1947-03-19

PRICES AND TRADE BOARD


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a brief statement regarding the chairmanship of the -wartime prices and trade board which, because of its importance and interest, I have felt should be given in the first instance to parliament.
After five and a half years of service as chairman of the wartime prices and trade board, Mr. Donald Gordon has asked to be relieved of his duties in order to return on a full time basis to his position as deputy governor of the Bank of Canada. The recent appointment of Mr. Graham F. Towers as Canadian executive director of the international bank for reconstruction and development lends a certain urgency to Mr. Gordon's request.
The government, after careful consideration, has reached the conclusion that plans for the orderly decontrol of prices are sufficiently

Wartime Prices and Trade Board
advanced to make it possible to meet Mr. Gordon's wishes without the public interest being adversely affected. Mr. Gordon's resignation has accordingly been accepted to take effect on April 15. He will be succeeded as chairman of the wartime prices and trade board by the now deputy chairman, Mr. Kenneth W. Taylor. Mr. Taylor has been with the board since its establishment in 1939.
I should not like the acceptance of Mr. Donald Gordon's resignation to pass without expressing the government's deep appreciation -which I am sure will be shared by hon. members of both Houses of Parliament-of the exceptional contribution made by Mr. Gordon, as chairman of the prices board, to the effective economic mobilization of Canada's resources during the war and, since the termination of hostilities, to an orderly transition to a peacetime economy in our country.
The success of Canada's campaign against inflation during the war and in its subsequent control owes very much to the untiring devotion. integrity and courage displayed by Mr. Donald Gordon in the discharge of the arduous duties of chairman of the wartime prices and trade board. I -feel I may speak for the Canadian people as a whole when, at this moment of his retirement, I express to Mr. Gordon our thanks for the invaluable service he has rendered our country at a time of its greatest need.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think this occasion should be allowed to pass without someone on this side of the house associating us with what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has said. I feel that Mr. Donald Gordon has been subjected to a great deal of criticism and sometimes we felt that the criticism might have some basis. However I believe (he whole country has been well served by the job Mr. Gordon has done, and I am pleased to associate this group with the expression of appreciation voiced by the Prime Minister.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. BLACKMORE:: 
Mr. MAYHEW:: 1.	The records of the sugar administrator are not set up to supply the information in the manner in which the question is asked. The records are not segregated according to countries from which importations are made, nor ports in Canada where shipments are landed. .
The total purchase price in Canadian funds paid by the sugar administrator during the period September 1, 1945 to August 31, 1946, was $30,447,828.11.
2.	The same statement made in the first part of answer No. 1 also applies to this question.
The average price per 100 lbs. c.i.f. Canadian ports during the period September 1, 1945 to August 31, 1946, was $4.2301. It is impossible to give the average f.o.b. price for each country but roughly, sugars coming under the British preferential tariff cost approximately $3.47 per 100 lbs., f.o.b.; full duty sugars (Cuba and Santo Domingo) $3.67^ per 100 lbs., f.o.b.


RAW CANE SUGAR
Mr. BLACKMORE:: 
Mr. MAYHEW:: 1.	The sugar administration sold to Canadian sugar refineries during the period September 1, 1945 to August 31, 1946, 705,191,534 lbs.
2.	The Canadian sugar refineries paid during the year September 1, 1945 to August 31. 1946:
(a)	a total of $29,743,860.41;
(b)	an average of $4-2178 per 100 lbs.
3.	The operating loss in sugar for the period September 1, 1945 to August 31, 1946, was:
(a)	a total of $233,834.90;
(b)	an average of -0325 cents per 100 lbs.
Other revenues resulted in the sugar administration operating at a profit of $287,951.35.
Questions


HOUSING-VETERANS' LAND ACT-HASTINGS COUNTY, ONTARIO
Mr. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):: 1.	How many homes were built under the Y.LA. in the county of Hastings?
2.	What is the total cost of each home constructed under the V.L.A. in this area?
3.	Who was the contractor or contractors for this area?
4.	What is the present proposed sale price of each home in this area?
5.	What was the original price asked in each case?
6.	How many homes have been sold to date and what is the price in each ease?
7.	What was the cost per unit of project overhead and how was the same made up?
8.	Have any veterans made deposits on proposed purchases and later declined to proceed with the purchase of such holdings? If so, by whom and why were said deals not completed?


Mr. TUCKER:: 1. Eight.
Subdivision Project
Individual Contracts Seven (under construction)
Construction contract prices
2.	Final costs cannot be determined until completion of	$5,999
audit by cost audit division of treasury dept. Sale prices	4,800
have been fixed under section 21 of the Veterans' Land Act	4,700
and order in council P.C. 1278 of April 2, 1946, which	5,200
authorized an adjustment to reasonable sale value.	4,900
4,900
6,000
3.	Frontenac Construction Company.	Five by the veterans concerned.
One by White Lumber Company, Belleville, Ont.
One by J. Goodfellow, R.R. No. 7, Belleville, Ont.
4.	Two at $6,120; two at $5,880; two at $5,796; one at Contract prices plus cost of
$5,396; one at $5,256.	land.
These prices do not include the following charges:
Roads, $35 per house; drainage, $50 per house; water,
$250 per house; drives, $75 per house; land, $43.50 or $60 per house depending on location.
5.	Same as selling price.
6.	All sold at prices indicated in No. 4.	No houses completed
7.	$586.21 made up as follows
Pro-rata supt. salary .
Office staff	
Watchman's salary ....
Temporary building ..
Less material reclaimed

8.	No.	No
	 $ 381 25
		1,350	80
		2,782	80

175 001	174	85


RAW CANE SUGAR-TRANSPORTATION CHARGES
Mr. BLACKMORE:: 
Mr. MAYHEW:: 1.	The records of the sugar administrator are not set up to supply the information in the manner in which the question is asked. The records are not segregated according to

Questions
countries from which importations are made, nor ports in Canada where shipments are landed.
The total transportation cost paid by the sugar administrator in Canadian funds, during the period September 1, 1945 to August 31, 1946, was as follows:
Freight

Ocean	 $3,326,750 62
Rail	 569,056 00

Insurance	 59,111 61

2.	The statement made in the first part or answer No. 1 also applies to this question. The average transportation cost per 100
lbs., paid by the sugar administrator in Canadian funds, during the period September 1, 1945 to August 31, 1946, was as follows:
Freight-
Ocean	 '46218
Rail	 -07905
Insurance	 -00821


ORDNANCE CORPS-SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, HALIFAX
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	What was the date of the last stock taking in each vocabulary section at the special distribution depot, Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps, Halifax, Nova Scotia?
2.	Were any shortages found and, if so, what was the total number of items found short and the value of same?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.
Vocabulary section
Clothing A, B, C, D	
1A, 2A, E	
B-l, B-2, B-3, C-l, C-2, C-3	
ID, 2D	
E-l, E-2	
E-3, E-4, E-5	
IF,	2F, 3F	
IG,	2G, 1H, 2H	
1J, 2J	
J-3, J-4	
Iv	
LV 7 CR	
LV 7 GL	
LV 7 FD	
LV 7 HD, UC, 5 Cwt	
M-l, M-2, M-3	
M-4	
N-l, N-2, N-3, O	
P -1, P -2	
V-l, V-2, V-3, V-4, V-5, V-6	
W-l, W-2, W-3, W-4, W-5	
XI, 2Y	
Z-l, Z-2, Z-3	
Charlottetown sub depot	
Debert-Articles in use (A-in-U)	
Debert-Ammunition	
Debert-Deposit stock	
Debert-Vehicle and stowage tools	
Halifax-A-in-U	
Halifax-Returned stores section and produce
Halifax-Spare parts, technical stores....
Johnstown-A-in-U	
Johnstown-Ammunition	
Date of last completed stocktaking
Sept. 3, 1946 July 23, 1946 June 18, 1946 Oct. 22, 1946 Oct. 8, 1946 Dec. 19, 1946 Oct. 10, 1946 Dec. 17, 1946 Aug. 1, 1946 Nov. 12, 1946 Oct. 30, 1946 Oct. 15, 1946 Dec. 6, 1946 Dec. 12, 1946 Jan. 9, 1947 Sept. 6, 1946 Sept. 6, 1946 Sept. 24, 1946
Oct. 24, 1946
Aug. 20, 1946 Aug. 17, 1946 Dec. 19, 1946 July 15, 1946
Mar. 28, 1946 Nov. 5, 1946 Aug. 22, 1946 Aug. 29, 1946 Nov. 15, 1946 Nov. 5, 1946
Date of further stocktaking not yet finalized
Jan. 17, 1947 Feb. 6, 1947
Jan. 24, 1947
Jan. 24, 1947
Jan. 16, 1947 Nov. 28, 1946
Dec. 3, 1946
Feb. 25, 1947 Dec. 19, 1946 Feb. 28, 1947
Feb. 18, 1947 Feb. 11, 1947
Questions

2.	Yes. The difference between stock records and count showed a net deficiency of 3,S09 articles made up of deficiencies of 7,997 articles and surplus of 4,188 articles. The difference in value between deficiencies and surpluses shows a credit of $1,792.30. Considerable rewarehousing has taken place in Halifax area and further stocktakings have been made or are in process to complete investigation of discrepancies.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Has the allocation of sugar for 1947 to Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States been settled by the international emergency food council and, if so, what are the respective allocations of the three countries named as compared to 1946 (a) as to total; (b) on a per capita basis?
2.	What proportion of Canada's 1947 allocation is (a) from British West Indies; (b) from Cuba; (e) from Santo Domingo; (d) imports from other sources; (e) domestic beet sugar?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1.	(a) Yes. Respective allocations for Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States for 1946 and 1947 are as follows:-
Total allocations (short tons raw value)
	1946		1947
Canada 	504.000	611,000United Kingdom 	. 2.081,000	2	,473,000United States 	, 5,597,000	6	,800,000(b) Per capita	(raw value)	1946	1947lbs.	lbs.Canada 	76	93United Kingdom 	76	93United States 	76	93
2. Sources of Canada's 1947 allocation
per cent
British West Indies	 39
Cuba	 15
Santo Domingo	 13
Fiji	 8
Undesignated imports	 7
Domestic Beet Sugar	 18


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-LANDS AND PREMISES, HALIFAX CONSTITUENCY
Mr. TIMMINS:: 1.	What is the total valuation of all lands and premises owned by the Canadian National railways in the constituency of Halifax?
2.	Does the Canadian National railways pay any municipal taxation in respect of any of these lands and premises?
3.	If so, on which lands and premises?
4.	If not, which lands and premises are exempt from taxation, and on what basis are they exempt?

5.	Are lands and premises owned by the Canadian National railways which previously were part of the Intercolonial railway in any different status from the point of view of municipal taxation than other lands and premises, in other parts of Canada, owned by the said railway which did not form part of the Intercolonial system?
6.	If so, what are, in detail, the reasons therefor?


Mr. CIIEVRIER:: The same objection
pertains with reference to this question, except there is an additional factor involved. The information involved in answering the question is now the subject of litigation, in other words the matter is sub judice. It is the feeling of the railway that they should not be required to give this information at this time, and I wonder if the hon. gentleman would be kind enough to consent to its being withdrawn.
Question dropped.


RESERVE ARMY
Mr. PEARKES:: How many (a) regiments of cavalry; (b) armoured regiments; (c) tank regiments; (d) artillery regiments; (e) infantry battalions, were there in the N.P.A.M. on January 1, 1939, and how many are there in the reserve army now?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: The hon. member has
agreed to withdraw this question, and I have undertaken to give him the information personally.
Question dropped.


CANADA-WEST INDIES STEAMSHIP SERVICE
Mr. ISNOR:: What is the approximate date on which the C.G.S. Lady Nelson and Lady Rodney will resume service between Canada and the West Indies?


Lionel Chevrier: The Canadian National Railways hope to have the Lady Nelson ready for service late in June, and the Lady Rodney early in June.


HOUSING-VETERANS LAND ACT-BRANTFORD
Mr. CHARLTON:: 1.	Was the contract for doing the landscape work at the Veterans' Land Act housing project at Brantford let by tender?
2.	If so, from whom were tenders received and what was the amount of each tender?
3.	What was the name of the contractor that received the contract?
4.	Was the contract completed?
5.	How much did the contractor receive?
6.	Was the veteran owner charged anything for this landscape work?
7.	If so, how much was he charged?

Questions


Mr. TUCKER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	F. H. Heidner-evergreen nurseries- $100 per unit. At least six other individuals or firms thought to have been in a position to enter into a general contract were contacted, but were not interested at the price the department was prepared to pay.
3.	F. H. Heidner-evergreen nurseries.
4.	No.
5.	$40 per unit, making a total of $800 for work done in this sub-division. Nursery stock was purchased separately from Brookdale Kingsway Ltd.
6.	Yes.
7.	$145 is included in the purchase contract to cover work done by contractor and cost of nursery stock. The portion unexpended will be credited to the veteran.


SUGAR ADMINISTRATION-REVIEW OF OPERATING RESULTS
Mr. WINKLER:: 1.	Did the sugar administration send an accountant in October, 4946, to all beet sugar companies in Canada to review the respective growers operating results in 1942, 1943, 1944, and 1945?
2.	If so, what was his name and address?
3.	What were his qualifications and was he a chartered accountant?
4.	What wns his occupation during the past ten years?
5.	Had he any previous knowledge of beet farming or of the beet sugar industry?
6.	In connection with imports of cane sugar, was he commissioned to review the operations of cane sugar refineries in the same period?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Mr. W. R. Dawson, 3940 Cote des Neiges Road, Montreal, P.Q.
3.	Mr. Dawson is a chartered accountant. He was fully qualified to report on the following terms of reference:
(1)	A critical examination of the financial statistics furnished by the beet sugar companies;
(2)	A detailed study of their costs with comparative costs running back to 1942;
(3)	An attempt to project their costs and operating results against the possibility of operations, in the case of the Ontario and Manitoba companies, at approximately the rated capacity of the factories (this was not necessary for the Alberta company who were already operating above rated capacity) ;
(4)	An accurate study of the proportion of the value of the crop, including molasses and beet pulp, which accrued to the factories as compared to the growers;
and to obtain information:
(5)	Regarding the average return to growers on an acreage basis;
(6)	How the net return compares with competing crops.
4.	Practising chartered accountant prior to coming to Canada, in April, 1939, when he became assistant to the controller and vicepresident of the B.C. Power Corporation Limited; was engaged by the sugar administration on September 8, 1942, as director of glucose and allied products; resigned June 27, 1943, to go to South Africa in connection with personal business. On his return he was engaged, October 1, 1945, as a senior officer of the prices division of the wartime prices and trade board from which he resigned on March 31, 1946. He has had 25 years experience as a chartered accountant.
5 and 6. No.


ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE WHEAT BOARD
Mr. CHARLTON:: What salaries, expenses, or other remuneration of any kind were paid to each member of the advisory committee to the wheat board in the years 1943-1944-1945-1946?


Mr. MacKINNON:: Name	Honorarium	Subsistence	Travelling	TotalR. C. Brown.	$	160 00	$	160 00	$ 141 05	$	461 05D. A. Campbell 	110 00	345 89	455 89F. H. Clendenning 	190 00	190 00	182 30	562 30Paul Farnalls	220 00	220 00	256 45	696 45Lew Hutchinson	260 00	260 00	342 30	862 30Jas. A. McCowan 	180 00	180 00	200 95	560 95Fred Pettypiece	190 00	190 00	293 74	673 74R. C. Reece	100 00	60 00	126 70	286 70A. C. Reid	80 00	158 45	238 45J. Theo Rov	60 00	60 00	142 43	262 43J. H. Wesson 	130 00	110 00	191 70	431 70$	1,490 00	S	1,620 00	$ 2.381 96	$	5.491 96
Questions

Name	Honorarium	Subsistence	Travelling	TotalR. C. Brown	S 170 00	S 170 00	$ 107 50	$	447 50D A. Campbell 	120 00	369 90	489 90F. H. Clendenning 	
150 00	160 00	370 60	680 60Paul Farnalls 	
330 00	330 00	356 70	1,016 70Lew Hutchinson 	
270 00	270 00	332 00	872 00Jas. A. McCowan 	
200 00	200 00	198 80	598 80Fred Pettypiece 	
170 00	170 00	293 36	633 36R. C. Reece 	
90 00	70 00	149 45	309 45A. C. Reid 	80 00	126 45	206 45J. Theo Roy 	
290 00	290 00	448 90	1,028 90J. H. Wesson 	
100 00	100 00	219 90	419 90$ 1,770 00	$ 1.960 00	$ 2,973 56	$	6,703 56Sundry 	30 00$	6,733 561945	Name	Honorarium	Subsistence	Travelling	TotalR. C. Brown 	S 240 00	S 240 00	$ 325 10	$	805 10D. A. Campbell 	130 00	487 25	617 25F. H. Clendenning	
140 00	140 00	286 28	566 28Paul Farnalls 	
260 00	260 00	359 80	879 80Lew Hutchinson 	
170 00	170 00	174 15	514 15Jas. A. McCowan 	
240 00	240 00	385 15	865 15Fred Pettypiece 	
ISO 00	180 00	530 30	890 30R. C. Reece 	
90 00	70 00	174 55	334 55A. C. Reid 	ISO 00	310 70	490 70J. Theo Roy 	
110 00	130 00	455 20	695 20J. H. Wesson 	
150 00	150 00	309 95	609 95$ 1580 00	$ 1,890 00	$ 3,798 43	$	7,268 43Sundry 	46 00$	7,314 431946	Name	Honorarium	Subsistence	Travelling	TotalR. C. Brown 	$ 90 00	S 30 00	$ 73 05	S	193 05D. A. Campbell 	130 00	351 67	481 67F. H. Clendenning 	
90 00	90 00	195 72	375 72Paul Farnalls 	
180 00	180 00	153 80	513 80Lew Hutchinson 	
120 00	120 00	158 35	398 35Jas. A. McCowan 	
170 00	170 00	205 70	545 70Fred Pettypiece 	
50 00	50 00	95 85	195 85R. C. Reece 	
20 00	20 00A. C. Reid 	30 00	47 75	77 75J. Theo Roy 	
220 00	220 00	491 60	931 60C. Gordon Smith 	
20 00	20 00J. H. Wesson 	
20 00	20 00	36 20	76 20$ 980 00	S 1,040 00	$ 1,809 69	$	3,829 69Sundry	...$	46 00$	3,875 69

Questions


CITIZENSHIP CERTIFICATES
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	How many citizenship certificates have been taken out since January 1, 1947, by Canadian citizens (a) by birth; (b) by naturalization?
2.	Are citizenship certificates being distributed to county court and district court clerks? If so, how many have been sent out?
3.	Are application forms for citizenship forwarded to all clerks of court?


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: 1.	(a) 198; granted to Canadian citizens by birth.
(b) 190; granted to Canadian citizens naturalized under former acts.
2.	Yes; 1186; certificates granted to aliens and forwarded to county and district court clerks for the taking of the oath of allegiance and renunciation.
3.	Yes.


GOVERNMENT AND NATIONAL RAILWAY HOTELS
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	In what hotels has the government or the C.NjR. an investment and what is the amount in each hotel?
2.	What has been the net profit of each such hotels annually during the past ten years?
3.	Has the government made any studies as to the desirability from an economic point of view of a new railway hotel for the city of Montreal?
4.	If so, what is the estimated cost of such an hotel?
5.	How much money has been appropriated by the government or the C.N.R. for its construction?
6.	Have any architects, engineers or designers been employed by the government or the CjN.R. to prepare preliminary or other plans and specifications for an hotel in Montreal?
7.	If so, who are they and what is the amount of fees or other compensation paid or payable to each of them?


Lionel Chevrier: This again is one of the questions to which I referred a moment ago. While there is no objection to giving the information asked for by the hon. member before the committee on railways and shipping, I am placed in the same position as I was the other day with reference to the hon. member for Temiscouata, who very kindly consented to await the sittings of that committee for the information. I wonder if my hon. friend would not do likewise.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 
Mr. SPEAKER:: Dropped.


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Lionel Chevrier: If the question stands it will stand until the sittings of the committee, because it is a matter that concerns the internal management of the railway. It has not been the practice to answer these questions in the House of Commons when the information is fully available before the. committee.


John George Diefenbaker: Let it stand.


James Horace King: Dropped.


John George Diefenbaker: Let it stand.


James Horace King: If the hon. member insists, question stands.


NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD-HALIFAX-PROPERTIES UNDER LEASE TO PRIVATE PERSONS
Mr. McGREGOR:: 1.	What is the location of each property in the electoral district of Halifax owned by the national harbours board which is presently under lease to private persons?
2.	What is the annual amount of each such lease?
3.	Have any requests been made by any municipal corporation in the electoral district of Halifax for information regarding such leases which would enable such municipal corporation to make an assessment for taxation purposes?
4.	If so, what was the nature of such requests?
5.	What action, if any, was taken by the national harbours board in relation thereto?


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry to be getting up continually, but this is another question which affects an agency or corporation of the government. The national harbours board inform me that the information asked for would be almost impossible to obtain because they have no control over the occupiers and the amount of space each party occupies. There is a continual fluctuation, and for that reason they are unable to give the information required.
Question dropped.


OLD AGE PENSIONS-YUKON TERRITORY
Mr. LOW:: 1.	Does the federal government pay old age pensions to residents of the Yukon territory?
2.	If not, what are the reasons for such pensions not being paid?


Mr. MARTIN:: 1.	No.
2.	For the purpose of the Old Age Pensions Act the word "province" includes the Yukon territory. Under the provisions of the act
Orders jor Returns

a province may decide whether or not it will make an agreement with the dominion for the payment of old age pensions and pensions for blind persons. The authorities in the Yukon territory, which, for the purpose of the Old Age Pensions Act, is considered to be a province, have never made an agreement and consequently old age pensions and pensions for blind persons have never been paid in that part of Canada.


WHITEHORSE FEDERAL BUILDING
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: When is the federal building for which plans were drawn by the government in 1946 to be constructed at Whitehorse, Yukon?


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: Plans were prepared in 1946 and work will commence when labour and material are available.


TRANSPORT CONTROL-MAXIMUM LOADING ORDER AND PENALTY DEMURRAGE
Mr. THATCHER:: 1.	Have the railroads filed with the board of transport commissioners an application to incorporate emergency orders T.C. order 04F (maximum loading order) and T.C. order 18F (penalty demurrage), in tariff CFA, No. 67?
2.	Was this tariff an emergency order that came into being as a wartime measure?
3.	Has the board of transport commissioners taken any action to make this measure permanent?


Lionel Chevrier: I think I can reply
orally to this question by telling the hon. gentleman that the Railway Association of Canada have filed with the board of transport commissioners an application such as is mentioned in the first part of the question to continue the emergency orders of the transport controller. In view of the extension which was given yesterday to the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act 1945 until May 15, the transport controller will continue to exercise jurisdiction over these orders during this extension.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. GILLIS:: 1.	How many buildings for veterans have been contracted for on the island of Cape Breton, Nova Scotia?
2.	How many are in the course of construction?
3.	Have any been finished and turned over to the veterans?
4.	Is there a time limit in the contracts for the completion of the buildings?
5.	What is the average cost including the land for veteran's buildings in that area?
6.	What amount of moneys has been paid to date with regards to search of titles and completion of the necessary papers?
7.	Are the solicitors who are carrying out this work ex-servicemen? If so, what are their names?



POSTAL SERVICE


Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Postmaster General):: I should like to answer a question which was asked yesterday by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank). Regulation No. 256 of the Canada official postal guide, 1947, states:
No information can be given respecting letters which pass through a post office, except to the persons to whom they are addressed, and to the senders when inquiring respecting delivery. Postmasters are not permitted to furnish any information respecting the names or addresses or the financial standing or reputation of pdt-rons or former patrons of their respective offices.
We have communicated with the postmistress and she is going to answer in writing. I have not received the answer as yet.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. HATFIELD:: For a statement showing the total amount paid, since September 1, 1939, by the government of Canada or any of its agencies by way of capital assistance to private firms, the statement to show the firms to which assistance granted and the total amount granted to each firm.


Mr. McILRAITH:: The subject matter of this motion is covered by an order which was passed in response to a question asked by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken). The arrangement was that this motion should stand until the other papers were tabled. I expect that that will be done in a few days.
Motion stands.

Motions for Papers



ATOMIC ENERGY-REPORTS OF CANADIAN REPRESENTATIVES ON CONTROL COMMISSION

Mr. MENARY:: For a copy of all reports made to the government by the Canadian representatives on the atomic control commission.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Mr. Speaker, I have on previous occasions asked the hon. member if he would allow this motion to stand. The report of the atomic energy commission has been before the security council; the discussion of it has just been completed, and we are preparing a statement along the lines of the motion. The hon. member was kind enough to say that he would allow the motion to stand until that statement was made, to see if it would not sufficiently fulfil his requirements.


Lewis Menary: I am agreeable to that being done.
Motion stands.



HOUSING-VETERANS LAND ACT

Mr. MURPHY:: For a copy of all correspondence, contracts or agreements, or other documents in lieu of agreements entered into by the government, or any department or agency of the government, between January 1, 1943, and February 25, 1947, concerning veterans' homes and holdings, in each province, for each area where three or more homes have been built under Veterans' Land Act.


Mr. TUCKER:: Mr. Speaker, to comply with this motion would involve making copies of documents which are 580 inches thick, over 48 feet, and comprise 116,000 folios. It has been estimated it would take one typist fifteen years to do the work. The cost of producing it-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


Walter Adam Tucker: I am giving the estimated figures of the cost of complying with this motion; surely hon. members do not object to that. Such cost would be $17,500. I suggest that if the hon. member desires specific information he indicate what he desires, or reframe his motion to ask for something definite. As it stands, to comply with it would involve a tremendous expenditure of labour and money. Perhaps he will permit it to be dropped.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I would like the motion to stand. I am quite agreeable to that being done. As to the expense involved, that would probably be much less embarrassing to the government than the answer would be.


Walter Adam Tucker: It is not a question of its being embarrassing at all.


James Horace King: Order. It is against the rules to debate the question. The motion will stand.
Motion stands.



GOVERNMENT PROPERTIES IN HALIFAX COUNTY

Mr. McGREGOR:: For a statement showing the location, area, present valuation and present use of all lands and premises owned by the dominion government, and any of its agencies or crown corporations, including the national harbours board, in the constituency of Halifax, and indicating also the municipality in which such lands or premises are located.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, may I say just a word on this motion. It calls for:
A statement showing the location, area, present valuation and present use of all lands and premises owned by the dominion government, and any of its agencies or crown corporations, including the national harbours board, in the constituency of Halifax and indicating also the municipality in which such lands or premises are located.
Surely that asks for far too much in the way of research by government departments. It would involve a tremendous amount of time and labour on the part of officials and of expenditure of public moneys. If there is any particular information the hon. member desires, that could be prepared readily, every effort would be made to supply it, but it does seem to me that as the motion now stands the government is being asked to make an expenditure out of all proportion to what is justifiable and I would suggest that the hon. member allow the motion to be dropped, and substitute, if he wishes, a motion with respect to some specific matter on which he wishes to get information.


Mr. HACKETT:: Is it not limited to Halifax?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No; I asked about that.


Mr. GRAYDON:: It is meant to be, I think.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It says:
. . . and any of its agencies or crown corporations, including the national harbours board, in the constituency of Halifax.


Gordon Graydon: There is a comma after that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the hon. member is asking with respect only to public lands and buildings in Halifax, then let him reword the motion. As the motion stands it
Motions for Papers

is at least capable of being construed as requesting information on practically everything the government of Canada owns.


Gordon Graydon: It is beginning to own everything now.


James Horace King: Dropped.


Robert Henry McGregor: For the time being.


Gordon Graydon: I take it that the motion is dropped strictly without prejudice to the hon. member putting it on the order paper in reworded form?


James Horace King: I asked the hon. member if I should say "dropped."


Robert Henry McGregor: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I said dropped for the time being.


James Horace King: Dropped for the time being? It is dropped, then.
Motion dropped.



GARLANB, MAN., POST OFFICE

Mr. ZAPLITNY:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda or other communciations exchanged between the post office department and any persons or organizations since January 1, 1946, in connection with the post office at Garland, Manitoba?



ELDORADO GOLD MINES

John George Diefenbaker: For a copy of the evidence taken in connection with the investigation of Eldorado Gold Mines Limited and an alleged conspiracy by Carl French. Marcel Pochon and Boris Pregel to defraud the said company and the report by the commissioner, Mr. Glassco in connection therewith.


Mr. HOWE:: I would point out to my hon. friends that the documents requested are not at present in the possession of the government. If they come to hand they will be examined and I assume that at that time there will be no objection to the motion passing. I cannot say, however, when the documents will come into the hands of the government.


John George Diefenbaker: Are not these documents in the hands of the government by way of its counsel?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I cannot say as to that. I do not know just what the practice is with regard to evidence, but I do know that the report of the special commissioner has not yet reached the government.
Motion stands.



COAL SUBSIDIES-NOVA SCOTIA

[Stage Direction]
Mr. G1LLIS:
1.	For a copy of all correspondence, reports and other documents received by the Department of Finance from January 1, 1947 to date, relative to the application for increased coal subsidies on American coal imported into the province of Nova Scotia.
2.	A statement showing the names of firms in Nova Scotia to whom such subsidy is paid.
3.	A copy of the original subsidy agreements between the wholesalers in Nova Scotia and the dominion government.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence, notice of which I gave him this morning. In view of the fact that it is reported that the Long Branch camp situated at Lakeview, Ontario, is about to be closed down, will the department give consideration to having that space and accommodation made available to relieve the acute housing shortage at that point?


Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Defence):: The department will not only give consideration to what the hon. member has suggested, but it is already doing exactly that. This camp is at present being used as a demobilization depot and the land and part of the buildings will be used for reserve training purposes in the future, but as buildings have successively been given up by the army they have been made available as emergency shelter. For instance, the C.W.A.C. barracks were handed over on September 12, 1946, and the first building of the small arms training centre was handed over on December 5, 1946. Other buildings were handed over early in January. At the present time it is expected there will be some seventeen further buildings handed over for use as emergency shelter within the next two or three weeks.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: May I ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs with relation to the setting

Inquiries of the Ministry
up of the standing committee on external affairs. A week or so ago he mentioned that the government had not yet decided whether the estimates of the Department of External Affairs would be sent to that committee for consideration as was done last year. Has the government reached a decision on that point? The house has been sitting for nearly two months and this important committee has not yet held its first meeting.
Right Hon. L. 8. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs):	The committee was established by the house. It is the privilege of any member of the committee to ask that it have a meeting and have notice given. The government has been pressing as urgently as possible for consideration of the legislation that until yesterday had to be dealt with before March 29, and I did not think it was proper to ask the house to deal with other matters until that was disposed of. But if the members of the committee on external affairs want to have a meeting, the rules provide how it can be done. There has not yet been any matter before the house with respect to estimates, and I have felt that in view of the cooperation that had been obtained from all parties in the house with respect to emergency legislation it would not be well received to try to take the attention of the house away from that emergency legislation to deal with other matters which have not to be dealt with before a set date.


Gordon Graydon: I think my point has
escaped the minister. Does the government intend at some stage to refer the estimates of the department to that committee?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	The government
does not intend to refer estimates to the committee. If they are referred to the committee it will be done by the house itself. The estimates are before the house to be disposed of by the house.
Mr. GRAY'DON:	That means that the
government has no particular line of its own to follow in connection with it.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The government has prepared estimates for the consideration of parliament. If the house wishes these estimates to be considered in committee of the whole house, that will be done. If the house prefers to have the external affairs estimates considered by a certain number of its members in a select committee, the government will have no objection.


Gordon Graydon: That is what I regard-


James Horace King: Order.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker-


James Horace King: Order.


Gordon Graydon: I have not yet received
an answer to my question; it is just an evasive answer.


James Horace King: I would remind the hon. member that when the Speaker calls an hon. member to order he should resume his seat. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I cannot permit a debate on this question.



CIGARETTES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. HERRIDGE (Kootenay West):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. I have been reliably informed that from time to time large quantities of cigarettes which have been smuggled into Canada and confiscated by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are burned by members of that organization. In view of this apparent waste of goods will the minister consider having these cigarettes distributed in the future to hospitals of the Department of Veterans Affairs for the enjoyment of veteran patients?


Hon. J. J. McCANN (Minister of National Revenue):: It has always been the practice of the Department of National Revenue to destroy cigarettes and liquor which have been seized.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Joseph McCann: I will admit that that may not have been a popular move. During the years of the first and second wars seized cigarettes were turped over to the Red Cross for distribution among soldiers as they saw fit. About nine months ago we received a notification from the Red Cross that they would wish us to discontinue that practice; therefore we have reverted to the former practice of the department of destroying seized cigarettes.
I may say that after the first war there was a request from some military hospitals that cigarettes and liquor be turned over to them. That was done in a few instances, but we found that such abuses crept in with reference to the distribution that it was advisable to discon-
Inquiries oj the Ministry

tinue the practice, and we have again reverted to the practice of destruction, which we intend to continue.


Gordon Graydon: Is it consumption or distribution?



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES COST OF AIRCRAFT &quot;NORTH STAR&quot;

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. Iv. FRASER (Peterborough West): I should like to- direct a question to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply.	On
February 4 the minister said that about the middle of February he would be able to tell the house what the North Star cost. Can he tell us now?
Clarence Decatur Howe: I can tell the hon. member now that the cost has been determined within the last two or three days. I suggested to hon. members that if they would allow the business to be completed in an orderly wray I should1 be glad to make a statement of the whole transaction at the appropriate time. I am now ready to make that statement, and shall do so the next time questions are called.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to direct an inquiry to the Minister of National Revenue. On March 17 I asked him a question in regard to an answer which was given to the inquiry as to the amount of income tax, interest and penalties in arrears during the years 1939 to 1945 inclusive. If I understood him aright at that time he said he would take the matter into consideration and furnish such information as was available. Is he now in a position to give the information asked for?


James Joseph McCann: I am not in a position to give the information which was requested, but officers of the department are making every effort to secure the information. I may say that it will entail a great deal of work, because the records of the department have not been kept in such a way as to indicate offhand what the penalties, arrears, and interest charges have been. But we shall diligently try to secure a satisfactory answer for the hon. member.


John George Diefenbaker: I am sure it will be a simple matter for the department to

furnish from their books the amount of income tax owing without the penalties. I would ask that the amount be furnished by districts. Leave out the penalties and the interest. Just give me the amount of income tax that is in arrears. That should be a simple matter.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Danforth):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that he has not been given notice of this question perhaps he will accept it as a notice and give an answer tomorrow. Will the minister arrange to have printed as an appendix to the Votes and Proceedings the plan of work of the second session of the preparatory commission of the international conference forwarded to his office by the secretary general of united nations in his covering letter of March 4? The question is in keeping with the right hon. gentleman's own idea. It does not appear in Votes and Proceedings, and I hope he will see his way clear to have it printed there.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Yes, I do apologize for an oversight. I made the suggestion the other day that the plan might be printed as an appendix to the Votes and Proceedings but I did not ask Mr. Speaker to give a direction to that effect and therefore it was not done. May I now ask you, Mr. Speaker, to direct that it be printed as an appendix to Votes and Proceedings.



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's):: May I ask the Minister of National Revenue when the committee on radio broadcasting will be set up, and why it has not been?


James Joseph McCann: The committee on radio broadcasting will be set up before the Easter recess. The reason it has not been set up is that it is only seven or eight months since the committee last sat. The end of the fiscal year, of course, is the end of March. The report of the corporation for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1946 has already been reviewed, and we thought it would be in the best

Agricultural Products Act
interests of the house if the committee did not operate until the end of this fiscal year. Although the report will not be printed, the information contained therein can be given to the committee and reviewed.



DIVISION ON EMERGENCY POWERS RESOLUTION, MARCH 18

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, will Your Honour consider making a statement to the house, not today but perhaps tomorrow, in order to clarify the situation with respect to the division that took place yesterday? A serious and dangerous precedent was set by Your Honour yesterday, if I may say so, because a count shows that we carried the motion of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) no fewer than four times. I think some clarification and explanation ought to be made by Your Honour, because the precedent as it now stands indicates that a vote can never be conclusive under the present rules as you interpreted them yesterday.



AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 18, consideration in committee of bill No. 25, to provide for the sale and export of agricultural products-Mr. Gardiner-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: The committee is considering section 3.


Right Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: Last evening when we
adjourned the discussion in committee I was asked to give consideration to possible amendments in section 4, after having had section 3 stand for the purpose of considering such amendments to section 4. Before dealing with the amendments I was asked to give a legal opinion on the meaning of the word "may" in the section. I have that legal opinion and will read it:
Legal interpretation of the word "may", law dictionary by John
May: is permitted to, has liberty to. In interpreting statutes the word may should be construed as equivalent to shall or must in cases where the good sense of the entire enactment requires it, wherever it is necessary in order to carry out the intention of the legislation, where it is necessary for the preservation or enforcement of the rights and interests of the public or third persons-
And certain authorities are given.
-but not for the purpose of creating or determining the character of rights. Where there is anything in the connection of the language or in the sense and policy of the provision to require unusual interpretation, it is used as merely permissive and discretionary.
That is the legal opinion under which the draftsmen in the department used the term "may" in these different sections.


Major James William Coldwell: So that if the house wishes to make it certain that the government shall do something it should use the word "shall" instead of "may." Is not that so?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not what it says.


Major James William Coldwell: But that is what it means.


James Garfield Gardiner: I was going to say with regard to this section that I have no objection to the word being "shall" instead of "may" in this particular provision. But a proposal has been made that we amend section 4, and before going on to deal with that I wish to take 3 and 4 together because they were discussed together last evening. I suggested yesterday that we could take all the powers away from the minister and from the government except those having to do with agreements which have already been made, and all we would require to do, I think, is to amend section 3, subsection (a), by stating:
Subject to any regulations that may be made by the governor in council, the minister may
(a)	sell or export agricultural products to the government of any country or any agency thereof pursuant to any agreement already entered into.
Instead of using the word "made", use the words "already entered into", in line 3 of subsection (a). If that were done it would limit the powers given in section 3 to contracts that have already been entered into, which contracts are in the terms of the orders in council that have been discussed in the house. In carrying those out, the last three subsections deal with something somewhat different from what is covered by (a).
(b)	On behalf of the government of any country or any agency thereof purchase or negotiate contracts for the purchase of agricultural products.
That is, in carrying out the powers given under regulations by the governor in council we may purchase commodities for other governments.
(c)	By order require any person to give such information respecting his facilities for the storing or processing of agricultural products and at such times as the minister may designate in such order.
Agricultural Products Act

Then (d):
Enter into contracts for the storing or processing of agricultural products.
I have read that section through in order to come to section 4, which it has been proposed we should amend. I must say that the government prefers to have section 3 as it now stands; but as I said yesterday, if it is the intention of the committee to confine the government to carrying out the contracts we have with Britain, which is the all-important thing in the mind of the government, then we would accept that amendment. I am not however proposing the amendment to the committee; I am simply stating how it could be brought about. Assuming that section 3 will remain as it is, it has been proposed that we amend subsection one of section 4 in these words:
That subsection one of section four of the said bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"The governor in council shall establish one or more commodity boards with adequate producer representation and may authorize and require a commodity board to exercise and perform all or any of the powers and duties of the minister under section three of this act with reference to such agricultural products as the governor in council may designate, but in the exercise of such powers and duties a commodity board shall be subject to the direction and control of the minister.
I read that in order to call attention to w'hat would require to be done particularly in connection with subsections (c) and (d) of section 3, and I will illustrate by dealing with (d):
Enter into contracts for the storing or processing of agricultural products.
And (c):
By order require any person to give such information respecting his facilities for the storing or processing of agricultural products and at such times as the minister may designate in such order.
What we have in mind there is this. If we enter into a contract to supply bacon to Britain, that contract requires that Wiltshire sides be ordered into storage sometimes days ahead, sometimes weeks ahead, and on occasion months ahead. We order those commodities into storage in order to have them available for the loading of ships when ships can be had. There have been occasions on which it has been necessary to act the moment information is obtained with regard to what is happening in order to see that the intentions are carried out. That is the real reason why authority is given to the minister. If it were required that we should have a meeting of council and that the whole thing be determined before council as to whether we are to

proceed at all or not in connection with a matter of the kind, a considerable part of the product would be away beyond the position where any storage or anything else in connection with it could be ordered. So I say that to go through the process which is suggested here would make this section of the bill unworkable and impracticable in carrying out a programme of this kind.
I submit again that it is definitely set out, in the orders in council under which the agreements were made with regard to the products, that we deal largely with packing companies in connection with bacon and with cheese boards in connection with cheese. In those operations our action is taken after orders in council have been passed by the government in order to make the carrying out of the policy, whatever it is, administratively possible, and the minister is the administration agent.
Speaking of the proposed amendment, I have no objection to the word "may" after "minister" being changed to "shall". I have no objection at all to the words "with adequate producer representation" being added after the word "board". The section would then read:
The minister shall establish one or more commodity boards with adequate producer representation . . .
And then it goes on as it is now. If that is acceptable to the mover and seconder of the amendment, I shall be pleased to accept that amendment.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: With the explanation the minister has given, it will be quite satisfactory to accept the changes he has suggested, provided that the rest of the amendment stands as we moved it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Another suggestion was made by the leader of the Social Credit party with regard to subsection 3 of section 4 to which all the statements I have made with regard to subsection 1 apply; and there is this in addition. The subsection now reads:
The minister may direct that any agricultural product designated by him may be purchased for the purpose of this act or the Agricultural Prices Support Act, .1944, only from a provincial marketing board.
It is suggested that the word "shall" should be used. The wording in the amendment is different, but I doubt very much whether, after I have made the explanation, the hon. member will consider the suggested wording an improvement on that of the bill itself. The suggestion is that it read: "The minister shall direct". There may be producer boards which

Agricultural Products Act
are intended to deal only with the marketing of a farm product within the bounds of a province. Most of the boards now existing are in that position. In some instances they are intended to deal only with the product of a community within the province. In many instances they do not deal with all the product which is marketed within a province. If we were compelled to order from boards of that kind all the product which we are going to export under this bill, it would not be possible for us to get the commodity which we require in the quantity in which we must have it in order to fulfil the contract. Subsection 3 says:
The minister may direct that any agricultural product designated by him may be purchased for the purpose of this act . . . only from a provincial marketing board.
Again I say that provision was included for only one purpose-and it is not required for any other purpose so far as I know-and that was for the purchase of apples or taking delivery of apples from the apple marketing board. I do not think it would improve the act, or make it possible for us to carry out as we should, the provisions of the apple agreement, to change the wording of subsection 3. I hope that with that explanation the leader of the Social Credit party will withdraw his amendment.


Mr. BROOKS:: Are there apple boards in all the provinces, or only in British Columbia and Nova Scotia?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are only two provinces from which apples are exported in any considerable quantities to Britain or anywhere else, and those are Nova Scotia and British Columbia. The last figure I recall prior to the war was some 10,000 barrels which had been shipped from Ontario to the old land. A board in British Columbia handles the apples of that province. A board in Nova Scotia handles the apples of Nova Scotia. There is an organization in Ontario- and I think there is one in Quebec; I am not certain at the moment, but I know there has always been an understanding-which is not set up under the Marketing Act of Ontario, so far as I know. It is an organization of apple producers, but there has always been a complete understanding between the organizations in Ontario, British Columbia and Nova Scotia with regard to the transactions throughout the war period and which will go on under the provisions of this bill.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I was thinking in particular of the apple producers of the Saint John
valley in New Brunswick. They are increasing very rapidly. What opportunity would they have to sell if there were no board? Would they be included in the Nova Scotia board, or have they any connection with them?


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course the first provision which is made by those boards is to supply the Canadian market. There has been complete understanding between the apple producers of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick with regard to supplies going to the Canadian market, just as there is entire agreement between those of Nova Scotia and Ontario with regard to supplying the Ontario market. Up to date no difficulty has developed in that regard, and I do not think there would be any under this agreement.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It is not a prohibition?


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


Heber Harold Hatfield: How much subsidy is paid to the Nova Scotia apple board, and how much to the British Columbia apple board? It is not paid to the New Brunswick apple board.


James Garfield Gardiner: I can give that in round figures, but if the hon. member wants an exact answer I am afraid I shall have to get some further information.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I should like to ask another question. Does this bill give the minister power to freeze any agricultural product for any market, in the manner in which Prince Edward Island potatoes have been frozen for the British market?


James Garfield Gardiner: So far as I know, potatoes have not been frozen for the British market. A certain proportion of Prince Edward Island potatoes have been sold to that market.


Heber Harold Hatfield: They have been not only sold, but frozen.


James Garfield Gardiner: I suppose that when any agency, whether it be a private business concern, a corporation or an individual, obligates himself to sell a commodity, the commodity to that extent is frozen, to be delivered under that contract.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Does this bill give the minister power to freeze any agricultural products for any market?


James Garfield Gardiner: We did have power under orders in council during the war to say that a certain proportion of bacon and of cheese had to go to Great Britain. That authority is still in the bill.
Agricultural Products Act


William Ross Macdonald: I understand that before we proceed with further discussion the minister would like to clear up the matter of amendments before the committee.


Mr. LOW:: I should like to ask a question in connection with the amendment I moved. What is the position with respect to poultry products marketing boards? Does the minister make purchases of eggs for delivery to Great Britain under any contract? If so, does he use existing poultry marketing boards in the various provinces?


James Garfield Gardiner: We have a contract to send 83 million dozen eggs to Great Britain. Under that contract we purchase eggs at floor prices from anyone who has them to sell. We take all the surplus eggs oft this market, and we could take more if there were more in existence, and could send them to the British market. As I say, we have contracted to send at least 83 million dozen, and we can send as many as we have got. We contract to buy them all from any agency, so we would not want to be compelled to take them only from producer agencies, inasmuch as they have only a part of the supply.


Solon Earl Low: I would not wish to attempt
to compel the minister to buy only from producer marketing boards in provinces where those boards do not control the total supply. But where boards do exist and have control of the total supply, I should like to see it more obligatory upon the minister to make use of those boards for the purchase of his produce. Is there any poultry marketing board in Ontario?


James Garfield Gardiner: Not, for eggs, I understand.


Solon Earl Low: There is in Alberta.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that is
the only one.


Solon Earl Low: In that province do they have control of almost the whole supply for export?


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand there are other traders. But I am sure the hon. member will agree that while that may be true in Alberta-and if it is true, under this section we will certainly buy all the eggs available in Alberta; there would not be any doubt about that-to require that we be compelled to buy only from a marketing agency in any province where there is such a marketing agency, and one which may not have control of the greater proportion of the eggs, would be asking us to go too far. But there is no

question as to what we will do. We will buy the eggs from the marketing agency, if it exists.


Solon Earl Low: With that explanation, and
the undertaking by the minister to use marketing boards wherever feasible, I shall be prepared to withdraw the amendment.


William Ross Macdonald: Do I understand the
hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) is prepared to withdraw the amendment he offered last night?


Solon Earl Low: Yes.
Amendment (Mr. Low) withdrawn.


William Ross Macdonald: And do I understand
that the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) is withdrawing his amendment, and proposing in its place an amendment to section 4 (1) whereby the word "may" in line 24 will be deleted and the word "shall" inserted in its place; and that there shall be added in line 25 after the word "boards" the words "with adequate producer representation"?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I so move.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall we now, before
carrying any section, revert to section 3 of the bill?


James Garfield Gardiner: The suggestion was
made at the beginning that we should deal first with section 4, and then return to section
3.


Mr. WRIGHT:: Before section 4 is agreed to, I should like to ask a question with respect to grass and clover seeds. What will be the government's position with regard to the purchasing of these seeds for export? Will you use the Alfalfa Cooperative Growers Association in Saskatchewan?


James Garfield Gardiner: As I said yesterday, I
believe the Saskatchewan cooperative is still in existence. The one formed as a result of the act of 1939 is still operating. So far as 1 know that is the only organization in Saskatchewan which controls alfalfa and other seeds. Of course there is no doubt as to where we will get our alfalfa seed in that province. I understand that is the only organization in Canada which deals with those seeds. Elsewhere we will have to deal with others. There would be no question about our dealing with any of the cooperative boards which do exist. We would buy from them.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall the section cany?

Agricultural Products Act


Mr. POULIOT:: No. I have risen, about ten times. When the minister rose I took my seat, as a matter of courtesy, and gave him a chance to speak. However I now want to ask a few questions.
I recall that last year I wrote to the Minister of Trade and Commerce asking him for information with respect to the export of agricultural products to other countries, and the subsidies paid thereon. He told me that my letter was being referred to the Minister of Agriculture. Today I should like to have the following information: First, what quantity of each class of agricultural products as described in this bill has been purchased by the Minister of Agriculture each year since the beginning of the war? Second, what price has been paid for each of those commodities? Third, what total subsidy has been paid to producers for each of those commodities, both for home consumption and for export? My last question is this: What quantity of each class or category of commodities or agricultural products as described in this bill has been shipped to other countries since the beginning of the war? I should like to have each country named.
While this question may appear complicated, it is in fact simple. We look at the future, and we forget the past. The past is the best guarantee for the future. I am sure the minister will have no objection to supplying that information to the committee.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have no objection to supplying it but I hope I shall not be asked to read it. I have one small part of it on this sheet and I am afraid it would take me most of the afternoon to read it.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not asking the minister to read it because, when figures are read, no one can understand them. The best thing to do would be to put it on the record, if the committee agrees to that, and then every hon. member could study the figures.


James Garfield Gardiner: The information contained on this sheet has been put on the record. This is the answer to a question asked the other day with regard to the subsidies paid on farm products. It would be difficult to make a return showing the subsidies that were paid on products which went to Britain because no direct subsidies that I can recall at the moment have been paid on food products going to Britain. There have been subsidies paid in Canada for the production of food products, most of which were consumed in Canada. One subsidy was in the form of assistance in the purchase of seed cleaning
equipment in Prince Edward Island and also in British Columbia. Different kinds of assistance have been given over the years, the total amounting to $351,476,126. These began in 1939 with a subsidy on cheese of two cents a pound for 94 points and one cent a pound for 93 points. That was the first one paid, and then we went on to pay subsidies in connection with cheese factories, cold storage and apples. I might say to the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton that in 1939-40 the subsidy on apples amounted to $1,021,061.07.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Is that for Nova Scotia or British Columbia?


James Garfield Gardiner: That covers both.


Heber Harold Hatfield: What is the difference between the two?


James Garfield Gardiner: The figures are not given exactly, but I would say the amount paid to Nova Scotia would be from two-thirds to three-quarters of the total paid in the different years. I can get the exact figures and put them on the record.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Is the subsidy paid only on apples shipped to England or on all apples sold?


James Garfield Gardiner: To all intents and purposes we guaranteed a certain return. The apple producers organizations and others have disposed of the apples to the best advantage and then payments have been made in addition which amounted to a subsidy on the apples in order to give an average return.


Heber Harold Hatfield: What was the certain return you promised?


James Garfield Gardiner: Let me give the figures and then you can do what you wish with them. They are:
1939-	40	
$1,021,061	071940-	41	
4,231,146	561941-	42	
2,239,944	151942-	43	
2,900,864	511943-	44	
1.873,520	361944-	45	
1,194,540	841945-	46	
354,340	001946-	47	
552,214	00

May I say to the hon. member for Temis-couata that if I were to attempt to read all of this list it would take me quite a long time. I would suggest that either what has already been put on the record be accepted or that this be put on the record. The statement follows:



AGRICULTURE SUBSIDIES

[Stage Direction]
*

Sept. 1, 1939 Mar. 31, 1940	1940-41	1941-42	1942-43	1943-44	1944-45	1945-46	1946-47 Apr. 1, 1946-Jan. 31, 1947	Total1-Premium of 1 cent per lb. on cheese scoring 93 points	$	%	8	$	%	t	$	$	tand 2 cents per lb. on cheese scoring 94 points... 2-Subsidies to cheese factories under the Cheese and	523,708.00	1,054,497.07	1,494,847.23	1,744,667.84	1,482,408.71	1,601,849.84	1,658,283.97	1,218,082.20	10,778,344.86Cheese Factory Improvement Act	
3-Cold storage warehouse subsidies under the Cold	45,968.60	80,971.51	181,319.33	217,816.15	116,460.55	45,567.82	28,216.73	174,292.61	890,613.30130,324.57 1,021,061.07	98,976.62 4,231,146.56	44,142.66	82,953.60 2,900,864.51	46,936.72 1,875,520.36	139,855.01 1,194,540.84	249,438.65	197,702.78	990,330.615-Subsidy on export bacon	2,281,264.99	354,340.64	572,214.00	14,409,632.136-freight subsidy on hogs shipped from Western to Eastern Canada	111,253.70	12,321.86	813.56	124,389.12 31,242,944.198-Bonus on Grade A Large eggs for export to the United	3,855,156.00	14,090,911.43	9,573,386.36	3,723,490.40	Kingdom	304,656.00	620,711.05	925,367.05 44,451,049.33 5,951,399.63 14,221,570.32 84,104,622.20 5,263,405.16 1,350,004.5110-Milk used for concentration purposes	8,921,994.62	12,658,710.24	12,919,198.13	9,951,146.34 1,597,059.25 4,732,516.92 19,040,989.68 978.90	11-Milk used for cheddar cheese	4,155,877.75	12-Butterfat used for creamery butter	13-Vegetables used in canning	1,768,478.84	14-Berries used for jam	15-White and yellow-eye beans	453.21	16-freight assistance on Western Feed Grain	3,971,650.01	17,753,535.21	15,938,110.42	17,316,550.61 7,863,902.29 6,273.81	14,524,081.53 5,052.237.57	79,821,521.6517-Feed wheat subsidy	18-Subsidy to processors of alfalfa meal	1,128.41	67,373.21 25,828.50	22,721.03	25,722,440.8119-Subsidy to Manitoba Sugar Co. on dried beet pulp	25,828.50 2,969,215.0621-Reserve stocks of Western Feed Grain, Plan B	Cr. 12,515.64 1,292,204.12	674,955.69 39,526.53	1,274,238.95	1,032,536.06	22-fertilizer subventions and freight allowance	1,035,874.66	437,671.01	282,000.19 173,399.16	3,104,788.19 890,864.04 51,810.2123-Lime for soil amendment purposes	24-Transportation on Western alfalfa seed	10,855.82	40,954.39	26-Assistance in purchase of rams and freight assistance	90,187.41	155,395.57	193,761.52	11,090.95	450,435.43on ewes	37,564.82	15,163.61	705.54	27-Assistance on purchase of seed cleaning equipment,	British Columbia	2,500.00	28-Assistance on purchase of seed cleaning equipment,	Prince Edward Island	230.00	230.0029-Rebate to purchasers of Canadian flax scutching	machinery	173,843.72 126.50 392.25	30-Purchase of dehydration machinery	108,500.97 14,178.99	17,612.15 276.78	31-Prairie farm income payments	16,298,504.31	2,665,631.19	18,978,983.52TOTAL	1,721,062.24	5,465,591.76	26,836,328.68	20,461,039.75	63,158,227.46	87,410,149.12	84,131,582.43	62,292,145.11	351,476,126.55
o
o
5*
o
cn
Agricultural Products Act

Agricultural Products Act
Agricultural Prices Support Board
1. Potatoes-$93,384.68 paid during fiscal year 1946-47-March 1.
Jean-François Pouliot: Perhaps I could make my question clearer. What I want to know is what part of the total agricultural production in each year since the beginning of the war has been sold within the country and what part has been, shipped outside, and to what countries? We need that information in order to be able to discuss the sale of agricultural products. The sessional paper referred to by the minister relates only to subsidies and does not provide the information I want.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not the exact figures here at the moment in connection with all products for all years, but I can give proportionate figures. In the case of bacon and ham, since the war began we have sent approximately one-half the production to Great Britain. During the same period we consumed about the same amount of pork in Canada as we had consumed prior to the war. I am speaking in terms of weight. Then in the case of cheese, throughout the years we have sent to Great Britain approximately sixty per cent of our production. In two years we sent all the cheese produced in Ontario and Quebec between the months of May and October, but the average is about sixty per cent.
In so far as eggs are concerned, prior to the war we were sending, about 1.000,000 dozen. If I remember the figure correctly, that was the amount shipped the 'last year before the war and for a period of time we had been sending about that number of dozens. This year our contracts call for 83,000,000 dozen. We have sent somewhat more than that in some years but that is about the average in recent years. Those are not sent under any subsidized price; they are sent at the floor price. The floor price that is received for eggs and for cheese and bacon in Canada is the price at which these products have been secured and sent to Britain. We have been paying on cheese produced in Canada a premium of one cent a pound on cheese of 93 score and two cents a pound on cheese of 94 score. We have paid that, no matter where the cheese went. We have paid that premium directly to the producer as a quality premium, just as we have paid in the last few years a premium of $3 on A hogs and $2 on B hogs, and now it is $2 and $1 respectively. While it is true that there is no direct premium on what goes to Britain, there is a premium on all hogs produced in Canada and delivered1 to the packing houses.


John Thomas Hackett: Is that paid on the whole hog or on the side?


James Garfield Gardiner: On the whole hog. It is now $2 and $1 on A and B respectively. That is paid as a premium to induce the production of a higher grade commodity. Those are the main commodities we are sending to Britain.


John Thomas Hackett: Before the minister leaves cheese, was there not some bonus paid on the milk that went into cheese, and was there not some provincial encouragement given as well?


James Garfield Gardiner: Ontario gave encouragement to the production of cheese by paying one cent, and I have heard rumours that that will be raised to two cents. Quebec did pay a premium for a time and then took the premium off. It was paid on all cheese of a certain quality produced in both provinces.


Mr. TUSTIN:: It was two cents a pound on all cheese produced in Ontario.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. That was paid by the provinces. We started in at a lower rate and paid a subsidy of 30 cents a hundredweight on milk entering cheese. But the British are paying that subsidy; we are not paying it. Last year the British did not pay all of it but they paid part of it. This year they are paying all the subsidy that is paid on milk entering into the production of cheese going to Britain. The Canadian consumer is not paying the subsidy on cheese produced in Canada for domestic consumption.


John Thomas Hackett: Was it not because there was uncertainty whether this premium was to be paid that there was such a falling off in the production of cheese in Quebec in 1946?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not too sure about that. We were putting forth every effort to get more butter, but you cannot get more butter and more cheese at the same time unless you increase the production of milk. The production of milk was going down slightly and, because it was going down, we could not get more of canned milk, plus cheese, plus butter. It is true that the production of butter did not stay up to the level of two years ago, nor has the production of anything else because there is not the feed to feed that there was two years ago.
I should like to finish my answer to the hon. member for Temiscouata before going on with something else. The hon. member for Temiscouata and other hon. members will be interested in these facts that I have received in the last few days. The table is headed,
Agricultural Products Act

"Imports from Canada as percentages of 1946 average utilization in Britain," and shows:
Per cent
Wheat and flour, as flour	 57
Bacon and ham	 38-6
Carcass meat	 3-6
Eggs in shell	 15
Dried eggs	 15
Cheese	 24-2
Evaporated milk	 10-5
The carcass meat mentioned in the table was mostly beef, which was asked about a few moments ago by the hon. member for Temis-couata. We sent 184,000,000 pounds of beef to Britain in the calendar year 1945, which is the last year for which I have the figures. That works out at 350,000 head of beef cattle in round figures, which would dress at an average of 500 pounds. The beef is in the form of frozen beef and boneless beef. We take the dressed weight and divide it into the total amount and that gives about 350,000 head of cattle. I may say that 573,000 head went out of Canada during that year, largely to Britain and European countries. The extra quantity which went to European countries went largely to UNRRA. That meat was largely in cans. It will be recalled that the year before last we took all canned meat away from the Canadian people. We did not send it to Britain but sent it to UNRRA and UNRRA distributed that beef to the different nations it was helping, largely on the European continent. The price at which these beef products have gone has again been the floor price. The meat board has been prepared at all times to take any quantity of meat that has been available in the packing houses or elsewhere across Canada at a given price, and that price is the floor price which is contained in these contracts. This meat has been sent out of Canada at that floor price. That is true of all the products of which I have been speaking. That is the reason why I have suggested in this discussion that this legislation is utilized for the purpose of putting a floor under the price of farm products. If the products can be sold at a better price for consumption in Canada they are sold for consumption in Canada, but somewhere under the ceilings which have been put on.


Heber Harold Hatfield: What about the United States?
Mr. TbSTIN: Does that apply to cheese?


James Garfield Gardiner: That applies to all these products, cheese and everything. We bought the cheese at twenty cents a pound. There has been more compulsion in connection with cheese than with other products.


Jean-François Pouliot: Will the minister be kind enough to tell the committee the approximate number of head of live cattle which have been exported both to the United States and the United Kingdom during the whole war?


Mr. ROWE:: Dairy cattle?


Jean-François Pouliot: Any cattle, but I mean live cattle.


James Garfield Gardiner: About 70,000 in 1946 went to the United States. No live cattle went to Britain.
Mr. HACIvETT: There were between 90,000 and 100,000 cattle in 1946.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member will have to give his own figures. I give the ones I have here.


John Thomas Hackett: I am giving the ones I received from the department.


James Garfield Gardiner: We are talking of beef cattle.


John Thomas Hackett: I am talking about purebred and dairy cattle.


James Garfield Gardiner: If you include pure-bred dairy cattle, the amount will be larger, but pure-bred and dairy cattle are not at all in the same class as beef cattle.


John Thomas Hackett: I am referring to the question asked.


James Garfield Gardiner: These figures are in Hansard. I do not think the committee will expect me to give them offhand. They are already printed in the record.


Heber Harold Hatfield: What price is being paid to the grower for potatoes that are going to the British market at the present time?


James Garfield Gardiner: The price is $1.15 for 100 pounds of potatoes.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Why was no subsidy paid to the New Brunswick apple grower in 1946 when a subsidy was paid to the Nova Scotia apple grower? The New Brunswick apple grower sold his apples at a lower price than the Nova Scotia apple grower.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member is one of the men who sell potatoes in New Brunswick.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I do not sell apples.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member was talking about potatoes.


Mr. LENNARD:: He was talking about apples.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I was asking a question about apples.

Agricultural Products Act


James Garfield Gardiner: I have already stated the position with regard to apples.


Heber Harold Hatfield: The minister has not answered my question. Why was no subsidy paid by the New Brunswick board when they sold apples at less than the Nova Scotia apple board?


Jean-François Pouliot: Say it with apples.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not in a position to say whether the New Brunswick board sold their potatoes-


Heber Harold Hatfield: Apples.


James Garfield Gardiner: -or apples, for that matter, at less than the price at which the Nova Scotia grower sold theirs. So far as I have been able to find out, the New Brunswick people do not export apples. They grow a small quantity of apples in New Brunswick, and I am given to understand they do not grow enough for their own market. If they sold their apples at a lower price than was paid in Nova Scotia I am afraid my hon. friend will have to find the explanation in New Brunswick.


Mr. HANSELL:: I do not wish to interrupt the continuity of the argument that is going on, but I have something entirely different from what we have been talking about. I should like to ask the minister this question, and if he prefers to answer it at some future time that will be all right with me. I believe this is the proper place to ask it because it involves feed and there is a principle involved. The commodity board has certain powers pursuant to the Agricultural Prices Support Act. The reason I ask the question is that I have an inquiry from a certain organization in my constituency. It is based upon an article that appeared in "The Country Guide." Why are products sold in foreign countries cheaper than they are sold here? I shall read the little statement from the article, and perhaps the minister can answer it.
The difference between export and domestic rail rates was so high, that western feed could be sold in Denmark for less than it could be sold in Saint John, New Brunswick. The Canadian freight tariff structure was in effect a system for bonusing the Danish feeder against competition by eastern Canadian hog growers.
What is the explanation for this? If the minister cares to answer it now it will be all right; if not, perhaps he can tell me when I may ask the question.


James Garfield Gardiner: As I understood it,
the first part of the question is why the commodities that are dealt with in these contracts are sold at lower prices to the British in
Canada, delivered at a port, than they are sold in Canada to Canadians. The answer to that is the one I gave a few moments ago, that we have had not only a ceiling price in Canada but a floor price. So far as farm commodities are concerned, the floor prices since the beginning of the war have been established by the British agreements. Under these agreements we have undertaken to take delivery of all the surplus farm production in Canada at the floor price, which is the price contained in the contracts. In the case of beef that cannot be lower than half a cent a pound on red and blue beef below the Canadian price. It is one-quarter of a cent now; it was half a cent up to this year. On the lower grades of beef the margin is wider. The	floor	price	established onbacon and	ham	has	established the floorbasis in Canada not only for meat but for cattle and	hogs. It	would	be somewhatdifficult to state exactly what that floor price is at the different markets, but we have kept a record of it all across Canada during the war and, wherever we have noticed that it was tending to drop below what we considered was a reasonable floor price in relation to prices in the British contracts, we have insisted on	the	price	being	maintained on
that level. There have been only very short periods at any time during the war when the prices have not been attained either at that level or at a higher level, so that the floor prices are the prices at *which the commodities have been supplied to Britain, and in Canada they have sold between the ceiling and the floor.


William Earl Rowe: If that is the floor price what is the ceiling?


James Garfield Gardiner: I would have to get
the prices board records of the ceilings, which are different prices on different cuts of beef and pork.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not see that there
is any first or second part to the question, but does the minister not care to answer what he calls the second part?


James Garfield Gardiner: I neglected to answer
that. In the first place, I am told that the facts are not that feed grain can be purchased in Denmark at a lower price than it can be purchased at in the maritime provinces. I have heard the statement made many times, and probably I have made it myself sometimes that feed grain can be purchased in China at a lower rate than it can be purchased in British Columbia. I think this statement is correct, although I would want to check it up. It is made often and by
Agricultural Products Act

people who ought to know, that the freight rate on grain going by boat from western Canada to Denmark or to Great Britain-[DOT] it is based on the British figure rather than on the Danish figure, but if it is exported it goes on the same rate no matter to which place it goes-is much lower than the rate on grain that is to be unloaded and fed in this country. It has been said many times that the freight rate on grain from here over to Denmark and back again would not be as high, if you were able to get it that way, as it is if you ship it direct. I say again, I am repeating a statement made recently in Winnipeg by the deputy minister of New Brunswick, and it was repeated by others. Some who ought to know have said to me since that time that there is some truth in the statement, but I doubt whether it has been possible to buy grain, after it has gone over and been shipped back, at as low a price here. Whether the Danish people get it at a lower price I also doubt very much, because other things enter into the cost besides the freight rate itself.


Jean-François Pouliot: I understand that the Department of Agriculture is a complete unit, and in this bill there is some reference to advisers whom the minister may choose. The question I wish to ask has reference to food commodities. Does the minister establish prices after consulting with his own advisers, or does he ask the wartime prices and trade board to fix prices for the Department of Agriculture? That is the first question I should like the minister to answer if he pleases.


James Garfield Gardiner: To answer the last question first, the wartime prices and trade board ever since 1941 has set ceiling prices on food commodities that are consumed in Canada, and those of course come largely from the farms of Canada. The board has not set these prices without consultation with the Department of Agriculture. There has always been consultation with the department before the prices were set, but they had the final authority to recommend to council, and the prices were set after discussions, first as between the prices board and representatives of the Department of Agriculture, and representatives of farm organizations. The prices board has always had an advisory committee, on each of the important farm products, which has been called in and the matter has been discussed from time to time. In addition to that, we have had a committee advisory to the food board. The food board is composed entirely of agricultural departmental officials, and the prices board and Department of Trade and

Commerce officials and that board has had an advisory committee. The chairman of the advisory committee to that board is the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. Each province was asked to name a representative on that committee and they named nine men. Most of the provinces named their deputy ministers, but some of them named representatives of farm organizations. Then we asked the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to nominate three; that is to say, two in addition to their president, which made a total committee of twelve. We accepted those nominations and had those men appointed.
There have been changes. The first member of the board from Quebec was Mr. McArthur, but he took on other work later and therefore resigned and someone else was appointed on the recommendation of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. We have never refused to take their nominations for these positions. We have the authority to refuse, but we have never found it necessary to do so.
We are setting up a new food board and have given the Canadian Federation of Agriculture the right to select another two from western Canada and another two from eastern Canada. These recommendations have been made by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which will increase the advisory board to sixteen, seven of whom will be representatives of the Canadian federation.
The method under which that board operates is this. Whenever the chairmen of the board think they ought to have a meeting they come to the department, and to me as minister, and suggest a date. The president came yesterday, as I said last night, and suggested that we meet the first week after the Easter holidays to discuss suggestions which the government hopes to place before the country with regard to prices or any other matters that may concern the production of farm commodities.
We are not bound by the advice we receive, and the advice given is not a one-way street. Meetings are held behind closed doors. The representatives of the province and the farm organizations talk quite freely to us and we talk quite freely to them. Up to date we have been able to reach an agreement on the things that have been done by the government, with the result that no criticism has been made by those who have been members of that organization. Some others have desired to get on that organization and we have made provision whereby some of them can get on, provided that they are acceptable to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. We have now the recommendation for the four additional to go on.

Agricultural Products Act
That board will meet, and it may be one of the reasons why it will be most difficult for us to make announcements early with regard to the prices of dairy products. We wish to have the advice of that organization. We want them to know what the reasons are for any action we find it necessary to take, in order that they may advise their own organization accordingly, and after we have had these discussions we hope to make the announcements as soon as possible.
I made a similar suggestion with regard to the announcements about feed grain. The main reason why we wanted to hold it up until we had met the farm organization was to have their advice before making a decision. We did not decide to do what they asked us to do, as is obvious. They asked us to pay an average bonus on feed grains. We increased the price, and the reason I give the house and the country for that is this. The condition which was outlined when the first recommendation v'as made was found to be impracticable of continuation, and therefore we took the alternative suggestion of the farm organizations when we brought down the official decision as to what ought to be done. So that we have been proceeding by obtaining advice and using it where, after having heard all their arguments, we think it wise to follow that advice, and trying to convince them, where we thought it wras not wise to follow their suggestions. that some other course ought to be adopted. Up to date we have arrived at understandings.


Jean-François Pouliot: Just one or two questions. From what the right hon. gentleman has said, I understand that prices of agricultural products for home consumption are established by the prices board. The first question I wish to ask is whether prices for agricultural exports are established under the authority of the Department of Agriculture.


James Garfield Gardiner: Floor prices have been established under the authority of the Department of Agriculture.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: Ceiling prices have been established under the authority of the prices board.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you. My last question is this. Will the minister be kind enough to put on record on Hansard a list of the commitments actually in force regarding the shipments of agricultural products to other countries, by class or category of commodity?


Heber Harold Hatfield: Mr. Chairman-


Jean-François Pouliot: Just a minute. I want an answer; after I have obtained it, the hon. member may have the floor for the whole afternoon.


James Garfield Gardiner: They are here somewhere. I wonder if the hon. member would permit another question to be asked in the meantime.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I asked the minister a few moments ago the price which the grower in Prince Edward Island was receiving for potatoes under the British order. He quoted me a price of $1.15. Does that include the bag and the tag?


James Garfield Gardiner: No. I stated at the time that it was just for the potatoes.


Mr. BURTON:: I wonder if we could possibly get a little closer to the bill which is before us this afternoon. I should like to ask the minister if he recalls that yesterday, while he was answering some questions I asked, he had this to say, as reported at page 1491 of Hansard, with respect to an act passed by this parliament in 1939 to assist in the formation and encouragement of cooperatives. He was pointing out that some of these organizations could be made use of under this act, and he said:
I was looking in my file for the return that was brought down a few days ago indicating the number of organizations which have been set up under that legislation since 1939.
Would the minister be good enough to give us the number of that return so that we might look it up; or, if he has not it with him, will he have his secretary advise us what it is?
When the minister was replying to the hon. member for Kootenay West, in referring to the provincial boards which were under discussion at that time, he said, as reported at page 1504 of Hansard:
It is with a small "p," a provincial marketing board. There may be a dozen in one province dealing with different products.
As the minister says, there may be a dozen of these organizations in a province dealing with different commodities. That part I can understand. But can there be a board or organization set up under provincial legislation setting up marketing boards, and at the same time can those boards or organizations obtain assistance from the federal government? And can those boards, by the board set up under this act, be delegated or designated as the agency for the federal government?
Agricultural Products Act


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a question of order. I respect the views of my hon. colleagues, but there is nothing more in order than a question with regard to what is to be done by virtue of a bill, and my hon. friend knows that. We do not want to be left in the dark. The minister seems to be willing to give the information, and I will ask him again if he will be kind enough to answer my last question, which was in regard to the actual commitments regarding shipments of food to any other country.


William Ross Macdonald: I might inform the hon. member for Temiscouata that I did not rule his question out of order. I did not know the question had been raised.


Jean-François Pouliot: No; it is not that at all. This is a vital question, and one which is perfectly relevant. The hon. member who just spoke said that, he would come to the nucleus or the marrow of the bill by asking another question. I want to know what is to be done with this bill. Of course my faith is not the same as that of the hon. member for Humboldt. He believes in things which I do not believe in. I am not going to repeat today what I said yesterday. Today we are to have answers giving facts, and the minister is willing to answer. The minister did not refuse to answer, but the hon. member for Humboldt tried to change the course of the discussion by intervening at the wrong moment. I think we should proceed in committee in just the same manner as we proceed in court. When one has the floor, he has an opportunity of following the line of his questioning. I did not rise on a point of order at all regarding your ruling, Mr. Chairman, because you did not make one, and no one asked you to make one. But I rise to a point of order and a question of privilege at the same time; because when a member rises in the house to ask a question of a minister, and the minister is willing to reply and looks in his file for the information with which to answer, I do not see why he should not be allowed to do so.


Joseph William Burton: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a question of privilege. If it was the innocent remark that I made which has sent the hon. member for Temiscouata off on another tirade, I am quite prepared to withdraw it. I say it is a sad day indeed if an hon. member cannot rise and suggest that we get a little closer to the bill under consideration.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will tell the hon. gentleman that I was not offended at all, but I regret very much not having the information. I want the information; and if he rose to

prevent me from getting it, let me tell him that I will stand up until I do get it, because the minister is willing to give it. I do not see why any member distracts the attention of the minister when he is ready to answer a question, and I am sure the minister will answer my question.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I understand the minister requested that we proceed with further questions while he was looking up certain information. If the minister has the information now, I am sure he will answer the question.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you.


James Garfield Gardiner: The information is here, Mr. Chairman. My officials are looking through a pile of information here trying to find what is required, but they have not yet located it. I will give it to my hon. friend as soon as I locate it.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister very much.


An hon. MEMBER:: He said that ten minutes ago.


Jean-François Pouliot: The minister was willing to answer, and I wanted to have the answer, whether now or a little later on.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: I am bound to agree that the hon. member for Temiscouata has been very much in order in asking his questions this afternoon, and I think the remarks which were made by the hon. member for Humboldt, and which precipitated this little argument, were quite uncalled for. I understood there was agreement between the hon. member for Temiscouata and the minister that the officials were looking for the information in order that the answer might be given, and that the minister invited further questions in the meantime.
I have two related questions which I should like to ask the minister as a result of questions from producers in my part of the country. The first is this: Have Canada Packers a representative on the meat board and on the wartime prices and trade board? If so, who is the official. If the minister has that information, then I am sure he can give me some enlightenment on the next question which I wish to ask; and I shall give a concrete example.
On the Winnipeg live stock market, according to the minister's own report for February 8, finished steers were selling for fifteen cents a pound, live weight. Some weeks later than that-I have not the exact date before me-the

Agricultural Products Act
wartime prices and trade board officials announced an increase of approximately three cents a pound for dressed beef. Since that time, live beef on the Winnipeg live stock market is selling for, on an average, one cent a pound less for the same quality beef. Could the minister give me a reasonable explanation which I can pass on to the producers, who are wondering why this has taken place, under the present regulations.


James Garfield Gardiner: Would the hon. member repeat the latter part of the example he has given.


James Arthur Ross: I pointed out that on February 8 the price prevailing, according to the minister's report, was fifteen cents a pound on finished steers. Some weeks later an announcement was made by the wartime prices and trade board officials to the effect that dressed beef would increase in price to the extent of three cents a pound, varying, of course, according to the different cuts. Since that time, and right up to date, the same type of live beef has been selling for approximately one cent a pound less than it was prior to that announcement. The producers are wondering why that has taken place, in view of the regulations and controls of today. I am sure if the packers have a representative on the meat board or on the wartime prices and trade board that representative will be able to give an explanation that I could pass on to these people.


James Garfield Gardiner: The meat board is composed of Mr. Taggart, who is chairman. Then there is Mr. L. W. Pearsall, who is manager, and Mr. S. E. Todd, who is managing director of the industrial and development council of the Canadian meat packers, and who is a board member. I presume he is the gentleman to whom reference has been made. He was secretary of the food board during the first war, and during the war just past he was on the meat board.
Then there is Mr. McOuat, who is general agricultural agent for the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and is also on the board. The secretary is Mr. P. E. Light, chief of the live stock and poultry marketing division. It will be noted that Mr. Taggart is chairman and Mr. Pearsall is manager.


James Arthur Ross: Those are not the names I had in mind. I think Canada Packers still has another representative on the wartime prices and trade board, if he is not on the meat board.


James Garfield Gardiner: Canada Packers, as such, have no representative on the meat board. But
the packing organization as a whole, which is the organization from which we must get our bacon and hams, have a member on the board.


James Arthur Ross: They might have a representative on the wartime prices and trade board, apart from the meat board, might they not?


Mr. ILSLEY:: I have never heard of any representative of Canada Packers on the wartime prices and trade board. Certainly there is none in the membership of the board. They may have selected some administrator who, before his selection, worked for Canada Packers, or something of that kind. But it would not be a very high up official.


James Arthur Ross: Could the minister give me an answer?


James Garfield Gardiner: I would have to search the record, or have it searched, I am not in a position to answer the question as to the level of prices; and I take it that is what is wanted, from what has been said. But there are a great many things that can be said about the level of prices on a certain day depending upon the type of cattle on the market. I would not like to say that, because prices were at different levels, everything is explained. But the fact is that the board all through the war, and even now, has kept a close check on the activities in different markets in connection with live stock products. Up to date it has succeeded in maintaining returns to the farmer at the floor.
We have never attempted to keep them down. There are times when they go above what we would consider to be the ceiling. I suppose that is done because probably the packing plant is prepared to take a loss, or at the most a small profit over a period of time in order to supply its customers. They even pay higher prices for live cattle than the ceiling would permit. They claim to have sold at a loss at different times. Then, when there are greater supplies on the market they may sell closer to the floor. During that period of time they would make up the losses which they previously incurred. I assume that is the condition under which they operate. I should think it would be the natural condition under which to operate. But to our knowledge, prices have not gone below the floor in connection with this matter.


James Arthur Ross: Is it fair to assume that the amount of dressed beef in storage might enter into the picture, for some period of time? I was thinking that your board would have a reasonable explanation for that. For instance, if there were a great amount of dressed beef in storage, that might be the
Agricultural Products Act

answer, over a period of time. I should think there would be some reasonable explanation for the situation.


Mr. BRYCE:: This raises a very sore point with the farmers.


James Arthur Ross: Just a minute; wait until I have a reply.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am told that the answer that can be given by the board is this: Perhaps hon. members have noticed that in the press, for two or three weeks before the announcement was finally made, there were rumours to the effect that this would be done. I presume that what the hon. member is suggesting is that, if there were a member who was a representative from the packers on the board, they might have got knowledge of that. But from what I know of what goes on around Ottawa, I am sure that they did not require to have a member on the board in order to find out.


James Arthur Ross: I am not making any suggestion.


James Garfield Gardiner: Most of the things
decided in our boards and most of the things decided by the government are in the papers before decisions are finally reached. They may be only rumours. But there are a lot of people who have seen it happen so often that they are quite prepared to accept the rumours and take a chance on them. I understand that the price of beef did go up some days before this change was made, and this made it impossible to go up as much as it would have gone, if it had been affected only by this one price rise.


James Arthur Ross: I was not making any suggestion. I was looking for an answer. If these officials who had experience were on the board, or on the wartime prices and trade board, they would have a logical answer to it, something which the ordinary layman does not know anything about.


Gordon Graydon: You will not get anything answered over there.


William Scottie Bryce: I do not want to get away off the bill, but I should like to clear this matter up. I am keenly interested in the point the hon. member for Souris has just raised. The trouble is that the packer has a ceiling, but the farmer has no ceiling. There is no ceiling on live steers today, And the packer can pay for them whatever he darned well likes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Scottie Bryce: Oh, you fellows have said lots worse than that.


James Arthur Ross: That is nothing to what your constituents say about the government, eh?


William Scottie Bryce: The minister knows that the wartime prices and trade board has a ceiling on dressed beef. Then that is when the meat board steps in, whenever it does not make that price. You or I can take a carload of steers to the market tomorrow. If we do not like what the packer gives us for them we can take them home again. There is no protection for us from the meat board.
We have a situation today where the farmer has no protection from the ceiling. We know that if we take a 12 or 13-cent steer it will turn into 20 or 20|-cent beef, according to dressing. When we appeal to the meat board and say that we are not receiving the protection to which we are entitled, they tell us, "Well, put your beef on the rail, and we will see what they will make." They are going to force us to rail-grade them. I for one will never agree to rail-grading of beef, although I agree with the minister that that is the proper way to grade it. But it is not the proper way as long as it is so definitely in the hands of the meat packers.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Ross Macdonald: Shall section 4 as
amended carry?


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise to a question of privilege which it will take me but a minute to discuss. I notice in the Ottawa Journal of this evening that John Strachey is denying in Manchester, England, what I said yesterday in the house. I have here a clipping from the Montreal Gazette of Friday, March 15, 1935, which quotes a Chicago dispatch of the Associated Press, in which Mr. Strachey is reported as saying:
I am not a communist, but a believer in communist theories.


Percy Ellis Wright: I wonder if what the hon. member is saying has anything to do with this .bill. I cannot see anything in section 4 dealing with Mr. Strachey, the minister of food in Great Britain, nor can I see anything in that section of the bill that has any reference to what his opinions are with regard to communism or any other ism.


Jean-François Pouliot: The rules of the house say that a question of privilege may be raised at any time. I am sorry to interrupt the discussion, but I shall not be long. I simply want to answer this person who denied what I said in the house. If my hon. friend looks at the small book he will find that that is one of the first rules. I quote what Mr. Strachey said:

Agricultural Products Act
I am not a communist, but a believer in communist theories. I am primarily an author. Being a communist is a full time job and I can't spare the time for it. Besides, anyone who would advocate overthrowing the United States government is crazy. I make no secret of my economic opinions. I entirely deny the charges that have been preferred against me. I am not an anarchist so you can all sleep safe and sound in your beds tonight.
I am sure that no one will consider him dangerous. I do not consider him seriously at all, and that is why I object to any transactions being made by the Canadian government with him. I protest strongly against it.


Mr. McMASTER:: I should like to refer again to subsections 2 and 3 of section 4 about which I spoke yesterday. Apparently the commodity boards which are to be established will be established under section 9 of the Agricultural Prices Support Act, 1944, but I think we are faced with the possibility that that act might be declared unconstitutional. I find that that act is headed:
An act for the support of the prices of agricultural products during the transition from war to peace.
Apparently it is only a temporary act. I wish to know if that act has been incorporated in any permanent act. If it has, I should like to know how it could be, since it refers only to keeping up prices in a province. It does not refer to interprovincial or foreign trade and it could not be made permanent. I am afraid that you will find that any board appointed will have no power. There is nothing in this act that would give it any status. I am afraid that, by the terms of this section, you will be appointing something that cannot in fact exist.


James Garfield Gardiner: Subsection 1 of section 4 gives authority to appoint commodity boards or to utilize any commodity board that does exist. There are no commodity boards that have been set up under the other act. What we are anticipating might happen as we go along is that some of these products may be taken out from under these boards and placed partly under other boards. If we had commodity boards under the other act handling those products, then we could appoint those boards to deal with this act as well. We have not any of them and we do not know that we shall have any. This act is temporary, being only for one year, while the other act is for a much longer period. It is not as temporary as this one.


William Alexander McMaster: This is for only a year, but the other act must fall right away because-


James Garfield Gardiner: The other act is more permanent than this.


William Alexander McMaster: You think it is.


James Garfield Gardiner: The other act was placed on the statute books in 1944 and it remains there until this house takes it off.


William Alexander McMaster: It remains there until some court of law declares it is unconstitutional because it is no longer necessary because of any emergency. The only reason for its being there was the emergency created in the change from war to peace.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was passed by this house; it was not under the War Measures Act.


John George Diefenbaker: Has it ever been brought in?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: On what date?


James Garfield Gardiner: April 1 last. It is being utilized in connection with the provision of funds.


Mr. IRVINE:: I rise to a question of privilege and I am sorry the hon. member for Temiscouata has left the chamber. The question of privilege raised by the hon. member was not a question of privilege. Under the guise of its being a question of privilege he was taking the opportunity to protest against making a deal with a minister of the British crown. I ask that that be stricken from the record because it is not a question of privilege at all.


William Ross Macdonald: The question should have been raised earlier.


William Irvine: I have been trying to catch your eye, but I could not.


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member could have risen at any time on a question of privilege.


Gordon Graydon: He thinks that two
wrongs make a right.


William Alexander McMaster: The minister has said that the Agricultural Prices Support Act was proclaimed last April. Is it not a fact that all the purchases of apples which we heard about this afternoon were made under that act? If I recall correctly I have seen reference to this in the public accounts.


James Garfield Gardiner: No apples were purchased under that act. The apples were purchased under the War Measures Act to complete an agreement made under the War Measures Act by order in council.


Percy Ellis Wright: What would happen in this hypothetical case? You are using a board set
Agricultural Products Act

up under this act to support prices, but this act does not come up next year; it is simply allowed to drop.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am hoping I shall not have to wait as long to get it through at the next session as we have had to wait this session. I think we should leave the argument about that until the next session.


Percy Ellis Wright: Why not make it a little more permanent?


John Alpheus Charlton: Was subsection 3 of section 4 amended in any way?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, it has not been amended in any way up to the moment. I think the hon. member asked us to let it stand until we had finished with section 4. We are trying to complete section 4 and then we shall go back to section 3.


John Alpheus Charlton: I had an amendment to that particular subsection which I intended to bring forward, but in view of the amendment brought forward by the hon. member for Peace River I do not know whether this would be of any use. However I should like to hear what the minister has to say about it. It is:
That subsection 3 of section 4 be repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"Notwithstanding anything in this or any other act contained producer boards set up under provincial marketing acts, where such boards exist or may from time to time be brought into existence, shall be used for the purpose of this act, or the Agricultural Prices Support Act, 1944."


James Garfield Gardiner: I would think that amendment has the same meaning as the one that was withdrawn.


William Ross Macdonald: Do I understand that the hon. member is moving this amendment?


John Alpheus Charlton: Yes, I am moving it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know whether the hon. member was in the house when I was dealing with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Peace River, but this one would have exactly the same effect, though its wording is not exactly the same. What I stated at that time was that there are very few, if any, boards set up in Canada which handle all of a particular product. It might be said that the apple board handles all the apples that are exported, but there is no authority in this bill yet, and will not be unless we accept the amendment I am proposing to section
5.	that would put the apple board in a position to do what is proposed. There is an egg board in Alberta, and that is the nearest approach to such a board. What I stated on the other amendment I state again now, that where 
these boards do control the marketing of farm products, there is nowhere else we can go to get that product. On the other hand, some of these boards are set up to market products within a province, and others deal only wdth marketing part of the product within a province. But these British agreements we have to carry on from day to day and week to wedk, and we cannot wait for these boards to be enlarged to get the product we want from a particular province. We must go to organizations already set up to handle them. If we accepted an amendment that, wherever there is a board, we must buy from that board it would defeat the very purpose of the bill, which is to get all the surplus food that is available in a given area, in a given province or in the whole dominion, to enable us to fill these contracts. If there is such a board in existence anywhere we shall do exactly with that board what we propose to do with the apple board. We shall take our products from that board. But I would not want to be compelled to deal only with that board, if there is such a board in existence. It may not be able to deliver the surplus of a province at all.


John Alpheus Charlton: The minister says he would deal with the board but he does not want to be bound to do it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am saying that the amendment would bind me. If there is a board in Ontario that handles and markets half of the apples in Ontario-I shall not get into any difficulties by mentioning apples because it is not a product being exported-I would be compelled to go to that board to get the surplus of apples in Ontario if we wanted to market Ontario apples. But those people may not want to market any apples outside Ontario, and there may be a good reason for that. Ontario is the best market for apples in Canada, and they may not want to market their apples outside the province. I do not want to be compelled to go to that board and take their apples away from them. We want to utilize these boards where they exist to do the job that has to be done, but we do not want to go beyond that.


Mr. FULTON:: The only alternative would be for the minister to requisition the apples, to get the apples before they came under the control of the board.


James Garfield Gardiner: I hope we are not going to have to requisition anything. The only reason there is authority here to requisition is that we might want a product like Wiltshire sides, and the packing plant may say: "We can sell these to better advantage Somewhere

Agricultural Products Act
else and we are not going to sell them to you." Under those circumstances we ought to have authority to say that a certain percentage of the product must be put into the brine now and cured in order to go into bacon. That has to be done weeks ahead. That is what the power will be utilized for. But as for taking commodities away from small dealers or from small cooperatives or small producer organizations, we do not want to exercise that kind of authority at all and we do not intend to exercise it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I agree entirely with the minister's suggestion. But surely it follows, if the board wants to help you carry out these contracts, they are not going to try to beat the minister and sell somewhere else, provided that the price is reasonable. I understand that the minister has agreed to consult the producers in setting the price. Therefore we have a reasonable assurance that the price will be reasonable and just. If that is the case, the boards are not going to try to beat the minister to it by making it impossible for him to get the products to fill the contracts. A big packing plant might, but I doubt that too. That being the case, why will the minister not accept the suggestion that he deal through a board where a board exists, and then, where a board does not exist, he can go into the market himself and set up whatever agency is necessary.


James Garfield Gardiner: Where a board does exist it may not have the product we want.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then you do not use that board.


James Garfield Gardiner: But the amendment
would compel me to take the product from that board and from no one else. In other words, if somebody were to set up a board in Ontario to market the producers' bacon, then under the amendment we would have to take the product from that board. But the proper place to take the bacon from, under present conditions and under any conditions that I can foresee while these agreements are running, is the packing plant. There is no one else in a position to market it. To say that I must deal with a board because somebody has set up a small board and said, "We are going to market this product"-it just is not possible to do that kind of thing.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There would be no objection to putting in a reasonable definition of "producer board" if the minister is afraid of that situation arising But for him to say that, because somebody may set up a board and call it a producer board, therefore he will have to deal with that board, is not 83166-98
a sound argument against the principle we are advocating. We have had a good deal of argument about this, but we thought we would make one more effort to have the minister accept the principle we are advocating. I have his answer now, and so far as I am concerned I have nothing more to say.


John Alpheus Charlton: I ask leave, Mr. Chairman, to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment withdrawn.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask the
minister if section 4 has been amended in any particular at all? There have been amendments advanced and withdrawn until it is difficult to know the extent to which amendments have been accepted or rejected.


James Garfield Gardiner: The amendment which was accepted was to subsection 1 of section 4 and was to this effect, that the minister shall establish one or more commodity boards with adequate producer representation. That is the only amendment that has been accepted.


John George Diefenbaker: I have listened
to the arguments advanced. I do not. know whether any arguments advanced can have any effect, but I do not recall any instance either in the Natural Products Marketing Act-and I have it here and am ready to discuss it-or in any other act where a minister has asked parliament to anoint him with the powers which the minister asks for in this bill.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I repeat what I
said when the hon. member was not here. If the hon. member wants to follow that argument further I suggest that he amend section 3 by inserting the words "already entered into", and then I shall not have the powers he complains of. The only reason I need these powers is to do what I am asked to do by the other side of the house.


John George Diefenbaker: When the minister starts advancing an amendment witn such anxiety I begin to wonder what is behind the suggestion and the anxiety he has. I am not going to deal with that at all.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not want any extra power. That is the only anxiety.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad to see that the minister does not want any extra power. Therefore I am going to suggest that the minister should not be the one to establish one or more commodity boards to carry out the powers and direction and controls to be exercised by him. The authority to appoint those boards invariably rests in the governor in council.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is there.

Agricultural Products Act


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, no; that is the point. Section 4 (1) says:
The minister may establish one or more commodity boards . . .
While the minister says that only the governor in council can establish these boards, that is not what the bill says. The only power of the governor in council is in section 5 (1), which says:
The governor in council may make regulations for carrying any of the purposes or provisions of this act into effect . . .
It does not refer to the making of appointments. The only appointments that the governor in council has anything to do with are provided by section 7 (1) which says:
The minister may, with the approval of the governor in council, employ such professional, technical or other officers, clerks and employees as are necessary for the proper administration of this act and fix their remuneration.
That is all. The establishment of the boards is not in the hands of the governor in council. Apparently the minister thought it was because, when he interrupted me a moment ago, he said that the bill so provides. The appointment of the boards is in the exclusive hands of the minister. In view of the fact that he thought the bill provided that it was in the hands of the governor in council, I suggest that section 4 (1) be amended in this particular, that where the word "minister" appears in line twenty-four the words "governor in council" be substituted. That is a reasonable suggestion and I think the minister will accept it.


James Garfield Gardiner: To shorten up the argument, may I point out that the only authority which I have in this bill in connection with these matters is given to me by section 3.


John George Diefenbaker: No.


James Garfield Gardiner: In that section the gov ernor in council does make the regulations under which I operate. It simply states that I may pass it on to the commodity boards. The boards are then set up. I have no objection to putting in the words "governor in council". Let us put them in and get it over with.


John George Diefenbaker: Not to get it over with, but because it is necessary.
' Mr. WRIGHT: That is exactly the way our amendment read when the minister asked that it be changed.


James Garfield Gardiner: We shall accept it. Let us get on with the bill. Apparently some hon.

members are more interested in six o'clock than they are in getting on with the bill. Let us get through with this section and get on.


John George Diefenbaker: I move that the words "governor in council" be substituted for the word "minister" which appears on line twenty-four of subsection 1 of section 4.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Subsection as amended agreed to.
Section 4 as amended agreed to
John George Diefenbaker: We now come to section 3, and I wish to refer to the preamble in order to discuss the section. The minister has said that he is anxious to get this bill through. I have listened almost continuously, except for an hour or so last evening, to what has taken place and have taken no part in the argument. Therefore I ask the indulgence of the committee at this time. The preamble sets forth the reason for the bill. It states that the reason for it is that certain agreements will continue in force and that for the purpose of enabling Canada to carry out these agreements the bill is being introduced.
The minister will admit that under section 3 the powers are unusually wide; that they could not be wider than those contained in the section if the minister had spent all his time in endeavouring to draft omnipotent powers. He has already told the committee that he was prepared to restrict them to any agreement already entered into. But aside altogether from that, the powers asked for are no less than and no greater than those under the communist government of Yugoslavia.


James Garfield Gardiner: Or the Bennett government of 1934.


John George Diefenbaker: I have heard much about the Bennett government. I have the act here and I would be ready to discuss it. As a matter of fact, that act was declared beyond the powers of parliament because of what it asked for. If the committee wish to discuss that act mayr I say that the powers asked for in it are infinitely less than anything asked for in this bill.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I submit this for my hon. friend's attention. Judging by the legal information which has been given to me, I agree that the bill without this preamble and without the special conditions set out in it also would be ultra vires. The only thing that makes it intra vires is the special conditions that will exist and the necessity for carrying on as under what we previously called the War Measures Act.

Agricultural Products Act


John George Diefenbaker: We now have the answer I have been trying to get.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member could have had it at any time.


John George Diefenbaker: There is also the question as to whether parliament in fact has these powers. Yesterday I raised the question because, after all, we are passing bills without having secured the opinion of the law officers of the crown with regard to the legality of these things, and placing it on the table. I am going to come to this in a moment.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have received the opinion of the law officers.


John George Diefenbaker: I am going to ask for the production of these opinions because the editor of the Fortnightly Law Journal, an outstanding student of jurisprudence and an editor whose opinions are accepted, has concluded in several articles which he has written that, under the authority of the Canada Temperance Act case of 1946, the doctrine of emergency which is now being relied on by the minister is no longer of any force.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I have a great deal of confidence in the hon. member's judgment as a lawyer. In his opinion is this bill legal or not?


John George Diefenbaker: I will answer my hon. friend in one minute. I am going to discuss that case because the issue has to be faced. So much has been said in regard to the Natural Products Marketing Act and its illegality that the issue has to be faced in regard to this measure which, as I have already stated, goes far beyond anything that was ever covered by the Natural Products Marketing Act.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs was one of those who pointed out the difficulties in 1934 with all the power that he had at his command. When his government came into power the first thing they did was to attack that act and appoint lawyers to argue that it was not within the powers of parliament. These lawyers represented the dominion government.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Is that so?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes; I have it here for those who want to read, but before I come to that-


James Lorimer Ilsley: Just a moment. Did the dominion attack its own legislation?
83166-98i


John George Diefenbaker: Yes; that is exactly it. That was the amazing attitude taken, because the question that was advanced was the illegality of the legislation in question.
Before I come to that, and I will discuss it at length, let me say this. The powers asked for by the minister to control the agriculture of this country other than wheat, in this act, were not exceeded, as I said a moment ago, by the Yugoslav people's assembly in a law passed on December 4, 1946, by which that country was brought under a complete system of socialism. I get that information from a magazine published by the Department of Trade and Commerce, issue of March 8, 1947. We place in the hands of the minister almost absolute power. The minister has stated that the reason for the preamble is to bring this bill within the power of parliament to enact, which indicates the doubts that those who drafted it had as to the legality of the powers asked for.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Not at all.


John George Diefenbaker: I will ask the minister to answer this. The Minister of Agriculture said that was a fact. The Minister of Justice says it is not,


James Lorimer Ilsley: Said what was a fact?


John George Diefenbaker: That the reason for the preamble was to cover the question as to whether or not the bill-


James Lorimer Ilsley: That was not what the hon. gentleman said. He has just said that the reason for the preamble was that the government had doubts as to the legality of the legislation. It is not so.


John George Diefenbaker: Without it, without that preamble; and I was asking why this preamble was in the form in which it is. Listen to what it says:
Whereas His Majesty's dominions and foreign countries, during and as the result of the war against Germany and Japan, were and still remain in grave distress for want of adequate food supplies;
And whereas for the more efficient prosecution of the war and in order to assist in the relief of suffering and the distribution of food supplies the government of Canada entered into agreements for the sale or export of food supplies to other governments or agencies thereof, which agreements still continue in force; And whereas certain orders and regulations were made by the governor in council under the authority of the War Measures Act and the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, ,1945, for the purpose of enabling Canada ta carry out the said agreements;
That is the first thing. The preamble sets out various conditions, and then it says:
And whereas the said orders and regulations will expire on the thirty-first day of March,
Agricultural Products Act

1947, and is necessary by reason of the- existing national emergency that parliament confer authority to enable the government of Canada to fulfil its obligations-
I stop there for a moment and ask the minister, either of justice or of agriculture, to explain the nature of the existing national emergency upon which is founded the declaration in question in the preamble.
-to fulfil its obligations under the said agreements and to continue to sell and export food supplies to distressed countries for the relief of suffering and the distribution of essential food supplies, in order to maintain economic stability and to ensure an orderly transition from war to peace.
Now, sir, those are the words.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. May I remind the hon. member that the preamble should be discussed last. Standing order 76 reads:
In proceedings in committee of the whole house upon bills the preamble is first postponed, and then every clause considered by the committee in its proper order; the preamble and title to be last considered.
I did not stop the hon. member when he mentioned the preamble, and I have no objection to his referring to it in order to discuss section 3.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the purpose because, sir, the minister gave it as the purpose when he said that the power to do these things under this bill was dependent upon the wording in the preamble that set forth a situation that required extraordinary measures.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not what I said.


John George Diefenbaker: As long as it
remains on Hansard the way it was said I am prepared to accept what was said at that time.


James Garfield Gardiner: It will be there unless you change it. I was told after a similar remark the other night, by those who look after it, that I am noted as one of those who change Hansard the least.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister must not talk about that.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. From time to time there have been references in the committee to changes in Hansard. As I mentioned before, in my opinion that is a direct reflection on Hansard. The Hansard reporters are here to take down what is said. They are sworn to do so, and I do not think there should be any suggestion that members are not properly reported.


Gordon Graydon: I think the minister ought to withdraw that.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not the minister; the suggestion is on the other side.


Mr. CASE:: The hon. member said, "As long as it remains on Hansard".


James Garfield Gardiner: And he was suggesting that somebody would take it off.


John George Diefenbaker: We will not discuss that any more. May I say, Mr. Chairman, that Hansard will record it. If it is as accurate as you say it is, it will record, I think, that my interpretation was in accordance with the words used by the minister.
Now we come to the section in question:
Subject to any regulations that may be made by the governor in council

That is not by parliament.

the minister may
(a) Sell or export agricultural products to the government of any country or any agency thereof pursuant to any agreement made by the government of Canada with the government of such country or with such agency -and for those purposes may purchase agricultural products and make such arrangements for the purchase, sale or export of agricultural products as he considers necessary or desirable.
Now, sir, the price is the price determined by the minister. The only control that is placed on the price is that the price which the farmer shall receive shall be in accordance with the price and the agreement which the minister has effected. Having regard to agricultural prices today in this country, as compared with those in the United States of America, this is asking parliament to place a tremendous power in the hands of the minister. I secured the latest prices I was able to obtain for farm products that would come within the ambit of this particular bill. The date in question is March 1, and the following are the prices that I have been able to secure: hogs in the United States, Chicago, $29.08; in Toronto, $16.50, grade A plus $1 per hundred pounds bonus. In the case of cattle, good steers, $25.15 at Chicago, $15 at Toronto. Lambs, $23.60 at Chicago, $16 at Toronto. Potatoes, $2.70 at New York, $1.23 at Saint John, per 75 pounds. Oats, on March 16, 99 cents Chicago, 61-5 Winnipeg. These figures indicate a large discrepancy as between prices in Canada and those in the United States. I suggest that the minister should consent to appending to this bill a list of the contracts to which this bill will be applicable. The other day he was kind enough to let me look over those contracts and also the orders in council founded thereon. If parliament is to retain any degree of control over the minister, a list of the contracts should be appended to the bill.

Agricultural Products Act
In regard to the other power which is conferred on the minister, namely, the power to make further agreements at his will, I suggest that is placing in him altogether too great a power. In other words, he continues to make agreements without consultation with parliament and without regard to prices which are determined upon. We have had this experience before, for instance, in connection with the wheat agreement. We are now about to enter into the field of an international wheat agreement. The government enters into an agreement, binds the country, and then comes back to parliament and says, ''we require enabling legislation in order to support the contracts which we have entered into". All that amounts to, sir, is making parliament a pawn in the minister's hands to carry out the agreements that he makes, independent of parliament, without consultation with parliament and without permitting parliament to consider the prices, whether fair or unfair.


Mr. MITCHELL:: I just want to ask my hon. friend this simple question; at least to me it is a simple one. How would he expect 243 people to negotiate an agreement of this kind?


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, that does not approach the subject at all.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is too direct.


John George Diefenbaker: As long as the minister stays with labour matters, he will have enough difficulties, I should think.


Humphrey Mitchell: I will take care of myself. Don't you worry about that.


Mr. KNOWLES:: Take care of labour. Don't take care of yourself.


Humphrey Mitchell: I will take care of labour.


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Let us in this case endeavour to restore to parliament its rightful place instead of turning over to a minister arbitrary and uncontrolled powers; for under this bill and under this section parliament is asked to show the greatest manifestation of faith in one man that any parliament has ever been asked to.
I come now to the question of the legality or illegality of this legislation. I shall refer to a case in point, because I should like to hear-and I am sure the committee would- my right hon. friend, the Minister of Justice, expounding the proposition upon which parliament is being asked to pass this legislation which is similar in part to that declared ultra vires in 1937, particularly having regard to the
decision in the case of Attorney General of Ontario and Canada Temperance Federation, which is reported in 1946 Appeal Cases at page 193. I read in part from that judgment, dealing as it does with the question of emergency which heretofore lawyers have believed justified parliament in passing legislation which, in its essence, infringes on the rights of the province under provincial jurisdiction of property and civil rights. This is what the head-note says:
The British North America Act, 1867, nowhere gives power to the dominion parliament to legislate in matters which are properly within the competence of the provincial legislatures merely because of the existence of an emergency.
And I repeat those words, "merely because of the existence of an emergency."
An emergency may be the occasion which calls for legislation, but it is the nature of the legislation itself, and not the existence of emergency, that must determine whether it is valid or not. The true test must be found in the real subject matter of the legislation; if it is such that it goes beyond local or provincial concern or interests and must, from its inherent nature, be a concern of the dominion as a whole, then it will fall within the competence of the dominion parliament as a matter affecting the peace, order and good government of Canada, though it may in another aspect touch on matters specially reserved to the provincial legislatures.
The next portion of the head-note deals with the particular case. Having regard to the extraordinary powers which are asked for and what has happened to similar legislation in the past, I think the Minister of Justice might well, at the earliest possible moment, place before the committee and the country the attitude of the Department of Justice in regard to this bill and other similar emergency and extraordinary legislation.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall section 3 carry?
An hon MEMBER: Six o'clock.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If it is necessary to say anything, I shall be glad to do so. But it is now six o'clock.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, March 20, 1947