the expenses of old age pensions paid under a scheme of the provinces. That was a view in which my right hon. friend concurred, and I heard him say so several times in this chamber. What he said at one time was quoted by the hon. member for Lake Centre. It was the opinion of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, who in a subsequent session asked parliament to increase the grant that should be paid by the dominion to the cost of old age pensions. But the contention to my mind remains, and it is a contention which I ask the government to meet; for if it is not met to my Satisfaction I shall have to continue to look upon this as an unworthy and dangerous method of accomplishing that which we all want to accomplish, namely the granting of assistance to underprivileged children, and in a measure which should not be displayed to the people of Canada at the forthcoming election until the question of constitutionality has been settled.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	The hon. member's
recollection of what took place in connection with the committee, and the opinion given by the Department of Justice, is hardly in conformity with what I have been able to ascertain. I had a thorough search made and I find that on May 12, 1925, Mr. W. Raymond, as chairman of a committee of this house, wrote the following letter to Stuart Edwards, Esquire, Deputy Minister of Justice, at Ottawa. This is the letter:
Dear Sir:
Yesterday, in the course of the proceedings of our special committee, which is now inquiring into an old age pension system for Canada, the correspondence between the federal government and the government of British Columbia, which has been referred to the committee by parliament, disclosed what the committee believes to *be a rather peculiar position on the part of British Columbia.

Family Allowances
It is stated therein that the question of establishing an old age pensions system is one wholly pertaining to the federal government. Owing to such decision on the part of the government of British Columbia, I have been requested by resolution of the committee to submit to the Department of Justice the said correspondence, and ask for your information in the matter.


Alan Webster Neill: What year was that?


Richard Burpee Hanson: What was the attitude of British Columbia? Read it again.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	If my hon. friend
will allow me to finish this, I can then table the correspondence which acompanied it, and give the substance of what would be an answer to the hon. member's question.


Alan Webster Neill: What year was it?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It is dated Ottawa, May 12, 1925. The letter continues:
I am therefore sending to you herewith copy of the said correspondence and copy of the report presented to parliament last year. You will find the report at page 4 of the proceedings, and in its sixth paragraph you will find our recommendation as follows: "That the government communicate 'with the various provincial governments to ascertain if they are disposed to adopt the above system and enact the necessary legislation."
Please note the letter of February 5, 1925, of the Minister of Labour for British Columbia; also the resolution passed by the legislature on December 18, 1924; also Hon. Mr. Murdoch's reply thereto of February 17, and Mr. Manson's letter of March 5 in reply to Mr. Murdoch's.
Our committee would be interested in knowing if the contention of British Columbia in this matter is correct. Will you therefore kindly favour our committee with an opinion in respect to the following:
1.	Having regard to the present provisions made by provincial legislation whereby the provinces aid in the care and maintenance of the aged poor, the insane and the afflicted, in cooperation with the municipalities, can the federal government lawfully enact legislation in the form of an old age pension system to assist the provinces?


Richard Burpee Hanson: To assist the provinces.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	Yes. The letter
continues:
2.	If not, is the question of the care and maintenance of aged indigents by pension or other form of aid wholly within the purview of provincial governments and municipalities and ultra vires of the federal government in view of the recent decisions re the Lemieux Act and the Grain Act?
3.	Is the statement made by the government of British Columbia correct, namely, that the matter of old age pensions for indigents is one entirely in the sphere of the federal government?
An early reply to the foregoing would be appreciated by the committee of which I have the honour to be the chairman.
And this is signed by W. Raymond. I wonder if hon. members in the committee would like to hear the enclosures before I read the answer, or if it would be sufficient to table the enclosures, the substance of which is stated in the letter?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Read Mr. Edwards' letter.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Very well. I shall read immediately Mr. Edwards' letter addressed to Mr. Raymond and dated at Ottawa May 23, 1925. It is as follows:
Dear Sir:
Referring to your letter of the 12th instant, asking to be advised with regard to the authority of parliament to legislate on the subject of old age pensions, I may say that this subject does not fall specifically within any of the enumerated subjects given to the dominion under section 91 of the British North America Act, but does in my judgment fall within the subject "property and civil rights in the province" committed to the provinces under section 92. I am of opinion therefore that the subject matter of pensions has been entrusted to the provincial legislatures rather than to parliament. I do not mean to suggest that parliament has not the power to legislate upon the subject so as to assist the provinces or to establish an independent voluntary scheme, provided that in either case the legislation does not trench upon the subject matter 'of property and civil rights in the provinces, as for example by obligating any province or person to contribute to the scheme.
The enactment of such legislation would, however, involve the assumption by the dominion of obligations involving heavy expenditures with regard to a matter which does not fall specifically within the dominion field of legislation.
This letter is signed by W. Stuart Edwards. That was in May, 1925.
I had the search continued and brought right down to date. I find that in 1930 an opinion was requested by the Hon. Peter Heenan, then minister of labour, in a letter addressed to the Hon. Ernest Lapointe, then minister of justice. This was during the course of investigation by a committee of the house with respect to the proposal of Mr.' Letellier to set up family allowances. That gentleman was then the member for the constituency of Compton. The letter is from the Minister of Labour and, under date of Ottawa, January 16, 1930, is as follows:-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Letellier was a supporter of the Liberal administration.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yres. The letter states:
My dear Colleague:
You will recall that at the last session of parliament Mr. Letellier (Compton) moved a resolution proposing that the subject of family allowance should be referred to the committee on industrial and international relations for
Family Allowances

examination and report. This resolution passed and the report of the committee was adopted on June 6, submitting the evidence of various witnesses on the subject and recommending that:
"(a) As this proposal is new in Canada, and requires more careful consideration, no immediate action shall be taken; and
(b)	that before the next session of parliament the question of jurisdiction in matters of this nature as between the dominion and the provinces be considered by the government;
(c)	that 500 copies in English and 500 copies in French of this report and evidence be printed in blue book form and that standing order No. 64 be suspended in relation thereto."
In ease the matter might otherwise escape your attention, I thought it well to direct your notice to the paragraph marked "b" in these recommendations.
Yours very truly,
Peter Heenan.
Honourable Ernest Lapointe, K.C., M.P., Minister of Justice,
Ottawa.
The answer from the deputy minister to Mr. Heenan is dated April 23, 1930, and reads:
Dear Mr. Heenan:
I have the honour to refer to your letter of the 16th January last addressed to the Honourable the Minister of Justice calling attention to the report which was made on the 31st May, 1929. by the select standing committee on industrial and international relations (pursuant to resolution of the House of Commons dated 13th February, 1929) and adopted by the nouse on the 6th June, 1929, upon the question of granting family allowances. The house having approved of the committee's recommendation set out in paragraph (b) of the report "that before the next session of parliament the question of jurisdiction in matters of this nature as between the dominion and the (provinces be considered by the government," I have, accordingly, considered the question and now desire to submit my opinion of it.
2.	The order of reference required the committee merely to inquire into and report upon "the question of granting family allowances." It was not, accordingly, called upon to consider, and did not consider, any particular system of family allowances but simply received and reported the evidence upon the general subject of the various witnesses who appeared before it. In the circumstances, it is necessary to consider the question of legislative jurisdiction in relation to this subject, as between the dominion and the provinces, with reference to the various systems of family allowances which have been adopted in other countries.
3.	While there is considerable diversity in the organization and extent of family allowance systems in different countries, the family allowance may be described generally as a periodical payment to the worker, over and above his ordinary wages, in respect of his family rather than of the work done. It represents an attempt to apply the social principle of "payment according to need" to a certain extent as a corrective of the tendency of ordinary economic laws to favour the principle of "equal pay for equal work", without regard to the family obligation of married, as distinguished from unmarried, workers.
4.	Broadly, the various systems of family allowances fall into three categories, viz., (1) voluntary schemes established in industries either (a) on the initiative of the employers alone or (b) by collective agreements between employers' and workers' organizations; (2) voluntary schemes under which the state pays family allowances -and bears the whole cost from its ordinary revenues; and (3) compulsory schemes established by law.
5.	In the ease of voluntary schemes of the
first class mentioned above, a common fund is usually instituted by a group of employers and from it allowances are paid at uniform rates and on uniform conditions to all workers with dependent children employed in any of the undertakings attached to the fund.	As
the establishment of such schemes does not depend on legislative action, no question of legislative jurisdiction arises in relation to them.
6.	In the case of a voluntary system of the second class mentioned above, legislative action is, of course, required, but, again, the scheme being voluntary, no question of legislative jurisdiction, as between the dominion and the provinces, arises, each being fully competent to appropriate from its revenues such moneys as it might deem proper for the purpose of paying such allowances and to determine the conditions on which any moneys so appropriated should 'be expended.
7.	In the case of a compulsory system established by law, the allowances are provided out of contributions exacted from employers under regulations sanctioned by the law-making authority. Such laws may apply to particular industries, or even to parts of an industry, or they may, on the other hand, provide for a general scheme applicable to all industries in the state. The imposition upon the employers concerned of an obligation to make contributions to a common fund out of which family allowances should be paid and the definition of conditions under which the employees concerned would be entitled to receive allowances would be essential features of any compulsory system moulded upon the lines of the compulsory systems which have been established elsewhere. It is, therefore, clear that legislation providing for the establishment of a compulsory system of family allowances would be directly concerned with the civil rights of both the employers and the employees affected by it. Legislative jurisdiction with relation to the subject matter is, consequently, vested primarily in the provincial legislatures under the powers conferred by section 92 of the British North America Act, 1867, in relation to either or both of the enumerated heads "Property and civil rights in the province" (head No. 13), and "Generally all matters of a merely local or private nature in the province" (head No. 16).
I am, accordingly, of the opinion that the provincial legislatures are exclusively competent to set up a compulsory system of granting family allowances, subject to the following qualifications, viz:
'	(1) With regard to commercial or industrial
enterprises or undertakings which are subject to the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the dominion parliament, it would, no doubt, be within the competence of the dominion parliament to establish a compulsory system of family allowances for the benefit of persons employed in such enterprises or undertakings by way of legislation which might be regarded as truly ancillary or necessarily incidental to the exercise of the dominion's exclusive legislative authority

Family Allowances
m relation to them, but until parliament so legislated the primary authority of the provincial legislatures in relation to the subject matter would remain unimpaired and unrestricted.
(2)	The parliament of Canada has exclusive legislative jurisdiction to provide for the establishment of any compulsory system of family allowances in favour of the officers, servants or employees of the dominion; and
(3)	The parliament of Canada possesses exclusive legislative authority to establish any such system for the benefit of employees employed m those parts of Canada which are not within the boundaries of a province.
Yours faithfully,
W. Stuart Edwards.
Deputy Minister of Justice.
Those are the only opinions on the subject matter that it has been possible to find of record in the department since 1924.
, Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury): And there is no legal decision.


Mr.   S@: There is no decision of the courts.


Mr. GRAA DON :: If that point of law were to be accepted as the minister has suggested " to-day, then that still leaves unanswered the question asked by the hon. member for Yale. His point was that if a person happens to be seventy years of age, you cannot do anything for him without doing it through the province, but if some one is ten years of age you can do it without the consent of the province. I think that leaves the whole matter completely in the air. If my hon. friend's contention about the law is correct, then there does not seem to be any reason why the dominion parliament is not perfectly competent to deal with old age pensions without reference to the jorovinces at all.
Mr. ST. LAURENT :(As appears from the first opinion I read, the Department of Justice said in 1925 in unequivocal terms that if it were to be a voluntary system of old age pensions to be provided out of the revenues of the Dominion of Canada, there could be no constitutional objection to its being done,


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think it says that at all.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I will read it again:
I do not mean to suggest that parliament has not the power to legislate upon the subject so as to assist the provinces or to establish an independent voluntary scheme, provided that in either case the legislation does not trench upon . e subject matter of property and civil rights in the provinces, for example by obligating any province or person to contribute to the scheme.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It was on the basis of that opinion that the federal government had to decide not to have a
national scheme. ^There was no doubt about that in my mind, f I wonder if the Minister ol Justice has considered the judgment in the appeal case of 1937 that was cited here the other day by the hon. member for Lake Centre, in which Lord Atkin indicated very clearly that while there was no question about the federal authority having complete jurisdiction to raise money for any specific purposes by any form of 'taxation whatever, direct or indirect, it was quite another question whether the federal authority had the right to apply these moneys in a jurisdiction or field of human endeavour which was, by the terms of section 92, exclusively within the jurisdiction of the province! I do submit that there is nothing in Mr. Stuart Edwards' letter to Mr. Raymond in 1925 that indicated affirmatively that he was of the opinion that the federal authority could set up a national system. All he did say was that he did not want any inference to be drawn to that effect in the course of his giving that opinion, and never affirmatively did he say that in his opinion the federal authority had the right not only to tax but also to spend independently of the province. That was clearly indicated by the hon. member for Yale in the comparison he gave with respect to the failure to grant a pension to a man of seventy because of constitutional difficulties. And now we are giving it to a lad of ten without regard to constitutional difficulties at all.
The constitutional position is not clear; there is no doubt about that, and it ought to be made clear. I believe that the government should take steps to ascertain in the proper way just what the constitutional position is-give the whole story to the courts and let them decide so that the public mind will be reassured one way or the other. That, I think, is the proper course to pursue. That is the course that was urged by gentlemen opposite when they sat here with respect to the very democratic measures brought in by the government after 1930. That is the course that I think the people of Canada will expect this government to pursue, inasmuch as there is, at least in the minds of those who have given some study to the matter, the gravest doubt as to the constitutional authority for the government to set up a national scheme, and that doubt is based, I might say, upon the doubt that existed in the minds of my right hon. friend and his legal advisers when they set up an old age pension system as a contributory system and not as a national system.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am not sure whether the hon. gentleman was here on Tuesday last when I cited the opinion of Lord Atkin in the case to which the hon. gentleman has referred, and which was also cited by the hon. member
Family Allowances

for Lake Centre the following day. If the hon. gentleman will look at page 5350 and following of Hansard of Tuesday, July 25, he will find that I discussed the matter there quite fully. The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Davis of the supreme court had held that the legislation being considered was in pith and substance taxation and outside the federal authority, but the majority in the supreme court held that though it did provide for the imposition of taxation and provide for the disposal of property, nevertheless in pith and substance it was legislation to insert conditions in contracts of employment between employers and employees and that in that aspect it was an invasion of provincial jurisdiction.
I also cited on Tuesday-Hansard, page 5351-the language of Mr. Justice Kerwin in which he stated:
As to the latter point, it is evident that the dominion may grant sums of money to individuals or organizations and that the gilt may be accompanied by such restrictions and conditions as parliament may see fit to enact. It would then be open to the proposed recipient to decline the gift or to accept it subject to such conditions.
But the supreme court, Mr. Justice Kerwin ind three of his colleagues, found that that was not what the legislation did. The legislation purported to impose obligations as a consequence of a contract of employment and because it purported to do that it was an .nvasion of provincial jurisdiction. It was in dealing with that judgment and in confirming the judgment of the majority of the supreme court that my lord Atkin said:
That the dominion may impose taxation for the purpose of creating a fund for special purposes and may apply that fund for making contributions in the public interest to individuals, corporations or public authorities could not as a general proposition be denied.
But because that could not as a general proposition be denied, it could not be used as a cloak to do something which involved an invasion of the field of provincial jurisdiction.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It was not
a parallel case then.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It was not a parallel case because there it was found that the legislation invaded provincial jurisdiction inasmuch as it attached obligations to a contract of employment and created rights within the contract of employment, whilst it was fully recognized that if parliament meVely created a fund and applied it for making contributions in the public interest to individuals, corporations or public authorities, that as a

general proposition was something which was quite within its jurisdiction. His lordship went on to say:
But assuming that the dominion has collected by means of taxation a fund, it by no means follows that any legislation which disposes of it is necessarily within dominion competence.
Having created this fund and purporting to apply it in a certain way there is a further fact to be ascertained: Are you doing that as a cloak for the invasion of provincial jurisdiction by dealing with property and civil rights within the province? As to that I must say that there has been no case in which it has been challenged or affirmed or disaffirmed or disallowed-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Or even
raised.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: -or even raised. What was raised was that under the pretence of doing that thing, parliament was endeavouring to legislate in respect of the consequences of a contract of employment.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In other words, parliament was attempting to do indirectly what [DOT] it could not do directly ?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes. As to the measures that have been adopted up to this time, and the comparison between them and the measure before the house, "I do not propose to express any opinion. Parliament at one time, when the provinces were asserting that it was their responsibility and their obligation to look after the aged, refused to recognize that it was its obligation. The resolution of the British Columbia legislature had been to the effect, that such was its obligation. The resolution was one adopted on December 18, 1924. Because of the importance of the question it might be as well to have this resolution on Hansard, as the background of the situation upon which Mi. Edwards was then basing his opinion. It was in the following terms:
Whereas it is the announced policy of^ the federal Liberal party in Canada that an adequate system of insurance against dependence in old age be provided in so far as practical and having regard to Canada's financial position ;
And whereas it is accepted as between the dominion and the provincial government that the dominion has jurisdiction in respect of questions having to do with health insurance, unemployment and old age pensions, and the province in respect of such other social legislation as may be in the public interest;
And whereas the government of the province of British Columbia passed the Mothers' Pensiqn Act in the year 1920, and has since been administering it at a cost of approximately five hundred thousand dollars per annum;

Family Allowances
And whereas state responsibility in the matter of the proper maintenance of aged citizens has been recognized by Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and a number of the nations of the continent of Europe;
Therefore be it resolved that this house puts itself on record as approving the principle of old age pensions and as being favourable to the enactment of legislation by the dominion government bringing the same into effect in Canada at an early date.
And be it further resolved that an humble address be presented to his honour the lieutenant governor praying that he will cause to be conveyed to the Secretary of State for Canada the foregoing preamble and resolutions.
That was forwarded to the Secretary of State for Canada by the minister for labour of British Columbia, Hon. A. M. Manson:
Ministry of Labour,
Victoria,
February 5, 1925. Honourable James Murdock,
Minister of Labour,
Ottawa.
Be: Old Age Pensions
Dear Sir:
Referring to your letter of the 28th of October last, I beg to say that the report of the special committee of the House of Commons which inquired into this matter has been carefully considered by the government and also by the provincial legislature at its last session, and the consensus of opinion is that the matter of old age pensions is one entirely in the sphere of the federal parliament, and this government does not concur in the suggestion made by the committee that a portion of the cost of such pensions be borne by the provincial crown.
A copy of the resolution unanimously approved by the provincial legislature at its last session m this connection is enclosed herewith for the information of yourself and your colleagues.
To that there was a rather long reply by Hon. James Murdock, the minister of labour, and a further rejoinder by Mr. Manson. I do not know that I should take up the time of the committee to read those further communications. They will be available to any hon. gentleman who may be interested in going further into the matter.


Gordon Graydon: They are to be tabled, I suppose?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I shall be glad to table them if I have leave of the committee to do so. I will table the whole correspondence ai;d the material attached to it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Perhaps I can boil the discussion down, in my own mind at least, to a very narrow compass. In recent years the test of the constitutionality of legislation of either the provinces or the dominion government has been this; what is its pith and substance? That was not always the test which was applied by the privy council. I am reminded of a judgment given by
Lord Haldane at one time when, I think, he was Lord Chancellor, in which another test was applied as being fundamental. But in the trend of judicial opinion in recent years, and especially on the so-called "new deal" legislation of 1935, the privy council repudiated the power of parliament to pass certain legislation under the treaty-making provisions of the statute because in substance the legislation was not. an exercise of the treaty-making power but was in pith and substance something within the purview of the provincial legislatures, and on that ground they ruled out certain of the legislation. The Minister of Justice argued most manfully against that proposal in 1937-just as manfully as he has argued the same position in this connection on Tuesday last; unsuccessfully in the court and, I should hope, unsuccessfully here. But that is beside the point. The test of this legislation is, not that this legislation is the setting up of a system of taxation to do a certain thing- because this bill is silent as to the system of taxation that is to be set up; the moneys are to be found from the consolidated revenue fund, under other legislation already established-the test is the destination of the fund. The inferences of Lord Atkin's decision are just the reverse of those which the Minister of Justice would have you take, because in the quotation from the judgment which is found on page 5351 of Hansard, he says:
But assuming that the dominion lias collected by means of taxation a fund, it by no means follows that any legislation which disposes of it is necessarily within dominion competence.
So that we are left exactly where we were when we come to consider what is the pith and substance of this legislation, and my submission is that there is a fair inference-it does not do to be dogmatic on these things-there is a fair ground for saying that this is a matter of property and civil rights and therefore within the jurisdiction of the provinces, and the matter should be referred to the courts for settlement.


John George Diefenbaker: There are few references which I intend to make in answer to the argument that has just been advanced by the minister. In reading over his opinion given in this chamber on July 25 last, it appears to me that the minister himself is not or was not then as certain as to the constitutionality of this measure as he appears to be to-day. As reported at page 5351 of Hansard, he used these words, after referring to the 1937 case between the attorney general of Canada and the provinces:
_ If the legislation which disposes of the fund is in reality legislation regulating matters which are within provincial control, then the object

Family Allowances

cover circumstances such as the present. And what is more, the former distinguished minister of justice, the late Mr. Lapointe, speaking in the house on the 5th of April, 1937, used these words, as they appear at page 2597 of Hansard:
The government of my hon. friend did not wait for parties to institute action. They took the proper steps to refer those two acts to. the Supreme Court of Canada.
IJe was referring to the aeronautics act and the radio act.
The suggestion that we raised a smokescreen should arouse in us the same feeling of antagonism as that shown by the Prime Minister on the suggestion that this measure was attempted bribery. The suggestion that it was a smoke-screen means that we were endeavouring to do something indirectly that we did not wish to do directly. A similar argument was raised in 1935, and I intend to place on Hansard the statements made with regard thereto by the Prime Minister. At pages 32 and 33 of Hansard of January 21, 1935, the right hon. gentleman used these words:
On occasions in the past the Prime Minister has criticized me and hon. gentlemen on this side for having taken up a considerable amount of the time of the house in discussing constitutional questions. May I say that we have done so because we have looked upon the constitution of our country as the safeguard of its liberties and as the home of its freedom.
Then a little later on he said:
When I have seen steps taken which I have believed were gradually dismantling the constitution, gradually destroying the home of the freedom and liberties of the people, I have opposed them just as strongly as I possibly could, and I shall continue to do so no matter by what name measures of the kind may be designated. I shall continue to look with a great deal of care, not upon the alleged but upon the real purpose lying back of each and every measure as disclosed 'by some of its provisions.
I suggest to the Prime Minister that if he thought in 1935 and in 1931 that a hundred per cent system of federal old age pensions, could not be brought into effect without an amendment to the British North America Act, and if as he suggested to the. government of Mr. Bennett that an amendment to the British North America Act should be secured at one and the same time to cover both unemployment insurance and old age pensions, why- in 1940, when he secured the passage in this house of an amendment to the British North America Act to enable the bringing into effect of unemployment insurance, did he not carry out the admonition that he gave to the Bennett government in 1935?

Then lie goes on to say, as appears at pages 55 and 56 of Hansard of January 21, 1935:
As a means of expediting and hastening the
consideration of these matters, 1 would ask the Prime Minister when he gets up to speak this evening, as I hope he will, to tell this house whether as leader of the government, knowing that a question will come up immediately as to the jurisdiction of this parliament and of the provincial legislatures in matters of social legislation, he has secured an opinion from the law officers of the crown or from the Supreme Court of Canada which will be a sufficient guarantee to this 'house to proceed with these measures as being without question within its jurisdiction.
I want to make it perfectly clear that I do not feel that a matter of jurisdiction should be allowed in the last analysis to stand m the way of anything in the nature of a national reform that may be generally recognized as necessary and urgent. If it be found that jurisdiction does interfere, that it is an obstacle, then I think the proper step should be taken to see that the British North America Act is so amended as to make possible the enactment ot such legislation. In taking any step of this kind I think we should remember that perhaps the most serious subject with which parliament at any time can be called upon to deal is one which raises a question of the relationship between this dominion and the provinces, and in all such matters we must consider very carefully the views the provinces may hold in regard to what are their rights and the views which this dominion may hold in regard to what are its rights. For my part I believe that through conference and good will it will be possible to obtain by reason and consent-though not by coercion

whatever is needed by way of amendment to the British North America Act.
For weeks we have been expecting the convening of a dominion-provincial conference but for some reason it has been postponed, postponed, postponed. Only in thc^ last few days we find that the hope many people had that Canada was to have a national health scheme is gone with the wind until after the conference. A house committee has been sitting for a period of almost two years on the matter; yet it is necessary that the question of the competence of parliament to institute health insurance is to be submitted to such a conference. Why not this legislation? Why were not the provinces consulted? Why rush this measure, in the dying days of the session?
Some outside the house may criticize the length of discussions which take place in this chamber, particularly in view of the fact that we have been sitting here for a matter of six or seven months. I have no apologies to offer to those who take that stand. In the last days of a session we are being asked to make provision for the expenditure of hundreds _ of millions of dollars, arising from new legislation which, because many hon. members wash to go home-fatigued, after a very long session-

Family Allowances
cannot begin to receive the consideration it should receive. Much legislation is brought in as skeleton legislation, and none of us feels he ought to discuss it at too great length because many people consider that the house has been sitting long enough. But as members of parliament we have a responsibility to the people, that of assuring them that this proposed legislation must receive as careful examination as the exigencies of the moment will permit.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Why did you vote for it?


John George Diefenbaker: And one thing
more: in 1935 the Prime Minister moved an amendment indicating how he felt on this subject of social legislation of the type then introduced. This was the amendment :
That this act shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation of the governor in council, after the question of its validity has been submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada on reference by the government, and the act has been declared to be intra vires of the parliament of Canada.
No such amendment is needed in this case. The date the act is to come into effect is so far removed that the government can ascertain long before July 1 of next year the competence of this parliament to enact the legislation.
Why, then, is the government so anxious not to face up to this issue? Is it because there is any doubt? Is it because of the fear that if this bill is submitted to the courts it will be declared beyond the powers of parliament, and it will be declared that it infringes upon ''property and civil rights" with regard to child welfare or child control, both matters of provincial jurisdiction?
Just in that connection let me mention that the Sirois commission, referring to the general question of social legislation, and particularly to widow's' pensions, mothers' allowances and child welfare in general, used these words:
These services are, wre think, of peculiar interest to the province, since they involve questions of social policy with respect to the preservation of the family unit, and the care and upbringing of children.
That is what this legislation is for, in part- the preservation of the family unit in Canada, and to assure the proper care and upbringing of children. That is indicated in section 5 of the bill where provision is made that unless the money is properly used it shall be turned over to a guardian, who shall have the disposition thereof. To appoint a guardian to collect payments for the children would, I submit, be an interference with the matter
of child welfare and the right of guardianship, which is strictly within the power of the provinces.
Then, to continue the quotation from the Sirois report:
Moreover their administration involves detailed supervision which in many cases must be highly personal and discretionary in character.
On both grounds therefore we think that they are primarily provincial services.
The first ground is that they have to do \ with the preservation of the family unit, and the second ground is that they involve detailed powers of supervision. And on both those grounds the Sirois commission decided that these were matters of purely provincial Services.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Richard Burpee Hanson: That is the inference.


John George Diefenbaker: They are primarily provincial services.


Brooke Claxton: That was not the opinion, if I may correct my hon. friend.


Richard Burpee Hanson: One can blow hot and cold on these things, I know.


John George Diefenbaker: I am trying to follow my argument through. And may I say this for the Prime Minister, that when one reads an extract he never misses even a word. The Prime Minister follows the argument closely, and I appreciate that. These are the words I read: "We think that they are primarily provincial services."
Since the days of Elizabeth, down to the present time, under the old poor laws, and on through the reform laws of the 1830's down to the present time, matters dealing with the poor and the afflicted and with children were left either with the municipality, as the Prime Minister has said, or in Canada in the provincial arena, because these matters Were primarily concerned with local issues and local supervision.
Now as to legal opinions one can get various opinions in respect of all legislation. One lawyer disagrees with another; someone has said we would not have courts if that were not so. But this bill involves the greatest single expenditure ever made in any part of
Family Allowances

the empire in connection with one phase of social welfare. I think it was the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister who said the other day that there were systems of family allowances in thirty-live countries. There are in effect family allowances in about thirty-two	countries-allowances that are
purely local in effect, employer-employee schemes, and the like. But the only ones that I have been able to find that bear any similarity to this are those in effect in Australia and New Zealand, and in neither case does the legislation go as far as this. If this legislation is to be effective, it must be within the jurisdiction of parliament; if it is not within the jurisdiction of parliament and is to be'made effective, it will have to be as a result of collaboration with the provinces or amendment to the British North America Act.
The dominion-provincial conference in 1940 fell through; that conference out of which so much good was hoped1 for ended in disorder. Allow me to say that the man who endeavoured to uphold the Prime Minister in connection with the reallocation of the powers as between the dominion and1 the provinces, the man who endeavoured to make our constitution work having regard to changing conditions since 1867, was the Hon. John Bracken, now the leader of this party. The ones who destroyed the possibility of the success of that conference, which would have meant so much to Canada, were not of the opposition; they were the poltical friends of the Prime Minister.


John Horne Blackmore: Do not forget Mr. Aberhart; all honour to him.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I believe some of this discussion is a little out of order at the moment.


John George Diefenbaker: We believe in the necessity of social legislation being brought in in keeping with changing conditions and the changing world, but legislation without power is meaningless and will be destructive of the morale of this country.


Humphrey Mitchell: Why did you vote for it?


Gordon Graydon: How would it get to the courts if we did not?


John George Diefenbaker: I would like to say to the Minister of Labour that in 1935, if I remember correctly, he along with all those who sat with him voted for legislation which was unconstitutional.


Humphrey Mitchell: I voted for it because I believed in it.


John George Diefenbaker: You voted for it believing it was constitutional. You followed the leadership of the Prime Minister in doing so because you did not want to be placed in the position of opposing social legislation by raising the constitutional issue. The hon. member asks why we voted for it. Let me say to him that-


Humphrey Mitchell: Why did you vote for it after your leader said it was bribery?


John George Diefenbaker: Let me say this to the Minister of Labour: I watched him the other day when we took our stand on this matter and it looked to me as though he was rather disappointed. He thought that advancing the argument of unconstitutionality as we had, we would1 vote against the measure. Then when the election came' along we would be placed in the position all over this country having opposed social change. The government will fight the next election on the basis of its record; it will not fight it on the basis of this party being opposed to social legislation. If in 1815 Napoleon had been able to designate his own battlefield, things might have been different, but Wellington picked the field. We do not intend to have the Prime Minister fix the situs of the battlefield in the next election. The record of the government and nothing else will be the battlefield.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: And little Napoleon will get his Waterloo.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I ask that the discussion be kept within the confines of the matter before the committee. We are in committee on this particular bill.


John George Diefenbaker: I am following the line taken by the Prime Minister in 1935. We believe in social legislation. We believe in ensuring relief for all individuals as against poverty, invalidism and security. We believe in freedom from fear and freedom from want. No political party has a monopoly in that direction. But we do say that as we make advances, let us advance with legislation that is constitutional. There can be no excuse for the government's failing to do what the Prime Minister pressed upon the government of Mr. Bennett to do in 1935, that is, determine whether this legislation is within the law. We have supported the legislation as he did in 1935.
I have not heard any answer yet from the Minister of Justice as to why this should not be done. Some one suggested that it would take two years. Oh, no. The whole matter can be determined by a simple sub-

Family Allowances
mission, to the supreme court, and it could. be heard in the October or November sittings.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has just saidi that I was good enough to follow him very closely when he was speaking and observe the points he brought to the fore. I did notice that he read from a question which I asked the prime minister of the day, Mr. Bennett, as to whether he had had an opinion from the Department of Justice which would bear out the constitutionality of the legislation he was introducing. My hon. friend did not tell us that Mr. Bennett had received any such opinion from the Department of Justice. Has he the opinion that the Department of Justice gave? If he has, I should be very glad to know what it is.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the Prime Minister say that he never had an opinion?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I asked that question and I did not get an answer from Mr. Bennett, and I do not think my hon. friend has an answer or he would have given it to the committee before this. My hon. friend has referred to requests that have been made that legislation should or should not be referred to the supreme court. As I said the other day, in the case of the legislation that Mr. Bennett introduced, it was obviously ultra vires for reasons that have been repeated over and over again this afternoon. Believing that it was obviously ultra vires I used the metaphor that the people were looking for bread and might receive a stone if that question were not settled in advance. I was proved to be right; the supreme court declared the legislation to be ultra vires.


John George Diefenbaker: Not with four of the bills.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am speaking the truth. The legislation that was of concern was declared to be ultra vires and I spared the country the disappointment of expecting to get something in the nature of bread and receiving only disappointment in return.. The situation is quite different in the present case. There is no doubt in the world about the constitutionality of this legislation. Moreover, the present government, before introducing the legislation was careful to have an opinion from the law officers of the crown to the effect that it was intra vires of this parliament. That opinion was read this afternoon by the Minister of Justice. It shows conclusively that it is unnecessary to refer the legislation to the supreme court to determine the jurisdiction of this parliament.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I apologize for rising
again to take part in this debate, but I assure you that I am not going to make my contribution'-anything of the dimensions of a "Gone with the Wind" to which the hon. member for Lake Centre referred. In his remarks he put some specific questions to me which I think I should not allow to go unanswered. His first question was whether I would venture an opinion on the validity of clause 5 of the bill; whether or not that would constitute an invasion of provincial rights in providing for the setting up of some guardian for an infant. ^That is not my opinion. In my view this is merely attaching conditions to the giving of a grant, just as conditions are attached to the payment of dependents' allowances to the wives and children of the gallant men who are serving the country in the armed forces. It will not involve in practice any more difficulties than have been involved in the precautions that have been taken to see that the allowances provided by a grateful country for the maintenance of the wives and other dependents of the gallant men who are fighting its battles are properly applied.


John George Diefenbaker: Is not that under the War Measures Act?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That is under the regulations made for the purpose of providing properly for these dependents. It is possible that it could be argued that even if such provisions were otherwise unconstitutional in normal times they -would be justified by a state of war. I would not disagree with my hon: friend there. But they are within the principle that if you do not impose obligations you can at least attach conditions, and if the conditions are not complied with, your grant is not paid.
The next question was whether or not I would venture to say that parliament could provide for the establishment of a tribunal to determine such disputes as might arise in carrying out the act. I am sure that the hon. member for Lake Centre momentarily overlooked section 101 of the British North America Act, which provides:
The parliament of Canada may, notwithstanding anything in this act, from time to time, provide for the constitution, maintenance and organization of a general court of appeal for Canada, and for the establishment of any additional courts for the better administration of the laws of Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: I had not overlooked that. It has nothing to do with this.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If he had not overlooked it I must confess that I do not see the
Family Allowances

force of his argument. This is a general provision which authorizes. the parliament of Canada to establish from time to time, and at any time, other courts for the better administration of the laws of Canada. The measure before us is designed to be a law of Canada, and the tribunal it provides for is a tribunal established by the parliament of Canada for the better administration of that law.
The third point that the hon. member suggested was that what I had argued here on Tuesday last was exactly what I had unsuccessfully argued in 1937 before the privy coun-' oil. If my learned friend will refer to the report he will see that what I argued in 1937 was summed up in the reply which appears at page 362 of the official report and at page 312 of Plaxton's volume "Canadian Constitutional Decisions of Judicial Committee 1930-1939":
St. Laurent K.C. replied. Is this legislation in relation to property and civil rights in the province within the meaning of those words in head 13 of s. 92, or is it in pith and substance legislation in relation to a problem which did not exist when the British North America Act was framed, and which was not specially provided for in any of the enumerated heads of ss. 91 and 92? It is submitted that it is the latter, and therefore a matter with respect to which legislative jurisdiction must be found in one or other of the residuary classes of ss. 91 and 92.
What I argued was that of course it interfered with property and civil rights because it attached obligations and consequences to a contract of employment, but that in its principal aspect it was not legislation dealing with property and civil rights in their ordinary meaning but legislation dealing with a problem which had arisen since confederation; and the reason that argument was being submitted was that in two previous cases their lordships had been impressed with the fact that because you could show them a machine that did not exist in 1867, that was something new. In radio and aeronautics we had some machines that were the instruments of the services, and they had to recognize that those machines and the use that was made of them was something with which the British North America Act in 1867 did not deal and had not placed within any of the heads of section 92; and if that was the case, in view of the fact that all the residuary power was in the dominion, then the matter had to be one of federal jurisdiction. But when we come to deal with an unemployment situation resulting from the setting up and then the breaking down of an economic system extending across Canada from one ocean to another, that was not something new that you could put before their physical eyes, and I was trying to convince their lordships that though that was not a new physical thing, 
[DOT]the situation was no less a new one; that the social system which had come into being since 1867 and which had broken down in 1929 was something that had nothing like it in existence when the British North America Act was enacted, and that the responsibility for dealing with it rested upon those who had the controls by means of which that social system had been erected and under which it operated. But I could not make them agree to that. There were no physical machines that you could put before their eyes. It was just a concept of the mind, but it was as one that was recognized by those in our country who knew the conditions which had arisen and developed and who saw what the situation was, and which only they could properly see. But though their lordships held that the legislation was invalid, they so held because we had to concede that it was an invasion of property and civil rights in some of its aspects. But where is the hon. member of this house who will rise in his place and say that there is anything in this legislation which invades any jurisdiction given to the provinces?
There is just one more point, and that is as to the time required for a reference. The social legislation cases were dealt with with as great dispatch as it was possible to use, but it was not until the spring of 1937 that it was possible to get a decision. The hon. member suggests that this measure be referred to the supreme court, to be dealt with in October. The finality of such a decision still depends on what parliament may do and may have the right to do in the future. But at the present time there is the right of appeal in these cases to His Majesty's privy council, and no judgment of the supreme court would settle anything. If we once asserted to the Canadian people that there was doubt enough about the validity of this legislation to require the intervention of the courts, no one would be satisfied with anything less than a judgment of the court of last resort. If the supreme court held that the legislation was valid, that would not prevent anyone from subsequently challenging its validity and going over from the supreme court to the privy council, and the fact that the supreme court had held that it was valid would be no obstacle to the privy council deciding otherwise if it felt that there were reasons for so doing. So that the only way in which a judicial decision worth anything at all could be obtained would be to get a decision ftom a court that does not reverse itself, and one that constitutes a decision that no other court could reverse; the only way in which you can do that is to get a decision from. the court of last resort. Without that kind of judicial reference, a deci-

Family Allowances
sion would be absolutely worthless. To get that kind of judicial reference would require, if not two years, nigh on to two years.
I do not think there is anything I need add.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: It is significant that hon. members who belong to the legal profession differ on the question of the constitutionality of this measure. I believe these differences are honest differences. Those on this side of the house who argue that it may be unconstitutional do so with the honest thought that the people of this country should not be led to suppose that by passing this bill we are going to give them, something, if it should foe found later that we have not the power to do so.
I want to deal for a few moments with another consideration, the fact that this bill has come in so late in the session that it does not contain many of the provisions which bills of this kind ordinarily should have. I have seen a great many measures dealing with social legislation brought into provincial and federal parliaments, and it has been my observation that these bills usually deal in great detail with the regulations under the particular act. Here we have a bill which simply sets forth that we are going to pay allowances for children up to sixteen years of age, and the regulations are to be left entirely to a board. Parliament will have nothing to do with them ; they will not be brought before the house so that hon. members can deal with them. I believe this to be a very grave mistake, because conditions in different parts of this country are such as require differing provisions to be made in the various sections. It is true that a board is to be set up and that it is to draw up the regulations. We find, for instance, that they are to pay allowances in respect of children up to the age of sixteen. In many parts of this country a child can leave school at the age of fourteen. I take it that when a child reaches fourteen years of age and starts to work, automatically the allowance will stop.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is sixteen in Ontario.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: It is sixteen in Ontario, but in some provinces it is onlj1' fourteen. I do not know whether all provinces have a compulsory school age.
The other day one hon. member opposite said that we have always viewed social legislation from pretty much the point of view of the industrial centres, and that it had been drawn up chiefly for the benefit of the industrial workers, but that now we are going to give something to the farmer; at least, the farmer is to get something in the nature of social insurance. I take it that under the bill, when an application is made for monev under
this' family allowance scheme it will have to be accompanied with an income tax return, because certainly no one can receive the allowance and also have a reduction in income tax for children. It is a good way of getting the farmers of this country to make income tax returns.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I interrupt my hon. friend? There is nothing in this bill which will make the filing of an income tax return obligatory. Allowances are paid to everyone entitled under the provisions irrespective of whether he makes a return or not.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I quite understand that, but it does refer to the fact that regulations can be and undoubtedly will be set up that, where a man is getting a reduction in income tax because he has some children, naturally he is going to lose one end or the other.; he cannot have his cake and1 eat it. That means that under these regulations hq will have to file an income tax return in order to get this allowance, and all these farmers whom hon. members were appealing for will h^ve this terrible sheet of paper to fill in before they can get this allowance. Then they may find out that they cannot get it, and that this thing which is said to be done for them is not done for them at all, but that they are subject to income tax, although many of them consider that they are not.
I have a case in mind. The man is general superintendent of a farm. He gets $100 a month; he has two children, and1 because he gets only $1,200 a year he says, "I am not subject to income tax; I will not make out an income tax return." The fact of the matter is that the man also gets a free house, free fuel, free milk, free butter, a hog every year, and various other things which go along with this kind of employment; and if these are figured in as the income tax act provides that they must be, that man is subject to income tax. If he makes application under this bill for money for his two children he has to fill in an income tax return. He will find out that he owres income tax; that he should have been paying it, and probably the income tax division will say, "Here, what have you been doing the last eight or ten years, that you have not been paying income tax?"
I think the regrettable part of this legislation is that no definite regulations are set out and that the drafting of them is left to a board; that parliament has nothing to say about them and that they will not be subject to the approval of parliament until they have been enacted.

Family Allowances

We should be careful not to mislead the people of this country into the notion that they are getting something for nothing. I am sceptical of governments which seem to hand out all the good gifts like a Santa Claus just prior to an election, and I believe the people of Canada should watch legislation such as this very carefully before they get the idea that they are going to receive something for which they will not have to pay.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have listened over a period of several days and for a good many hours to a debate on the constitutional question with respect to this measure. We in this group for the most part have sat silent during this phase of the argument. I suppose that one very good reason for our silence is that none of us is a lawyer. But the very fact that I am not a lawyer is the reason why I rise to say a few words on the constitutional question; in the hope of interjecting a humanitarian viewpoint along with the legal viewpoints which have already been advanced on both sides.
I have always understood that there was in English law and similarly in Canadian law an element of growth. I have always understood that although the high court of parliament and the courts of our land might lag a little behind public opinion, there is a tendency on the part of parliament and1 of the courts in due course to catch up with public opinion. I have always understood that decisions rendered by the courts on any constitutional question in one era might be quite different from those given at a later period. It has been argued to-day that twenty years ago there were questions as to the constitutionality of old age pensions legislation had it been established on the basis of direct contributions from the federal treasury to individuals. That may have been the case. The courts, if they had been called upon to render a decision in that matter at that time, might have ruled against the power of the federal parliament to enact that kind of legislation. But although I am not speaking as a lawyer but as an ordinary human being-*


John Ritchie MacNicol: You do not mean that
lawyers are not human beings?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Take it for what it is
worth.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is not worth very much.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -I am quite satisfied that if the courts were called upon to make a decision on that matter to-day they would sustain the right of the federal parliament to enact old age pensions legislation in which the

federal government would pay the entire cost. There may have been in some provinces questions about it twenty years ago but there are no questions to-day. All the provinces are asking the federal government to pay a larger share of old age pensions; in fact, they are asking the federal government to pay the whole cost and they are asking at the same time that the amount be increased. And so it is with the family allowance proposal. We heard some opposition to the measure in this house the first day the bill was called, although when the vote was taken for the second reading and that stage, of the proceedings was finally disposed of, the support for it was unanimous, and we are still hearing argument about its constitutionality. But I have not heard of any provincial premier or the leader of any opposition group in any of the provinces expressing opposition to this measure. There are questions such as we have raised, such as with respect to some, details of the bill, and also making sure that wage standards are not depressed, and so on, but after you have taken care of such matters, I am quite satisfied that the general opinion throughout the country is in favour of the measure.
What I am saying may not be a legalistic opinion, but I imagine it is pretty close to the facts, namely the developmental kind of law that we have in this country, when I state that if this measure were submitted to the courts I am satisfied that the power of the federal parliament to enact it would be endorsed. I have listened very attentively and with great interest to the arguments that have been advanced from both sides of the house on the constitutional question. I have noted that at one moment the Liberals seem to score a point and a moment later the Progressive Conservatives score. They have a great deal of pleasure in quoting each other's arguments as advanced in years gone by. As a matter of fact, that can be done almost on any subject.
I was interested in a study I made a short time ago with regard to the compulsory retirement of judges to find that in 1927 the Liberals, who were then in power, proposed the compulsory retirement of certain judges and advanced certain arguments. The Conservatitves *-I believe they were called Liberal Conservatives at that time-on the opposition side, opposed the measure and advanced their arguments. In 1932 the tables were turned. The Conservatives, whatever their full name was at that time, were on the government side, and they introduced a measure for the compulsory retirement of certain other classes of judges. What arguments did they use? The very

Family Allowances
arguments the Liberals had used in 1927. The Liberals, on the other hand, opposed the measure, advancing the arguments that the Conservatives had used five years before. In fact they quoted each other from Hansard, and even enjoyed the reverse use they were making of their own arguments. What does it prove? Take your guess. As far as I am concerned, it proves that there is not much difference between them. It is simply a matter of which party is in and which is out.
After you have boiled it all down, I suggest in ordinary language that there is something in what I have tried to say, namely, that our law grows and develops, and that the courts, although they may tend to lag behind public opinion, also tend to catch up with it. I feel that the people of Canada are so thoroughly in favour of taking every possible step in the direction of complete social security and are so fully in support of this measure that there is no question that parliament would be vindicated by the courts and its right to enact this bill established. I suggest that we should not waste undue time in discussing constitutional questions. Rather, the humanitarian point of view should prevail.


Brooke Claxton: I want to say a word, since the hon. member for Lake Centre referred to an opinion I gave to the Rowell-Sirois commission. It was a study made for the commission together with the then Mr. L. M. Gouin, now a member of the other house. The parts quoted by my hon. friend from this study are quite accurately quoted. But if hon. members will refer to those parts as quoted by him in his speech the other day they will find that they do not bear out the impression he now wishes to convey by them. After referring to the opinion of Lord Atkin, at page 366 of the report in the employment and insurance reference case, 1937, I say this:
If this is a correct statement of the law, the dominion old age pensions act will be invalid if that act is in itself legislation "affecting the classes of subjects enumerated in section 92", or if the act "is so framed as to invade civil rights within the province or encroach upon the classes of subjects which are reserved to provincial competence."
So that I begin by stating, "If this is a correct statement of the law". I express no opinion myself as to whether it is a correct statement of the law or not. It was my opinion that then, with respect, it was an incorrect statement of the law. I still think so.
But in any event the case to which my hon. friend refers, and which has been so adequately dealt with by the Minister of Justice, the employment and social insurance reference case, is quite distinguishable for the reasons stated by the Minister of Justice. To refer
100-357i
again to this study, the point in issue before the house to-day, raised by members of the Conservative opposition, is dealt with at page 18 of my own study, in which I say:
Since there can be little doubt but that the dominion under its general power to deal with the public debt and property, conferred by section 91 (1), can expend its own money how it wills, even upon provincial objects, it is submitted that all such grants made without special statutory authority are intra vires of the dominion.
And in a footnote I quote Mr. Bennett in support of that assertion, when he said in 1936:
It does not require the parliament of Westminister to pass a statute to confer upon this parliament the jurisdiction to deal with its own revenue.
There you have the whole point in issue between the hon. member for Lake Centre and the Minister of Justice. The point has been admirably stated by the Minister of Justice, and I can only say this: From such reading as I have been able to give the constitutional cases my own view is as stated in this study back in 1938 and it remains the same, namely, that the bill is perfectly constitutional.
Just one word with regard to the question of haste which was also raised by the hon. member. The question of undue haste is always raised by people who really wish to oppose legislation. We always hear, "Why the undue haste?" when any social legislation is put forward. This question was put forward by the Conservative opposition when the unemployment insurance bill was under consideration in 1940. In fact at that time they were on both sides of the question. Speaking on July 16, 1940, as appears at page 1662 of Hansard, the hon. member for Peel said:
While, I confess, I have not had a long experience in public life, one thing which has impressed itself upon me in connection with this particular legislation is the length of time which democracy takes to get needed reforms completed and concluded.
To-day the government is trying to get this badly needed reform concluded and we are asked: Why this haste? That same question was asked by the hon. member for York-Sunbury back in 1941 on July 26, as reported at page 1978 of Hansard:
Mr. Chairman, there seems to be the most indecent haste in getting this measure through parliament.
On the same day at page 1993 of Hansard we had the hon. member for Peel, now the leader of the opposition, saying this:
In my opinion security for our workers, limited though it may be, must not be postponed any longer. On another occasion in the house I have discussed the length of time
Family Allowances

democracies seem to take to bring about much needed reforms, and to bring necessary legislation into operation. I regret that we in Canada have spent so much time talking about unemployment insurance, and that it has taken so long to implement the principle by legislation.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Do you disagree with what I said?


Brooke Claxton: There we have two leading members of the Conservative opposition on the same day taking sides that are opposed to each other.
Then on July 27, 1944, at page 5472 of Hansard, the hon. member for Vancouver South said:
The first step taken by this government was to scuttle the Bennett reform measures; and it was done most effectively. Then, after much prodding, coaxing and pleading, one step was taken toward social security, and that was the passing in 1940 of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
There we have three hon. members at different stages taking views directly in conflict with each other. They differed from each other as to when the Unemployment Insurance Act should be brought in; but to-day they not only differ from each other but they differ from themselves as an entire party. Just last week we had a vote of the whole party present in the house unanimously supporting this legislation, and now they say we should not proceed with it because it is unconstitutional.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And they differed from their leader, John Bracken.


Brooke Claxton: With regard to this question of time, surely hon. members must appreciate that if the Minister of Justice says that a submission to the courts would take two years, that is not the end of the delay required to bring into effect legislation of this kind. After the case was decided the legislation would1 still have to be brought into effect and the administrative machinery and the machinery for cooperation with the provinces would still have to be set up. It is not only two years' delay that the hon. members of the opposition are pleading for to-day; it would mean three or more years' delay. I submit that the people of Canada do not want to see that kind of delay in this legislation.


Gordon Graydon: May I just make one suggestion. The hon. member speaks of delay. I think I made clear in my speech on second reading of this bill that what this party was anxious for was that social reform with respect to the children of Canada should have a very minimum of delay, because of the experience which my right hon. friend across the way had with respect to unemployment

insurance where, as he pointed out, it was found to be unconstitutional by the courts and it took not two years as the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George now says would be the delay, but from 1935, to July, 1941, before that legislation operated to help the working people of Canada. It was because of that tremendous delay, owing to the experience of the past, that I felt we would make much more time and that we would get relief to the children of Canada much more quickly if we enacted a workable, constitutional measure rather than one that was afterwards found not workable by the courts. I made it very clear, I think, that an act that will not stand up before the courts of Canada is worse than no act at all, and I wish to leave that impression on my hon. friends.
The hon. member for Essex East made some facetious reference, perhaps, with respect to-


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, very serious.


Gordon Graydon: If it was that, it is all the worse for my hon. friend. In any event he made some statement about some division between the national leader of our party and the party in the house. May I say this. I think I made it very' clear at the time of the vote that there was no division between the national leader of this party and the group in the house, because actually it was a decision made jointly and a decision to which this party and Mr. Bracken subscribe.


John Horne Blackmore: The hon. member for Lake Centre seems to take a certain amount of credit to Mr. Bracken, the leader of the Progressive Conservative party, by reason of the fact that he alone was a great advocate of the implementing of the recommendation of the Sirois report. May I say that when history is written this will stand against Mr. Bracken as the greatest single score upon which he will be condemned.
Of course, all these discussions regarding the constitutionality' or the unconstitutionality of almost any measure which may be proposed by any government in Canada for the amelioration of conditions among the people causes a great deal of frustration if not almost dismay and despair among the Canadian people. They begin to wonder what can possibly be the matter with a constitution such as the British North America Act which apparently embodied the principles which seemed sound to the best minds of 1867 and which is being used in a country of almost unbounded resources that it should be so often viewed as an impediment to the progress of the country and an excuse for not doing

Family Allowances
things. That really is creating a dangerous attitude in the minds of a great many Canadian people.
I do not propose to go into the matter at length at this time; I merely wish to point a way out. All this talk about the constitutionality or the unconstitutionality with respect to measures for the financial betterment of the people of Canada has come about because governments in power stubbornly refuse to. recognize the power that lies in the hands of the federal government by reason of the fact that the British North America Act gave that government control over banking and currency. Just as soon as the government in power begins to use with intelligence and discernment the tremendous power which was given to it through having control over currency and banking,, there will be no further anxiety about the constitutionality. In that portion of the British North America Act the federal government was given power to monetize the productive capacity of the Dominion of Canada. I think one may safely challenge any man to show wherein the British North America Act did not give the Dominion of Canada power to monetize the goods produced anywhere, from the extreme northwest of British Columbia to the extreme southeast of Prince Edward Island, or from the extreme south to the extreme north.
As I have said before, this power is entirely overlooked, and is being disregarded by members on both sides of the house. Even men like the hon. member for Davenport will rise in their places and, at least by implication, propose and advocate that powers be taken away from the provinces and placed in the hands of the federal government, that the object of the fathers of confederation shall be frustrated, and that this country shall lose its freedom. They will advocate even such extreme measures as that, rather than develop a little open-mindedness with respect to the power in the hands of the federal goyernment in connection with currency and banking.
All of this is exceedingly dangerous. When the Sirois commission made its recommendations it recommended the establishment of fascism, if not totalitarianism, in Canada. All measures which tend to centralize power in Ottawa are fascistic, and are the exact opposite of those of a democracy. It is a well known and unchallengeable principle underlying democracy that the further the government is taken away from the people who are being governed, the less real democracy is possible. The result is that if we want to establish democracy in Canada, the power must be placed in the provincial governments, and then
again in the county or municipal governments.
Even this measure, to which I have not objected thus far, centralizes a great deal of power in Ottawa. I should1 have much more readily favoured granting the money to the provinces, as direct grants, to which they would be given a constitutional guarantee, as of right, with the suggestion that the money should be used by the provinces for the payment of family allowances. As I said the other day, when replying to the hon. member for Davenport-and not because I find any fault with that good man, one whom I admire greatly- the people in the provinces know how to govern those provinces. There are no men in the Dominion of Canada who know more about governing Prince Edward Island than do the people in Prince Edward Island.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I agree.


John Horne Blackmore: They know their local conditions; they know their needs, because they have lived in that province. They live in the province; they have built the province, and their children are going to live in it. Why should the power at Ottawa undertake to tell the people of Prince Edward Island how to manage the affairs of that province? The same applies to every province. Because of the enormous distances involved in the dominion, and the wide variety of geography and climatic conditions, it is all the more important that we guarantee to the local governments in the country a greater and greater measure of unchallengeable autonomy. Many people fail to see how that can be done, and still have efficient government guaranteed in the dominion. The reason why they fail to see it is that they do not see the significance of the power of the federal government over currency and banking.
I believe that is all I wish to say at the present time. I register my protest, which shall be applied on every occasion against any tendency to centralize power. That tendency does not stop with Canada. To-day everywhere we hear the urge for a world government which will take away from Canada as a whole the power to govern her affairs. It will take away from the United States her powers to govern her affairs. We are to have an international monetary stabilization bank-


William Henry Golding: I wonder if the hon. member would direct his attention to the bill itself?


John Horne Blackmore: I am dealing entirely with the constitutional aspect, However, Mr. Chairman, if you rule that I am out of order I shall discontinue. But I believe that this is
Family Allowances

a matter which should be emphasized, and I shall not take very long to complete what I had intended to say.
I was just proceeding to say that there is an urge on the part of a large body of people who, I believe, know not what they do, that the power to control these great nations shall be taken from their own governments and placed in the hands of a board of men over whom each individual nation will have next to no control. There is to be set up an international police force to enforce the mandates of that central junta, wherever and of whomsoever it may be constructed.
All this is exactly the abnegation of democracy . It is an extension of the urge in Canada to take power away from the provinces, and place it in Ottawa. I say that this urge can be overcome entirely by the monetary measures I have suggested. I would agree with those who have said that they are not much concerned about the constitutionality of this bill. In my view a provision for family allowances must be established. Of course, if there must be an argument as to constitutionality, then let that argument be carried) on after the establishment of the bill.
I support the bill, just as I did the other night when I voted for it. But I would say with regard to it, as I said the other day in connection with the establishment of floor prices, that I do not agree with the financial technique which it is proposed shall be employed in connection with the bill:	I do not
believe the money should be taxed from the people .to pay family allowances.
I venture to tell the Prime Minister, and to tell anyone and everyone in Canada who has anything to do with the administration of the bill that if we go forward with these soeial measures on the basis that all the money we are to use to pay for social services must be taxed from the people, then we face only frustation and, ultimately, perhaps even despair. However, I support the principle of family allowances, and I shall support the bill.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Mr. Chairman, I take this
opportunity of putting on record something I was prevented from recording when I spoke on a question of privilege. To begin with, I would refer to a statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, as reported at page 5477 of Hansard, in which he said he protested because, as he said, I was endeavouring to create the impression that the quotations by the hon. member for St. Lawrenee-St.. George and by the hon. member for Edmonton East were inaccurate. I was really doing nothing of the sort. I was attempting to read into the record the whole story with

respect to this matter as it was brought out in the British House of Commons and only partly by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. For that purpose I wish to quote a passage immediately preceding the one quoted by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George when he referred to the speech of Sir John Anderson. This will be found at the beginning of page 1665 of the British Hansard, and it reads:
I come to the question of children's allowances. Apart from the Beveridge report, the government have had under consideration for some considerable time this important and somewhat difficult problem. Before the publication of the report, they had come to one clear and definite conclusion:	that whatever might be decided
about cash allowances, by far the best and the most effective measure, within the limits of its possibilities, is the fullest development of the various child welfare services which bring the benefits directly to the children. It has been, and it will be in future, the aim of the government to develop these services to the fullest possible extent. I may give some figures. Two years ago about 350,000 children were being provided with dinner at school, in England, Scotland, and Wales. Last October the number had increased to 1,000,000, and now it considerably exceeds that figure. Important proposals are being carried out now, which will provide canteens for another 500,000 children, and it is likely that during 1943 a further provision for between 500,000 and 750,000 children will have been approved. On the present showing, therefore, as a matter of current policy, not of future policy, some 2,000,000 out of 5,500,000 children in grant-aided schools will be provided with dinner before very long. It will inevitably be a considerable time before this provision of benefit in kind will reach its maximum. I am afraid it is true that there will always be some measure of inequality, and that there will always be the problem of school holidays. Therefore, the possibilities of the welfare services, which, of course, cover many things besides meals at schools, do not of themselves dispose of the arguments for cash allowances to parents, but it is, in the view of the government, important that such allowances, if granted, should not be at a rate which would in practice prove an obstacle to the fullest development of the welfare serviced.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What about the next page, 1667?


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I will read that if you wish.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: At the foot of the page. That gives the real policy of the government.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I am not disputing the quotation made by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Does the hon. member realize that immediately after the quotation he just gave, a question was asked of Sir John Anderson if one-half of those one million lunches were

Family Allowances
not paid for by the recipients? Then on page 1667 is the final declaration of policy by Sir John Anderson.


Gordon Graydon: There is an hon. member making a speech, and unless the Minister of Pensions and National Health is rising to a point of order I think he ought to keep quiet. This is a habit which he is getting into and it is likely to spoil the whole position of this house.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The leader of the opposition has no right and he will not be tolerated in telling me to keep quiet.


Gordon Graydon: I will tell you to keep quiet as often as I like, provided I am within the rules of the house, and I am telling you now.


William Henry Golding: The hon. member for Parkdale has the floor.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: The hon. member for Vancouver Centre was one of those who persistently interrupted me the other day and would not allow me to read the passage I have just quoted. Now he wants me to go on and read the whole speech. If he wishes to read the speech I am quite willing to have him do so.


Gordon Graydon: It might keep him quiet.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I should like to refer to a few words of the excellent speech of the hon. member for Edmonton East delivered over a national network on Wednesday, July 19, at 8.30 p.m., and released on Thursday, July 20, by the national Liberal federation. She said:
Great Britain has supported children's cash allowances but has not made up its mind about them yet.
I presume that can be taken as an accurate statement of the government's position in the matter. I should like to refer for a moment to a few of the remarks made by the hon. member for Bellechasse, as reported on page 5479 of Hansard. He made reference to my grey hair. My grey hair did not prevent me from serving three years in the last war as a surgeon overseas. It did not prevent me from operating in casualty clearing stations within a few miles of the front line for periods of eight and ten hours at a time. It did not prevent me from offering my services as consulting surgeon within three days of the declaration of this war to the then Minister of National Defence, now the Minister of Pensions and National Health. My offer was declined and filed. I again offered my services in this war as a consulting surgeon to his successor, the late Hon. Mr. Rogers, thinking
that the experience I had had in the last war might be of some help to our soldiers in some field of activity. Again my offer was declined;
I had a very courteous letter saying it would be filed. I have not heard from either of those offers since, and I may say my presence in this house is owing to the fact that I hoped to contribute some war service by coming here when I was refused service overseas. I know the hon. member for Bellechasse has a head of hair which is still black, but I venture to say that he cannot show any better record in this or the last war than the one to which I have just referred.
I should like to say a word in regard to the statement made by the Prime Minister. I cannot find the page of Hansard at the moment, but I remember quite well what he said. He referred to me as belonging to another era.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is at page 5527, "champion of the point of view of a past age".


Herbert Alexander Bruce: In view of what he said I challenge the Prime Minister to show that at any time in my life I have spoken for those who believe in a stratified society with the lower classes kept in their places. I have given many years of my life to the service of poor people in this country, more years, I think, than has the Prime Minister. Some years ago, in 1934, I spent a considerable period in studying slum conditions in the city of Toronto. With the assistance of an able committee we wrote a report. That report was published and was brought to the attention of this government in 1936. But in spite of that-, this government has made no move to relieve the slum conditions throughout the country or to give better housing accommodation to those very poor who are unable to pay an economic rent.
Mr. Arthur Purvis was head of a commission to write a report on unemployment. While the government brought in legislation dealing with certain features of his recommendations with regard to the provision of housing, they neglected entirely to implement that part- of his report which recommended the provision of housing for those in the lowest income group, the poorest people in our community. The government in its legislation provided for people who could afford to pay a certain sum of money down and borrow the rest from some lending company, part of which the government guaranteed, and then the borrowers repaid that money amortized over a period of twenty years. The Prime Minister was not then so solicitous for the humble poor as he seems
Family Allowances

to be to-day. He has had many years to think about them, and now, just at the end of a session and before an election, he suddenly becomes very solicitous about these poor people. I should like to remind him of the fact that in 1929 when he was Prime Minister, and in 1930 we had the greatest depression that this country has ever seen, when one million men in this country were unemployed and when a great army of young men were riding the rods, sleeping in hovels and in police stations and had very little to eat.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What-government was in office then?


Herbert Alexander Bruce: You were in office at that time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, we were not,


Herbert Alexander Bruce: The present Prime Minister was in office at that time, and when the plight of the unemployed was brought to his attention he replied as follows, and as recorded at page 38 of Hansard of 1930, volume 1. When it was suggested that some assistance be given to these unemployed, this was his answer:
My hon. friend said that the present administration had done nothing to relieve unemployment, and he stated that I had said that when the provinces were too poor, then it would be time enough for the dominion to come in and assist. I do not recollect making any statement in those words. What I did say was this, that unemployment was first of all a municipal problem. _ I might go a step further back and ' say that it is first of all an individual problem, a problem for the individual and the family, a problem for the community and for societies and groups of societies within the community. Then it certainly becomes a municipal problem. If the municipalities find that they are incapable of dealing with the question of unemployment, it becomes a provincial problem. If the provinces find that they are unable to cope with the problem of unemployment, then I think it very properly becomes a federal problem, but until that stage is reached I think that we may well apply in the matter of unemployment as in all else the old maxim that it is a good thing for everyone to mind his own business. It is a good thing for the municipalities to look after their own business; it is a good thing for the provinces to look after their own business; and it is a good thing for the dominion to look after its own business.


Mr. GRANT:: What is wrong with that?


Gordon Graydon: That is good advice to you.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: That was on February 24, 1930, when the present Prime Minister was Prime Minister of this country.


Thomas Vincent Grant: I was asking what was wrong with it.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: When these men cried out for help, it was none of the Prime Minister's business; but now, when we are on the eve of an election, he suddenly takes an interest in the poor people of the country, and may I suggest that it may possibly be owing to the fact that these poor people have votes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I remind the hon. member that since these statements that he has just quoted were made we have had two general elections in which all this kind of talk has been gone over time and again before the public, and they have returned this administration with myself at its head with the largest majorities that have ever been given to the leader of a government in Canada.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: That only shows how you can fool the people. Bamum said that you can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but that you cannot fool all of the people all of the time, and the Prime Minister will find, the next time he appeals to the people, that he will not be able to fool them again.
In 1939, after war had been declared, the Prime Minister said at page 24 of Hansard of September 8:
I need not tell hon. members that the sense of impending calamity was not something which was realized all of a sudden. Three years ago the government indicated its belief in the necessity for preparedness by asking parliament substantially to increase the amounts required for the defence services of our country. I frankly confess that from that day to this the possibility of a war in which Germany or other nations would be engaged, and which might spread to all parts of the world, has absorbed more of my time and thought than all else combined.
Following that statement, when the Prime Minister was speaking in this house on Tuesday last he gave us certain statistics in regard to the situation that existed among the men who offered themselves as recruits in this war. He spoke as recorded on page 5332 of Hansard about the marks of malnutrition and the importance of a revitalized citizenry. He was speaking on this family allowance bill. He stated:
In the six months from April to September, 1942, in all the military districts in Canada, 31-8 per cent were rejected of those who had enlisted for general service.
And later on he said:
The combined rejections amounted to 52-4 per cent.
I should like to ask, since the Prime Minister knew in 1939-and had known for three years before that, which would put it back to 1936-that we were going to have a war, what did he do to improve the nutrition of these

Family Allowances
poor people? What did he do to improve the health of the young men of this country, so that when they came up to enlist for service a larger percentage of them would be admitted into category A? I do not think he did very much; nor has he done very much since, because here we are in 1944, and now he tells the people of this country that we must rush in quickly and pass a bill on family allowances so that the nutrition of the poor people will be improved. Yet we know that during these last three or four years these very families have never had as much money before as they now have with which to feed their children. It does not strike me as being particularly logical, nor do I think his position in that respect is sound.
In regard to the subsidizing of large families in Quebec, it is really a matter of subsidizing families where the prevailing rate of pay is lower than prevailing rates in other provinces. I refer particularly to Ontario. In this way it brings about unfair competition between Quebec and Ontario. I remember reading a few years ago in 1941 that a member of the provincial 'house, Mr. Glass, stated that an industry called the needle trade industry, situated in Toronto, I think in the riding of the hon. member for Spadina-and I believe he can confirm this-was moved to Montreal because of the lower wages which prevailed there. We are asked now to give this subsidy in order to raise these wages to a standard which will enable the families of that province to maintain their children.
I think I said about all I wished to say on July 25, Mr. Chairman, and I shall refer only to one other matter in conclusion. The other day the Prime Minister told us that if John Bracken was in this house he would not dare to make the statement he had made outside this house, when he called this measure a political bribe; otherwise the right hon. gentleman would call the attention of Mr. Speaker to what Mr. Bracken had said and Mr. Speaker would rule him out of order. I am not intimidated by the threat the Prime Minister has made, and I now declare that this measure is a bribe of the most brazen character, made chiefly to one province and paid for by the taxes of the rest.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, I ask that the statement of the hon. member be withdrawn, as contrary to the rules of this house.


William Henry Golding: I think that statement is out of order, and I hope the hon. member will withdraw it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is that why his party voted for it?


William Henry Golding: It is not in order to make a statement like that. I hope the hon. member will withdraw it.


Gordon Graydon: Before the question of
the point of order comes up, I was not quite sure just what the hon. gentleman said, in the exact words, and I wonder if he would mind repeating it, because it did not seem to me to be the kind of statement which is covered by the rules and which has to be withdrawn.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I said that this measure was a bribe of the most brazen character.


@Acting Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: That will have to be withdrawn.


Gordon Graydon: Before a decision on the point of order is made, surely some other hon. members have the right to say something. In looking through the rules I have never been able to find any rule under which a member of the house can be forced to withdraw a statement made with respect to a measure. The hon. member did not make any statement with respect to any member of this house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He certainly did.


Gordon Graydon: I am going to ask, Mr. Chairman that from now on these ceaseless interruptions be stopped. After all, it is not quite fair to the committee to have these interruptions.


Brooke Claxton: Who does the interrupting?


Gordon Graydon: Time after time when
one rises in his place in this house there is simply a barrage from the government benches directed against hon. members on this side. Because we have only thirty-seven or thirty-eight members-


An hon. MEMBER:: You do much more interrupting than we on this side.


Gordon Graydon: -is no reason why 175 members of this house should attempt to bludgeon, browbeat and bully members of the opposition. We have our rights in this house. We are sent here by the electors, just as are hon. members across the floor, and we are going to insist on our rights. Because this is a free parliament we want these rights to be respected.


William Henry Golding: The hon. member is out of order too.


Gordon Graydon: I say, in connection with the point of order which has been raised, that the hon. member for Parkdale has not
Family Allowances

at any time attributed to a single hon. member of this house anything which is unparliamentary in its character or in its import. It is all very well for the Prime Minister to make a great pose in this house as to what he would do with John Bracken if he were here; because the right hon. gentleman has 175 followers, what would happen to the national leader of our party. But let me say this to the Prime Minister and to you, Mr. Chairman, that if the rules are followed in ' this instance my hon. friend will not have to withdraw the statement as I understood the statement was made.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On a point of order, I desire to call the attention of the committee to what occurred in this house the other day. This measure was submitted to the judgment of this house, and unanimously the house voted in favour of it. Now we have the hon. member for Parkdale, who was conveniently absent on that occasion, accusing this measure of being nothing but bribery.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Wait a minute. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order.


Gordon Graydon: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, I am on my feet. I have the floor.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I am on a point of order.
I have the floor.


Gordon Graydon: I have a point of order too.	[DOT]


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am speaking on a point of order, and I do not yield.


Gordon Graydon: Let the hon. member sit down until I have stated the point of order. Mr. Chairman, are we all to sit down?


William Henry Golding: Yes.


Gordon Graydon: All right.


William Henry Golding: The leader of the opposition will have an opportunity to speak to his point of order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am speaking to a point of order, and I say that anybody who terms this measure-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I rise to a point of order with reference to what the hon. member himself has stated in speaking to a point of order. The hon. member referred to the1 hon.

member for Parlcdale (Mr. Bruce) being conveniently absent, and he must withdraw that statement.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I say that when the hon. member for Parkdale calls this measure bribery he is reflecting on every single member who voted for it in this house. It is not a matter of referring to the measure. It is an absolute insult to every member of every party in this house including the leader of the opposition, and the statement should be withdrawn.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member made the statement that the hon. member for Parkdale was conveniently absent the other day. He has to withdraw that statement because it is contrary to the rules of the house.


Gordon Graydon: That is exactly the point. I am speaking to the point of order. After all, the Minister of Pensions and National Health ought to be the last man to attribute motives to another member of this house, and that is exactly what he did with reference to the hon. member for Parkdale. When any member says that another member was conveniently absent there is only one interpretation that can be put on such a statement, and that is that he was absent from some motive which is unworthy. I ask the hon. member to withdraw that statement.


William Henry Golding: I think the hon. member for Vancouver Centre will withdraw that statement.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Certainly sir. I withdraw it-either conveniently or inconveniently absent.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member for Parkdale has referred to this measure as bribery of the most brazen character. He has done so notwithstanding that some days ago I notified hon. members that any statement of this kind was not parliamentary and would have to be withdrawn, since it would reflect upon every member of the house if it were made. What I wish to call attention to is the fact that all hon. tnembers in this house except the hon. member who has risen at this moment, have supported this measure. They have supported1 what, according to my hon. friend's statement, is a measure which is bribery of the most brazen character. That is a reflection upon any hon. member who h'as supported the measure and voted on the second reading. May, at page 27, as cited in Beauchesne, sets forth that reflections upon members have been resented as indignities to the house itself. I say that

Family Allowances
what the hon. member has stated this afternoon is an indignity which reflects upon the house itself, and I say further that no hon. member in this parliament at any time would have made such a statement except the hon. member for Parkdale.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: When the hon. member for Vancouver Centre said that 1 was conveniently absent


William Henry Golding: That has been withdrawn.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Well, I wish to refer to it for a moment-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I wish to inform the committee that I had to return to my farm because of the muddled man-power policy of this government. I am not able to get enough help to take off the crop and that was the reason why I had to return home.


Gordon Graydon: There were a lot of Liberals away doing their chores too.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I noticed a good many Liberals were home for the same reason. If I had been here I would have voted against the measure, since you, Mr. Chairman, know that my whip arranged with you to pair with me.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The only Conservative who stuck with John Bracken.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I think it is going a long way to stretch the rules of the house. I have always been willing to abide by the rules of the house. I made no reflection on any member of the house. They are entitled to vote as their conscience dictates. I regarded this measure at the beginning as a bribe and I still regard it as a bribe. I have said so and I will not retract that statement, Mr Chairman.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I submit that after the members of this House of Commons have voted on a measure, and have not only given it their unanimous support but given the strongest of reasons why it should be supported, it is intolerable to have an hon. member say he still regards the measure as a bribe. Such a statement is a reflection on every hon. member of this house. I beg you, Mr. Chairman, to see that the hon. member withdraws immediately, or have the matter reported at once to His Honour the Speaker.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Speaking to a point of order, may I say that the hon. member did not refer to any member of this house.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He referred to everyone of them.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: He referred to a bill; he gave his opinion of a certain bill. He made no reference whatever to the members of the government or anyone else who had voted for the bill, as everyone had done.


Thomas Vincent Grant: You ran away too.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Listen. One of these days you are going to talk too loud. I did not run away. I never ran away from you or any other Grit in the country and I will never run away from you. After the next election you will be following-


Thomas Vincent Grant: You won't be in the cabinet.


William Henry Golding: Order. I must ask the hon. gentleman to keep quiet. The hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth) has the floor and must not be interrupted.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I understand he will not do badly under the bill anyway. I maintain again, Mr. Chairman, and I think I am right in rrfy contention, that the rule read by the Prime Minister and by the Minister of Pensions and National Health refers to a reflection on members of this house. It does not refer to any measure itself. If that were the case, then you would have had the right to say to the Prime Minister that he had to withdraw, and that others had to withdraw, the statement that this was a smoke-screen. The one is as bad as the other. If one is out of order, so is the other. I contend that the hon. member is not out of order.


William Henry Golding: There are rules, both written arid unwritten, governing the House of Commons. When the hon. member makes the statement that this measure is a bribe it does in my opinion reflect on all hon. members who have supported the motion. I do not think the hon. member wants to cast a reflection and I do hope that he will withdraw that insinuation.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: No reflection on members at all.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I have already said that I made no reflection and intend to make no reflection on any hon. member. I can quite understand the sensitivity of the Prime Minister. Perhaps he is thinking back to the Beauharnois scandal.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


William Henry Golding: I think the hon. member has intimated that he does not wish to cast a reflection.
56S0
Family Allowances


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is six o'clock.


Gordon Graydon: He is completely within the rules.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No. It is a reflection on every hon. member of the house, definitely.


Gordon Graydon: You are not Speaker.
* You would like to be, but you are not.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: When the committee rose at six o'clock there was a point of order raised on the statement made by the hon. member for Parkdale. The statement is as follows:
I am not intimidated by the threat the Prime Minister has made, and I now declare that this measure is a bribe of the most brazen character, made chiefly to one province and paid for by the taxes of the rest.
Mr. Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, I ask that the statement of the hon. member be withdrawn, as contrary to the rules of this house.
Then there was a discussion on the point of order raised, and a ruling made by the acting chairman at the time asking for a withdrawal. I now want to read to the committee citation 234 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Third Edition. It is relevant to the point of order that I have to decide, and will give me the necessary directions:
It is impossible to lay down any specific rules, in regard to injurious reflections uttered in debate against particular members, or to declare beforehand, what expressions are or are not contrary to order; much depends upon the tone and manner, and intention, of the person speaking; sometimes upon the person to whom the words are addressed, as, whether he is a public officer, or a private member not in office, or whether the words are meant to be applied to his public conduct, or to his private character; and sometimes upon the degree of provocation, which the member Speaking had received from the person he alludes to; and all these considerations must be attended to at the moment, as they are infinitely various and cannot possibly be foreseen in such a manner, that precise rules can be adopted with respect to them.
When the Speaker observes upon any expression as personal and disorderly, and tending to introduce heat and confusion, and this appears to be the general sense of the house, the member offending ought immediately to make an apology, and to ask pardon of the house of this breach of their order, in as large and liberal expressions
[The Acting Chairman.]
as possible, so as in such apology, to comprehend the person of whom the words were used. This is often very difficult to be obtained, especially when the offending person thinks he had sufficient provocation for using the expressions objected to. This consideration ought to be a warning to the house, and particularly to tbe Chair, to interfere at first; and not to permit any expressions to pass from a member unnoticed, which being applied by any other member as personally offensive to himself, may draw forth further words of heat and contumely, till at last confusion arises-different members take a warm and eager part in the dispute-and, besides the time that is lost in composing these differences, the House of Commons exhibits a scene of indecency and disorder, not very becoming their character as gfentlemen, much less as one of the component parts of the great council of the nation assembled in parliament.
Citation 256 reads as follows:
The imputation of bad motives, or motives different from those acknowledged, misrepresenting the language of another, or accusing him, in his turn, of misrepresentation, charging him with falsehood or deceit; or contemptuous or insulting language of any kind; all these are unparliamentary and call for prompt interference.
Then the following words appear in citation 258:
The words "purchased by legislation" applied to a member of the house are unparliamentary.
The import of those citations will, to a large extent, guide me in my ruling. The word "bribe" has been used. This is the definition that the dictionary gives to it:
Money etc. offered to procure (often illegal and dishonest) action in favour of the giver.
Pervert by gifts or other inducements the action or judgment of.
Any gift or emolument use corruptly to influence public or official action.
Anything that seduces or allures.
There is no doubt of the strength of that word and its full meaning. I believe it was the hon. member for Waterloo South who, in making a comparison, said that the words "smoke-screen" had been used and that those words were just as objectionable as the word "bribe". There could be no comparison as to the right with regard to the use of these two words.
It will be noticed that in all the citations I have given it is always the singular that is used, and not the plural. In this case we are dealing with a definite situation. We are now in committee of the whole discussing an item after second reading has been given to the bill. Prior to the bill being given second reading there was a wide discussion, and finally a vote was taken. All hon. members present at that time voted unanimously and collectively for the bill. In this case we have to make a distinction between generali-

Family Allowances
ties aid particularities, from the general to the particular, and I feel, and I so base my ruling, that in view of what happened before second reading, a unanimous vote on this particular bill, not a single hon. member, either individually or collectively, thought it was a question of bribery or corruption or anything of that kind. For the reasons I have given and the citations I have quoted I am going to ask that the hon. member make a withdrawal of the words he used, realizing that they were unparliamentary.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Mr. Chairman, following that order-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Order.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Mr. Chairman, I must appeal from your ruling. I regret to say that I will not withdraw the statement I made. I made that statement as against this measure and I maintain that I had a perfect right to make it and I stand by it.


Gordon Graydon: On a question of privilege-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Frederick Clayton Casselman: You arp only the
minister of pensions.


Gordon Graydon: I wonder who is in charge of this house.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You certainly are not.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Order.


Gordon Graydon: I want to ask the Chairman if I have the right to rise on a question of privilege. I am not anxious to have the advice or the opinion of those across the way until I want them. Do I have the right, Mr. Chairman, to rise on a question of privilege?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Yes.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think the. rules of the house specifically lay down the procedure. Your ruling has been appealed from by the hon. member for Parkdale. I think the procedure is specifically laid down as to what you should do, Mr. Chairman, you should report the matter to the Speaker of the house. ,


Gordon Graydon: The Chairman has already granted me the right to rise on a question of privilege. My hon. friend ought to know the rules. He ought to know that a point of order does not take precedence over a a question of privilege.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It certainly does.


Gordon Graydon: The reason why I rose
was this. The Chairman had neglected and omitted to mention that at the close of the proceedings at1 six o'clock the acting chairman who was then in the Chair gave what I thought was a ruling at that time.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, he did not.


Gordon Graydon: I think we ought at
least to have the record of Hansard before us to see what the acting chairman actually said at that time before the Chairman attempts to make his ruling at this time.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I believe the leader
of the opposition has the right to call for the record to see what was said by the acting chairman at six o'clock. This is what the record states:
Mr. Bruce: I have already said that I made no reflection and intend to make no reflection on any hon. member. I can quite understand the sensitivity of the Prime Minister. Perhaps he is thinking back to the Beauharnois scandal.
Some hon. Members: Withdraw.


William Henry Golding: I think the hon. member has intimated that he does not wish to east a reflection.
That is the last statement that was then given.


William Henry Golding: Mr. Chairman-


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I must say that we cannot have a discussion now. The hon. member for Parkdale has appealed from my ruling. I cannot do anything but report to the Speaker.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Mr. Chairman, wait a minute. On a point of order-we are still discussing the point of order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is no point of order.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The point of order was
raised.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Order. The Speaker is standing.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: We are still in committee. We have not gone back to the house.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Order, sit down.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: We are still in committee of the whole.