1946-05-16

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 82, to incorporate the Executive Board of the Church of the Nazarene.-Mr. Warren.

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

Mr. FRASER:: To what firms, "or individuals, did the Department of Fisheries pay subsidies regarding the
construction of packer-seiner type fishing vessels aud fish draggers, during 1945-1946?


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: Packer-Seiner type: Brooks Bay Packing Co., Vancouver, B.C.; Nicolai Jurinicich, Vancouver. B.C.
Dragger type: W. B. Moriarity Co. Ltd., Halifax, N.S.; Halifax Fisheries Ltd., Halifax, NJ5.; Lunenburg Sea Products, Lunenburg, N.S.


MAGNESIUM
Mr. CASTLEDEN:: 1.	What quantity of magnesium products was produced by the Dominion Magnesium plant at Haley's Corners during 1944 and 1945?
2.	What was the total amount of money paid to Dominion Magnesium for the management and operation of this plant?

Questions
3.	What was the cost to the dominion government of setting up this plant?
4..What was the price at which this plant was sold to Dominion Magnesium Limited, Toronto?
5. How was the price arrived at?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	1944, 10,763,726 pounds; 1945, 7,798,205
pounds. (Of this latter amount, 3,948,204 pounds were produced by the company for its own account.)	.
2.	Nil. The company agreed to manage and operate the plant until the cessation of hostilities without fee or profit.
3.	83,464,102.15.
4.	$1,400,000.
5.	The lack of an assured peace-time market for the product, the need for a capital outlay in excess of half a million dollars on the part of the purchaser for modification and improvements, heavy depreciation because of the character of the process and a reasonable writeoff for high war-time construction costs were factors taken into account in determining the selling price.


WAR ASSETS
Mr. CASTLEDEN:: 1.	How many municipalities have applied to Crown Assets Allocation and War Assets Corporation for materials or equipment as of April 1, 1946?
_ 2. How many of these have had their applications met by War Assets Corporation?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	1,639.
2.	The priorities division, head office, War Assets Corporation, has filled 103 of these applications in full and 350 in part. In addition, many of these municipalities have had their applications met from branch offices of the corporation across Canada. The branch offices are not required to notify the priorities division of the corporation of these sales. Furthermore, in regard to the sale of certain surplus properties, such as real estate, the appropriate sales division at the Montreal head office of the corporation deals directly with the municipality without notification to the priorities division. It is therefore impossible to give a precise answer to this question.


WAB ASSETS-WINDSOR, N.S., TRANSIT CAMP
Mr. CASTLEDEN:: 1.	Upon what date was the Windsor Transit Camp at Windsor, Nova Scotia, declared surplus?
2.	Were electric motors, heating units, plumbing fittings and fixtures, and buildings from this camp disposed of? If so, to what persons or organizations?
3.	Did other persons, firms or organizations in the Windsor district make application to purchase these materials and buildings?
4.	If so, were they given an opportunity to purchase them at the same price at which they were finally disposed of?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	January 26, 1946.
2.	Yes. The dominion government, Department of Labour, obtained the majority of the buildings, with services for the training of veterans under the Canadian vocational training programme.
3.	Yes.
4.	No sales other than that mentioned in No. 2 above have been made to date. Other individuals were not given an opportunity to purchase, because the application of the Department of Labour for training of veterans carried a higher priority than applications from the general public. Disposal of the remaining surpluses will be made in accordance with the established priority policy of War Assests Corporation.


VICTORY BONDS HELD BY CHARTERED BANKS
Mr. JOHNSTON:: 1.	What is the total amount of victory bonds held by the chartered banks of Canada?
2.	What is the yearly amount of interest paid to the chartered banks in this connection?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1.	Information as to holdings of particular dominion government issues is not of government record as a large proportion of each issue is in bearer form. In addition the monthly return of liabilities and.assets of the chartered banks of Canada made to the Minister of Finance pursuant to section 112 of the Bank Act gives figures of total holdings of dominion government direct and guaranteed securities maturing within two years and other dominion government direct and guaranteed securities and does not segregate holdings of these two types of securities.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	How many persons were receiving unemployment insurance benefits as at January 31, 1946?
2.	What were the new claims for each month, February, March and April, 1946?
3.	How many persons were receiving unemployment insurance benefits as at April 30, 1946?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	145,952.
2.	February, 1946,	53,331; March, 1946,
49,467; April, 1946, not available.

Questions
3.	April 1946, figures are not available. At March 31, 1946, the number receiving unemployment insurance benefits was 154,820.
Mr. MaeINNIS:
1.	What was the total amount in the Unemployment Insurance Fund as at December 31, 1945?
2.	How much was put into the fund for the first four months of 1946 by (a) employers; (b) employees; (c) government?
3.	What was the amount paid out in benefits during the first four months of 1946?
4.	What was the amount of the fund as of April 30, 1946?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	$315,937,572.37.
2.	These figures are for the first three months
of 1946 only; April figures not available, (a)	$7,366,543.21;	(b)	$8,752,807.37;	(c)
$3,223,870.12.	.
3.	This figure for first three months of 1946 only: $17,595,590.51.
4.	$319,369,134.33. (Of this amount $1,683,931.77 is interest.) This figure to March 31, 1946, only.


CABWAY, ALTA., CUSTOMS ENTRIES
Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	What was the number of entries registered through the customs port at Carway, Alberta, for the years 1930 to the present time?
2.	What was the number of exits through this
port for the years	1930 to the present time?


Mr. McCANN:: 1.	Number of
Year	Import entries
1930 to 1937	
1938 			 131
1939 			 142
1940 			 264
1941 			 147
1942 			 61
1943 			 85
1944 			 73
1945 			 51
2.	Number of
Year	Export entries
1930 to 1937		Not available
1938 			 93
1939 			 58
1940 			 66
1941 			;	 53
1942 			 53
1943 			 56
1944 			 28
1945 			 25


CHIEF MOUNTAIN WATEBTON HIGHWAY, ALTA., CUSTOMS PORT
Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	Is the customs port on the Chief Mountain Waterton highway in Alberta open at the present time? If not, when was it closed?
2.	What was the number of entries registered through this port for each of the years 1930 to the present time?
3.	What was the number of exits through this port for each of the years 1930 to the present, time?


Mr. McCANN:: 1.	No. September 15, 1943.
2.
Year
1930 to 1937	
1938		
1939		
1940		
1941		
1942		
1943		
1944		
Number of Import entries .Not available .	50
.	88
.	272
.	122
.	50
.	12
.	13
3.
Year
1930 to 1937
1938		
1939		
1940		
1941		
1942		
1943		
1944		
Number of Export entries .Not available .	3
.	0
.	3
.	2
.	0
.	0


PRISONERS OF WAR ON FARMS
Mr. BOUCHER:: 1.	What salary, wages or other compensation are farmers required to pay for the services of prisoners of war working on farms?
2.	How much of such compensation is payable directly to the prisoner by his employer?
3.	How much of such compensation is held back for the credit of the prisoner of war to be given him at a later date?
4.	When is such hold-back given to the prisoner of war?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1. At present time $50 per month plus board and lodging, or $1.75 per day for broken periods of less than one month's employment plus board and lodging, payable to the Department of Labour. This rate has been established in Ontario, with the approval of the dominion-provincial farm labour committee, and is also in effect in other provinces.
2 and 3. The Department of Labour pays prisoners of war at the rate of 50 cents per working day. This amount is credited to the prisoner's individual account, which is carried

Wheat
by the Department of National Defence, less such portion thereof as is spent by the prisoner on purchase of canteen supplies.
4.	By transfer of funds upon evacuation from Canada.


GENTLEMAN USHER OP THE BLACK ROD
Mr. DROPE:: Who is the present holder of the position, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod?
Mr. ILSLEY": The position has been vacant since 1st of April, 1946.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. QUELCH:: 1.	How many of the 3,800 soldier settlers classified in grades 3 and 4 as at March 31, 1942, have had their debts adjusted under P.C. 10472?
2.	How many of the above failed to make an application under this order?
3.	How many of those, whose debts were adjusted, had their debts reduced to the point where they had an equity in their land of (a) over 30 per cent; (b) over 15 per cent; (c) under 15 per cent, based upon 1941-42 values?


GOVERNMENT PROPERTY DESTROYED BY FIRE
Mr. WEBB:: 1.	What was the total value of government property destroyed bv fire in the following years: 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945?
2.	How were these losses divided as to (a) army; (b) navy; (c) air force; (d) crown companies; (e) property owned by the crown in the custody of others; (f) other government property ?
3.	Were they covered by insurance?
4.	If so, what were the total recoveries made from insurers?


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. WINKLER:: 1.	What is the daily cost per inmate to the state in each of the penitentiaries in Canada, and how does this figure compare with twenty years a'go?
2.	Of total inmates, what percentage are repeaters?
3.	How does this percentage compare with the figures of recent years, since world war 1?
4.	What gratuities ai'e awarded long-termers, say oi uve years or more, upon discharge? Is it an increase over that of twenty years ago?


INFRACTIONS OF SUGAR RATIONING REGULATIONS
Mr. GINGUES:: 1.	From February 1, 1942, to date, how many industrial users of sugar have been convicted of infractions of the sugar rationing regulations in each province?
2.	What are their names and addresses?
3.	What was the court sentence in each case?
4.	What fines were imposed?
5.	Were business operations of such violators suspended?
6.	If so, for what number of days in each case?


VETERANS LAND ACT INSURANCE FUND
Mr. MARSHALL:: 1.	When and by what authority was the Veterans Land Act Insurance Fund set up?
2.	Who administers this fund and what staff is employed?
3.	What is the annual premium rate and how was it fixed?
4.	How many applications for insurance have been received since the commencement of operation?
5.	How do the rates compare with those of line companies insuring similar risks?
6.	How many claims have been made and what is the ratio between insurance placed and losses sustained ?



CONDITIONS IN EUROPE-CANADIAN ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ALISTAIR STEWART (Winnipeg North):: In view of the widespread starvation in Europe will the Acting Prime Minister tell the house what further steps the government intends to take to avert needless human suffering caused by lack of food in Europe?


Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Acting Prime Minister):: The	Canadian government has
made it clear on a number of occasions that it recognizes the urgency of the food situation in Europe and Asia and that it is prepared to cooperate, and is cooperating, with the United Kingdom, the United States and other nations in making additional food available for shipment abroad. Without in any way detracting from the efforts of other countries, I think it is recognized that the people of Canada have made and are making a notable contribution to the relief of hunger and starvation the world over. The question asked by my hon. friend relates to the further steps the government intends to take. My answer can only be this: that the Canadian government intends to continue its present policy of cooperation with other governments in providing food so that hunger and starvation will be minimized if they cannot be averted. If this cooperation involves measures in addition to those already taken, they will be announced in due course.



PAYMENT ON 1943 WHEAT PARTICIPATION CERTIFICATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. ROSS (Souris):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will the minister say when payments on the 1943 wheat participation certificates will be made, and what amount per bushel will be paid on the different grades?
Radio Broadcasting


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: A short time ago I announced in the house that the payments on the 1943 wheat participation certificates would be made early in June. So far as I know the board is hoping to be able, and feel confident they will be, to start the issuing of cheques on the 1943 wheat participation certificates in June. I should like to say to the hon. member for Souris that it is just a matter of being able to get the cheques out. The accounting has all been done; it is just a matter of doing the physical work of issuing the cheques, and they will be issued as quickly as possible.


James Arthur Ross: What about the amount of payment?


James Angus MacKinnon: It is impossible for me to say in advance of the issuing of the payments what the amounts of each payment will be.



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yesterday the Minister of National Revenue answered two questions of mine-Hansard, page 1546-that were on the order paper, but the answers do not give the information that is asked for in the question. I therefore should like to ask the minister if he would review the questions again and give full information asked for. One question was:
What is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's share of the cost of producing and broadcasting the "Johnny Home Show?"
In his answer the minister said that there had been no cost to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in producing and broadcasting the "Johnny Home Show."


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: He added that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Horace King: The question is a lengthy one; I suggest to the hon. member that he put it on the order paper.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I had it on the order paper. I asked what the costs were and the minister said that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation supplies part of the time of a staff producer, and station and network facilities. The answer did not give me the cost, and that is what I asked for. I should like to ask the.

minister if he will review that question, and the other question which was asked regarding the broadcast "The People Ask", and give me the cost which I asked for.


James Joseph McCann: I shall be very glad to have the answers reviewed.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Did the government invite Canadian employers to send representatives to the recent conference held at Cleveland, U.SA., under the auspices of the international labour organization? Was the invitation accepted? If not, what reason was given by employers for their non-participation?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: The Department of Labour did invite employers to send representatives to the international labour organization meeting referred to by my hon. friend, and it was agreed that they would nominate representatives to attend. But later we were informed that it was found impossible to find men who had sufficient knowledge of the questions which would arise who would leave their 'business to attend this particular conference. Two representatives of t'he employers did attend the second conference.



INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead):	I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. As Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs can he say what action the government has taken on the extradition treaty with the United States and the report that was made on it by the committee on external affairs last session.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs): After the report, of the special committee on external affairs was tabled in this house negotiations were resumed with the United States authorities on the extradition treaty and protocol, and these negotiations are still proceeding.

Canadian Citizenship


[Stage Direction]
Hon. PAUL MARTIN (Secretary of State) moved the third reading of bill No. 7, respecting citizenship, nationality and naturalization and status of aliens.
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Before the motion is put there are two or three observations I should like to make in regard to the meaning of citizenship. Speaking to the amendment which I moved in committee on May 7, I said, as reported at page 1300 of Hansard:
This amendment is not meant to be allexclusive, nor is it meant to be all-inclusive. My first suggestion is that if the Secretary of State accepts the principle of the need in this country of a bill of rights signifying what citizenship stands for, then possibly the best means whereby that result could be effected would be to set up a committee of the house. It ivould not take very long for that committee to meet and it would afford an opportunity to exchange ideas among the various groups in the house and thereby evolve a bill of rights which would be acceptable to all, and one which would carry into effect the highest principles of citizenship.
I think I can safely say that in the course of the discussion on the amendment there was almost unanimity, as close an approach to it as can ever be expected in a representative institution, on the need of a bill of rights. One hon. member after another rose in his place in the house in support of the principles embodied in the amendment which I introduced. Some hon. members took the stand that it was too much circumscribed, and that in any event it could not possibly be comprised in the few words which I used in the amendment. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if I could have order. I cannot compete with what goes on behind the curtains.
I was saying that there was general unanimity on the need of a bill of rights, but there was also fairly strong opinion expressed by the hon. members immediately to my left, by hon. members of the Social Credit party and others, that a bill of rights, to be effective, must comprise more than what was confined within the ambit of my amendment. Finally the government, represented by the president of the privy council, placed this view before the house. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) dealt with the whole question of rights, freedoms and privileges. As reported at page 1477 of Hansard he said:
The hon. member for Lake Centre and I are very close together in this thing, but I suggest to him to-night that this is far greater than this trivial and piffling amendment dealing with three simple rights among a multitude of rights . . .
Why cannot we in this parliament get together on this issue? Why cannot all parties form a committee to consider these things apart altogether from this bill? If necessary that committee could call in advisers from the various provinces.
Mr. Diefenbaker:	Is that not what I suggested?
Mr. Mackenzie:	It is not what this piffling
amendment says at all, and that is why I say we cannot support the amendment.
The minister joined with me and said there was very little difference between us. Apparently the only point of divergence was as to the method of operation. I can say that there was never any disagreement between us because I said the same thing as he said in my opening paragraph when I introduced the amendment. I suggest, therefore, that, being in entire agreement with my hon. friend and with those who have expressed themselves on this question-the leader of the C.C.F. party, the leader of the Social Credit party and others-now is the time for us to make a declaration that a bill of rights shall be brought into this parliament which will assure that what we all desire in this regard shall be now determined and declared.
Section 27 of the bill as passed reads as follows:
A Canadian citizen other than a natural-born Canadian citizen shall, subject to the provisions of this act, be entitled to all rights, powers and privileges and be subject to all obligations, duties and liabilities to which a natural-born Canadian citizen is entitled or subject and. on and after becoming a Canadian citizen, shall, subject to the provisions of this act-, have a like status to that of a natural-born Canadian citizen.
There were those who raised the objection that the amendment did not go far enough; that it did not comprise citizenship of those who were Canadians by birth. I believe it was the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) who raised that point, and it was an effective one. I could not but fail to accept it, because after all, what we are trying to do here is to get a bill of rights which will be the epitome of the wishes of all hon. members of the house. The section says:
... a Canadian citizen, shall, subject to the provisions of this act, have a like status to that of a natural-born Canadian citizen.
I know of no other section which would permit of a definition of the rights of citizenship. Having regard to the measure of agreement that there is amongst us, and answering the appeal made by the minister in which he asked us all to get together, I wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon):
That the said bill be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole with instructions that they have power to amend it as follows:
Canadian Citizenship

1. By adding subsection 2 to section 27 as follows:
"27 (2) That when this act comes into force, if parliament be then sitting or if parliament be not then sitting within ten days after the next session begins, the question of adopting a bill of rights, so as to assure the maintenance and preservation of democratic and traditional processes of liberty and of equality under the law of all Canadian citizens without regard to race, creed or colour, shall be submitted to the House of Commons in a resolution to be considered in a select committee properly representative of the entire population of Canada."
Sir, by this amendment the views of all hon. members on all sides of the house will have an opportunity for expression. Out of that common expression and common cooperation -because after all this matter is above partisan consideration-there will come a declaration that will assure the preservation of democratic rights and ensure that in the years to come men and women, Canadians all, will be able to look back and say: These are our rights; no longer are they nebulous; no longer do they consist only in tradition and in precedent. They have been epitomized by parliament.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I do not at this time propose to discuss the merits or demerits of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). I desire only to refer Your Honour to the obvious rules of the house. In doing so I would refer Your Honour to paragraph 710 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, at page 238. I quote:
All amendments which may be moved on a second reading of a bill may be moved on the third reading with the restriction that they cannot deal with any matter which is not contained in the bill.
That is taken from May at page 421. Then, again, quoting paragraph 712 in the same volume:
On the third reading of a 'bill to amend the Bank of Canada Act-
Most of us were in the house at that time. -an amendment was moved that the bill be not now read a third time because it does not provide for complete government ownership of the Bank of Canada. This amendment involved the main subject matter dealt with in the bill. The Speaker ruled it out of order on the ground that it was an expanded negative.
And thirdly, at paragraph 713 in the same volume:
On the motion for the third reading of a bill to incorporate the Bank of Canada, an amendment that the bill be referred back to the committee of the whole, with instruction that they have power to amend same so is to safeguard the sovereignty of parlianieut over Canada's

financial policy, was ruled out of order for the following reasons:	"The amendment is irrelevant."
I submit that this amendment is irrelevant to any of the essential principles of the bill. The paragraph continues:
"The sovereignty of parliament cannot be affected by the passage of a bill in this house. The sovereignty of parliament is created and defined by the British North America Act, Section 91 of which states that it shall be lawful for the parliament of Canada to make laws in relation to all matters, except those assigned to provincial legislatures and, inter alia, subjects enumerated therein, including banking, incorporation of banks and the issue of paper money. The sovereignty of parliament can only be affected by an amendment to the British North America Act."
This is the most decisive citation, where a Speaker's decision is approved by the House of Commons. It was moved that the bill be not now read a third time but that all the words after "that" be struck out, and the following substituted therefor:
"The bill be referred back to the committee of the whole with the request-
Note those words, "with the request."
-that the government consider ways and means of providing compensation-
And so on. Then it continues:
Mr. Speaker ruled the proposed amendment out of order on the ground that a bill may be referred back with instruction either that the committee have power to amend it in certain particulars or for further consideration; it cannot be referred back-
These are the words upon which I base my contention-
It cannot be referred back with the request that certain matters be considered by the government.
That was a decision of a Speaker, upheld by the House of Commons. The same principle is now involved in the amendment now offered by the hon. member.
Again at page 503 of the same volume:
On the motion for third reading: (a) Amendment proposing to refer a bill back to the committee of the whole -with instruction to amend it so as to safeguard the sovereignty of parliament is out of order.
As I said before, speaking with the consent of such of my colleagues as were present, I made certain declarations the other evening. The hon. member for Lake Centre is now endeavouring to anticipate, by way of direction, the policy of the administration and government of Canada by forcing it into a position where it does not belong. I suggest that the hon. member's amendment is entirely out of order.

Canadian Citizenship


Mr. STIRLING:: Mr. Speaker, it appears to me that an examination of the precedents put before Your Honour by the leader of the house will show that they are not analogous to this situation. It would appear to me that an amendment to the motion for third reading is in the same category as an amendment to second reading, provided it does not introduce a new subject. That makes this amendment clearly in order, because it introduces no new subject. Section 27 of the bill deals with the rights and obligations of Canadian citizens. The proposition is not that any direction should be given to the government of the day with regard to what it should do or what it should not do, but rather that an opportunity be given parliament and the House of Commons to discuss the reason why, in the opinion of so many people, it is necessary that a bill of rights be considered by parliament.
I suggest that the amendment by no means introduces a new matter of business; it does not bring in any new subject. It deals with a subject already dealt with in section 27 of the bill. For these reasons I suggest the amendment is in order.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Mr. Speaker, may I have a word on the point of order? I am referring to standing order 77, and citations 813 and following. That paragraph or citation states:
When a bill comes up for third reading a member may move that it be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of amending it in any particular.
It seems to me that the house always has authority to govern its own procedure. The fact that rulings of Speakers in different parliaments from time to time have been upheld by those parliaments should not bind subsequent parliaments for ever. We now have before us an amendment to the third reading of the bill which purports to give to the house what most hon. members desired when the bill was in committee. It seems to me that, despite the rulings of former Speakers, upheld by former parliaments, this is a new parliament, and as such it has the right to make decisions as to its own rules and their interpretation. We should not be for ever bound by decisions made in the past.
I submit respectfully that a ruling of this description should not be invoked to prevent a member from bringing before the House of Commons on third reading something which many hon. members desired when the bill was in committee.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We voted on it.


Mr. COLDWELL:: I suggest to Your Honour that the amendment of the ho'n. member for Lake Centre should be declared in order.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to dispute the wisdom or otherwise of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) to the effect that this parliament should not feel bound by decisions rendered by Speakers in former parliaments, and upheld by those former parliaments. Be that as it may, the practice of paying some respect to judicial and parliamentary precedents is worthy of consideration. But on the merits of the question I would submit that, in the absence of any precedent, an amendment such as this could not be properly introduced and appended to a bill.
The bill deals with the right of citizenship, and is intended to provide permanent legislation. This would constitute an attempt, by way of amendment to a bill intended to be permanent legislation, to provide a direction as to what shall be done by somebody not named in the amendment, at this or at some other session of parliament. [DOT]
Let us examine the terms of the amendment. It says:
By adding subsection 2 to section 27 as follows: "27 (2) That when this act comes into force, if parliament be then sitting or if parliament be then not sitting within ten days after the next session begins, the question of adopting a bill of rights, so as to assure the maintenance and preservation of democratic and traditional processes of liberty and of equality under the law of all Canadian citizens without regard to race, creed or colour, shall be submitted to the House of Commons in a resolution to be considered in a select committee properly representative of the entire population of Canada."
What has all that to do with the permanent provisions of the citizenship bill? The hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) has argued that this does not give a direction to the government, that it does not deal with a sovereign power of parliament. That is one of the objections to it. It says that certain things shall be done, but it does not indicate who is to do them, or who is to take any responsibility for doing them. It would provide for the consideration of a bill of rights "so as to assure" and so on; that certain things "shall be submitted to the House of Commons". By whom? Are they to be submitted by the hon. member for Lake Centre? Are they to be submitted by Mr. Speaker, or by the government, or by whom? And this is to be "in a resolution to be considered in a select committee". Who is to introduce that resolution?
Canadian Citizenship

What possible sanction could there be for a provision for this kind in the bill? What can it be, other than a pious hope that there may be another opportunity to discuss this matter of civil rights at this session, and at this time?
On a motion for second reading of a bill something other than second reading may be recommended in an amendment. On a motion for second reading it may be said that, instead of reading the bill, the house should do something else. But when the motion for third reading comes up, it is all or nothing. Thaf is the only question before the house. It can go back to the committee for some amendment to the bill, but it cannot go back to the committee for the house to take some other kind of action.
The only matter which at this stage of the procedure is open for discussion is whether this bill, with or without further amendments which might affect its provision for permanent legislation, be passed. I submit that it would be a very dangerous practice if parliament at one session were to determine, by legislation to be considered in the other place and to be sanctioned by the crown, what parliament should do at some other time. The right of parliament to exercise its sovereign powers exists continuously, and I submit that it is not in order to add to legislation of this kind or any kind a direction as to what parliament shall do at some future date if it happens to be in session when that piece of legislation comes into force, or what it shall do at another session if it is not in session when the legislation comes into force; and that is what the terms of this amendment provide for, without indicating upon whom any duty is cast by the provision itself.


John George Diefenbaker: The arguments advanced by the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) have, I submit, little to do with the question whether this amendment is in order. They have rather to do with the criticism he offers of the meaning and purport of the amendment. I refer Your Honour to section 708 of Beauchesne, third edition, 1943:
When a bill comes up for third reading a member may move that it be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of amending it in any particular.
There are various forms in which that amendment may be made. The form I followed was taken from this book, and is to be found in general at pages 337 and following.
The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) said that the amendment introduced a new subject. My submission is that it introduces no new subject. Section 27

provides that Canadian citizens shall be entitled to certain rights, powers and privileges. The amendment is to define -what those rights, powers and privileges are. I submit that section 713 of Beauchesne, to which the hon. member for Vancouver Centre referred, has no relevance whatever to the case before us. Section 713 states that an amendment was ruled out on the ground that it was irrelevant in that it affected the sovereignty of parliament. 1 submit that this amendment is relevant because it refers to the question of rights, duties, obligations and privileges, and in no way interferes with the sovereignty of parliament.
For these reasons I ask Your Honour to uphold my right to move the amendment.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: I think it goes without saying that any member of the house has the right to move that' a bill be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee. We are all agreed that that is in order; any hon. member has the right to do that. If the resolution carries, and it is subject to the vote of the house-and unless the majority of the members want it referred back to the committee it will not go to the committee-third reading will be given the bill and it will be passed. This is a motion not to give third reading but to refer it back to the committee of the whole, with instructions, not to do certain things, but that they have power to amend it as follows. They may not choose to follow those instructions at all; this only gives them the power to do so, and it would be entirely optional with them whether they did so or not. It seems to me that the only question before the house is whether this resolution is in order, tha,t the bill be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I, on the point of order, with the permission of the house, quote a former Speaker of the house, the Hon. George Black, member for Yukon-Beauchesne, page 497:
On the motion for third reading, an amendment cannot be moved that the bill be referred back to the committee of the whole with the request that certain matters be considered by the government.


George Black: With all due deference, what the minister has quoted is not in point at all. That was an amendment to refer back with the request that certain matters be dealt with or considered by the government. That has no relevancy to this motion.


Mr. TUCKER:: I submit, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.

Canadian Citizenship


Walter Adam Tucker: I am entitled to give my views on this matter. Surely the day has not come when only certain people approved by the opposition may rise to speak in this parliament.
I submit that any amendment must be relevant to the purpose of the bill, and certainly the purpose of this bill being to set up the status of citizenship and so on, an amendment which says that somebody unnamed shall lay before the house the question of adopting a bill of rights has nothing to do with establishing citizenship. It is irrelevant. An amendment to the bill on third reading must be relevant to the purposes of the bill. I would just like to show what would be the effect of this section if it were passed. It would read that, when it comes into force, as soon as it receives royal assent, and parliament, I assume, being in session, . . the question of adopting a bill of rights, so as to assure the maintenance and preservation of democratic and traditional processes of liberty and of equality under the law of all Canadian citizens without regard to race, creed or colour, shall be submitted to the House of Commons in a resolution to be considered in a select committee properly representative of the entire population of Canada." Shall be submitted by whom? What does it mean? Is it to be submitted by the government, by some private member, by some body in Canada? Surely if this parliament is to speak, it should speak with certainty, so that we may know what we are doing. Surely if we adopt an amendment such as this, we shall make ourselves ridiculous. If we passed it, it would not mean anything.
To summarize, in the first place an amendment should be certain as to its effect. It should be relevant. In the next place I submit to Your Hopour for your further consideration that Beauchesne, paragraph 357, lays this down:
Mr. Speaker Sproule on the thirteenth February, 1913, decided that a proposed amendment which was substantially the same motion as the member had moved on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, was not in order ' because "a motion must not raise a question substantially identical with one on which the house has given a decision in the same session."
I submit that this amendment of the hon. member for Lake Centre is in substantially the same terms as have already been moved in debate on this bill and negatived by the house. The rule against repetitious amendments is applicable to this amendment, which I submit is out of order on that ground also.


James Horace King: After listening to hon. members on both sides of the house my humble opinion is that the amendment is out of
order. We have before us a motion for the third reading of bill No. 7, an act respecting citizenship, nationality, naturalization and status of aliens, and an amendment to that motion that the bill be referred back to committee of the whole "to assure the maintenance and preservation of democratic and traditional processes of liberty and of equality under the law of all Canadian citizens without regard to race, creed or colour," and that for that purpose a resolution shall be submitted to the House of Commons with a view to adopting a bill of rights. It is my opinion that the bill of rights is so important, as has been expressed by many members of the house, that it should be dealt with in a bill by itself. It is not relevant to the bill now before us for third reading, which is an act respecting citizenship, nationality, naturalization and the status of aliens, to determine what parliament should do on another occasion, and therefore I rule the amendment out of order.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I respectfully appeal from your decision?


John George Diefenbaker: I was paired with the bon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank). Had I voted, I would have voted against your ruling.


Mr. BEAUDOIN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming). Hal I voted I would have voted to sustain the ruling.


Mr. McCUBBIN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the ruling.


Mr. MacNAUGHT:: I was paired with the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Coyle). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the ruling.


Mr. DOUGLAS:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Queens (Mr. McLure). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the ruling.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: I was paired with
the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Bridges). Had I voted I would have voted against the ruling.
NAYS Messrs:
Aylesworth	Lennard
Barrett	Low'
Black (Yukon)	Maedonnell (Mr
Blair	Ontario)
Boucher	MacNieol
Bradshaw .	Menary
Brooks	Merritt
Cardiff	Murphy
Case	Pearkes
Charlton	Ross (Souris)
Drope	Senn
Fraser	Skey
Graydon	Smith (Calgary
Green	West)
Hackett	Stephenson
Hatfield	Stirling
Henderson	Stokes
Hodgson	Tustin
Jackman	Webb
Kuhl	Wylie-38.

(The list of pairs is furnished by the chief
whips).
Messrs:
King, Mackenzie Beaudry Breithaupt Clark
McDonald (Parry Sound)
Michaud Ross (Hamilton East J Whitman Kirk
Bracken
Adamson
Harris (Danforth)
Desmond
Daniel
Ferguson Cocker am
Harkness White (Hastings-Peterborough)


Mr. HAZBN:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired
w'ith the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Cote). Had I voted I would have voted to support your ruling.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: I was paired with the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Macdonald). Had I voted I would have voted against the ruling.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver). Had I voted 1 would have voted against the ruling.


Mr. PICARD:: I was paired with the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mr. Cassel-man). Had I voted I would have voted for the ruling.
Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead): Mr. Speaker, the other evening I endeavoured without success to put forward an objection to one of the sections of the bill. The chairman came to the conclusion, and I have no quarrel with his decision, that it would be better to defer discussion until a more appropriate time.
This bill, which has occupied the attention of the house for some weeks, contains in reality two provisions. It enables a British subject possessed of all rights in Canada to call himself a Canadian citizen. But apart from that, if I fully understand the measure, it indicates that two classes of people shall be shorn of certain rights. The first class is

Canadian Citizenship
the British subject born outside Canada who comes to Canada; his case has been fully-debated and decided. The other class, whose lot has not been discussed, is that of the alien woman who becomes a wife of a Canadian citizen. I suppose ninety-five per cent of those who will be affected by this measure live in the border constituencies. If I am correctly informed, the minister who has guided this bill through the house represents such a constituency. It is also my privilege to represent a border constituency. In my constituency, and I dare say in the constituency of the minister, cupid is frequently a trespasser. He frequently wanders beyond the confines of our native land, and he brings home rich treasure trove.
Why should the girl from Vermont who comes to a farm in Stanstead be denied the right of becoming by marriage a Canadian citizen? I asked the minister if there was any demand for this legislation. I asked also the reason for departing from a rule which is clear,, well known, and embodied in the statutory law of all British countries for more than a hundred years.


Mr. MARTIN:: No one is denied that right under this bill.


Mr. HACKETT:: My hon. friend says that no woman is denied that right. Does the United States woman marrying a Canadian citizen become a Canadian citizen?


Paul Joseph James Martin: She can if she wants to. She has full control of her.own status.


John Thomas Hackett: She can if she waits for five years, and if she is able to go to a court possibly a hundred miles from her home and there await the delays of justice in order that she may ultimately become naturalized. To-day, if the same girl marries , the boy she may many after this bill becomes law she becomes as of right and immediately a Canadian citizen.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Where does my hon. friend find anything in the bill that states that such a woman has to wait for five years?


John Thomas Hackett: Will the minister be good enough to tell me if an alien woman marrying a Canadian citizen to-day does not become a British subject? I do not ask the question as a partisan; I do not think anything is to be gained by considering it in that way. The bill is of importance to the people whom I represent. I desire that the legislation which results from our deliberations be useful to everyone and curtail the rights of no one. In that spirit I should be grateful if the minister will answer the question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Section 10(1) provides that a minister may grant a certificate of Canadian citizenship to any person who is not a Canadian citizen, and who makes application for that purpose and satisfies the court that he has resided continuously in Canada for a period of one year immediately preceding the date of the application, and, in addition, except where the applicant has served outside Canada in the armed forces of Canada during the time of war or where the applicant is the wife of and resides in Canada with a Canadian citizen, has also resided in Canada for a further period of not less than four years during the six years immediately preceding the date of the application.


John Thomas Hackett: I have no desire to be amusing, and probably I could not be if I wished to be. One added to four makes five. I shall be glad if the minister will correct me if I am wrong. Would it take five years for a United States girl who marries a Canadian man to become a citizen?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not think I can state it any more clearly than by reading the section. My hon. friend is a good lawyer, and it is because he is a good lawyer that I thought I would read the section rather than confine myself to my own language.


Mrs. STRUM:: A great many girls who were members of the armed forces will marry men in Holland, Germany and France, or perhaps men of Polish origin. Would the hon. member like to have those men come in as husbands of Canadian girls and immediately attain the status of Canadian citizenship?


John Thomas Hackett: As I understand her question, the hon. member Is anxious to know whether a Canadian girl who has married an alien would be able to bring home her husband and give him the status of a Canadian. I submit that the prerogative of determining the nationality of the family must be given either to the man or to the woman. If it be given to the man, the question does not arise; if it be given to the woman, my answer is yes. In other days relationship was established through the woman. The mother's name went to the child. An old adage was, "Maternitas factum est; paternitas supposito"-:maternity is a fact; paternity a supposition. For that reason, throughout the centuries the child took the name of his mother and relationship was established through the blood-stream of the mother only.
I tell the hon. member that it makes very little difference whether nationality be conferred as a result of the husband's nationality or of the wife's. The fact is that as a result of marriage a family has been founded, and I

Canadian Citizenship

submit that that family should now be one and united. In the past-it might be said it was the benighted past-it was the man who gave his nationality to the family.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: The minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that children born in this country, regardless of the nationality of their parents or even though the parents have not been nationalized are considered Canadian citizens.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: We are not depriving the offspring of those children of citizenship.


John Thomas Hackett: I think the answer to the question is not quite as simple or as concise as that given by the minister.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is precisely that, as the hon. gentleman will see if he looks at section 4.


John Thomas Hackett: The question of double nationality comes in there. The children preserve their right to optate; the child of a United States citizen born in this country preserves his right to United States nationality by registration at the appropriate office of his country, provided that when he attains majority he may optate for United States citizenship if he has not committed certain acts, denying him the right, such as voting.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: I am much concerned about this and I should like to know the law.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The law is exactly as the hon. member for Qu'Appelle has stated it. Anyone born in this country is a citizen of Canada.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: There is the case raised by the hon. member for Stanstead of the child of a man who has not attained citizenship. If that child is a minor and still has the right to choose, does not the act of voting in this country make him a Canadian citizen?
And hon. MEMBER: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps this cross-firing is disillusioning, and it is certainly not in accordance with the rules of the house. I think we ought to wait until the hon. member has finished speaking, because we are really not in order in carrying on like this.


John Thomas Hackett: If we accept the statement of the minister that an alien woman marrying a Canadian citizen can become a citizen in a shorter period than five years she is still deprived of a right which she enjoys at the present time. I have no desire to diminish the status of any person, be he a male or be she a female, but why should we place a barrier in the way of these people? Why should we say to the young alien woman who

is marrying a Canadian that she cannot enjoy immediately the right of becoming a Canadian citizen if she so optates? The minister said in answer to a query which I directed to him some days ago that this matter had come up in 1930. It appears to have been discussed at some length at that time but nothing ever came of the discussion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not say that.


John Thomas Hackett: No; I am saying it. It was discovered that more than forty nations adhered to the rule set forth in section 13 of our Naturalization Act as amended in 1931, in consequence of the Hague conference, and that only five countries, the most signal and outstanding of which was, of course, the United States of America, had departed from it. The other countries were Paraguay, Uruguay, Russia, and Guatemala. So the whole world, with the exception of these five countries-and with great respect to them all, I suppose we are more interested in what was done in the United States than in what was done elsewhere-follows the rule which we are abandoning.
The United States abandoned the rule for an economic reason. A number of her citizens were leaving the United States, taking up their domicile in some sunny isle of the Pacific, or even coming to Canada, where, in those days, taxes were lower than they were in the United States. In this way they were escaping some of the burdens of citizenship while at the same time enjoying all the benefits thereof. That was the reason for the change in the United States legislation.
I am going to read into the record our present law, as enacted in 1931. This amendment to the Naturalization Act was enacted to meet a very difficult situation which came about after the United States had abandoned the rule of domicile and accepted that of nationality. It happened that in the course of the last war some Canadian women married citizens of the United States. The result was that these women were not citizens of the United States because by the legislation of that country they were denied citizenship. They ceased to be British subjects in Canada, because, according to our law, they had forsworn their allegiance, or had lost their nationality by marrying citizens of the United States. One very painful case, with which a number of members in 1931 were fully familiar, came to the attention of the house. A young Canadian woman married a citizen of the United States, and a child was born. He was not in enjoyment of perfect health. The woman could not get a Canadian passport because she was not a British subject in

Canadian Citizenship
Canada. She could not get a United States passport because she was not a citizen of that country. She could not cross the boundary line because she had this child, who was infirm, and who was not wanted here or there.
This hardship occasioned the amendment of 1931. That amendment to section 13 of the Naturalization Act is as follows:
13. (1) The wife of a British subject shall be deemed to be a British subject, and the wife of an alien shall be deemed to be an alien, except as in this section otherwise provided.
(2)	Where a woman who is a British subject marries an alien she shall not by reason only of her marriage cease to be a British subject unless by reason of her marriage she acquires the nationality of her husband.
(3)	Where a man, during the continuance of his marriage, ceases to be a British subject, his wife shall not cease to be a British subject unless by reason of the acquisition by her husband of a new nationality she also acquires that nationality.
(4)	Where notwithstanding the provisions of the last foregoing subsection a married woman would cease to be a British subject, it shall nevertheless be lawful for her within six months after the date at which she would cease to be a British subject, or in special circumstances with the consent of the minister within any longer period than six months, to make a declaration that she desires to retain British nationality, and thereupon she shall be deemed to have remained a British subject.
(5)	Where a certificate of naturalization is granted to an alien his wife, if not already a British subject, shall not be deemed to be a British subject unless within six months after the date of that certificate, or in special circumstances with the consent of the minister within any longer period than six months, she makes a declaration that she desires to acquire British nationality and upon the making of such declaration she shall be deemed to be a British subject.
(6)	Where an alien is a subject of a state at war with His Majesty it shall be lawful for his wife, if she was at birth a British subject, to make a declaration that she desires to resume British nationality, and thereupon the minister, if he is _ satisfied that it is desirable that she be permitted to do so, may grant her a certificate of naturalization.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle cited a case. She did not say whether it was a specific case, but she did mention a woman who had married an alien who later was deported because it was discovered that he had committed some crime in the land of his origin. It was suggested that he was not properly or legally landed in Canada.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: I just cited an example which illustrated the point made by the women's institutes when offering their petition to .have the law changed. An alien resident in this country was being deported; the crime was committed here, and for that reason he was being deported back to the country from which he came.
63260-100J


John Thomas Hackett: That is an exceptional case. I am not certain that the law can meet all cases which arise. But it seems to me that a short paragraph added to section 13, which I have read, would meet the case mentioned by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle.
However, we are only talking about marriage between a citizen and an alien. No one suggests that marriage is always what we are pleased to call successful. Even between natural-born citizens, marriages fail. I assume that so long as humanity is what it is, there will be people united in marriage who are not happy and do not agree. But I submit that we should endeavour to eliminate as many of the causes of disagreement as possible, and I suggest that dual nationality in the home is not getting the young people off to as good a start as they are entitled to. If it be objected that the young woman should not be obliged to accept the nationality of her husband, I would say that if she elected to maintain her own nationality, she should have the privilege of doing so; the act could be amended in consequence. What seems to me wrong is that the alien wife should be denied that right at the present time and forced to remain an alien for a period, even for one year. Marriage brings about changes. It changes the status of the woman, it changes the name of the woman, it changes the domicile of the woman, and it changes likewise frequently the domicile and responsibilities of the man. It is a new status, and it requires a surrender of certain rights and prerogatives which pertain to what is called single blessedness.
I come to another aspect of the case which seemed to arouse a little scorn the other day; I refer to the financial or the economical aspect of it. If the woman retains her nationality of origin, she remains subject to the laws of her own country. In the United States the rule of domicile has been abandoned for the rule of nationality, and a person pays income tax, and his estate or succession pays inheritance tax, or succession duty, if he be a national, regardless of where he is domiciled. So if a lady from the United States marries a Canadian and retains her nationality, her property at death is subject to inheritance tax in the United States regardless of where it is situated, and is likewise taxable in Canada because she was domiciled here. If she is domiciled in Canada the succession duty acts of the dominion and of the several provinces will apply to her estate. It may be possible to revamp our legislation to meet this change in the citizenship bill, but the whole British scheme of polity and
Canadian Citizenship

international policy accepts domicile as the determining factor for taxation. This act is a departure from the rule which has obtained and still obtains in British countries, and is bringing in a new rule which, I submit, will cause confusion, and in some cases hardship, and possibly loss of property. I do not consider that there has been any sufficient reason set forth to depart from the age-old rule that obtains in the dominion and in the different provinces, that obtains in Canada in its relations with the British isles and other entities in the British commonwealth of nations. I do not think that any reason has been advanced sufficient to warrant the scrapping of that age-old and equitable rule.
If a woman feels that her rights have been invaded by the fact that she has by law become a British subject by reason of her marriage to a British subject, or ceased to be one by reason of her marriage to an alien, I should not be greatly opposed to a measure which would enable her to elect at the time of marriage whether she desired to retain her nationality or accept that of her husband. I think it is the very rare case where the woman deciding to'many is not desirous, is not hopeful, that utmost unity will prevail in the family and in the home about to be established. She knows that her children will be normally endowed with the nationality of her husband, it is difficult for me to believe that a young woman entering upon that estate after mature consideration should wish to go only half way, and without very special reason elect to set up a cleavage, and an unnecessary cleavage, in the home which she and her husband are about to establish.
I am not going to move an amendment, because it would probably be futile at this time. But I ask the minister to weigh carefully what I have said, and to consider if there is not some reason to respect the tradition from which he appears to be departing, with rather-in so far as the debate goes- scant consideration.


Major James William Coldwell: I do not wish entirely to follow the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett), and, not being a lawyer, perhaps I should not attempt to interpret the law. But a few minutes ago, I am glad to say, the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Jaenicke) was able to come and sit down beside me for a few minutes, and he pointed this out to me, for he is a good lawyer-


An hon. MEMBER:: Is that a plug?


Major James William Coldwell: No plug, no. It is too far away from home to do him any good.
[Mr. Hackctt.f
I think his interpretation is sound and, if so, the argument of the hon. member for Stanstead is unsound. Section 10 (1) (c) reads- I am substituting "she" for "he":
The minister may grant a certificate of Canadian citizenship to any person who is not a Canadian citizen, and who makes application for that purpose and satisfies the court that:
(c) she has resided continuously in Canada for a period of one year immediately preceding the date of the application and, in addition, except where the applicant ... is the wife of and resides in Canada with a Canadian citizen.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is the section I read.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, and it is as clear as crystal to me that this means that if she hfis resided continuously in Canada for one year immediately preceding the date of her application, if she is the wife of a man who resides in Canada and who is a Canadian citizen, she is entitled to Canadian nationality.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If she wants it.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, upon application. That would seem to cover the point.
As to the other point, the nationality of our people who cross the line into the United States, I imagine that they would have to fulfil residential and other qualifications . before they would be entitled to citizenship in the United States.
But what I rose to speak about was a bill of rights. First let me say that while on the first reading of the amendment of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) I was of the opinion that it was in order, having listened to the argument I was compelled to change my mind.


James Arthur Ross: Did the hon. member not argue before that it was in order?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, but I say that after listening to the argument on the point after I had spoken I came to the conclusion that I was wrong and that the others were right, and when convinced of that I usually act accordingly, although it may make one feel a little awkward, but I do not mind feeling a little awkward when I know I am doing the right thing.


Mr. BROOKS:: It must keep you shifting quite a lot.


Major James William Coldwell: I do not often shift.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: You can shift quickly.


Major James William Coldwell: 
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I can only renew the assurance I gave the other evening when this point was being discussed. Unfortunately there has been no opportunity since for a full council consideration of the matter, but I assure my hon. friend that at the earliest opportunity the question will be considered carefully by council in the light of the representations that have come from various quarters of the house and also in the light, may I say to my hon. friend who knows this as well as I, of the great difficulties involved with reference to certain provincial and other rights within Canada. But I can assure him that the matter will be definitely considered.


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. gentleman
means that the earliest possible consideration will be given to it by council?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, except that I doubt very much that it would be possible to give the question the consideration it deserves while the hou'se is sitting. It might be, but in any event at the very first opportunity I shall bring the representations that have been made from various quarters of the house on this question to the attention of council.


Major James William Coldwell: I am not suggesting that it be done immediately, but that before next session or at the next session we should either have before us a bill of rights or a committee set up which would go into the whole question and consider the constitutional difficulties and so on with a view to drafting a bill of rights which would be within the powers of this parliament. So long as we have that assurance I shall not move this preamble.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I would not wish to restrict myself to the term " bill of rights," because it might be a declaration of principles along the lines indicated by my hon. friend and by the hon. member for Lake Centre and others, but I can assure my hon. friend that the general representations which have been made along this line in this debate will be considered by council as soon as possible.


Major James William Coldwell: I am not particularly concerned about the term used. I simply used the term "bill of rights" because that ha3 been frequently used in the debate by other hon. members. But I want something in the nature of a bill of rights as we have termed it in this debate, setting forth the rights of Canadian citizenship, particularly the right of a Canadian citizen, regardless of race, creed or colour, to enjoy the	full privileges	and	protection	of
Canadian citizenship. That is what I have in mind, and with the minister's assurance I am prepared to let the matter stand.
Mr. MAXIME RAYMOND (Beauharnois-Laprairie)	(Translation) :	Mr.	Speaker,	onthe motion for the second reading of this bill I voiced some objections to its being passed as drawn	up. I notice	that	discussion	incommittee	brought about no	improvement
and I want to state again my opposition.
As a subject of a nation which is said to be sovereign since the enactment of the statute of Westminster, I cannot agree to a measure which bears the stamp of utter colonialism, which implies a renunciation of our sovereignty. I shall merely mention two sections of the bill in order to show that through this legislation we relinquish our sovereignty. I refer to sections 22 and 26.
Under section 22, we have no right to revoke a certificate of naturalization granted in another country of the British commonwealth, without requesting the concurrence of the latter country. Such is the purport of section 22-


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon.
member is mistaken.
Canadian Citizenship


Mr. RAYMOND (Beauharnois-Laprairie) (Translation):: I am going to quote that section:
The governor in council may, with the concurrence of a government of a country of the British commonwealth other than Canada, revoke a certificate of naturalization granted in the said country to a person who resides in Canada.
It means, therefore, that we cannot revoke that certificate of naturalization without having obtained the consent of the other government by which it was granted. I say that this is a renunciation of our sovereignty.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not correct.	*
Mr. MARIER' (Translation): That is not the purport of the section.


Donat Raymond: Every one is free to construe that provision as he sees fit.


Mr. MARIER (Translation):: That is not what is meant.	.


Donat Raymond: I should like to know if that is not a renunciation of our sovereignty, since we have to request the concurrence of another nation in order to revoke a certificate of naturalization. That is my interpretation of that section.


Elphège Marier: (Translation): It refers to a certificate of naturalization granted in another country.


Donat Raymond: We already had an act, known as the Canadian Nationals Act, -which conferred the Canadian citizenship as well as the British nationality. It is being replaced by another act, having another title, which has the same purport.
Indeed, what difference is there between a Canadian national, as defined in the Canadian Nationals Act of 1921 and a Canadian citizen, as defined in this bill? According to the Canadian Nationals Act of 1921, a Canadian national is a Canadian citizen, and a Canadian citizen is a person born in Canada or naturalized in Canada, or a British subject. Under this bill, a Canadian citizen is a British subject; in either case a Canadian citizen is a British subject. Where is the difference? If there is any difference, we stand to lose, because, during the discussion on the 1921 act, Mr. Doherty, the then minister of justice, said that he had used the word "ressortissant" instead of the word "citizen" for the following reason, as recorded on page 645 of Hansard for 1921:

You may have to talk of the "subject" of one country and of the "citizen" of another country, but in "ressortissant" you get one word for them all.
So that the word "national" had a wider meaning than the word "citizen". We had dual nationality under the Canadian Nationals Act of 1921, we still have it under this bill but the situation is even worse now because our international status has changed since 1921. While we were then a dependency of Great Britain, we have ceased to be one since 1931.
I believe that, in this debate, the Secretary of State said that ours was not a dual nationality.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is just what I said.


Donat Raymond: In that case what are we to understand by the words "British subject"?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I explained them at the time.


Donat Raymond: Words either mean something or they don't. If they don't, they ought to be struck out. If they do, they mean that being a country's subject implies obligations towards that country? Besides, when the Canadian Nationals Act of 1921 was being debated, the hon. Minister of Justice then said about the words "British subject":
The purpose of the bill is to define a particular class of British subjects who. in addition to having all the rights and all the obligations of British subjects . . .
Which means that the fact of being a British subject implies obligations, and that the Canadian national had the obligations of a British subject just as the Canadian citizen will have them under this bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No!


Louis-René Beaudoin: If the hon. member will be so kind as to say from what page he is quoting-


Donat Raymond: Page 645 of Hansard.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Of what year?


Donat Raymond: 1921.


Mr. LAFONTAINE (Translation):: 1921?


Donat Raymond: Yes.


Joseph Lafontaine: You mean the English version?


Donat Raymond: Yes, the English version. And

Canadian Citizenship
on page 776, he says the following for it will be noted that the drafters of this bill refused to define the words "British subject".


Paul Joseph James Martin: In what year, 1821?


Donat Raymond: 1921. It says here on page 776 that the hon. Minister of Justice stated the following:
A British subject is a man who owes allegiance to, and who is entitled to protection as a subject of the British crown.
So that the status of British subject implies certain duties and obligations to the British crown.


Elphège Marier: To the Canadian crown.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That was said in 1938.


Donat Raymond: I beg your pardon?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That statement was made at the imperial conference of 1938, in London.


Donat Raymond: I did not know a statement had been made at the imperial conference of 1938 in London, to the effect that a British subject has no obligation to the British crown.


Louis-René Beaudoin: May I ask a question? Is the position of a' British subject in 1946 the same as in 1921?


Donat Raymond: Yes, because if it is different, I fail to see why the bill does not give a definition of the term "British subject". Nowhere is such a definition to be found in the bill, while the word "British" was defined in the previous act.
Besides, the British nationality is to be found all through this bill. Canadian citizenship is drowned in the British nationality to which it is subordinated. To be a Canadian subject, one has to be a British subject. That is clearly expressed in section 26 of the bill.
How different this bill is from the nationality act passed by Ireland in 1935. They do not use the term "British subject". They even went further and abrogated the British Nationality Act of 1914, in so far as it might apply. May I- be permitted to quote a statement made at Waterford, on the 28th of January, 1946, by the Prime Minister of Ireland. Mr. de Valera:
Our country is a sovereign and independent state. We have our own constitution and our own citizenship laws and none of our citizens owes any allegiance to Great Britain or to the British crown. We are not British subjects and it is impertinent to say that we are.
The present bill offered an opportunity clearly to define the situation; instead I believe that it is now more muddled than ever. We should have followed Ireland's example in asserting our sovereignty and our independence. We should have passed an act similar to the Irish Nationality Act-which would have given to Canadians a Canadian nationality, distinct from that of other countries.
As the present bill does not give us a Canadian nationality distinct from British nationality, I am opposed to it.


Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: I
have had so many representations from people in my riding who were born in the old country, as I presume other hon. members have had, that I am impelled to make a few more observations in reference to the bill. The people to whom I refer have been encouraging their relations in the old country to move out to Canada. They are now afraid that if the bill passes their relations will move to Australia instead.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They need have no fear of that.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister shakes his head. Presumably he thoroughly understands the bill but I cannot understand it. I do not understand the English language, apparently, although I taught it for several years, if I read correctly the meaning of the bill.
I am going to tell the house why the old countryman would prefer going to Australia or New Zealand to coming to Canada. Personally I would much rather see him come to Canada. What is the situation with reference to Australia? The minister shook his head a moment ago, and on a previous occasion argued against what I said. I shall begin my remarks by saying a word or two about the Australian act because, when I spoke last, I asked the minister two specific questions. One of these questions had to do with a soldier of Europe who was of non-British origin, but who had fled to Great Britain for refuge when war broke out and later on joined the Canadian forces. In due course he returned to fight on the continent of Europe. I asked the minister whether if that soldier came to Canada and remained here for one year, he would be admitted to full citizenship, and the answer was yes. I then asked about the old country soldier who fought in an adiacent regiment under the same
15S8
Canadian Citizenship

general, General Sir Bernard Montgomery, who commanded a large number of British and Canadian regiments. I asked whether a British soldier who marched alongside the soldier of non-British origin in an adjacent Canadian regiment would obtain complete citizenship in Canada if he remained here for one year, and the answer was no.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not say that at all.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I shall quote the minister so that there will be no mistake about the matter. The answer was no, that he would not obtain full Canadian citizenship in Canada until he was here for five years. I shall now quote what the minister said. Perhaps he has forgotten what he said. After rehearsing what I have just said, I asked the minister a question, as reported at page 1139 of Hansard and he replied, referring to the soldier of non-British origin.
The soldier in that ease is identified with the country. The point is that he served in the armed forces of Canada and fought with the Canadian forces overseas, and that gives him citizenship.
Now take the other soldier, British, who fought in the regiment alongside the Canadian regiment:
Mr. MacNicol: The non-British soldier would get citizenship in one year, but the British soldier fighting alongside him would not get it under five years?
Mr. Martin:	If he came in he would, of
course, have the right to vote and do everything as a British subject. He is a British subject. He could come to Canada and have the privileges of Canadian citizenship.
Mr. MacNicol:	But he would not get his full
citizenship until five years had expired?
Mr. Martin: He would not get his certificate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not the question the hon. gentleman just put,


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes, it is. That is not the situation in Australia; and as a Canadian T am afraid that multitudes of Britishers whom we shall want to come here when times are normal again, to help build up and develop this country as many of their relations have done and as my relations have done, will not come here under those circumstances. Nothing I can say now can alter the bill, I know, and I am not going to move an amendment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would my hon. friend permit a remark?


John Ritchie MacNicol: No; I would rather finish what I have to say, because the minister has interrupted me every time I have been on my feet. I can read plain English as well as he can, and I have just quoted his words.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend and I are very understanding friends. We both have the same objective, and I am sure he would not want any of his words to be misconstrued and have the effect of suggesting that people should not come to this country, because our provisions are much more generous in relation to British subjects than are the provisions in Australia.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Perhaps when I get
through reading the Australian act the minister will be convinced otherwise. Just for the sake of clarification I wish to put on record a few definitions from the Australian act. I am referring to the Commonwealth Acts, 1901-1935, which is the latest I could obtain. I went to the Australian office here to get a later volume, but they had nothing later pertaining to this. I turn to page 99, where I find the act relating to nationality and aliens. There I find this definition:
"Alien" means a person who is not a British subject.
That is the same as with us. That is clear enough. The next question is, w'hat is a British subject? The answer is given on page 100:
"British subject" means a person who is a natural-born British subject, or a person to whom a certificate of naturalization has been granted . . .
The next one is the definition of a natural-born British subject! Section 6, on page 100, gives this definition:
(a) Any person born within His Majesty's dominions and allegiance . . .
The next question is, what is a naturalized British subject in Australia? At page 102 I find this definition, under the heading "Naturalization of Aliens":
(1) The governor general may grant a certificate of naturalization to an alien-
That is a non-British subject,
-who makes an application for the purpose, and satisfies the governor general-
(a) that he has either resided in His Majesty's dominions for a period of not less than five years in the manner required by this section, or been in the service of the crown for not less than five years within the last eight years before the application . . .
Then subsection 2 states:
The residence required by this section is residence in the commonwealth or a territory for not less than one year immediately preceding the application, and previous residence, either in the commonwealth or a territory or in some other part of His Majesty's dominions, for a period of four years within the last eight years before the application.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is exactly the same as our provision.

Canadian Citizenship


John Ritchie MacNicol: Let us take the ease of a Britisher, who is not an alien, living in England and going to Australia. He does not have to be there for five years before he gets naturalization.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, yes, he does.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Not only that; he votes within six months of going there.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In some of the states.


John Ritchie MacNicol: He does not even have to wait for a year, as he does here.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In some of the states of Australia he votes; not in Australia itself.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Well, I am going to quote from the Australian election act, at page 850 of the same volume:
Subject to the disqualification set out in this part, all persons not under twenty-one years of age, whether male or female, married or unmarried-
(a)	who have lived in Australia for six months continuously and
(b)	who are natural-born or naturalized subjects of the king . . .
That is as clear as a-b-c to me; that if I move to Australia I have to be there only for one year iiintil I am an Australian citizen, with all privileges. I so inquired, and that is the answer I was given.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Only in regard to the right to vote. You would be liable to deportation within five years in Australia.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister keeps saying that, but I am not talking about deportation. An immigrant may be deported if he commits some crime, but I am talking about full citizenship, which I would have in Australia within a year.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is not a bit of difference in the situation between Australia and Canada.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Well, I hope I am wrong but I am sorry to say that as this bill now reads, compelling a Briton to remain here for five years before he obtains full citizenship, I believe it will have a serious effect on immigration into this country. I personally would not move to any commonwealth if I had to remain there for five years before I got full citizenship. I have only a word or two more to say.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If the hon. gentleman would put a simple question to the Australian government: if he would ask them if with regard to voting privileges, and with regard to the period during which a person may be 63260-101
deported, their act differs in any way from our aot, I should be interested to hear the answer. There is no difference whatever.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I notice that at page
1000 of Hansard, after having previously said that the Australian act was the same as ours, the minister went on to say:
The Prime Minister of Australia has said that the Canadian citizenship bill now before this house makes such an appeal to that country that they are going to take similar action.
Well, from that I would judge that they have not taken action, in spite of what the minister says.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime Minister of Australia announced that he was so pleased with this bill that they proposed to adopt exactly the same principles.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I do not want to see this bill held up for long, but I should be glad if on another occasion the minister would quote and give the date of the quotation, the statement he says was made by the Australian Prime Minister; because before the Prime Minister of Australia left for England, where he is now, it was announced that part o.f the programme to be considered in London was an empire citizenship.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, no.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Oh, yes; I quoted that when I spoke previously. The minister has a happy faculty of simply shaking his head and saying, "no," but I can read English as well as he can.
I wish to point out one other anomaly. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) quoted the election act of one of the Canadian provinces which stated that in order to vote in that province a person had to be a Canadian citizen. Well, I picture two brothers coming to Canada from, say, Liverpool or Manchester or Edinburgh or Belfast, or any other part of the British commonwealth. The one comes to Toronto; the other goes to Montreal.. Some time after this measure is passed a provincial election comes along in the province of Quebec. The brother who goes to Montreal, not being a full citizen, will not have the right to vote for five years.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not correct.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am glad to hear the minister say I am wrong, but the hon. member for Vancouver South says I am right, and with all due respect to my good friend the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) I will take the legal advice of the hon. member for Vancouver South first.

Canadian Citizenship


Paul Joseph James Martin: Has the hon. member read the case I cited?


John Ritchie MacNicol: I shall be through in a moment and then the minister may reply to what I have just said. I had not finished saying that the brother going to Toronto would be able to vote in that city if a provincial election came along after he had been there for one year. He would not have to be a Canadian citizen, except that in the eyes of the law he would be so interpreted in Ontario, which wquld give him the right to vote.
Apart from that anomaly, let me say in conclusion that I see a trend going on here and there. I do not say this legislation is part of that trend, but it is one of the things that are having or may have a serious effect on the strength of this great commonwealth of nations of which Canada forms a part. According to the Ottawa Citizen of May 7 a distinguished and able man gave an address which was reported under this heading:
Best Security for Peace Said Commonwealth
By this whoever wrote the heading meant that the best security for peace is the British commonwealth, and with that statement I am in entire agreement. I do not like to see these various things going on which will loosen the bonds of this empire. The newspaper report went on to say:
"The best security we yet have for peace in the world is the British commonwealth of nations," said Doctor R. C. Wallace, principal, Queens university, in an address at the Ottawa Rotary club luncheon meeting in the Chateau yesterday.
The remarks were made here in Ottawa; I thought perhaps they had been made in Kingston.
"When Britain stood with her back to the wall and on the day when we feared that the BBC voice over the >air might be the last from a free Britain, we realized how deep were our relationships and felt that if she went down everything we thought worth while would go down, too."
That is the feeling I have. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I am alarmed at one thing and mother which are taking place here in Canada, which to me seem to be breaking up the ties that bind. Others may not have that opinion, but no one can blame me for feeling that way. That is my opinion, and it is the opinion of multitudes. I feel that if this bill in any way interferes with the migration of British men to this country by not giving them full citizenship until after five years, they will not come here. As British I would not go to Australia or New Zealand or any other part of the empire where I was barred from full citizenship for a period of five years.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: I wish to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I will take just a few minutes, but I thought I should answer the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) and assure him that to give women the privileges of citizenship in their own. right, rather than through their husbands, will not threaten the homes of this country. I personally was put to considerable inconvenience a few years ago when I attempted to obtain a passport. Much to my amazement I found that, although I had been born of British parents who had been in this country for several generations, I was now the wife of the son of a British subject by naturalization, because my husband's father had come from the United States and taken out citizenship here. I was delayed for weeks and weeks while my husband procured ar certificate; but had he not gone to this trouble, and had his father not taken out his citizenship I might have found myself in the position in which thousands of other Canadian women have found themselves, of having inadvertently lost citizenship and become aliens.
Having been a candidate for office on three occasions; having done poll work several times and helped to make up voters' lists, I know of dozens and dozens of girls who have come of age and have found that without their knowledge-because they knew nothing of law; they only got married-they were suddenly no longer Canadian citizens but aliens, and unable to vote. I am sure the hon. member for Stanstead would not wish to perpetuate that condition. Undoubtedly all hon. members who believe in the rights of human beings-not the rights of men and women as opposing factions, or as two groups which have nothing to gain or lose, but as human beings-will want to see people have certain inalienable rights. Citizenship should be one of those rights.
In the long process of history, in the long march of civilization, we have gradually struck from women those shackles. We started out with woman as the property of man. It is not many years since a man could will his unborn child away from the mother. It is not many years since a woman did not have. the right to own property in her own name, after marriage. Automatically it went to the husband.
These are forward steps we have taken, writing into the statutes of our country the rights of human beings, regardless of their being men or women. I should like to congratulate the minister-and I should have done it much earlier-upon the stand he has taken.

Supply-A griculture


Mr. HLYNKA:: Is the Secretary of State ready to reply to the question I asked in connection with the acquisition of naturalization by Sam Carr?


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: While there is no reply on third reading, the minister has the privilege of speaking in the same way as arty other member.


Mr. W. A. McMASTER (High Park):: Mr. Speaker I rise to speak particularly respecting section 10 (1) (c) of the bill. I noticed this afternoon that the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett), misinterpreted the language.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With all deference to the hon. member, I think we should have some semblance of order in respect of debate on specific sections of the bill. It must be remembered that it was considered in detail in committee of the whole. I do not rise with any desire to be objectionable, but simply to follow the rules of the house.


William Alexander McMaster: If the Secretary of State (Mr. Martin) does not want any assistance in clarifying this section, then I am quite satisfied. I speak only for the purpose of making it clear. I suggest it has been read by two people this afternoon, each of whom had a different interpretation of what it meant. When we were in committee I said I did not understand it, but perhaps I was the only one who did not understand it. If it is that bad, I should think the minister would want to have some assistance to make it clear, because it certainly is not clear. However, I leave it entirely to the Secretary of State.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Go ahead.


William Alexander McMaster: I suggest that if there were brackets before the word "except" in the third line of paragraph (c), and if those -brackets were closed after the word "citizen" in the seventh line thereof, the paragrapn would be clear.
The minister is trying to give rights to a wife or to a member of the armed forces by way of exception. I submit that is bad draftsmanship, because he has always maintained that nothing is being taken away from any citizen. On the other hand, I have maintained that a man became a citizen as soon as he came here. The Secretary of State has always argued differently, namely that they did not get full citizenship for five years The only manner in which he now gives the right to a member of the armed forces or to a wife is by way of exception. Therefore I submit that it is bad draftsmanship to try to give to these people rights by way of exception rather than by positive enactment.


Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask a question with reference to the assurance asked by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). I wanted to be sure whether the leader of the house gave the assurance merely that the government in due course would consider the hon. member's request, or whether he was actually acceding to that request which, as I understood it, was an assurance that at some stage a committee would be appointed to deal with the whole subject. My understanding was that all the minister said was that the matter would be taken into consideration by the cabinet.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I repeat on third reading what I said the other day. I thank hon. members on all sides of the house for their cooperation and valuable suggestions-and in this I should like to include the lady member-in respect of what I think is one of the great bills of this parliament, and which will give this great nation the recognition it deserves.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Science service-
5. Science service administration, $32,487.
Item stands.
Marketing service-
2G. Dairy products, $438,652.
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: I wanted to call item 26 for the purpose of answering a question which was asked yesterday and putting in order any discussion with regard to it. This explains my absence from the chamber for the last hour or so. It concerns subsidies for dairy products. The position which has been taken by the government in relation to the matter results in an announcement of policy which concerns milk products over a period of time. I am not in a position at the moment to cover all the milk products, but those which have been most under discussion in recent days I am in a position to deal with.
In the first place, it has been decided that the consumer subsidy on fluid milk will be removed as of June 1, and control over prices will be returned from that date to the pro-
Supply-Agriculture

vincial milk boards. That is, in so far as control of prices is concerned the position will revert to where it was prior to the coming into effect of the prices board so far as fluid milk prices are concerned. In order to allow provincial boards an adequate period in which to make necessary price adjustments, a subsidy of fifty-five cents per 100 pounds will be paid to producers of fluid milk from May 1 to September 30, 1946, it being understood that this subsidy will be removed completely at the later date. It is provided that the subsidy be limited to thirty-five cents in areas where the agricultural food board considers this adequate. That is replacing the provision which was there before, that in those certain areas the limit was twenty-five cents. In view of recent adjustments in the price ceiling on butter, no further action in respect of the present subsidy on butter fat for creamery butter is considered to be required. It is necessary for certain reasons to give further consideration to the subsidies on milk entering into cheese, and into processed milk. The result of these discussions will be announced shortly, that is within the next few days. It is definitely understood that if any adjustments are made they will be upward as compared with the present summer subsidy. That is, if any adjustments are made on the cheese and the processed milk those adjustments will be upward as compared with the subsidies provided for the summer.
I have called the item "dairy products" under "marketing" in order to make it possible for hon. members, without being out of order, to ask any questions they desire to ask or to carry on any discussion in relation to it.


John Thomas Hackett: Availing myself of that suggestion, I will ask the minister if he will state whether there is any intention on the part of his department to increase the ceiling price of creamery butter.


James Garfield Gardiner: I just made the
announcement in connection with butter, that action with regard to butter has already been taken. It is proportioned to the action which is being taken in connection with other milk products.


John Thomas Hackett: But the minister stated the other day that, in spite of the action taken, there is still a discrepancy in the return to the producer who makes butter instead of cheese; he does not get as much money.


James Garfield Gardiner: I was really arguing that if there was a change over from cheese to butter, as apparently there had been in the province of Quebec, where it was easier for them to do it, where they have gone up very much in butter production, the indications
{Mr. Gardiner.J
were that there was something in favour of butter production. That is simply because of the taking off of the small subsidy which had been paid by the Quebec government, they switch over from cheese to butter, which would indicate that if there is any difference anywhere else it is a very small one.


James Arthur Ross: Does that mean that there is no further subsidy for consumers of whole milk anywhere in Canada, that that is entirely eliminated?


James Garfield Gardiner: As of the 30th September next.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The consumer milk subsidy comes off from the first of June.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, from the first of June. It is the producers' subsidy which comes off as of the 30th of September.


Mr. WRIGHT:: Some days ago the minister in answer to questions asked by various hon. members stated that when the subsidies on agricultural products were removed the Farm Prices Support Act would be brought into action and that the floor prices under the various agricultural products would be announced. Already there have been several removals of subsidies on agricultural products, on canning vegetables, canning fruit, and now on milk. I would ask the minister when it is intended to bring into operation the Farm Prices Support Act and place floor prices on these particular products. We are having shortages to-day of most agricultural products, and in my opinion one of the reasons for those shortages is the present uncertainty with regard to prices. I am quite sure that is one of the main reasons for the drop in production in quite a few lines. As regards dairy products, we find that figures were placed before the house showing a great increase in the export of dairy cattle at the present time, and one of the main reasons is that there is no certainty as to what prices for dairy products will be in the near future. I would like the minister, if he can, to inform us when floor prices will be placed under these products under the authority of the Farm Prices Support Act, which was passed by this house just before the last election.


James Garfield Gardiner: The Farm Prices "Floor" Act, as it has been described-and that is as good a term to describe it as any, I think- was put on the statute books at the last session prior to the election, and when that bill was before the house the statement made was to the effect that the bill would be brought into operation at any time it was necessary to. bring it in for the purpose of maintaining returns to farmers. Returns include both price

Supply-Agriculture
and subsidy. Under the discussions we had at that time I think both terms were included. It would be brought into effect at any time it was necessary to retain the returns to farmers in a position which would be comparable with that of the last three years prior to that time. What was had in mind at the time was this, that farmers had been receiving for their products certain returns which were considered to be fairly reasonable in relation to the prices they had to pay for what they had to buy.
Quite an effort was made to have us say that those prices would be based on parity. We did not say that in those terms, because there are so many different interpretations of the word "parity" that it would be most difficult to justify ourselves one way or the other. But we did say that the relationship between what the farmers were getting and what they were paying would be taken into consideration when a decision was being reached as to when we would put the bill into effect.
The present position is that the bill has already been declared operative, and there is an item of $50,000 in these estimates for its administration. The new membership has not yet been appointed. At the time the bill was going through I stated that we would appoint a permanent chairman and that two officials of the Department of Agriculture would act as temporary members of the commission to function until such time as it might become necessary for the board to operate to control any downward trend in the prices of farm products. I do not think it would be correct to say that there has been any downward trend in the returns received by the farmers up to 'the moment, when you take into consideration both prices and subsidy, so that there has been no reason up to the moment for taking any action beyond what has been taken, as a result of anything that was said at the time the bill was going through.
The present position is not exactly as stated by the hon. member for Melfort. There is not a shortage in Canada in the production of farm products. There is, of course, a shortage in satisfying all the markets of the world, because there is a gfeater demand from other countries for Canadian farm products than we are able to supply. But the shortage is not in Canada. There is no shortage of food for Canadian consumption except in butter, and every year since I have had to do with public affairs, there has been a shortage of butter to supply the needs of the Canadian people. But so far as all other farm products are concerned there is a surplus supply, as I recall at the moment, with the possible exception of feed grain, and that is
because everything else is so high. We have not the feed grains at present to make absolutely certain that we can feed all the live stock we have through until we have a new crop, and unless the promise of crop conditions changes materially within the next month we are not going to be concerned so much about finding markets for our farm products as we shall be concerned about feeding the live stock we have. I have been suggesting for over a year that what we need to be most concerned about in this country is getting feed. We have never been in such danger of not having enough feed as we are right now. One of the reasons for that is that we have met in greater degree I think than any other country all the demands that are being made upon us for grain to feed the different peoples of the world to keep them alive. We have been going far beyond anything we are justified in doing in order to provide for them. That is the only shortage we are likely to have in the immediate future in the production of farm products. Any other shortages we may have will depend upon the feed supply.
The position then is that we have been maintaining prices at the levels at least at which they were before, and we have been increasing them from time to time.
So far as this particular product is concerned, we are now simply saying that, we are turning the control over prices and distribution back to where it was before, to the provincial boards which were handling it until it was taken over by the prices board, and we shall not be in a position to say whether the floor prices bill should be applied in connection with the products until we see the results of the action that will be taken between now and September. During that period we are going to be paying higher subsidies than we ever paid before, and so far as we know the producer is going to be receiving higher prices than he received during the three years of which I spoke. We shall not be in a position to take any action under legislation or under anything that was said until we see the results of the action taken between now and September.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Is the minister
going to press for the passing of this item to-day?


James Garfield Gardiner: I will ask to have it stand after we get through with this discussion.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Can we continue with its discussion after eight o'clock.


James Garfield Gardiner: As long as this item is before the committee.
Supply-Agricul ture


George Alexander Cruickshank: And then it will stand so that we can revert to it? I should like to read the minister's remarks in Hansard.


James Garfield Gardiner: I should like to have all the discussion we are going to have on this item to-day. Then the item can stand and we can take up item 5. These estimates will be on to-morrow and we can come back to this item before my estimates are through.


Major James William Coldwell: Would it not be better to have all the discussion on this item before we leave it?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is exactly what I am proposing, that we complete the discussion on this item before we leave it.


Percy Ellis Wright: I should like to read a letter that I received to-day from a farmer in my constituency dealing directly with the statement just made by the minister with respect to feed and the reason for the reduction in production. This man's letter has to do with bacon.


James Garfield Gardiner: Probably I have the same letter.


Percy Ellis Wright: This man's letter is dated May 11, 1946. He says:	*
Dear Sir:
Some time ago I saw in the Star-Phoenix an article giving Mr. Gardiner great praise for giving the farmers two dollars more for their hogs. Well, ten days ago I took out my first load of winter hogs, and what did I get? Six Bl's 'and one C-something I never got in all the hogs I have sold before, and I have sold in the last six years an average of from 160 to 200 hogs per year.
The packers cannot tell me that I do not know an A hog when I see one. We have the best boar that money can buy and we have nine sows farrowed at the present time. We have 100 living pigs out of 114. We don't always have that luck.
Mr. Gardiner makes us farmers laugh when he says that it is the shortage of feed that has made the farmer quit raising hogs. There is plenty of feed. Give the farmer the price and he will give you the hogs and plenty of them. We have 22 brood sows that we intended to breed, to come in in November, but unless we are guaranteed $32 a hog we are out for good and my neighbours likewise. I am sending you my returns and I want you to let Mr. Gardiner and Mr. King see them for themselves, if you can make out this scribbling and read "little Jimmie" this letter, as he has fooled us long enough. Please excuse mistakes as I have a crippled hand.
That is the attitude of the farmers, certainly in the northern part of Saskatchewan.


James Garfield Gardiner: But that does not say that it is correct.
(Mr. Gardiner.]


Percy Ellis Wright: That certainly is the
opinion in that part of the country, which is one of the biggest hig producing areas in the Dominion of Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know whether it is the same letter that was written to me, but very much the same facts were set out in a letter that was sent to me and which started out by asking me if I had had any better luck than this farmer had. I told him my own luck in connection with a shipment at that very time. I sent ten hogs to market and I just got the returns in the mail the day before this man's letter came. Of my ten hogs, I got all A and B except two, and I was sorry that I got A and B hogs, for the other two were heavy and I got more for them than I did for the A's and B's. There has been a lot of complaining about people not being allowed to produce heavy hogs. The change that has been made in the premium permits one to do without the premium of $2 on A hogs or $1 on B hogs and to receive $32 apiece for the heavy hogs. That is what I got. I got an average of $29 for A's and B's. I got the average, which this gentleman wants on heavies, of $32. So that sometimes these chaps who do all this figuring do not figure far enough. My hogs were all of one litter, all fed in the same pen, all having the same feed and the same care, and the heavy hogs brought me $32, while the A's and B's did not bring that much. All sorts of considerations have to be taken cognizance of in the individual selling of hogs.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. CHARLTON:: I understood the minister to say this afternoon that the consumer subsidy of two cents a quart would be taken off milk on June 1.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is correct.


John Alpheus Charlton: And that the subsidy of fifty-five cents on whole milk would be continued until September 30.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is correct.


John Alpheus Charlton: Does that include all milk or just whole milk?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is all milk delivered as fluid milk.


John Alpheus Charlton: And there is no further action to be taken on butter?

Supply-A griculture
.Mr. GARDINER: I should say that the fifty-five cents is in most of the areas as it is now under the present subsidy provisions; but there is a provision at present which says that there are certain areas in which it will not be above twenty-five cents. We are saying here that there are certain areas in which it will not be above thirty-five cents.


John Alpheus Charlton: I understand there is no further action to be taken on butter but that so far as cheese and processed milk are concerned there is to be a further statement.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is correct.


John Alpheus Charlton: The minister said this afternoon that there has been no decrease in the production of any article except butter.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I did not say that. I said there was no shortage. The hon. member said there was a shortage of all these porducts in Canada. I said there was not a shortage.


John Alpheus Charlton: There has been a decrease in the production of several articles?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; that is correct.


John Alpheus Charlton: The minister did say that so far as our domestic requirements are concerned there was no scarcity except in butter. Is that true?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


John Alpheus Charlton: It may be true that there is no scarcity so far as our domestic requirements are concerned, but surely this country has to live up to the commitments we made last spring to the United Kingdom. Surely this government is not considering only our domestic requirements at a time when there is the greatest food shortage the world has ever known. Surely we are planning to feed the United Kingdom and the world in general during a period of near famine. The minister said this afternoon that he had made more on his two heavy hogs than he had made on his grades A and B.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have the statement in my pocket to-night.


John Alpheus Charlton: That was the statement the minister made this afternoon. Was that per 100 pounds or per hog?


James Garfield Gardiner: Per hog.


John Alpheus Charlton: If that be true, I suggest that the whole balance of our hog grading system that we have worked for twenty-five years to get can be upset in three months. We have worked to try to keep the Untied Kingdom market for hogs. If the minister's
statement be true, I suggest that some change should be made, either the dollar bonus that was taken off be put back on or-


James Garfield Gardiner: May I suggest that I should not have made the reply I did this afternoon on this item at all. We are not on the item dealing with hogs. I called this item for the purpose of discussing the subsidies on milk. We shall have ample opportunity at a later date to discuss hogs. We got off the track for a moment, and I hope others will not follow that practice.


John Alpheus Charlton: The minister made the statement.


James Garfield Gardiner: Do not make me make another one.


John Alpheus Charlton: We shall forget about hogs for the moment. The Agricultural Prices Support Act was passed in 1944. Is it the intention of this government to put that act into force this fall when the subsidies are taken off milk? I should like the minister to make a statement regarding that.


James Garfield Gardiner: I made a statement with regard to that before recess. The statement is that it will not be put into effect, and there is no reason for putting it into effect in connection with any farm product until that farm product threatens to drop below the returns which farmers were receiving in the three years preceding the session during which the act was passed.


John Alpheus Charlton: Are the farmers to be placed in the same position as they were in 1941 when ^ceiling prices. were frozen at a lower standard? Are prices to be allowed to drop below present prices and then a price floor put on at that lower price?


James Garfield Gardiner: Three years prior to 1945 do not bring you back to 1941.


James Arthur Ross: With regard to these subsidies coming off on June 1 or September 30, does the price ceiling on whole milk still apply, or is the ceiling eliminated too? Do producers sell on the open market then?


James Garfield Gardiner: The ceiling is then set as it was before. The price at which milk is marketed is set by the milk boards in the provinces.


Mr. BRYCE:: I wish to touch on the statement made by the minister this afternoon. Has the wartime prices and trade board washed its hands of the milk business?


James Garfield Gardiner: The wartime prices and trade board will be through setting prices of milk immediately the provincial milk boards take over.
Supply-Agriculture


William Scottie Bryce: That is September 30.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is on June 1.


William Scottie Bryce: The minister said that the subsidy of fifty-five cents per 100 pounds would remain until September 30.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; the reason for that is that the prices board had the intention, ever since they took over, of eventually turning control over the marketing of milk back to the provincial milk boards that were set up for that purpose. In any discussions that have taken place they have always given the undertaking that they would try to turn it back as they took it over; that is, they would not leave the boards in the position where in twenty-four hours they hand them back the problems that have been created and ask them to take over from there and try to fix things up. What they are doing is saying to the boards: "You start to operate on June 1. We are taking off the consumer subsidy, but we are going to continue the producer subsidy until September 30." We are saying this through the Department of Agriculture, but the two have been working in cooperation all the time! We said, "We are going to continue the producer subsidy until September 30." That gives four months from June 1 to September 30, with the producer subsidy being paid, for the milk boards, producers and consumers in the provinces to adjust themselves to the new condition and control.


Mr. REID:: What will that subsidy be?


James Garfield Gardiner: It will be fifty-five cents, the same as it has been throughout the winter. It dates back to May 1 and continues right through; payments are made right through on the basis of fifty-five cents.


William Scottie Bryce: I am annoyed about this two cent consumer subsidy coming off, because when you take that away you immediately strike at the women and children. There are many other subsidies we would be far better able to remove than the consumer subsidy on milk. Milk is the cheapest balanced food in the world to-day, and by doing this you are going to deprive a great many needy families of milk.


Thomas Reid: They can drink less pop.


William Scottie Bryce: I may tell the hon. member for New Westminster, who says they should drink less milk, that we want them to drink more milk than ever.


Thomas Reid: I said they should drink less pop, less Coca-Cola and things like that.


William Scottie Bryce: Well, I don't know; I never drink pop myself. I was never more serious

in my life than I am about this milk situation as it affects the children of Canada today. The government knows what resulted from our children being undernourished in the thirties; when we needed those boys to fight a war for us we found they were not physically fit, largely because they had not had sufficient milk to drink. We have had girls going to school in the larger cities of Canada and fainting, and doctors have said that if they had plenty of milk to drink that would not happen. In my opinion the government is making a mistake in taking the consumer subsidy off milk to-day. The consumer should be the last person to be interferred with where milk is concerned. I do not know what influence the Minister of Agriculture has with this cabinet, but I believe this matter should be reconsidered before June 1. The minister will remember I used to tell him how to go about grading hogs, that it should be done gradually, and that is the way this thing should have been done. Instead of that the government takes away the whole thing at one time and does not let people become accustomed to paying one cent a quart more. All at once they will have to pay two cents more, and I do not think that is right.


James Garfield Gardiner: We are all equally concerned in regard to children getting milk, but the position is hardly as it has been described. The first request for the removal of the subsidy came from the dairy branch of the Canadian federation of agriculture. That was two years ago, I think, or a year ago at the very least.


William Scottie Bryce: Was that the consumer
subsidy ?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. The suggestion was made this spring by similar sources that we have been too long in doing this, that the only time you can take off a consumer subsidy is in the flush season of milk production. It was suggested, in the discussions which have taken place with regard to this matter, that we should have taken it off earlier, the reason being that it should not be necessary in the flush season to charge the whole two cents up to the consumer. Of course in increasing the producer subsidy on milk it is a fact that this subsidy does take care of the returns of the producers, which will make it possible for milk boards in the provinces to consider whether or not, at any time within the next five or six months, they should consider in any event putting the whole cost of the removal of the consumer subsidy on the consumers of milk. Those are all facts which were in the minds of persons who had to consider when this ought to be

Supply-Agriculture
done, if it ever should be done, whether it should be done in the fall of the year or in the spring. On balance it was finally agreed that the best time to do it, if it were to be done, was in the flush season of milk production, the season we are going through now. So from that point of view the decision was made to announce the removal of the con=umer subsidy at the same time as we *announced the increased producer subsidy being allowed on whole milk, giving four months in which to adjust the situation to meet whatever conditions prevail next fall.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: I am sorry it has been found necessary to remove the subsidy on milk supplied to consumers. I agree with the hon. member for Selkirk that the more milk we can encourage our people to use, the healthier they are likely to be. Of course if this were being done in order to restrict the use of milk so that we might assist those in the areas of starvation the matter might be looked at a little differently.
What I really rose to say was that I was a little surprised at a statement made by the minister this afternoon, which I wrote down as he said it, in connection with the supplies that we are sending overseas and what we are doing in connection with the feeding of the starving world. He said: "We are going far beyond anything we were justified in doing."


James Garfield Gardiner: I meant with regard to grain only.


Major James William Coldwell: That was not clear in my mind, and I thought it would be a pity if that were interpreted elsewhere as I interpreted it-	.


James Garfield Gardiner: Feed stuffs particularly for live stock.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: -because, while I would like to commend the government for what the government and the country have done in regard to meeting the needs of the starving people of the world, my opinion is that we could do more than we are doing to give that relief at the present time. I do not want to say anything that seems a bit invidious, though it may be; but in comparison with the disappointing record of our great neighbour to the south I think we have done well, though I do not believe we have done nearly all we might. I notice that in the newspapers to-day, as I noticed a few days ago, we were told that Great Britain out of her meagre supplies is going to allot some 200,000 tons of food more to the starvation zones of Europe and in order to assist as far as possible in the relief of a threatened famine of huge dimensions in India.


James Garfield Gardiner: Most of which will be wheat she got from Canada.


Major James William Coldwell: That is quite true. But I have been greatly surprised to read a suggestion in the newspapers by a prominent United States citizen who has been across the world that Great Britain should relinquish her supplies in order to assist, the inference being that these small reserves will be useful in order to meet the needs of the world. While I do not know just what the position is regarding reserves in Canada, I would say this immediately: that having been twice overseas during the war, and receiving frequent letters from friends and relatives across the seas, I believe the condition over there is worse now than it was at any time during the war, and I can well understand why a few reserves should be kept on that island. We must realize that every ounce of food that is imported has to be brought in by ship, and that in the event of a drastic coal strike in the United States, or anything else that would interfere with the shipping of food from this side of the Atlantic, with no reserves they, too, would be faced with starvation in a very short while. I think we should do everything we can to send every available ounce of food to the starving people of the world. We should say nothing and do nothing that would lend any colour to the idea that has gone abroad in some quarters that the United States is doing a very great deal, that we are doing a very great deal and that there are reserves across the seas which might be used to assist in the needs of the world.


Thomas Reid: Are not some of the difficulties confronting the people of Great Britain to-day, so far as food supplies are concerned, on account of the fact that a great proportion of their food is going to Germany?


Major James William Coldwell: That is right.


Thomas Reid: It is not actually on account of a lack of food.


Major James William Coldwell: I was saying that, that she is supplying starving countries. Undoubtedly one of those starving countries is Germany. We defeated Germany, and we have very little sympathy for those who brought a terrible holocaust upon the world. Yet, starvation in Germany would breed further difficulties, and ultimate revolt in Europe would react upon the rest of the world. Even if we had no other reason for doing all we can to feed the starving people of Germany, selfpreservation demands that we shall do so. While during the war we may have been pretty bitter against Germany, and might have suggested that she be made to suffer as she made the rest of the world suffer, nevertheless to-day we have to view the situation in a more realistic light, and realize that if certain events
Supply-Agriculture

happen in Germany, and particularly in that area of Germany which the British control, we are going to suffer for it.
I do not want to be out of order when discussing this item. But since the matter was raised by the minister in his statement this afternoon, at least in one part of it, I felt that one was entitled to say a few words on this point. After all, in our own country we are enjoying more than double the calories most of the people even in the fairly well fed parts of Europe are getting at the present time.
I believe the government could well urge the people to cut down a little more on what we are using, and to cut out some of our luxuries. I think we could do with a little less ice-cream, if necessary. And those who drink liquor could do with a little less malting barley than is going into liquor.


James Garfield Gardiner: On a point of order, I do not wish to have to answer all these things.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: I do not expect the minister to.


James Garfield Gardiner: If I do we shall be discussing this question all night. I understood we were discussing an announcement made with respect to milk. It has been suggested that I raised these questions but I did not. They were raised by the hon. member for Melfort. I simply answered some of the things he said. If we are going into all those discussions, the whole of my estimates will be covered under this one item. I do not want to have to answer these things three or four times.
We are discussing milk subsidies, and I shall give all the information I can with regard to them. When that is finished we can go on to other agricultural estimates.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: I shall be very glad to fall in line with the minister's suggestion. But I wish to say that I understood the minister-and I think if he will look at Hansard, he will realize it was a pretty bald statement-


James Garfield Gardiner: The statement has entirely to do with feed grains.


Major James William Coldwell: It was not I thought confined in that way.


James Garfield Gardiner: If the hon. member will read Hansard he will find it is.


Major James William Coldwell: We will both read Hansard.


John Alpheus Charlton: Do we understand by the minister's statement regarding consumer subsidies on milk that the farmers will be expected to reduce the price in order to take up those two cents, which will mean approxi-

mately eighty cents less for their milk this Bummer, after getting the 20-cent rise in subsidy, with the increased cost of production? I think all farmers in Canada realize that the consumer is an important person. We, of all persons, remember that fact. At the same time, with the increase of twenty cents in subsidy, and then asking them to take part of that two cents, it would mean sixty cents less for their milk.


James Garfield Gardiner: What I am suggesting is that that decision will be made by another authority, and that is an authority which is much closer to my hon. friend's own home. In other words, it is the central authority in Toronto, which is set up to deal with milk. I am not going to anticipate what decision they will make. They have complete authority to make a decision, just as the prices board has had authority in the past. I presume they are going to pass upon the facts as they find them.


John Alpheus Charlton: But the minister will agree that it will put the farmer in a very poor light with the consumer.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not if you have a good board in Ontario-and I think you have.


Mr. TUSTIN:: Do I understand from the minister that he now says that the Ontario milk board-and I take it that that is what he is referring to-will have the right to set the consumer price on milk? They never have had that right before, have they?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


George James Tustin: No, they never have had that right before. They have acted more or less as referees when distributors in certain centres have petitioned to set a price. They have acted in that capacity.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


George James Tustin: But they have never had the right to set the consumer price for milk, and I doubt very much whether they have that right to-day.


James Garfield Gardiner: They can be given it.


George James Tustin: I am told they have not.
I should like to ask a question, following up what has been said by my colleague the hon. member for Brant. Is the farmer to be expected to reduce the price of milk to the distributor, or is the general public or the consumer to pay the same price per quart for milk as he is paying to-day.


James Garfield Gardiner: If I remember correctly, the set-up we are talking about was put into effect by the government of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett. Most people in Canada

Supply-Agriculture
thought he did a very good job in making possible the milk boards that they have in the provinces. This was done as a result of discussions which took place at that time, and the decision arrived at was that the authority rested with the provinces.
There w'as no authority with the federal government at all, in ordinary times. The authority was with the provinces, in dealing with matters of that kind. So they have set up boards in every province of Canada, with the exception, I believe, of British Columbia. In its last session British Columbia passed legislation setting up its board. The result is that every province in Canada has a board which has the right to exercise any authority given it by the provincial legislature with regard to the marketing of milk within the province. They have control over the marketing of milk, and they will make the decision on the question now raised. I shall have no authority to make it, and I am not going to say what will be done.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I think the minister is entirely wrong about the board set up by the Bennett government. If I remember correctly, the board then set up was the dominion marketing board, and I understand the court in England threw out that legislation. Does the minister say that the provincial commissioner has power to set prices for milk or dairy products interprovincially ?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are nine departments, and I should not like to state to the committee, without any of the facts in front of me, just what authority each one has. But they have whatever authority was given them by the respective provincial governments.
I am speaking from memory-and the hon. member for Haldimand will correct me if I am wrong-but I still think what was done was done by the Bennett government. I remember the hon. member for Haldimand stating at the last session, during a discussion with respect to setting up another board, that it was determined at that time that in dealing with commodities such as milk, which are produced to a great extent in the same province in which they are consumed, the authority is with the provincial governments. As a result of that, you have nine different boards handling the marketing of milk, with any authority they have given to them by the provincial legislatures. All the regulating from June 1, on, will be turned back to those boards, from which much of the authority was taken by the prices board when it was set up in 1941.


Mr. HANSELL:: I am sorry if I was not in the chamber when the minister made his announcement, but I cannot be in two places at once. I was attending a committee meeting and I am not twins. I may be speaking out of turn, not knowing exactly what the minister's announcement was, but it seems to me that there are one or two things we have to determine. I have listened to the discussion and I have yet to understand why this subsidy is now being done away with.
I should like to ask three questions. Is it because the minister wants the people of Canada to have more milk? Is it because he' wants the producers to get more for their milk? Is it because he wants the consumer to be able to buy more cheaply and consume more milk?
I listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Selkirk and I believe he is on the right track. What are we considering in connection with this matter? Are we considering the good of the people of Canada with respect to these subsidies? The minister followed the hon. "member for Selkirk and said that they were very much concerned about the consumption of milk by the people. The minister, speaking for the government, said, "We are worrying about that." I am going to suggest that there is something else the government is concerned about, that is their treasury. I do not think lam wrong when I say that this announcement has as its background the financial policy into which the government have let their feet slip over the past years.
They struck out with a policy of family allowances, and that cost a lot of money. They have done other things along similar lines which also cost a lot of money. I am not arguing against family allowances, but there is a little suspicion in the back of my mind that they did that as a political move. What I am saying now is that they have to cut expenses somewhere and this looks to me like one of the first announcements in an expense cutting programme.
Another thing the government has to do is reduce taxation. You cannot continue to spend and reduce taxation and balance your budgets. It just does not add up. I think it was rather unique, even though it was not clever, for the Minister of Agriculture to rise this afternoon and call for a certain item in order that he might make this announcement. As a matter of fact, although we may appear to be discussing milk, what we are actually discussing is something that comes under the Department of Finance because it is a subsidy. The Department of Finance has found itself in a box, and
Supply-A griculture

I would add that the whole financial policy under which the government has been working for years is beginning to crack down. If the minister does not change that policy the government is going to crack down with it, or crack up.


An hon. MEMBER:: Blow up.


Ernest George Hansell: Perhaps blow up. I am
saying something now that I believe to be true. Are we considering the people of Canada in this matter, or are we considering the interests of the treasury in order that the government may meet the demands of the people for a reduction in taxation and still carry on some of their huge expenditures? I should like that answered and perhaps I shall have to wait until the budget before it is answered. While it is the Minister of Agriculture who is taking on this matter, rightly the Minister of Finance should be doing it. I notice the Minister of Finance is in his seat taking note of all that is being said.
I shall close my remarks by saying that the only way a country can be prosperous, the only way the people of a country can be happy and contented is to have an expanding economy. You cannot have an expanding economy without spending lots of money. Personally I am in favour of subsidies because they mean .an expanding economy. I am in favour of anything that will put money into the pockets *of the people. But there is juggling being done in these days. That was the trouble with the dominion-provincial conference. That conference was a matter of juggling with taxation, seeking to pull this piece over here and push that piece out over there. It was a case of saying, "You take this and I will take that." We might as well face the facts. There is no use in trying to put money into people's pockets with one hand and trying to pull out the same amount with the other.


Mr. FAIR:: Take the pocket with you.


Ernest George Hansell: The hon. member for Battle River says, "Take the pocket with you."


An hon. MEMBER:: And the pants too.


Ernest George Hansell: Yes, and the pants too.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Draw the line somewhere.


Ernest George Hansell: We have to draw the line somewhere. We can talk about the people of Europe; we can talk about other things, but I suggest that we are missing the mark when we talk about them. Those are incidental big problems, but I am suggesting that this is a problem which comes from the treasury and is being put to us in this way.


James Garfield Gardiner: In answering what has just been said I would recall that only two days ago, I believe, the hon. member for Macleod added his voice to that of a number of other hon. members who were complaining because too many announcements were made on the orders of the day and on motions and could not be discussed. It was said that the ministers were getting into the habit of making statements on important matters at a time when no one could say anything about them. The only reason this announcement was made in this way was to give every one an opportunity to say something about it.
We were considering whether it should be made by two ministers or one, but then the proposal was made that the announcement should be made on a certain item in my estimates so that everyone could discuss the matter. If we are to be criticized one day for putting out statements on motions in order to get them out to the country and then criticized when we make a statement before the house in committee of supply in order that the subject matter may be fully discussed, then I should like to ask the hon. member for Macleod when we can bring them in. When are these announcements to be made? I think they have been made in the proper way. We have even given the hon. member for Macleod an opportunity to make his speech and show that he thinks differently to-day from what he did a few days ago.
As to the other matter, the ceiling price of milk across Canada is set at different levels at different places, depending on the district. That ceiling still remains. What has been done is to take off the two cents subsidy, which was paid in this way. In a city like Ottawa, for instance, if the ceiling price on milk is twelve cents the consumer pays ten cents, and the distributor of the milk collects two cents by way of subsidy, called consumers' subsidy, which makes it possible for him to deliver the milk at two cents less than the ceiling price in this community. When the distribution of the milk is handled by some other authority, they may or may not charge the consumer more. If they do not charge the consumer more, then on the principle that people will drink more milk when they can get it more cheaply, there will be just as much milk consumed under the new plan as under the old. If, on the other hand, they increase the price of milk to people living in a particular area, the authority to which they appeal is much closer to the situation than any authority which operates in Ottawa alone.
It is a further fact that conditions are not the same in the different provinces or in different parts of the same province. There

Supply-Agriculture
are areas where milk is sold at seven, eight or nine cents a quart, and other areas where it is sold at twelve or thirteen cents a quart, depending upon the community. All the facts in relation to these communities are best known to the boards appointed by the provinces to deal with these matters. While control has been put back under these boards, we are simply following out the policy tfhich was announced at the very beginning, namely, that these controls were put on under the War Measures Act without which we had no authority by any other statute or under the constitution to go into a province or into homes and do the things in war time which in ordinary times we could not constitutionally do.
We' were told very politely in the meetings that were held and which were referred to a few moments ago that there are some people in the dominion who do not intend that we should continue exercising that authority. If that is the case, we had better turn back the authority as peacefully as we can to where it belonged in the first place, and do so as soon as possible. That is one very good reason for doing what we are doing. It is not intended that the mere doing of this shall determine any one of the three questions that were asked by the hon. member for Macleod at the beginning of his remarks. We are simply trying to restore the peace-time relationship as between the federal government and the provinces. This is one of the matters that must be dealt with at some time, and it has been suggested that this is the proper time to do it. There has been no question in anyone's mind that it would have to be done eventually, and the only question that remains is whether now is the time to do it or whether we should wait for another six or twelve months. I presume that my hon. friends of the Progressive Conservative party, judging by their speeches, would say that we have waited six months too long.


Mr. SENN:: I am one of those who think we have waited too long. A little while ago the Minister of Agriculture brought my name into the discussion when speaking of the milk boards in the different provinces. I happened to be chairman of the committee on agriculture during the Bennett administration. That committee made an investigation into the whole milk question and recommended that boards be set up in the provinces because the provinces had the right to set prices. I think those milk boards did a good job.
I was sorry to learn from the minister's remarks that there is still a ceiling on the price of milk delivered to the consumer. If that
ceiling remains I do not see that the milk boards in the provinces can do much good by setting a price on milk, because it will be governed entirely by the present ceiling price of milk. I hope that that restriction will be removed very shortly.
It is all very well to say that we are not going to pay a two-cent bonus on milk delivered to the consumer; but if the milk board is to be stymied, if the board is to be put in the position where it must govern the price it sets by the ceiling price on milk at the present time, it will not get very far. It seems to me that that upsets the whole argument advanced by the minister in regard to removing the subsidy on milk at the present time. Since the minister has gone at least part of the way in accepting the policy laid down by our party I think the time has come for him to go the whole way and remove the price ceiling. I have a good deal of sympathy for the minister, because I do not think he is altogether in sympathy with the policies of the wartime prices and trade board at this time. Perhaps he is, but I do not think so. He is enough of a farmer to know that farm prices should not be governed as they are now by price ceilings set by the wartime prices and trade board. I hope that he will be successful in his fight with the wartime prices and trade board and will succeed in having the price ceilings changed, or at least that they will not be set as they are to-day by the prices board.


James Garfield Gardiner: Before there is any further discussion I think I should reply to the last remarks of the hon. member. The wartime prices and trade board was set up to do a job in connection with the control of prices. I am candid enough to say that any farmer, as has just been suggested by the hon. member for Haldimand, would look with some misgivings at the suggestion that there be ceilings put on prices.


Mark Cecil Senn: They still do.


James Garfield Gardiner: But if you look back over history, you will find, and you have only to take a drive through rural Ontario to prove it, that the better farm buildings were all built during war periods,. as you can see by the dates on them. Some were built in the Crimean war, some in the South African war, some in the first great war; and the only reason we did not build more during the last war is that we could not get the materials.


Mark Cecil Senn: There was one built in my riding.
Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: An occasional one may-have been built but we have not built as many as we would have liked to build. That proves that the only time that farmers were able to get better than the ordinary revenue out of farming was during a war period.


Mark Cecil Senn: Not in this war.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is just what I am coming to. The difficulties the farmers went through before this war were caused by the preparation for war in other parts of the world, which resulted in no markets for our products. Then we came into the war, and the reason why the farmer had misgivings and why I had misgivings was that the farmer was denied the right to get very much more for his eggs than he got, very much more for his hogs than he got, very much more for his beef than he got and, more recently, more for his wheat than he got. That was all done under a control policy in order to prevent inflation. What I said, what many others said, what the majority of the government said-or it would not have been done-and what the whole government agreed to finally after discussion was that, in view of the fact that the farmer's price was held down during the war for at least three years, for a number of years after the war, provision should be made that the return to the farmer-call it price or subsidy plus price or whatever you like-was not to be allowed to go down unreasonably. If you maintain that policy long enough, then you will balance the fact that prices otherwise would have gone down against the fact that you did not allow them to go up.
I was asked a few moments ago, "When are you going to bring the price floor bill into operation in connection with these dairy products?" I answer, just so soon as prices of dairy products begin to go down to the level or approaching the level at which those who are working on statistics every day, as they have been now ever since that bill was passed, indicate that we are approaching the point where the farmer is being asked to take less for his product than he should have taken. That, by the way, is the answer to the suggestion made a few moments ago by the hon. member for Macleod.
It is not purely a financial question, as the hon. gentleman suggested. The financial side of it, in relation to the farmer's problems, is taken care of by the floor prices act which was passed in the last session before the election. This committee can rely upon it that, when it becomes necessary to. apply the terms of that act, they will be applied, and it will cost just as much to apply them as it would to continue subsidies or anything else in order to give protection to the farmers.

The act provides $200 million with which to do that job, and we have not spent that much on this kind of thing in any of the years we are talking about. Therefore it is not a matter of the treasury trying to protect themselves. But when one hears an hon. member say that all we are concerned about is the treasury, the question presents itself: What is the treasury? T]ie treasury in that sense means the money we are taking out of the pockets of the Canadian people; and when an hon. member says that we are thinking in terms of taxes, of course we are. But they are taxes paid by every person in the country in some form or another, and anyone who tries to run away from that resonsibility should not be in this house. That is the main job the government has: in the first place, trying to determine to what extent the people can pay for the cost of running the government; at the same time trying to collect more heavily from those who are in a position to pay most, and then, by such measures as the family allowance, to redistribute those funds back, in some part at least, to the people who did the work in order to make the production of wealth possible. That in a few words is the policy in relation to the whole matter. It has been put into effect throughout the war; it is still being put into effect, and that is one of the reasons why we are still here-to put it into effect.


Mark Cecil Senn: I do not think the farmers of Canada found fault with price controls during the time of the war. They were willing to do their share and they did it.


James Arthur Ross: And a great deal more than their share.


Mark Cecil Senn: They produced to the limit. They feel now, however, when the war is over-and the minister will agree with me in this-that the time has come when they should have some reward. They bore their fair share of the burdens of price controls during the war-perhaps more than their share-and now that the war is over, they feel, quite rightly, that they should get their, fair reward for what has happened in the meantime.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am sorry if we are to get into a discussion, on this item, of the merits of price control. I hope we shall not do so, because there is another debate in the house in which that question can be discussed. I find it hard to sit here and listen to the doctrine I hear propounded, that is to say, that at such a time as this, when the inflationary pressures are so great as they are now, this is

Supply-Agriculture
the time .of all times to take the lid off. I find it impossible to sit here and listen to that sort of thing with composure.
I simply want to make clear one thing with regard to the consumer milk subsidy. The situation on June 1, will be that the maximum, the price ceiling, will be established; that is, two cents higher than the consumer is paying at the present time. That will be established by the wartime prices and trade board, but thereafter the matter of adjustment in prices will be in the hands of milk boards.


Mark Cecil Senn: Prices to the producer?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The prices charged for milk, yes.


Mark Cecil Senn: Paid for milk.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Paid for milk; it is the same thing. I do not think there is anything more I can say.


William Ross Macdonald: Following what the
Minister of Finance has said, may I remind the committe of the rules which are in effect in committee, according to which all discussion should be relevant to the item under consideration. There has been considerable latitude so far this evening, but I suggest to the committee that future discussion be confined strictly to the item under consideration.


Thomas Reid: The criticism that has arisen since the announcement has been made by the Minister of Agriculture is something about which a few members on this side of the house have been warning the government for at least the past one or two years. I think I can speak with the support of the member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruiekshank) in this assertion, that the subsidy of two cents to the consumer does not meet the views of the farmer in the Fraser Valley. That is a definite statement. The hon. member for Selkirk brought up the question of milk consumption. The hon. member for Fraser Valley and I are members of the Fraser valley milk producers' association and we found that when the price of milk went up one cent the consumption of milk fell. It did not fall because the people had no money with which to buy milk. Consumption did not fall because the price had been raised. There was a psychological factor operating in the minds of many people against paying extra money to farmers for a good product. To-night when the hon. member for Selkirk was speaking I mentioned Coca-Cola. There is something strange that I have observed. You can raise the price of soft drinks, cigarettes, candy bars and there is no attack from the public, no criticism. But try to raise the price of milk one cent and the
whole country is up in arms. One thing that is bothering me is this: What will happen when the subsidy comes off? I am not advocating that the ceiling price be taken off the price of milk at the present time, but I am wondering what the farmer is going to do when the subsidy comes off at the end of September, because it is well known that he cannot produce milk at the price he is receiving if the subsidy comes off.
One reason why our people are not going on the land is that it is far easier to work in the city than it is to milk cows. I speak as one of the few members of the committee who can milk cows.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


Thomas Reid: I know whereof I speak. I should like to take on any hon. member if he is talking about a competition.


James Arthur Ross: Go and get the cow.


Thomas Reid: I certainly am speaking with more authority as a farmer than many of the lawyers and others who speak on the subject. I know whereof I speak. When the subsidy is lifted we are wondering what is going to take place on the farms where farmers are endeavouring to produce milk under present conditions, and will have to accept less when that time comes.
Some mention has been made about our people drinking more milk. We shall have to educate the people and their children to drink more milk. What do we find with regard to the drinking of milk? If you go into a restaurant or cafeteria and look around you will find it is the grown-ups who are drinking more milk, not the children. The children are drinking soft drinks. I have been told that in the canteens of the three services more milk was drunk by the members of the services during the war than any other kind of liquid, and that is all to their credit. What we need is to educate the parents and their children to drink the finest food that God has given us.


James Arthur Ross: I am not entirely clear yet on this price control situation. I asked the Minister of Agriculture a pointed question a few moments ago. I understood him to say that after the subsidies came off the wartime prices and trade board were entirely through with the control of milk prices. From that time on it was a matter for the provincial boards. What the Minister of Agriculture said since, and what the Minister of Finance said a few moments ago have confused me again. I wish this point cleared up. In the section of the country from which I come
Supply-Agriculture

many dairymen are supplying towns of one or two thousand population. When the order setting the ceiling price came into effect the prices that they were charging the inhabitants in the towns or cities were not all the same. The prices at which they were selling were the prices that existed when the freeze was put on. I want to know whether there is any further price control on the small dairy producers when the subsidies come off. Hitherto in my province they have received no direction whatever from the provincial dairy boards. Are they entirely clear of price ceilings so far as the wartime prices and trade board is concerned? From that date on can they set their own prices for their whole milk?


Thomas Reid: May I say one word regarding boards? I know something of the power of boards because I have had a good deal to do with them. I am now speaking of British Columbia and I suppose this applies to all the provinces. The provincial boards were given the power to control all matters absolutely so long as the articles for sale were sold within their provinces; but if the article, whether it be milk, fruit or potatoes, were exported to another country or province, then the regulations and power of the dominion applied. But so far as the provinces are concerned, these provincial boards have all the power they need. That is the information I have received.


James Arthur Ross: Might I have an answer to my question? So far as the federal order is concerned, is it completely eliminated on that date?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I tried to make it clear before that on June 1, that is beginning with midnight on May 31, the consumer subsidy will be withdrawn, and the ceiling price, as it was before the consumer subsidy was paid, will be restored. That will be the situation on June 1. Now, then, that will be the way the period after June 1 starts off.


Mark Cecil Senn: The price will be twelve cents?


James Lorimer Ilsley: In many markets, I think in Ottawa, the price to the consumer is now ten cents, and with the withdrawal of the subsidy the .ceiling will be twelve cents.


James Arthur Ross: It varies in different districts?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes; it is different all over Canada.


George James Tustin: Two cents above what the consumer is paying to-day?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well-


George Alexander Cruickshank: No.


George James Tustin: The subsidy is paid directly to the distributor. Will the ceiling be placed at two cents above what the consumer is paying?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is substantially correct, yes. I do not know whether it is 100 per cent correct, but it is substantially correct. The ceiling that was in existence before the consumer subsidy was instituted, which was in December, 1942, if I remember correctly, becomes the ceiling. There may have been some adjustments in some districts in the meantime. Substantially that old ceiling comes back.
I wish to point out, while I am on this subject, that this subsidy is the only one in existence that "has had the effect of depressing the price of a product to the consumer below the price that he was paying in the basic period, the fall of 1941, with the result that milk prices in Canada are remarkably low by any comparison that can be made, especially with milk prices in the United States. On leading markets there the prices are very much higher than they are in Canada. I say that in answer to the hon. member for Selkirk who is worrying about the fact that with the elimination of the subsidy the consumer will be obliged to pay more. That is so, but he will not be paying more than he was paying during the basic period, namely, the fall of 1941. That is substantially true from coast to coast. There may be a few exceptional communities where adjustments have been made, but that is substantially the case.
I wish to make this point clear: If the control of the price of milk is to be restored to the provincial authorities pursuant to a policy of gradual decontrol, then it follows that we cannot continue to pay a federal subsidy, because it would be sheer irresponsibility for the government to leave the fixing of the price to provincial authorities with freedom to them to put it up or down, and at the same time be pouring in federal money. If the federal government is to continue to pay a consumer subsidy on milk it must continue to control the prices, it must continue to be the authority which fixes the price.


William Alexander McMaster: That is Drew's argument in reverse.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not want to get drawn into a cross-current like that.
Therefore, if we are right in decontrol, then we have to withdraw this consumer milk subsidy. I think we are right because, as time goes on, it becomes increasingly difficult for the federal authority to be fair in the adjustments which it makes. For example, a situation might arise in Saskatchewan which called

Supply-A g riculture
for an upward adjustment of the ceiling price. If the federal authority is the body that is fixing the price at which milk is sold that action is cited as a precedent in other provinces, and accusations are likely to be made that there is discrimination by the federal authority between one part of the country and another; whereas in a country such as this, conditions vary greatly, and in such a matter as the fixing of milk prices-I do not say everything, I may say to my hon. friend- surely it is more appropriate for the local boards to be fixing them than the federal authority. We should get to that position as soon as possible.
I also wish to say that this is a remarkably difficult subsidy to administer. I suppose hon. members realize that every month from twenty to twenty-five thousand cheques have to be sent to dealers and distributors in all parts of Canada; and without a large and competent staff, which the board finds it difficult to maintain, it is difficult to apply fully and satisfactorily the safeguards that ought to be applied to the expenditure of public money. There is no doubt about that; and the board is finding it increasingly difficult to keep a competent staff. Members of their staff are going back to their businesses and to the employment from which they came. This highly involved and complex consumer milk subsidy is the sort of thing that it is increasingly difficult to administer.
Those, I think, are the main points I wanted to cover. The hon. member for Souris asked me a question which I find it a little difficult to answer.


James Arthur Ross: I find it difficult to understand.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, it is not difficult to understand, but the part of the question I am finding it difficult to answer is this. The hon. member says there was no control whatever exercised by the provincial milk boards in some parts of some provinces, and he wants to know' whether this policy involves removing' some sales completely from control. I cannot answer that.


James Arthur Ross: As far as your authority is concerned.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I cannot answer that.


Mr. HATFIELD:: You are keeping the ceiling on milk.
Mr, ILSLEY: We are restoring the 1941 ceiling on June 1, and then we propose to permit the price to be fixed and controlled by the local boards.


Mark Cecil Senn: That is the producer price?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I want to go ahead with this and get to the bottom of it. If I can answer it I will say so, but I do not think I can. The hon. member for Souris says there are some sales of milk in some parts of some provinces which w:ere never subject to the control of milk boards. I did not know that.


Heber Harold Hatfield: That is the case all over Canada.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I did not know that, and I do not pretend to know everything about this question. I was given to understand that the milk boards in the provinces had authority to control the prices of all sales of milk, with the exception of British Columbia, which was setting up a board. I thought that was the practice that would be resumed.


James Arthur Ross: Then in that case you would not interfere if the producers in those areas went out and increased their prices; that is, there would be no interference as far as your board is concerned?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is a situation I would have to look into.


Mark Cecil Senn: The milk boards will set those prices, surely.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I thought thej' would; I thought it was a matter which the milk boards in the provinces could and did control. If there is a situation, a real problem there of some sales not being under the control of anybody, then it is a matter I shall have to look into.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think I can explain what the hon. member for Souris has in mind; at least I want to find out if it is what he has in mind. In the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan there is no milk control except in the cities.


James Arthur Ross: That is it.


James Garfield Gardiner: In Saskatchewan there is control in Regina, Saskatoon, Moose Jaw and Prince Albert, and there may be a little control in places like Battleford; but there is no control at all outside those cities. There has never been any control there; the board never attempted to go out and say what I should pay another farmer for milk, or even what the people in the smaller communities should pay.


James Arthur Ross: Yes, they did.


James Garfield Gardiner: They did within limits, but no one ever tried to enforce it seriously.


James Arthur Ross: They did enforce it right in my constituency.
Supply-A griculture


James Garfield Gardiner: When you get it back under the provincial boards you will not have much difficulty in that regard.


Mark Cecil Senn: I should like to ask a simple luestion there. Did not the prices board set she price at which milk should be distributed in the cities? If they did not I am very much mistaken.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Oh, yes.


William Scottie Bryce: I do not know whether the Minister of Finance really heard what I said. I stated I was very much annoyed because this consumer subsidy was being removed all at once. I thought that was too drastic, and I do not see even yet why the two cents should be taken off all at once. The hon. member for New Westminster spoke about the subsidy decreasing the demand for fluid milk, but that has not been the experience in Manitoba. We are selling more milk in Winnipeg to-day than ever before. If I am not mistaken, one month's production was up about two and a half million pounds. Hon. members will find the exact figures at page 1387 of Hansard, when I spoke in the house previously. We do not want the children to drink pop if they will drink milk. I cannot seem to get hon. members to realize that. Now that we have created a market for milk, let us not lose that market because of the removal of this subsidy. The more the people have to spend, the more they will buy; and if you take off the subsidy you are destroying the farmers' sale for milk; you are endangering the health of the people, and there are other disadvantages. I hope the Minister of Finance will reconsider this matter. Do not take off the two cents at once. If you must reduce taxation, do it gradually, but do not pick on the workingman first. Let him come later on. You have given in to the pressure of big business and taken off the subsidies and ceilings on different things the workingman has to buy. Now you are attacking the food he has to purchase. Please do not do that.


Robert Fair: On many occasions I have tried to point out to the house that the foundation on which our farm price structure has been erected in the past was entirely faulty. When the government brings into operation the good things that are supposed to be provided for us in the Agricultural Prices Support Act I hope some consideration will be given to the hours that are worked by farmers and their wives and families, and the prices they have to pay for the things they buy, before those prices are fixed. Perhaps hon. members will be surprised to learn that in July, 1942, we were receiving for our wheat an initial price of 17J cents a bushel less than we were receiv-

ing when this government came into office in 1935, just when we were beginning to get out of the depression. Many people do not realize this and manyother things in connection with agriculture. I should like to see the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce get busy and employ some real statisticians. I believe they now have such people in the government service, but under the policies adopted they are not allowed to do the work they should be doing in the interests of the farmers and, therefore, in the interests of all the people of Canada. So once again I am pleading that the price structure, as far as farm products are concerned, should be upon a sound foundation. Give the farmer the forty or forty-four hour week that you are giving to organized labour and all the rest of the people in the country, and when you have a prosperous agriculture you can look with confidence to a prosperous and united Canada; but you cannot have it otherwise.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I suggest that we have had sufficient discussion on this item to provide all the information necessary in connection with it. We can come back to it and discuss it further when we take up dairy products, or if any further information is required now it might be asked for, and then this item might be allowed to stand so that we might go on to a consideration of the estimates.


Heber Harold Hatfield: If prices of dairy products go below the cost of production, who will set the floor prices; will it be the provincial milk board, or the federal board?


James Garfield Gardiner: The intention expressed at the time the bill was brought down is that if the marketing of farm products under the system that prevails brings a price which is satisfactory, as related to the actions taken during the three years referred to, there will be no necessity for doing anything under the floor prices bill.
Just by way of illustration, let us take the product which to a certain extent will control milk, one which has been considered in the past, namely cheese. Seventy per cent of our cheese is marketed in Great Britain. I would presume that the policy followed would be something like this:	We will continue to
market 70 per cent of our cheese in Great Britain. Under our agreement we now have we will market more than 70 per cent. The agreement provides for a return which is just as high as we got during the last three years of which we spoke. The only adjustment, that is necessary is as related to the subsidy. The

Supply-Agriculture
price in the new agreement is the price we got for those three years. So that the floor is provided under cheese.
The position that has been dealt with through subsidies may also be provided for in certain agreements which are made. There is no necessity whatsoever for doing anything to put cheese under the floor prices measure.
One can apply the same principle to butter and to canned milk. When you have it applied to all those products it will have an influence upon fluid milk, and it is just possible that there will be no necessity for doing anything under the floor prices measure if we can maintain our contract and our supplies to Great Britain and to other countries. But if we are not able to maintain those floors, then we have the floor prices measure to utilize for the purpose, and it would be put into effect by the federal government.
It may require that we do like the prices board did. The prices board in making their operations effective utilized the services of the provincial milk boards. In dealing with some of these matters we may have to utilize the services of provincial organizations, too. I find that no one makes very much fuss about it, if you pay the money.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I understand that if the price is maintained for three years after the war, and was maintained for three years during the war, floor prices do not apply. Is that right?


James Garfield Gardiner: So long as the prices remain up at satisfactory levels you do not need to apply any compulsion or even persuasion-so long as they remain up there. It may be for a longer period than three years.


Mark Cecil Senn: One thing is certain, that if the two-cent subsidy on consumer milk is removed, somebody has to pay for it. Is it to be the consumer or the producer?


George Alexander Cruickshank: It will be the poor farmer.


Mark Cecil Senn: That is the thing I should like to know. If it is to be the producer it will be too bad for him. On the other hand, if it is the consumer-


James Garfield Gardiner: It will be too bad for him.


Mark Cecil Senn: Yes. Who will bear it? That is an important question, and the minister should answer it.


Percy Ellis Wright: I should like to compliment the minister upon having brought this matter before the committee so that it can be discussed. There is one thing about the Minister of Agriculture: He is never afraid to come to the house and to try to justify any action he takes. He is to be complimented upon that-even though I do not agree with him at this time. I think it is, indeed, a clever political move to turn back to the provinces the fight between the producer and the consumer, so far as prices are concerned.


An hon. MEMBER:: They asked for it.


Percy Ellis Wright: Some of them; not all of them. That is what this amounts to. The . Minister of Finance did not say what would happen when the producer subsidy on milk is withdrawn this fall. I understand that the producer subsidy will be taken off entirely on September 30. Then, are price ceilings, so far as milk is concerned, also to be lifted on September 30 when producer subsidies are taken off? Is the ceiling on whole milk to be taken off at that time too, and leave supply and demand to determine the price? Or are ceilings to be still kept on, and the farmer take the rap?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The matter of price will then be in the hands of the local boards.


Percy Ellis Wright: Then the dominion government's price ceiling policy in regard to milk will be entirely taken off. There will be no ceilings at all, and on September 30 the matter will be entirely in the hands of provincial boards.


James Garfield Gardiner: I explained that when I brought the question before the committee this afternoon. The announcement was made that we are taking off the consumer subsidy. That is the first part of it. The further announcement is made that the control over the price of milk, and the control of quotas and other things, is handed over to the provincial milk boards. Then we say-


Percy Ellis Wright: Well, can I-


James Garfield Gardiner: Just let me finish. Listen, and talk afterwards; and we shall probably understand one another when we are through.
Then, also, in order to give them four months to adjust the position as between the control of the prices board, and control by provincial boards, we are going to pay the highest subsidy on milk that we have ever paid, twenty cents higher than we ever paid before at any time in the summer. It is being raised from thirty-five to fifty-five cents. We will continue to pay that until September 30. In the meantime all this material in the minds of hon. members this evening will be discussed back and forth between the
Supply-Agriculture

authorities here and the provincial authorities, and some method will be found to deal with the situation. We hope that will be accomplished by October 1, and the whole control, from there on, will then pass over to the provincial authority.


John Alpheus Charlton: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. There have been some misleading statements concerning this consumer subsidy on milk. The present price ceiling in Ottawa is ten cents. What will be the price ceiling in Ottawa as of June 1 this year?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It will be 12 cents.


Mr. RAYMOND (Beauharnois-Laprairie):: What is the total amount of subsidy paid on farm products in the last five years?


James Garfield Gardiner: I could answer that better when we are discussing subsidies generally. I have the information in this pile of material in front of me. I shall deal with it systematically when we go through the items one at a time. But it will take some time to dig it up.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: I am probably out of order in anticipating-


Major James William Coldwell: Everybody is.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: But, in considering this increase in the price of milk, I have been sitting here trying to anticipate what will happen to the incomes of old pensioners, persons living on annuities and on invested capital- small incomes. If we have the same thing in the field of milling, and make the consumer bear the cost of the subsidy on bread; and if we do the same thing with meat I am won faring what will happen. For instance, if we withdraw the freight subsidy and make the man who buys meat in Ontario bear the cost of freight, we shall have increased prices on milk, bread and meat, with the result that the person on a fixed income who is buying those necessities of life will be seriously handicapped in setting a table. I should like to know where we stand on this matter of subsidies.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is all part and parcel of the discussions which have been going on for some years and which the Minister of Finance has < had to answer every time his estimates have been up. I suppose he will be prepared to discuss it again when they are up this year. It all concerns the question of inflation and whether we have come to the time when we should let this whole thing go back and have it a matter of bargaining between producer and consumer. If that is the

way it is going to be, we shall have the results that have been suggested sooner or later. We have said that it must be taken up in slow stages, that we must not go too fast with it, that we must try to make adjustments as we go along. In this case we have given four months in which we can try to make adjustments in a way that will not lower the returns to the producers or unduly increase the cost to the consumer.


William Ross Macdonald: I understood the committee to agree that there would not be a general discussion on price control.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Oh, no.


William Ross Macdonald: I thought it was agreed the discussion would be only on price control in connection with dairy products. The item before the committee is 26, dairy products, $438,652. I would suggest that the discussion be relevant to that item. I understood that there was not to be a complete discussion to-night on this item, but that after there had been some discussion the item would stand and we would revert to item 5.
_Mr. ROSS (Souris): In view of the statements that have been made, could the Minister of Finance tell us approximately what the milk subsidy, both to the consumer and to the producer has cost annually?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The consumer subsidy cost from $20 million to $22 million this year, while the producer subsidy cost has been about $14 million. It will be understood that the producer subsidy is on the old basis that prevailed for the twelve months ended April 30, 1946.


Ernest George Hansell: Anything that I said a while ago was not in criticism of the government's price policy and I do not want to be misunderstood in that connection. I have said in my own constituency that I have not a great deal of criticism to make of the government's price policy. I realize they have had a tough problem and they have done a good job. I was merely suggesting that it was time they changed their policy in order to solve the problems that exist.
What effect will this announcement have upon the present price structure of the manufacture of cheese? I have had a number of letters from cheese manufacturers who say that since the subsidy was reduced some weeks ago they find it difficult to manufacture cheese and sell it at a profit.


James Garfield Gardiner: There has been no reduction in the cheese subsidy.


Ernest George Hansell: In connection with the milk they have to buy.

Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: Not for cheese.


Ernest George Hansell: Has the government had any correspondence with the provinces with respect to this matter? In making this announcement are they taking it for granted that the provinces will accept it?


James Garfield Gardiner: There has been no direct discussion with the provincial governments in connection with the policy announced to-day, but there have been discussions with producers' and other organizations interested in the other side of the matter, that is, those who have been buying milk. There is another matter that I referred to when I made the announcement. I said that a decision had not been reached with regard to the subsidy to be paid on milk going into the production of cheese and that a decision has not been reached with regard to the subsidy to be paid on milk going into the production of canned milk. I stated that those decisions would be made within a few days.


George Alexander Cruickshank: After all this discussion the minister has cleared up one point that was not clear. I come from a dairy district and I own a dairy farm. I understood the minister to say that subsidies were off at a given date, September 30.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is correct.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I understand that they are not off definitely as yet in so far as manufactured products are concerned.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have been discussing fluid milk. They are all off in so far as fluid milk is concerned, but the question as to what is to be done in relation to cheese and canned milk is not yet determined.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I cannot understand how the provinces can set the price to be paid to the producer when they have absolutely no control over the selling price. The hon. member for Macleod brought up the point about the provincial governments being consulted. The money that is made, if any, on a dairy farm is made in the fluid milk market. Approximately sixty-five per cent of the milk has to go into the manufacturing market. As I understand it, we are now playing into the hands of a few independent shippers who sell fluid milk. We are saying to the provinces that they shall decide what the producers are to be paid and then we as a federal government say what it shall be sold at. As I understand the situation, that is not what was done when we were dealing with the struggling Massey-Harris Company; they were called in and asked what they could afford to produce at. I
should like to know whether the dairy council of Canada or the Canadian federation of agriculture were consulted before this policy was decided upon.


James Garfield Gardiner: The Canadian federation of agriculture made their representations and the matter was discussed with them, I think just about the time the house met. It has been discussed with officials of the organization since that time. I am not suggesting that they have agreed to what has been done, the question has been discussed with them and their point of view obtained, as well as the point of view of many others.
Probably I did not make myself entirely clear, judging from one of the remarks made, with regard to the position in relation to cheese and canned products. The suggestion is made 65 per cent of the milk is marketed in that way in the Fraser river valley. Those are the two products in connection with which I said we have not yet determined what the subsidies will be, but any adjustments that are made will be upward. I made that statement this afternoon as part of my announcement. That is some indication of what it may be necessary to pay in connection with fluid milk if the fluid milk is to be obtained.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The minister said . that if any adjustments were made they would be upward. Can I take it from that that they will not be downward?


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member certainly can. That is what that means.


Mr. BOUCHER:: The thought that occurred to me as I listened to the statements of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Finance was, where does the government think it is going by this change except it be to save the $20,000,000 consumer subsidy and temporarily to continue the $14,000,000 producers subsidy. I do not see how consumers can derive any benefit from this change. They are to pay the price they paid in 1941, without the reduction that the subsidy represented. Consequently the people with large families who benefited from the consumers subsidy during the war years will be at a disadvantage by this change. One of the arguments used by the government in favour of the children's allowance was that it would assist the heads of large families' in buying necessities for the children. The government must have entirely forgotten their arguments of that time when they adopted the policy announced to-day.
There are three primary classes involved in this policy, namely the consumer, the distributor and the producer of milk. Let us forget
Supply-Agriculture

the distributor for the moment because he is to be allowed to charge to the public the 1941 ceiling price, instead of charging two cents of that to the government. There will have to be an adjustment between the distributor and the producer through the provincial milk control boards of the price paid by the distributor to the producer. The producer gets nothing from this change unless it be the extra twenty cents subsidy on the whole milk that is granted to him as of May 1. If he were to absorb the whole shock of the loss of the consumer subsidy he would lose about eighty cents per hundredweight on his milk. Thus he would have a net loss of sixty cents a hundredweight.
So we see that the dominion government have forgotten about the consumer. They are not caring about how cheaply the consumer can buy his milk. They are not caring very much about what the producer will be paid. They are throwing the squabble between the producer and the distributor to the milk boards and keeping on the ceiling price for some possible protection to the consumer. Is this facing the real situation that confronts Canada in connection with whole milk production?
How is this policy going to affect the diverting of whole milk into the production of cheese and other dairy products? Possibly it may enable the distributor to cut down the price to the producer so that the producer will sell his milk to the cheese factory or the butter creamery or for the manufacture of other by-products of whole milk. That may boost the production of butter and the production of cheese, but it certainly will not put the farmer in a better position to persuade his son or the returned soldier to come back and settle on the farm, nor will it relieve the farmer from sending his milch cows across to the United States for the better prices he gets there. It is certainly not going to have any effect on the production of beef unless it be by making the sale of whole milk less remunerative. To-day in this locality you do not need to go out into the country; all you need to do is to look in the daily papers, to see how many farms, farm stock and machinery are being sold by auction. There is only one explanation. The farmer would not be selling his stock and machinery and his farm if it were profitable for him to stay on his farm. The hon. member for New Westminster said that he knows something about farming because he has milked a cow, but it is the farmer who is selling off his stock and machinery and sending his milch cows across the border who knows whether he is getting a fair share of the national income.

I do not see how this change is going to help things. The Minister of Agriculture a few moments ago, to illustrate a point he was making, said that we should drive through the country and look at the dates on the buildings on the farms. I do not know what buildings he was talking of, because the farmer, in the first place, could not get the paint, even if he could afford it, to paint the date on a new building, let alone the labour or materials required to build. The Minister of Agriculture must admit that for fifteen years now, not just the last five years, farm buildings have not been improved to any degree. There was a shortage of farm improvements even before the war, in the depression days. When the price ceiling was set on the 1941 basis of prices, agriculture particularly was in an unfavourable position because agricultural prices had not risen to the same degree as manufactured goods, or as labour. The price of whole milk varied in different areas, even within the province. The mechanic who was good at repairing farm machinery is not now available to the farmers because he can get much higher wages and shorter hours in the city. The result of all this is that only a very small percentage of our returned men are going into agriculture.


James Garfield Gardiner: Does my hon. friend
want the controls taken off or kept on?


George Russell Boucher: I would certainly say that the dominion government to-day is keeping the control on the ceiling price and not on the equitable adjustment of prices to the producer. In arranging the price as between producer and distributor and consumer, nobody can now control the situation properly. I am one of those who believe that if price ceilings on agricultural products were removed it would be only a short time before these inequities would be eliminated. Then a proper price, instead of an artificial, unfair and unjust price would prevail, and our rural areas would not be denuded of labour for the farm. Let prices seek their own level, as they always have done. We have lived in a world where agriculture has carried on since the day the *world began. We did not have control until very recently, and we did not run into any panic that ever showed an unfair advantage to the agricultural producer as a result of accelerated prices. Consequently, as I look upon the announcement, I am at a loss to find out where there will be a benefit either to the consumer or to the primary producer. I cannot help concluding that the aim is entirely to benefit the coffers of the federal treasury at the expense of both the consumer and the primary producer.

Supply-Agriculture


Mr. BLACKMORE:: I think it ought to be pointed out to all hon. members that the sum total of the result of all this discussion has pretty well established the idea that the subsidy ought to stay and that if it is removed at this time it will injure both the producer and the consumer. I believe the only reason why some of the Progressive Conservatives have not advocated the retention of the subsidy is that they recognize that they would not be able to continue to pay it themselves if they were in power and consequently they are afraid to make a commitment.
With regard to the remarks of the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Boucher), it might be interesting for him to contemplate this question. Was the adjustment between consumer and producer prices fair and equitable in 1935 or 1936 or 1937 or 1938 or 1939 when none of these controls existed? I think he will find that it was not, that the adjustment was not satisfactory to anybody. People were not getting the milk; the milk was not being produced, and neither consumers nor producers were prosperous; all of which ought to indicate that the time has come in the history of the world and of this country when a far-reaching adjustment must be made in the whole financial system as it affects prices. The day has come when subsidies are here to stay, and they must stay if we are to be prosperous and happy and have adequate production.
I suggest that there must be an adjustment in the financial system which will enable us to get money without taking it out of the taxpayer's pockets. That money we can obtain as a result of the production of the country, and it can be used to finance subsidies, so that we shall be able to give a fair price to the consumer, such as he can pay, and a fair price to the producer, such as will enable him to carry on and produce buoyantly and with confidence.


Mr. PEARKES:: I rise with great diffidence because I have not the good fortune to have spent the greater part of my life in agricultural pursuits, but I do have the privilege of representing an agricultural constituency and I am alarmed at receiving a copy of the local newspaper to-day telling me that the creamery at Nanaimo has ceased operation after it has been operating ever since 1906.
There is, in an editorial in the Nanaimo Free Press, an analysis of the difficulties under which one of the dairy farmers in that immediate vicinity had to operate, and if the minister has no objection I should like to read it to him. I think it shows the great difficulties of the dairy farmer on Vancouver island:
In no better way could the story of what has happened be told than through the medium of one dairyman's set of books, properly authenticated and vouched for. He has a place near East Wellington, is thoroughly experienced and a most careful and methodical operator. His figures cover statistics on five milking cows, two calves fed for seven weeks and two heifers fed and kept for a year's period. Total poundage produced include 200 pounds of milk for household, or home consumption was 46,300 pounds. Here is a segregation of his return, and also his operating expenses. He sold 41,100 pounds of milk at $1.80 per hundredweight. At seven weeks he sold his two calves for $55. He kept his two heifers and estimated their worth at $60 and he estimated the value of milk used in the household at $3.60. Thus his gross return for the year was $869.40.
Now come his operating expenses. He had to buy 15 tons of hay at $15 a ton, a total of $225; 20 tons of roots, mangels, carrots, turnips at $9 per ton, $180; a half-ton of milk feeds per month at $30 a ton, $180; his depreciation on the herd of five cows per year was marked off at $60; and three per cent interest on his investment of $5,000 was $150 . . . therefore his operating expenses were $785.
Deduct operating costs from cash returns and we find he was $84.40 ahead . . . providing of course he took nothing for the great amount of labour he had expended all year.
I suggest that it is not a very profitable or even a very exciting business for an older man, and for a younger man returning from the war it is not very attractive. The question I should like to ask is this. It may not be a sound question and if it is not I apologise. I believe there is some sort of subsidy paid on feed grains shipped from the prairie provinces to Vancouver island to assist dairy men in that part of the province.


James Garfield Gardiner: We pay the freight.


George Randolph Pearkes: Will that be removed?


James Garfield Gardiner: We pay the freight from Calgary and Edmonton into British Columbia. It has no connection with this.
Item stands.
Science serviceo. Science service administration, $32,487.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: I think it would be more logical if we took item 1 last and hon. members discussed on the various items the points in which they are interested. I am pleased to see in the items appearing under "science service" an increase of over $900,000. That is a step in the right direction, providing as it does for an increase in technical staff and some increase in salaries, which also is a step in the right direction.
I wish to bring to the attention of the minister a problem which is of serious concern to the fruit growers of my constituency. I refer to the little cherry disease. This is a matter of concern to the people who grow,
Supply-Agriculture

and who without doubt have grown for years, the best cherries in Canada, people who have cleared forests and in many cases make a large portion of their living by the production of this fruit. I am glad to know from the science service officials that they are now going to pay specific and effective attention to the problem in the near future. I wish to make a few suggestions to the minister in this respect. This disease is giving us great concern in British Columbia. The science service, in cooperation with the provincial departments of agriculture and other bodies, have effected remedies for diseases over the years, but in each case the officials concerned have been greatly assisted by close cooperation with the growers. I would suggest to the minister that in this case he must get success at the earliest possible date. I realize it is a problem to discover the root cause of this virus disease which is threatening the cherry industry, and which is causing a great deal of concern to the province of British Columbia. Planting of new orchards is not taking place because the young trees are affected in the first year of growth. There must be close cooperation between the science service and the growers concerned.
We have a large number of men growing cherries in the district, and they have been doing so for many years. They have a great deal of experience and are capable of close observation of the growth and growing conditions. I would suggest to the minister that there should be periodical publicity in the districts concerned and reports made concerning the progress made from month to month. To solve this problem we must have the growers and the officials of the department working together in all parts of the district.
I would also sugges't that the officials of the department should take advantage of every opportunity they can to attend growers' meetings and explain in person to the growers what their plans, progress and problems are.
I have one other suggestion to make in this connection. This is a social problem in our district. The inspiration for rural education in rural schools should spring from the farm. There should be cooperation with the agricultural organizations of the district concerned, and there should be the cooperation of the high-school children, that is those who are of age to understand the investigation into this disease. In the past we have not related the daily education of the children directly enough to the problems that they will be expected to face if they are to remain on the farms. I throw out the suggestion to the officials of the department, that they try,

in cooperation with the agricultural organizations in the district, to have the senior pupils of the rural schools throughout the district interested in and playing a part in the solution of this problem.
I should like to ask the minister this question. What arrangements are being made for cooperation with the provincial department of agriculture in connection with investigation of this problem?


James Garfield Gardiner: In the Kootenay valley the little cherry virus disease is spreading rapidly, having reached twenty miles north, fifteen miles west and forty-five miles south of where it was first observed in 1939. In 1941 its virus nature was demonstrated and investigations have been conducted under the directions of this department to try and determine what the origin is. I understand that there are some limited areas in the United States where they have had outbreaks of little cherry, but that there is little known about the disease, as to how it gets into a district or what is the cause of it; whether it is an insect, whether it is something in the air, or what it may be, has not been determined. We have three men who are working continuously in the Kootenay valley. Most of the work having to do with virus of different kinds is carried on at Summerland, but there is some hesitation to take the cherries that are affected into that district. It is a fruit-growing district that is not troubled with this fruit virus up to the present; and until the cause is known, some method of treating it, it is not being taken outside the valley for any purposes whatsoever. But we have three men in there who are working continuously on it, and it is hoped that we shall discover the causes and then be able to find some way of dealing with it. Up to the present we have not been able to discover any successful method of dealing with it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to make a few observations on a question which is closely associated with the production of food, namely, the conservation of food or the avoidance of waste. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar made some remarks on the same subject early in the evening, but I deferred mine because I desired to get through with item 26.
This matter was greatly emphasized in my mind just the other day by observing the shocking waste of food that one can see in a great many public places in this country at the present time. I was in a restaurant, not in this city, the other day, and I was so shocked by what I saw that I made up my mind I would try to bring it to the attention

Supply-A griculture
of this house. I am glad to be able to bring it to the attention of the minister, because in answer to a question of mine the other day he said that he was the head of a committee, which I understand is called the cabinet food committee, which has to do with the conservation of food. He also told us that some publicity was being given to it. I myself may have missed whatever publicity there was, but I cannot believe that it has been extremely effective.
I wish to make one or two observations. I believe that we are as humane a people as there are anywhere in the world. I believe that not a fraction of one per cent of the citizens of this country, if they had brought to their attention day by day the conditions that are existing in the world, would tolerate waste either in public or in private places.
I should like to read one or two short extracts, upon which I wish to say a word. The first extract is from the New Statesman and Nation of April 20. It is as follows:
A high military authority in Germany said the other day: "We have either got to keep a decent standard of living here-or clear out. And clearing out is unthinkable."
That is the quotation from the military authorities. Then the writer goes on to say:
If that is the situation (and we agree it is), the immediate need is at least to restore the food ration of Germans to 1,500 calories. The sacrifice ought not to be only British, but if no one else helps, it must be.
I now wish to read an extract from Life, which is not usually regarded as a sentimentalist paper. It contains a few facts which are not new but I think are desirable for us to have before us. This copy of Life is dated May 6, and the quotation reads as follows:
An estimated 500 million persons in such countries as Italy and Greece, France and Germany, India, China and Japan were subsisting on 700 to 1,500 calories a day-not quite enough to die on but not enough to live on. Four million Chinese were already dead. The Poles were eating their seed grain-which is agricultural suicide. The Chinese were eating clay.
I have one point to make. I think this needs to be dramatized to the people of Canada. With regard to the answer the minister gave me the other day in which he said, as I recall it, that he had O.K.'d an advertisement which is to be produced, I suggest that the government is not giving us a sufficient lead. I hope I am not putting this in a controversial way, because my desire is to persuade, not to criticize.
I have one further observation to make, and I shall point it up by reading a short extract from the New York Times of May 8. This is an editorial entitled "Hunger will not wait," 63260-102
and I should like to read the last paragraph because it has something to do not merely with humanity but with common sense:
Some world issues can be discussed at leisure. This one cannot. Hunger does not wait. This crisis is our opportunity to prove that we are not talking platitudes when we say we believe in world peace and world neighbourliness. These are our neighbours. They are hungry. A wave of good will and hope will sweep the world if now we share with them. It is time for leadership in this city and in the nation to turn from lesser things and show us how to do it.
I wish to make one final comment. A year ago to-day the Prime Minister, the hon. member for Peel and others were in San Francisco, and our hopes were high. Now I rub my eyes and ask myself if we are still living in the same world, when our hopes have shrivelled as they have. As I read this item in the New York Times, it suggests that at the present time we may create here and there sparks of good will which will kindle a generous flame which in turn may do something to melt, as it were, the freezing from which the whole world is suffering at the present time, and which seems to have destroyed the good will which existed a year ago.
So I suggest that whatever can be done by the government to give us a lead to that end will be worth while, and I believe the people of this country are the kind of people who will respond to such a lead.


Mr. GRAYDON:: May I add just one word by way of information, strangely enough relating to the subject of milk, about which we have heard so much to-night. We have heard of conditions in continental Europe and elsewhere,, and I should like to try to arouse some interest and perhaps do away with some of the complacency which sometimes exists with respect to the needs of these parts of the world. I am not dealing with Britain at the moment, because I intend to do so at a later time. In December of last year we were in Amiens, France, and were told by a high official of that city-and let the committee take note of this-that no adult civilian in the whole of that area, which has a huge population, had tasted a drink of milk for the past six years. With this observation I thought perhaps I might do something to arouse public interest and perhaps banish complacency in regard to what people in some parts of the world, allies of ouns, are going through in this critical period of peace.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Science servicefi. Animal and poultry pathology, $177,560.
Mr. MOORE:: I should like to say a few words in connection with the science of agriculture. I want to join with other hon. mem-

Supply-Agriculture

bers who have congratulated the minister upon the increase of $900,000 in the amount to be expended for the development of science in agriculture.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Not $900,000.


Ronald Stewart Moore: The increase in $913,591. I believe the application of science to Canadian agriculture might possibly solve one of the greatest problems confronting us. Up to the outbreak of the first world war it is fair to say the chief reason for producing agricultural commodities was to supply food for human consumption. There was a very good reason why that object should have kept people busy producing a livelihood. At the turn of the century one family working on the farm could produce sufficient food to supply one family living in the city; but owing to the application of mechanical methods to farming we have now reached the point, according to the United States department of agriculture, where one farm family can supply agricultural commodities sufficient for five families in the city.
At the present time there is no problem in regard to finding markets for agricultural commodities, but I think it fair to say that at some time in the near future we shall again reach the point where we shall have to look abroad for markets for our agricultural production ; and it would appear that the development of science or more properly the application of science to Canadian agriculture can do a great deal in solving that problem. That problem can be solved in this manner. Canadian agriculture can be made the basis for supplying raw materials to Canadian industry. Already that is being done to some extent in the United States. During the war years 275,000,000 bushels of United States wheat were converted into alcohol for industrial purposes. The same developments could be applied at the present time to Canadian agriculture. Only recently the national farm chemurgy council held a conference at St. Louis, Missouri. That conference expressed interest in the chemurgic plant of the Canadian government at. Saskatoon. It was also interested in this federal government's scientific research on our experimental farms. That conference went on record as stating that it would be the duty of United States scientists in the future to apply American agriculture to the production of the needs of American industry. In other words, they are going to try to make American agriculture the source of raw materials for American industry.
I should like to give some figures in that connection. The United States department of agriculture have told us that during the war
[Mr. Moore.1
years they lost five million people from the middle western states. Those people have gone to the eastern manufacturing centres, and to all intents and purposes will be lost to American agriculture. The American people are concerned with what is to be done to find a market for agricultural goods in that country; and I venture to say that people in Canada should be concerned too, because we are more dependent upon foreign markets for agricultural commodities, under ordinary peace-time conditions, than are the United States. In the late 1930's eighty-five per cent of American agricultural production was consumed in the home market. In Canada we do not consume anything like that percentage of our agricultural production.
There are a number of things which could be done from a scientific point of view to pave the way for the creation in this country of a market for agricultural commodities. First let us take the production of nylon in the United States. I hear some hon. member say, "Oh, oh." I admit that we do not produce any nylon in Canada, but we supply the materials from which it is produced. Fifty per cent of the cellulose used in the production of United States nylon comes from Canada in the form of wood pulp, and our pulpwood is running very, very short. Practically all products of the farm can be used to produce certain kinds of cellulose, and it would be a good thing for our scientific research department to go forward and see if it would not be possible to produce from the various forms of agricultural commodities sufficient cellulose to take care of the United States demand for our wood pulp used for this purpose.
There is something else we can consider doing. For instance, take the supply of fuel for internal combustion engines. There can be no question at all that the supply of fuel will become a serious matter in the not distant future. The United States supply of oil was used to a very large extent during the war years, and the American petroleum institute have told us that at the present time there is available in the United States 17 billion barrels of gasoline. At the present rate of consumption that will be consumed within fifteen years time. What are we going to do to supply some means of operating our internal combustion engines?
The best possible development would be to use ethyl alcohol produced from Canadian grain. The United States have told us that if we use a 10 per cent mixture of gasoline with ethyl alcohol, taking 1935 as a base, it would

Supply-Agriculture
require the total production of the 1935 wheat crop in the United States to produce the required amount of ethyl alcohol.
So if we care to put our scientists to work, and treat this problem as a national one, there is no reason why we cannot solve the problem confronting agriculture in Canada under peace-time conditions. It is well to speak of ordinary peace-time conditions, because the day will come in this country when we shall have to look elsewhere for more markets. The best place to look for agricultural markets in future will be to our own secondary industries, by supplying them with the raw materials they need to produce manufactured goods.
I should like to mention something else from the United States picture which could be done in Canada as well. During the year just ended the United States produced $100 million worth of goods out of agricultural products used for non-food purposes. That is the application of science to American agriculture. Plastics could be developed as well. Starches can be manufactured from agricultural goods. So also can anti-freeze and even edible syrups. The United States now have a plan to produce syrup from wheat, and in the production of that syrup they intend to use wheat which is not of the highest quality.


John Ritchie MacNicol: You have one plant at Moose Jaw.


Ronald Stewart Moore: I was not familiar with that.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is doing very fine work.


Mr. MARSHALL:: Before we enter into a discussion of these votes, could the minister give us the actual amounts the department has spent of the appropriation voted last year. I note that for last year the appropriation on item 5 was $30,349. A comparison of one year's estimates with another is unfair. It would be better to compare the amount expended in one year with the amount we hope to expend in the year lying ahead. If the minister would give us that figure at the commencement of the discussion, we would have it before us. Perhaps he would give us the figures for item 5.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand the final figures as to actual expenditures for the year ended March 31 last are not yet available. As is known, the accounts are not closed until about thirty days later. We are not far enough away from the end of the financial year to have the exact figure. I have sent out for an interim report which will give those figures.
63260-102J
However, if one will take the total figure for the department, he will have some idea of the percentage which is spent, right through the department. The following is a comparative statement of appropriations and expenditures between the years 1934-35 and 1944-45: Appropriation Expenditure
1944-45	
$119,142,943	35	$104,647,117	001943-44	
120,774,131	50	110,327,725	691942-43	
65,199,979	50	58,438.895	981941-42	
91,866,680	80	82,810,172	551940-41 '	
23,165,369	81	21,502,998	271939-40	
28.633,064	66	26,201,907	361938-39	
23.640,912	09	22.367,180	581937-38	
37,360,444	95	33,204,291	741936-37	
15,566,319	48	13,397,140	491935-36	
11,159,940	79	9,637,810	721934-35	
7,920,451	50	7,106,534	99
It will be noted that 1941-42 to 1944-45 were years in which our expenditures were very high in connection with war activities. If we take the war activities, as well as the usual expenditures on agriculture, the pro-portidhs unexpended will seem very small.
There is one further comment I might make in connection with the table. It will be noted that the figure for 1938-39 shows an appropriation of $23,640,912.09. The figure given the other night was only $9 million.
I have put this table on record because it gives the figures right through the years in respect of the matter we discussed the other night. All the proportions are well indicated in the table.
I now have before me the interim report to which I referred. The science service allotment for twelve months last year was $1,901,-
000.	The total expenditure for eleven months -I have not the figure for the last month- was $1,687,492. It will be noted that the expenditure will be practically all used up by the time the accounts which come in in the last month are paid up.


James Alexander Marshall: It might be more than that amount, then.


James Garfield Gardiner: It cannot be more,
because we are not allowed to spend money unless it has been voted. It might be less, but it cannot be more.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Science service-
7. Bacteriology and dairy research, $64,775.
Mr. TOWNLEY-SMITH: Some years ago when prices of live stock sank to such low levels our farmers found that when an animal was injured or became ill it was more economical to allow it to die than to pay the cost of bringing in a veterinary surgeon. The result of this situation has been that we now find that few students in the universities are sufficiently interested in the live stock end of
Supply-Agriculture
[Stage Direction]
their studies to take up the study of veterinary science. The result is we are very short of veterinary surgeons. Dentists and medical doctors, even in the west, are quite thick on the ground when compared with veterinaries. Has the minister considered assisting students who are taking up animal pathology? There are many students attending universities who could be encouraged to take up this study by means of scholarships, or a guarantee of work after they have graduated.
James Garfield Gardiner: May I suggest to the hon. member that this matter could be discussed to better advantage under item 18, health of animals. At the moment I can only say that there has been an adjustment, upward of course, in the salaries of those engaged in veterinary work in the department. We feel that some encouragement will have to be given to men to go into this profession. There are too few of them and our farmers have to go great distances in order to get their services.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Science service-
8.	Botany and plant pathology, $534,121.
Heber Harold Hatfield: Could the minister give the reason for the increase of S85,000 in this item?


James Garfield Gardiner: The increases are as follows:
Salaries, permanent	 $27,090
Salaries, temporary	 29,007
Wages	 10,933
Plants and buildings	 7,700
Equipment	 13,500
Express and freight	 185
Printing and stationery	 2,000
Rents	 80
Telegraph, telephone and postage .	160
Travel	 23
That gives a total of $90,678, but there are decreases in other sections amounting to $5,184, which leaves a difference of approximately $85,000.


Mr. KNIGHT:: I should like to inquire about the salaries of plant pathologists, but first let me say that I appreciate that some increases have been given. What proportion of these increases is made up of statutory raises, and what proportion is actually an increase in the basic rate? I do not think I need to point out the value of plant pathology in the economy of this country. When the hon. member for Kootenay West was speaking I was thinking of the tremendous service rendered by the agricultural scientists in British Columbia by their discovery in regard to the cherry disease. Then our agricultural scientists have produced various kinds of 
wheat which have had a tremendous economic value. These men have been tremendously underpaid in the past, and I think the salaries paid should be sufficient to encourage men in the agricultural colleges at Saskatoon and other places to go into plant pathology. These salaries should be sufficient to counteract the drift of such scientists to the United States.


James Garfield Gardiner: There have been fifty men reclassified at an immediate cost of $12,840 and an ultimate cost of $29,340.


Mr. BENTLEY:: Does that apply to the experimental farms as well?


James Garfield Gardiner: This is just the botany division.


Thomas John Bentley: Could the minister give us a sort of running report of the development in connection with Rescue wheat?


James Garfield Gardiner: That would come under the item dealing with experimental farms.


Mark Cecil Senn: I understand that some experiments have been conducted in the use of milkweed in connection with synthetic rubber.


James Garfield Gardiner: That again would come under experimental farms and research council, item 37.


Mark Cecil Senn: It is mentioned in the report of the minister under botany and plant pathology.


James Garfield Gardiner: This branch did collect some floss and ship it to the United States.


John Horne Blackmore: Under what item
would we discuss Bang's disease?


James Garfield Gardiner: We passed the item in connection with research, but it might be discussed under item 18, health of animals.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Science service-
9.	Agricultural chemistry, $171,910.
Heber Harold Hatfield: There is an item covering a mill operator. What kind of mill is that?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is a small mill in the chemical division which grinds feed for analysis.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Science service-
10.	Entomology - agricultural entomology,
$680,375.	.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: What is to be done this year in regard to the budworm?


James Garfield Gardiner: That would really come under item 11.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What about the peach worm? Have they discovered how to get rid of it?

Supply-A gricul ture


James Garfield Gardiner: We are working on the oriental peach worm at Vineland in the Niagara peninsula to find means of eradicating the worm, largely through the use of sprays.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Are you going to do anything to stop the sale of peaches with these worms in them? Last year carloads of them were sold to the people of Canada and they were a total loss.


James Garfield Gardiner: The best grade of
peaches with worms in them are not supposed to be sold, but they are very difficult to detect, and sometimes peaches that are infested with them get out. Work is being done on this problem, but the worm is the most difficult to detect.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Peaches sold as No. 1 grade are the ones in which they found the worms. There seem to be more worms in the larger peaches than in the smaller ones.


James Arthur Ross: There is an increase of over $203,000 in this item. Would the minister explain that? I also understand that there is a shortage of trained personnel in the different branches of entomology. What are the prospects of supplying this shortage through students from the universities and agricultural colleges?


James Garfield Gardiner: The increases are as follows:	permanent, $16,890; temporary,
$94,295; total salary increases, $111,185; wages increase, $22,751; cost of living bonus, $8,850; buildings and land, $5,260; equipment, $30,136 -that is mostly for cars and scientific equipment; express, freight and cartage, $1,078; printing and stationery, $6,500, rents, $4,145; supplies, $2,095; telephone, telegraph and postage, $922; travelling, $12,951; making a total of $203,235.


James Arthur Ross: I understand that in some parts of Canada there is a shortage of trained personnel for laboratory and research work in the different branches of entomology. Are young men who are now coming out of universities and agricultural colleges being taken on to overcome this shortage?


James Garfield Gardiner: We have taken on about sixty men, a large proportion of them returned men formerly employed and returned men who are now students.


Mark Cecil Senn: Temporary assistants?


James Garfield Gardiner: The students will be temporary while training. A number are being trained for this work.


Mr. HENDERSON:: Up in Lambton county, on the shores of lake Erie, we grow corn for our silos, for husking and feeding purposes. A
few years ago we had a rigid corn-borer inspection. A new inspector was appointed and he started out as new brooms always do, the result being that five or six years ago we had a rigid inspection. But when the war came on we slipped a little, and for the last year or two we have not had a corn-borer inspection. The result is that the corn-borer is increasing quite rapidly. What is being done to restore the corn-borer inspection and to control this pest, if possible?


James Garfield Gardiner: There has been some difficulty in getting staff in connection with the* work that is being done to control the corn-borer. I think it would be interesting if I read this statement on the European corn-borer :
The European corn-borer continues to be a serious pest of corn in Ontario and southern Quebec. During the season of 1945 this insect also made one ol its periodic invasions into New Brunswick, causing serious losses to corn, particularly in Carleton county. The development of a two-generation strain of the corn-borer in southwestern Ontario is threatening not only to complicate the control measures but increase the seriousness of the pest.
The normal single generation life-history of the insect is well known. The adult moths emerge from corn and other host plant refuse, begin flying and laying eggs in July. The larvae hatching from these eggs bore into the stalks and cobs of corn, feeding there until mature. They spend the winter in the host plant and weed refuse, pupate in the spring and emerge as adults early in July. The two-generation strain is not so well known. The first generation adults emerge in June and infest young corn plants, the larvae mature and pupate the same season. The second generation adults emerge late in the summer and infest the ripening corn.
In other words, a new variety of pest has appeared recently and is causing some difficulty in handling the situation. I am sorry I have no information As to why the inspector has not been on the job in Lambton county, other than that we have had difficulty in maintaining a competent staff.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: In Kansas and other states where they were bothered with the corn-borer they maintained a patrol of the highways and stopped and searched all cars to make sure that they were not carrying com from the infested areas into free areas, and I understand that this helped greatly in eliminating the corn-borer. Something along that line will have to be done here.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Science service-
11.	Forest entomology, $721,916.
James Alexander Marshall: What is the distinction
made between temporary assistants and wage earners?
Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: The temporary assistants are persons taken on through the civil service commission to fill certain positions which have not yet been made permanent. The wage-earners are taken on by the day.


John Alpheus Charlton: There is an increase in the expenditure for buildings and land. Are new forestry stations being established, and is this increase for buildings and equipment?


James Garfield Gardiner: The increase arises from the necessity to build a laboratory at a cost of $150,000 at Sault Ste. Marie near the headquarters of the research centre for the study of forest insects in which to study the importance of insect diseases in the control of forest insects, with a view to the importation of foreign diseases or the exploitation of local diseases in the control of forest insect pests in general, in Canada, and also at the moment, in the possible control of the spruce budworm. It is absolutely impossible to use the forest insect laboratory at Sault Ste. Marie for these studies because the 'whole building might become infected with forest insect disease germs and the entire basic studies ruined and the building even abandoned for biological work.


John Alpheus Charlton: There is another item under miscellaneous, $10,000, in which there is an increase. Will the minister explain that?


James Garfield Gardiner: This increase arises from the necessity to provide for unforeseen expenditures in an expanding service in scientific investigational work in nine forest insect labora-ties throughout Canada where, a*t any time, the whole investigation may take an unexpected turn requiring unanticipated outlays of material consequence. Unfortunately, estimating for a research programme is vastly different from estimating for a factory production programme, and funds to meet emergencies are crucial, upon occasion, to exploiting the advantage of the moment, evanescent as they are so often in scientific research work. The point here is that every season is somewhat different and biologically important incidents may occur in one season which may not be encountered again for years; hence the importance of having available an item to make possible taking advantage of the favourable opportunity. This explains the remark I made a few moments ago in answer to an hon. member. The fact is that we must have money voted if we are to be able to spend it. Disease may break out somewhere and there must be a fund on which to draw for emergency work.


Mr. CARDIFF:: There is an increase in salaries. Is that due to an increase in staff, or are salaries being raised?


James Garfield Gardiner: This is entirely an increase in staff.


Percy Ellis Wright: What has been the experience in spraying from aeroplanes for the spruce budworm? Is the dominion carrying on this work, or the provinces?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is carried on by the province, but we have information on it.


Mr. STEPHENSON:: With regard to
travelling expenses, are these mostly car expenses, and what is the mileage paid? How is that worked?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is railroad and car expenses, but the greater part is car, and the rate is nine cents a mile.
In answer T.o a question that was asked with regard to control of forest insects by spraying from aircraft, I may say this. The application of concentrated sprays containing DDT from aircraft was first attempted in Canada in 1944. In that year, in cooperation with the Ontario department of lands and forests, several acres of balsam and spruce forest in Algonquin park, Ontario, were sprayed, plane owned and operated by the United States department of agriculture being employed. The results were sufficiently satisfactory to justify further experiments in 1945. Three separate spraying projects were conducted, all directed against the spruce budworm. At Algonquin park, ten experimental plots of ten acres each were sprayed in early May to determine the relative effeetivness of various dosages of DDT. In the Kakabonga region, Gatineau valley, Quebec, several experimental plots were sprayed between May 16 and June 14; the results from each series of sprays, employing varying dosages of DDT and solvent, were carefully checked by means of population studies taken in the sprayed plots and in adjacent unsprayed areas. The studies suggest that the most effective time to apply the spray is during the period in which the larvae are feeding on the foliage of the new growth. In the case of large-scale operations, however, when time is an important factor, spraying may be conducted in the needle-mining and bud-feeding stages but with increased dosages.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: I asked the minister a question a moment ago. with regard to travelling expenses and he stated that a rate of nine cents a mile was paid. Do these men own their own cars?


James Garfield Gardiner: Most of the cars that are driven by our employees are government-owned, and only when a man drives his own ear is the 9-cent rate paid, the actual expense of operating the car.

Export Credits


Mr. BURTON:: With reference to spraying for spruce budworms, has the department considered testing the use of chemicals?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. I do not know whether the hon. member for Humboldt at any time last year drove by the Indian Head farm, but if he did he would have seen, north of that farm, a field in which that test was carried out. I saw it on a number of occasions and was greatly surprised at the effectiveness of the use of chemicals. It can be successfully done.


Joseph William Burton: Are you continuing with that experimentation?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, May 17, 1946.