1947-06-03

INQUIRY AS TO FULFILMENT OF CONTRACT WITH BRITAIN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. J. BENTLEY (Swift Current):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will he inform the house if Canada is fulfilling her contract for wheat delivery to Britain in accordance with the terms of the contract?


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The hon. member sent me notice of his intention to ask this question. In reply I wish to state that the total wheat contract for this year is for the shipment of 136 million bushels. Of this amount, 99 million bushels were shipped to the United Kingdom to the end of May. That leaves 37 million bushels which will be shipped, I have no doubt, during the last two months of the year. As to flour shipments, all these have been made or are on -the way.
Mr. BENTLEY': Making the full contract?


James Angus MacKinnon: Making the full
contract.



REQUEST FOR MEASURES TO PROTECT FOREIGN MARKETS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. H. WINTERS (Queens-Lunenburg):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, of which I have given him notice. In view of the increased general competition for export markets, and press reports that the United States congress has received representations to increase tariffs on Canadian fish, will the government take whatever steps are necessary to protect our foreign markets for fish by reciprocal tariff adjustments, trade agreements, favourable freight rates, or otherwise? -


James Angus MacKinnon: The hon. member for

Queens-Lunenburg gave me notice of his intention to ask this question. In reply I can assure the hon. member that the Canadian delegation to the international conference at Geneva, where such matters are being considered, was fully and carefully briefed with respect to all phases of our fish trade with the United States and other markets abroad, and can be relied on to see that any developments affecting this trade are given the care and attention they deserve.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Minister of Public Works):: On Friday last the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) asked the following question:
Can the minister tell the house when work will begin on the breakwater at Port Morien, Cape Breton, for which an appropriation of $300,000 was made last year, or have the tenders been called for, for this project?
The answer is that plans and specifications are in the course of preparation. It is expected the department will be ready to call for public tenders within the next three weeks. In view of the shortage of technically trained personnel this slight delay was necessary.



BOY' SCOUTS


[Stage Direction]
"warrior"
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. MAYHEW (Victoria, B.C.):: In view of the fact that I have been receiving a great many letters and telegrams asking if arrangements could not be made for the transportation of some boy scouts to the post-war jamboree at Paris, I should like to ask either the Minister of Transport or the Minister of National Defence if such arrangements can now be arranged.


Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Representations have been received from the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Mayhew) and other hon. members. Perhaps I might take advantage of this opportunity to make a statement on the plans for the summer for His Majesty's Canadian Ship Warrior.
On June 8 she will put to sea from Halifax on the first of two local cruises lasting until

Inquiries of the Ministry
June 24. These will concentrate on the training of reserve personnel. An annual leave period for the first watch will follow.
On August 2 Warrior will sail for the United Kingdom to ferry personnel of No. 803 and 825 squadrons. These are the men who will man the new Sea Fury and Firefly IV aircraft of H.M.C.S. Magnificent when she is commissioned. A number of R.C.N. (reserve) men, doing annual training, will also be carried.
On this crossing there will be 25 R.C.N. sea cadets who will be visiting the United Kingdom under the sponsorship of the Navy League of Canada. It has also been possible to arrange accommodation on Warrior for the specially picked Canadian boy scouts who are attending the international jamboree of peace in Paris. This group will probably consist of one complete scout troop numbering about 35. Accommodation could not be arranged for these groups on passenger vessels, and as the Warrior was making the trip anyway their passage could be undertaken without additional expense.
Warrior will return to Halifax, at the end of August, when the annual leave period for the second watch will begin. Between October 1 and October 21 she will be at sea for deck landing training. This will be carried out by No. 883 and 826 squadrons, manning her Seafires and Firefly I's. Later in the year the carrier will again sail for the United Kingdom to act as depot ship for her successor Magnificent prior to being paid off when the latter commissions.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. DONALD M. FLEMING (Eglinton): 1 wish to direct a question to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply relating to a report appearing in this morning's Journal, to the effect that the government is bringing down a new housing plan which is to be placed before municipal governments for study.
Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: I read the report in question, Mr. Speaker. I have had no direct communication with the mayor of Ottawa, and therefore do not know to what his comment refers. The housing branch of the department of reconstruction is constantly placing new housing plans before cities, and it is quite possible the department has placed a plan before the city of Ottawa; but if so I am not familiar with the details.
83166-237J



STATEMENT AS TO ALLOCATION TO CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps I might give some information which was promised at an earlier sitting in reference to tin. With the concurrence of my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), under whose jurisdiction the non-ferrous metals administration of the wartime prices and trade board comes, I wish to make a statement to the house on tin supplies. Hon. members will recall that last week I made a brief reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Stephenson) on the subject and promised to add to it later.
The current shortage of tin in Canada arises out of sharply reduced output from the Malayan field which is the principal world source of the metal. When Japan controlled this area during the war a great deal of damage was done to tin mining facilities and it is expected that not until well into 1949 will production in Malaya be up to standards prevailing before the Japanese occupation.
Allocation of available world tin supplies is determined by the combined tin committee, an international body which sits periodically in Washington. Canada became a member of the committee in the session of March of this year. At that session the Canadian delegate was Mr. Clark Wilson, then deputy administrator of non-ferrous metals, a capable and dependable officer with many pre-war years of experience in the metals industry.
At the March meeting of the tin committee,, because of the gloomy outlook for supplies,, the committee was able to allocate to Canadar for the first half of this year, a bare 55 per cent of our minimum estimated requirements. This quantity, to correct my statement last Tuesday, represented only about 40 per cent of our allocation for the corresponding period of 1946. when world stocks were heavily drawn upon.
In the face of this situation it has been necessary to maintain a careful supervision over releases and uses of tin. Hon. members will realize that our food pack and dairy industries are heavily dependent on supplies of this metal. It is absolutely indispensable in modern industry. As may be imagined, the authorities concerned have been hard put to it to look after essential consumers as well as to keep the less essential manufacturers supplied at least on a minimum operating basis. Nevertheless, for the first four months of this
Inquiries oj the Ministry

year, Canadian industry received more tin than in the same period last year. This was accomplished, of course, by drawing upon stocks. To date, so far as we know, nobody has had to shut down.
Our purchases in past weeks have been rather more encouraging and we have reason to hope that the position will gradually improve. The next meeting of the combined tin committee is the middle of this month and our delegate is being instructed to press strongly for a greatly increased quota.



IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
ADMISSION OF EUROPEAN RELATIVES OF CANADIANS On the orders of the dajr:
Mr. G. H. CASTLEDEN (Yorkton):: I should like to direct a question to the acting Minister of Mines and Resources, in view of the reply given .yesterday to a question I asked. Is there any possible means whereby a member of this house can obtain figures or approximate figures of the number of applications received b}'' the department from the people of any province for admission to Canada of their relatives from Europe?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be glad to investigate the situation and give my hon. friend a reply at a later sitting.



P.E.I. CAR FERRY FREIGHT RATES BETWEEN BORDEN AND TORMENTING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. CHESTER S. McLURE (Queens): I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport arising out of a special report which came from Ottawa to the maritime provinces on Maj' 28. I had an urgent call from a man who is anxious to go into private enterprise, namely the truck transfer business. My question to the minister is, at what date are the freight rates on the Borden-Tormentine car ferry to be brought into line with the Wood Islands-Cariboo freight tariffs, namely a nominal charge for vehicles and no charge for freight load of any class of commodity.
Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport):: The matter to which the hon. gentleman refers has been receiving the attention of the officers of the Canadian National Railways as a result of representations received from the members from Prince Edward Island :and other sources there. I am not in a position to tell the hon. gentleman what the situation jjMr. Howe.]
is at the moment, other than to say that the Canadian National Railways are giving particular attention to this subject, and I hope will be able to make an announcement very shortly.
(Translation):



PRIVILEGE-MR. CLAXTON WRONG NAMES GIVEN IN CONNECTION WITH A PHOTOGRAPH PUBLISHED IN &quot;LE SOLEIL&quot;

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. A photograph showing Canadian army officers has appeared in a Quebec newspaper, Le Soleil, under the caption "For the amalgamation of labour unions". Besides that title, we could read the following details:
'Representing about 13,500,000 workers, the leaders of the main labour unions in the United States have recently met for the purpose of discussing the amalgamation of their organizations. Reports from Washington indicate some progress along that line at that labour conference. The labour leaders are. from left to right:	William Green, president of the
A.F. of L., Philip Murray, president of the C.I.O., Daniel Tobin, president of the A.F. of L. Teamsters Union, and John L. Lewis, president of the A.F. of L. United Mine Workers.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the persons appearing on that photograph were the following: Lieut. Colonel Roberge, commanding officer of the Royal 22nd Regiment, Colonel Charlebois, director of infantry, as well as other Canadian army officers. These persons are not better than the others, but they are different.
(Text):



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
Right. lion. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution :
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend The Prairie Farm Assistance Act, 1939, to provide that the two schedules of payment now provided under the emergency year section and the crop failure section be merged and become payable in a ly year without specific authority from the governor in council and without requiring that a minimum number of townships be eligible before the crop failure schedule of award is payable; that the restriction in respect to the payment of awards to farmers with a certain min;-mum production of wheat may be removed; and that certain provisions be clarified in order to facilitate administration.
He said:	The resolution on the order
paper is one providing for the introduction

Prairie Farm Assistance Act
of a bill to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. 1 believe there will be general agreement in the house with regard to the amendments proposed.
Sections 3 and 4 in the present act provide for payments of certain amounts on an acreage basis, in a year when the government declares it an emergency year, under section 3, and when it is declared to be a crop failure year, under section 4. The proposed amendments do away with the necessity for the government's declaring any year an emergency year. They also do away with the necessity for there being any number of townships over and above one in order to have it declared a crop failure year.
The provision for two different ranges of payments is entirely done away with, and the measure will operate automatically. If there is one township or more in which there is a yield of eight bushels or less, payment will be made on the basis provided in the amended act. The only difference in the basis of the provision is that section 3 did provide for payment in the lower category, or from four bushels down, while section 4 provided for payment from five bushels down. Payment as it was made for five bushels down, in the act as it was, will now be made from four bushels down and will go into effect automatically in every township in which there are four bushels or less. That is the principal change made by the amending bill. The provision now in the act whereby any farmer in a township where payment was made, who had over three thousand bushels of wheat, was denied payment, is taken out, so that no matter what bushelage he has, he is entitled to payment.
Some other amendments are designed to clarify the meaning of the act and to bring into effect the provisions of which I have spoken. These, however, are the two main amendments.
It is my intention that as soon as the bill is printed and prepared for second reading it will be referred to the committee on agriculture. Any questions which hon. members desire to ask or any proposals they wish to make with respect to the measure may be discussed fully in committee and of course can be discussed on second reading of the bill if the house so desires. However, the suggestion that the bill go to a committee would perhaps provide a reason why the principal discussion, for the time being, might take place there. I would suggest that the resolution go now to the committee of the whole.
Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise at
this time to enter into a debate on this resolution. I just wish to say that the time for amending this act. is now long past. The house will therefore welcome the amendments suggested by the minister. The proposal that the discussion take place in committee is a good one. Hon. members in this party are prepared to let the resolution pass now, and to have the debate not so much in committee as on second reading after the principles of the amendments are made clear by the minister.
I shall not take any further time now. But I might ask the minister if it is his intention to refer the amendments proposed to the committee on agriculture.


Mr. GARDINER:: Yes.


Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South) :: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask
the minister a question. I know he has been receiving representations from many parts of the country for the extension of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act to other sections of Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: This is the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.


Mr. H. R. ARGUE (Wood Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the statement by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) this afternoon, and I believe we in this group can approve the changes he has intimated are likely to take place in the act. I had a resolution placed on the order paper this year asking that the provision of the act be extended. I believe when we are considering prairie farm assistance we should consider making it applicable to other parts of Canada-for instance to the fruit growers in the Niagara peninsula of Ontario, the fruit growers of British Columbia, the tobacco growers of Ontario, and the fruit growers of the maritime provinces. All these would receive a good deal of benefit if the act were extended, and if benefits were paid on account of crop failures to all farmers in Canada suffering such failures.
This year, on account of the lateness of the season, many counties in Ontario and Quebec are likely to experience widespread crop failures, perhaps the worst in the history of the area. I should hope that consideration might be given to the extension of the act so that farmers throughout the country may have adequate protection from crop failures.
I am interested in this legislation, too, because I represent a constituency in the Palliser triangle, the area in which this act has been of greatest benefit to the farmers.
Prairie Farm Assistance Act

It has been stated in the house on various occasions that the settlement of that area was a mistake. Let me say that large production of grain and dairy and meat products has come from that area, so that the whole of the Palliser triangle forms an important part of the agricultural producing area in Canada and contributes heavily in agricultural products for the nations of the world.
There are many faults in the present act and certainly the changes that have been suggested will be welcomed. We hope that more changes will be made when the bill is presented to the house.
This act now provides some measure of security to the farmers. The government stated many times at the dominion-provincial conference that it would do everything possible to provide the people of this country with security. For instance, one of the statements in the government proposals was this:
In familiar terms, our objectives are high and suitable employment and income and a greater sense of public responsibility for individual economic security and welfare.
And again:
The dominion government feels it has a responsibility to assist the industry (meaning agriculture) in making the necessary readjustments to peace time circumstances and to work in cooperation with the provincial governments to provide for a greater degree of stability in farm income and a greater measure of security than has prevailed in the past.
The bringing of this legislation before the house at this session will give the government a chance to show the people whether or not they are really going to give the farmers security. The present provision for a possible payment of $2.50 per acre on half the cultivated acreage, or a maximum payment of $500, is not giving our farmers security. We in this group recommend that the benefits be increased to at least $6 per acre, that they be paid on an individual basis and that if necessary the deductions be increased so that more money may be paid into the fund for extending these benefits.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Hazen Robert Argue: There may be a lot of "car-rieds", but I do not care where they come from. This is an important resolution and I intend to speak on it.
I have made a calculation of what I consider to be the minimum cost of carrying out farming operations on an average farm in southwestern Saskatchewan. The cost of farming is cheaper per acre in this part of the province than in any other part, but the cultivated acreage is larger, so I have no doubt the total cost per farm will compare reason-
[Mr. Argue.J
ably well. The average size of farm is 325 acres. Under the act a farmer can receive $2.50 per acre on half of his cultivated acreage, which would make his payment approximately $400. It will take at least 200 bushels of wheat to seed 162 acres at a cost of $240. It will cost not less than 75 cents per acre, or $121.50, to seed those 162 acres. Summerfallowing operations will cost 75 cents per acre and for two operations $243. The total seeding and summer-fallowing costs are more than 1600. On the basis of the payments received under the P.FA.A. on a crop of less than four bushels per acre this average farmer will be $200 in the red on his seeding and summer-fallowing operations. He would not have one dollar from the fund to provide for the payment of taxes and interest on his debt, to say nothing of providing for the cost of his own living and the maintenance of his family.
To increase the payments to $6 per acre would provide a maximum payment of $1,200. or a payment to the average farmer of approximately $1,000. If that increased payment was provided for in the act it would be little enough in view of the great increases which have taken place in farm costs. These increases have taken place because the government saw fit to remove the price ceilings. The increased farm costs are directly a result of the action of the government. Therefore I contend it is the responsibility of the government to see that the farmers are protected in time of crop failure.
There is another reason why the payments should be increased. I refer to the decision of the supreme court outlawing the Saskatchewan farm security act. The Department of Justice of this government took that act to the supreme court where it was declared to be ultra vires. That act meant a lot to the farmers of Saskatchewan in time of crop failure. If a man had a $5,000 mortgage and his interest rate was six per cent, the farm security act would have saved him $300. Many farmers are going to have increased expenses in years of crop failure because that act has been disallowed. If this government believes in giving the farmers security then it must give some additional compensation. It took that act to the supreme court and by doing so was instrumental in having it disallowed.
I contend that the payments under this act should be made on an individual basis, because making the payments on a township basis is not fair. I have had dozens and dozens of cases brought to my attention in which farmers have had complete crop, failures and perhaps lived just across the road from

Prairie Farm Assistance Act
a township in which payments were made, but they did not receive payment because there were not enough other farmers in the immediate vicinity who were also in the unfortunate position of having crop failures.
The present act provides that payments will be made in an area of one-quarter of a township provided that it is a rectangle and provided that one side lies along a township receiving the bonus. I had a case brought to my attention this year in which there were nine sections or one-quarter of a township with less than eight bushels per acre. Eight of those sections formed a rectangle but the ninth, which was necessary to bring them under the act, made it impossible to form a rectangle and therefore the farmers were not eligible for payments. Because of that regulation those farmers who justly deserved payments were discriminated against. The only way that situation can be overcome is to provide for payments on an individual basis.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but a few days ago I called the attention of the house to a well known rule which forbids the reading of speeches. I realize that a member is permitted to consult his notes, but I wonder if the hon. member who now has the floor is consulting notes or reading his speech. I should like to again call the attention of all hon. members to the fact that I gave perhaps too much latitude in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne and the budget debate. From now on I think it is the desire of members of the House of Commons that an hon. member should not be allowed to read his speech.


Hazen Robert Argue: I agree that an hon. member should not read his speech. I have not read a speech in this house, and I am not reading a speech today. I will show you these notes, and if a speech could be made by reading them, I am sure it would be completely incoherent.


Mr. HOMUTH:: They are very copious notes.


Hazen Robert Argue: My hon. friend is also very copious.
I wish to make some specific recommendations. One is that the twenty-mile provision under the regulations be abolished so that any farmer, whether or not he happens to live twenty miles from the farm he operates, shall be eligible to receive the bonus; also that the twenty-year age limitation be removed. A young man eighteen years of age was conscripted, or almost conscripted, into the service of this country. Surely a young man of that age should be entitled to receive the benefit of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
I think that payments should be made to anyone whose primary occupation is farming, even if the individual does not live on the farm. Consideration should also be given to the zoning of the area now under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, so that the benefits from the act may not be less over the years than the deductions that are made.
Again I say, I am glad that the resolution has been brought in for discussion by the house, and I trust that these recommendations will be carefully considered and that the new act will make provision accordingly.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Mr. Speaker, I want to make an apology. When I am wrong I believe in publicly admitting that I am wrong. I said the other day that Dave Lewis wrote all the speeches of the C.C.F. party. I want to apologize publicly for that statement, because obviously Dave Lewis would not write some of them.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. This kind of gibe I think is beneath the dignity of parliament. Let me say this, that my hon. friends are not reading their speeches, and no one has ever written a speech for me.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I never said that the leader of the C.C.F. ever read a speech. He does not,. But let him go up in the gallery and look down on some of his followers-


Major James William Coldwell: No. There are occasions on which I read a statement to the house which has been approved by my followers. I want to make it clear that I occasionally do that; but I think these gibes are too cheap to be used in this house.


Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, as the bill to be based on this resolution is to be sent to a committee, I shall be brief. This group is glad that the government has seen fit to bring in the resolution at this time. We were very much disappointed last year when owing to pressure of business the government decided not to bring it in then.
Seventy-five per cent of my constituency might be classified as a semi-permanent drought area. Therefore the people in that district are dependent upon the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and I think will continue to be dependent upon it until such time as the government sees fit to construct the irrigation projects which have been promised for a number of years but which the government seems reluctant to begin. Irrigation has been
Prairie Farm Assistance Act

constantly in the minds of those people since the early settlement days, and year after year the government has promised that these irrigation projects will be constructed, but so far the people have looked in vain for their commencement.
In spite of all the criticism that has been made of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and its administration, I believe it has served the people well. To many farmers it has made all the difference between being able to carry on and having to give up. Most of the criticism I have heard has been of a constructive nature and directed chiefly against the method of determining whether or not certain land is eligible for payment of the bonus. That is the main criticism in the area I come from. The minister will agree that the method is far from satisfactory. When the act was first introduced the minister suggested that after a while it might be possible to determine eligibility on the basis of the type of soil a farmer owned, but so far that method has not been introduced, and I can see that it would not be an easy way of determining eligibility for the bonus.
The two points the farmers criticize are these. In a township that is not eligible it is possible to take out a minimum of nine sections of land, provided they are contiguous to a township that is eligible, and provided further that the sections are in a rectangular block. There may be sections right alongside the block with yields of less than four bushels to the acre, yet because they are not within the rectangular block they are not eligible for the bonus. This year I ran into a peculiar case-it may not happen very often-which showed how unsatisfactory this method of determining eligibility of the land is. I had a township referred to me that was declared eligible. Then the inspector found within the township six sections which had a high yield. The act does not provide for taking six sections out of a township. It provides for taking out only nine. So they included three sections which had had a total crop failure along with the six, and then took those nine out. Naturally the farmers on the three sections which had suffered a crop failure within a township that had been declared eligible felt bitter when denied the bonus by reason of being included in a block of nine sections, only six of which had a high yield. That may not happen very often, but it should not be necessary for the inspector to include three sections which had a total crop failure along with six others which had a good crop.
We in this group welcome the changes proposed by the minister, and I hope that 
when the bill is before the committee he will allow a full discussion of other points which we think should be dealt with.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.


John Bracken: Mr. Chairman, as I said
a moment ago, we have no thought whatever at this stage of continuing the discussion. The resolution makes clear the government's position with respect to the amendments it proposes. So far as we are concerned the general position of our party was put before the house by the hon. member for Lake Centre on April 28, in his remarks as reported in Hansard beginning at page 2473. In view of the clear position of the government as expressed in the amendments proposed and in view also of the objections which have been raised from various parts of the house, we have no thought of delaying this measure now. We will offer any constructive suggestions we have before the committee on agriculture, and if the bill as reported from the committee is not satisfactory to us we shall continue the discussion on second reading of the bill.


Clarence Gillis: I want to finish the question I started to ask the Minister of Agriculture when the Speaker was in the chair. The provisions of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, as well as the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, are applicable to the prairies only. Representations have been made from many sections of Canada to have the provisions of this legislation become national. Is it the intention of the minister at least to give consideration to expanding the legislation so that all farmers of Canada may receive the protection which the prairie farmers are receiving under this legislation?


James Garfield Gardiner: It would have to be entirely different legislation from this if 'the government of Canada were to attempt to provide a form of so-called insurance to farmers generally across Canada. This legislation is based entirely on drought and on nothing else. I am sure the people who live in Ontario know that they do not need drought insurance here, particularly this year. This legislation is based entirely on giving assistance where there is drought and if we were to have legislation brought in to provide assistance-the federal parliament have not authority to provide insurance-similar to that provided by the legislation we are discussing, it would have to be an entirely different act from this one. We could not enlarge this act to cover Canada.

Prairie Farm Assistance Act


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: First of all may I say that I am wholeheartedly in agreement with whaJt my leader has already said on this measure. I think we might, where measures such as this are to go to a committee, speed up the business of the house if we save a lot of the discussion on the resolution stage, because we rehash the same arguments in committee. Then we come back and discuss the committee's report. Surely we should be able to speed up the business greatly if we carry on our discussion in committee.
This act was brought in in 1939 and amended in 1940 and 1941. As a result of experience it is now universally admitted that more amendments are required to the act. The question just raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton South in regard to the extension of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act is a case in point. The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and the measure we are now discussing often do conflict. Like the hon. member for Wood Mountain, I represent a riding which is considered pretty much in the Palliser triangle. I know a great deal of past administration. I do say that in its operation this measure has contributed a great deal to the farmers, but it needs amendments. When these amendments come forward I imagine they will receive the proper consideration by the agriculture committee. What I want to ask the minister is this: Shall we receive the bill and then after second reading will it be referred to the committee on agriculture? Is that the procedure.


James Garfield Gardiner: My understanding is that when the resolution passes we have authority to introduce the bill, which will be ready for distribution tomorrow. I thought it was ready today, but I found it was not. It will be distributed tomorrow provided it has had its first reading. On second reading I presume we shall send it to the committee. It has been done both ways. At times it has. been given second reading and then sent to the committee. At other times it has been sent to the committee and has come back for second reading. The bill will go to committee in any event.


Mr. WRIGHT:: I wish to say a few words in view of what the hon. member for Souris has just said in regard to remarks from various members upon the resolution stage of this bill.


James Arthur Ross: Or any other bill.


Percy Ellis Wright: Or any other bill, as he says. The only chance that a member of the opposition has of putting his ideas before the government so that they can be incorporated in a bill is on the resolution stage.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, second reading.


Percy Ellis Wright: We cannot move any amendments on second reading because they will mean an expenditure of money, and therefore, they can be moved only by a member of the government. What we are trying to do is to place before the minister the amendments which we believe should be made to the act, and we have to do this at a time when they can be made, before the bill is introduced. Of course if the principle is accepted that the government does not intend to adopt any of the suggestions of the opposition, then there is no use of our making them, but I do not think that is so. The Minister of Agriculture is a reasonable man. He knows the conditions under which the Prairie Farm Assistance Act operates. In the first place he recognizes some of its Shortcomings or its failure to meet certain conditions. We are trying to assist him in seeing that the act is made a real measure of security to the western farmers.


Mr. ZAPLITNY:: I agree entirely with what the hon. member for Melfort has just said. If we are to make any proposals we have to make them before the bill is finally drawn un. I wish to say a word or two on how this act affects Manitoba. The minister will remember that last year, I think it was, there was some discussion in the house about the way in which the act operates in connection with agriculture generally in Manitoba. I believe one hon. member suggested that there was a movement afoot in the province to withdraw entirely because the benefits paid out to the farmers under this act do not come anywhere near the amounts that they paid in.
I might quote from a return I have received as of May 9, 1946. This return gives the payments made into the fund to the end of February, 1946, and the payments out of the fund to the end of March, 1946. The return shows that from 1939 to 1946 the farmers of Manitoba paid into the fund a total of $3.472,984. During practically the same period, within one month, they received from the fund only $1,731,284, which is practically half of what they paid in. At the moment I am not complaining that they did not receive the full amount they paid in, because that is not the objective of the act. As I .understand it, the objective is to provide some form of emergency insurance so that in the years of exceedingly bad crops farmers may have something to fall back on. It is quite natural that in some years they will pay in more than they will receive. However, in Manitoba the
RHVrSED EDITION
Prairie Farm Assistance Act

farmers have consistently year after year paid in much more than they have received out of the fund.
I do not advocate and I have not advocated withdrawal of the farmers of Manitoba from this act, because I believe it is at least a form of protection which, although of a temporary nature, has its value. I do believe that whatever agitation there may be in the province for withdrawal from the act would be avoided if some amendment were made to make it more applicable to the type of farming and the climatic conditions of Manitoba. As the minister well knows, there are parts of Manitoba where we have never had anything approaching a real drought, but we have often suffered losses from hail and flood. In fact there are parts of Manitoba where over a period of years flood has done much more damage to the crops than either hail or drought.
As the act now stands it is applicable to drought conditions but in the case of hail or flood damage it does not apply properly. As a matter of fact I do not think it applies at all to flood damage. In hail damage it is hard to make it apply because of the way in which hail damages crops. It may completely destroy one-third of a township but the other two-thirds may have a bumper crop, and that makes the one-third damage negligible under the legislation. I would therefore suggest that an amendment be made to the act so that in Manitoba it would apply to flood damage, and that the unit or the basis on which payments are to be made be on a smaller scale so that farmers individually can benefit under the act in hail damage. I do not know what the smallest unit can be in order to make it administratively possible, but I am sure that the township unit could be reduced or some arrangement made so that, in the case of hail or flood damage, payments would be made regardless of whether or not the whole township fell below a certain crop yield limit. These are the two suggestions I wanted to present in the hope that the minister will take them into consideration and incorporate them in his amendments to the act.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Gardiner thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 261, to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, 1939.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Mr. Speaker, is the bill to be referred to the committee now?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, at the next sitting of the house.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: It will be referred to the committee at the next sitting?


James Garfield Gardiner: Second reading will be at the next sitting.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Will it be referred on the second reading or before?


James Garfield Gardiner: It will be a question whether we submit it before second reading is given or after but it will be submitted while the second reading discussion is on.



PENITENTIARY ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, June 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Ilsley for the second reading of Bill No. 177 to amend the Penitentiary Act, 1939.
Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: Approximately eight years have elapsed since the former minister of justice told the house of the deplorable conditions associated with penitentiary administration. How much has been done since the house, at his request, passed a bill for the appointment of three commissioners, I do not know; apparently very little. We have been told that the reason for that is that there is a certain amount of dual responsibility as between the provinces and the federal government in the matter of prison care and reform, and all matters pertaining to criminology. But I cannot see why the federal government itself, in the interim of the past eight years, could not have set apart one of its own penal institutions for the adoption of what the minister of that day strongly recommended, namely, the Borstal system of reform. The Borstal system, of course, is nothing more or less than the reclamation of prisoners, and that is an important feature.
I have made an exhaustive study into the operation of the Borstal system, but I am not going to talk about that today; I have done so before. I have visited in the, old country many prisons in which this system is in operation.
I spent eight or ten hours in one of the Borstal institutions, thoroughly surveying everything pertaining to their programme. While there I made it my business to inquire from the various prisoners, with the permission of the guards who were taking me around, why it was they were there. Many of them were fine looking, and it was amazing to me to see such well set-up young men incarcerated in a penal institution. On my return home I made a survey following up

Penitentiary Act
what I had learned from the few prisoners with whom I discussed the matter. Anyone representing in a large city a riding such as mine, containing approximately 60,000 to 70,000 people, has had the experience which has been mine, over the past eighteen years, of being interviewed by fathers and mothers, husbands and wives, sisters and brothers in reference to their dear ones who had in some way fallen afoul of the law and been sent to prison. After I came home from my last investigations into the Borstal operations in the old country I started to make inquiries of everyone who called to see me about getting this one or that one released or the term of imprisonment shortened. In many cases I went to the prison itself where the person the people had called to see me about was incarcerated, and I asked him-they were mostly males; in fact I do not remember having talked to any females-how he had fallen from grace, and I began writing down the reasons which were given. One of the main causes was that the prisoners came from homes which were broken up, for one of the many reasons why such things happen, and therefore they did not have a proper home training. I pursued that study, because I felt that while the Borstal system is essentially a reclamation system, it would be much better if we could get behind that and get back to the time before the young man was sent to prison and required reclamation through the Borstal system.


Mr. GRAYDON:: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Having in mind a programme of prevention, I studied each individual case with which I came in contact; and it was not an easy matter. It took a long time to do it, but I have been at this a long time, Your Honour. Prison reform and reclamation of prisoners have been studies of mine for many years. I have always been interested in the solving of human troubles.
As I said a moment ago, the broken home was number one reason given for young men being sent to prison. Therefore whatever programme the new commissioner puts into operation, as a beginning I hope he will study the question of how to get back beyond the reclamation period to the school days.
This brings me to my second thought. In addition to the lack of a desirable home environment in which a boy or a girl would receive the good advice and instruction of happy and contented parents, I found that there was lack of education. I was amazed to find that so many of our young offenders have so little education. I took that matter up with 83166-2381
one of the Ontario reformatory boards, and was astonished at the account they gave of the lack of education and mental deficiency. Speaking of mental deficiency, which goes along with lack of education, I had a conversation with the head of the mental hygiene council, as I believe it is called, to which this house every year-and rightly so in my judgment-votes a matter of $10,000. The head of that council is Doctor Hincks. who is perhaps one of the best versed men in America in mental hygiene. I learned from him that in his judgment from thirty to forty per cent of the young folks going to school today are to a certain extent mentally deficient. That condition can be cured or arrested if the proper facilities are provided. The deficiency in mentality of youth, which results in their being sent to prison, is a problem which should be studied by the new commissioner. How it is to be overcome I do not know. We might spend ten or perhaps twenty million dollars in building new penal institutions for reform, but if it is not too late we might do better to spend $20,000,000 in looking after our youth before it became necessary to be concerned about their reclamation. One way of doing that would be to assist such institutions as the mental hygiene board and that celebrated authority on mental hygiene, Doctor Hincks. In this way we might do something to lessen crime on the part of our youth.
In the Ontario reform reports I find the statement made that 10-03 per cent of those incarcerated in penal institutions are mentally deficient. That is a tremendous toll. Not only are they unable to return any benefit to their country, being mentally deficient ; they are a cost to the country when it becomes necessary to send them to a reform institution, following the commission of some crime. That is another side of the prevention programme. It was stated also that 14-9 per cent were right on the border. I have observed that myself in my own humble investigations. I have often said to myself. "Well, it is a wonder this one did not commit murder or some grievous crime," instead of some misdemeanour that was not so serious. That makes a total percentage of 24-12 either mentally deficient or right on the border. There is something wrong with our institutions if these figures are correct, as I have no doubt they are. It would seem that we are far behind the programme of the Borstal reclamation system. Further it is stated that 32-79 per cent were dull, and we have all seen that. I have made it my business to speak to many young men in prison, in the common gaols and from there right up to the penitentiaries. I have visited their homes and talked to theii
Penitentiary Act

parents, who in too many cases also are dull. Of course often a dull child comes from dull parents, though that is not always the case since many of the very finest parents have dull children. But if they are dull they should have some chance to attain efficiency and understanding, so they will not commit crimes. That makes a total of those dull, on the border and below the border of 56-91 per cent. That is simply incredible, and I can only say that a proper system of training probably would save many of them from going to gaol. I believe that if mental hygiene were properly carried out and extended, many of the youth of the land could be kept from committing crimes.
I find further that of the people who are normal, 62-8 per cent did not receive any further education than the sixth grade. I found that too in the prisons in England, in talking to the young men there. Their education was woefully deficient. That is a pretty serious situation. How it is going to be overcome I do not know, but as the former minister said, it is a staggering problem and costs the country a staggering sum. But the cost is far greater when such people make no return. If they can be saved before they commit a crime that will send them to gaol, whatever the cost to the country it will be money well spent.
Then take a look at our book stands, and see the literature for sale there. Much of what you see is very light literature; but in addition to what is on the book stands there are many other places where youth can get literature that is not fit for anyone to read. If this is not a federal matter I wonder if the provinces should not take note of the fact that much of the literature offered for sale today certainly is not fit for our youth to read. When we were young we had many excellent books to read. Those books are still available today, and if their cost could be reduced by printing thousands of them so that every youth in the land could read them, it might have a very wholesome effect. I do not think an}- child could read the like of "David Copperfield" or "Barnaby Rudge" or "Edwin Drood", or other works of Dickens and other equally well known authors, without a beneficial effect. Many of these books, however, are rather high priced, so our young people buy a cheaper book or a magazine which adds nothing at all to their intelligence. I feel that we may be derelict in our duty to this country in not seeing to it that our young people have proper literature to read, for I

believe this would reduce the number who later might be sent to our gaols and penitentiaries.
There is another example connected with my own youth about which I was not going to say anything, but I have decided to mention it after all. That is the lack of family worship, which is nothing short of monstrous. In my home the bible was read every morning; one or other of my parents would lead in prayer, and naturally this had a wholesome effect on each member of the family. We respected them the more because of their desire to see that we walked the right way of life. Today, however, that is lacking to an extent that is nothing short of shocking. What can we expect but an increase in crime when too many of the youth of today have little direction along the right, path?
Then where can our children play today? Where are the playgrounds in our cities? If a child of my neighbourhood wants to play in a park he has to go at least half a mile; and that is in the city of Toronto. It is all right if the children live next door to the park or in the next street but in my neighbourhood it is a long way to a park. Yet children must play. If they play in the streets they hear many things they should not hear. Of course many of them go to the supervised school playgrounds, but the children do not like to play on gravel or on hard cement, so those playgrounds are not very popular and the children play anywhere they can. In England, even though their population is very much congested and they have not anything like the land we have here, on a holiday you will find all the roads leading from London and the other cities filled with people either in motor cars or on bicycles going to what they call the commons. There are commons everywhere; that is one thing I like very much about the old country, and those commons are full of people. I suppose the name "commons" has come down through the centuries, but these open spaces are full of people enjoying themselves.
I often say to myself:	If the fathers and
mothers of Toronto want to go out on a Saturday or a Sunday afternoon, where can they go? If they come to a shady little spot with a creek running through, and some sand, they find a fence arount it with a sign, "Trespassers prohibited." I would like to see throughout Ontario and in all the other provinces for that matter, hundreds of the areas like the "commons" they have in England. They would call them commons; here they might be called something different, but the purpose and use would be just the same.

Penitentiary Act
They would be recreation areas to which fathers and mothers could drive on a Saturday or a Sunday. They could enjoy being out in the fresh air with the children. There is nothing like God's great outdoors to make people think rightly.
I have travelled far and wide in remote areas. I have gone over mountains and rivers. I love to travel there because I see God and His handiwork everywhere. And so would the children see it, too. But they have to get out of the cities to see it.
In a constituency the size of mine there are many boys and girls who get into trouble. Many parents, sisters and brothers come to see me about those who have gone astray. I always try to find out the reason for their having made these mistakes.
I hope the new commissioner and those associated with him will take these things into account. At the moment their job may be one of reformation. But can we not start earlier than that, and set up a system of prevention? There are ways of preventing crime. Better to spend $10 million on prevention, on places for children to play, on parks; better to spend $10 million on slum clearance, where people are living under such congested conditions that their children have no place to play. Far better to spend those millions of dollars for prevention than to have to spend an equal amount-as we will have to do-on the building of prisons, to put boys and girls where they cannot do any good for their country or for themselves.
I often wonder what would happen in this country if it were not for that mere handful of men and women, that small number of devoted men and women throughout the country, some of whom are to be found waiting at the prison gates for the prisoners as they come out. And when I say this I think of the Salvation Army and those associated with other religious organizations who assist those who are being turned out of the prisons. I often wonder what this country would be like if that handful of men and women did not give some attention to those who leave our prisons.
I had a case brought to my attention recently which caused me considerable concern. It was in connection with a fine man with a wife and family. He had been a bookkeeper, and for some reason-the reason is neither here nor there-he took some of his employer's money. He had been in that man's employ for twenty-one years, and that was his first lapse. It should not have occurred, of course; but some impelling motive forced him to take that money, with the result that
he was sent to the reformatory at Guelph for some length of time. Had he been sent to the penitentiary it would have been even worse.
I have often thought we should have some fund or some system through which those who have been guilty of some misdemeanour, probably committed out of desperation, could be helped instead of being sent to some institution. I am not in favour of criminals being at large, of course; and I believe in the principle that corrective punishment should be meted out where it is due. But I have in mind some method of prevention whereby, so that instead of a man being sent to a place where he can do nothing to help his wife and children he would be prevented from getting into trouble in the first instance. Perhaps that aspect of the matter has not been studied to any great extent by crime preven-tionists, but it is worthy of diligent study, and something might come of it.
I know of a fine young man who did something foolish. Certainly he should not have done it; he should have stood his ground rather than run away. Upon being captured, as he rightfully was, he was sent to prison. After serving eighteen months he was released. This young man had not committed what could be classified as a crime; he was not that type of man. Upon his release from prison, with the knowledge that up and down the years I had obtained jobs for many young men in like circumstances, he came to see me. On many occasions young men who have come from prison have asked for my assistance, and ' I have always been delighted to try to get them jobs. I would stake my own reputation on their behalf, and if necessary I would give a guarantee that I would be responsible for their good conduct. I spoke about this young man to some people I knew well, referring to the time he had served in prison. I have forgotten how long it was-perhaps twelve or eighteen months-but I could not get him a job. Finally I went to a manager and told him it was just as much his responsibility as mine to give this boy a chance to start life again. If I could not have got him a job soon after his release from prison, what could he be expected to do? He had not committed any great crime in the first instance, but there was no telling what he might do if evervone turned him down.
There is another point to which the Minister of Justice might give some thought, and which would give help to those coming out of prisons. It has been shown in England that from 60 to 70 per cent of first offenders who obtain positions upon their release from prison, and
Penitentiary Act

who thus have some money coming in to take care of their personal necessities, do not engage in crime again. It must be understood however that first of all they must get a job. 1 know many men and women in Toronto who are engaged in trying to secure jobs for those who come out of the prisons. I have done a considerable amount of that work myself.
I always tell young men who are released from prison not to pass by a policeman as if he were going to give chase or make an arrest. I urge them to stop and talk to the police, and to tell them their problems. The police in Toronto are anxious to prevent crime, and I have no doubt that the same would apply to other cities. Our former chief of police in Toronto, Chief Draper, spent years doing that kind of work, and he did a fine job in assisting those who were released from prison. Surely this would be another means of prevention of crime.
I hope that whoever is in charge of the programme of reclamation will give some thought to suggestions of this kind. The only reclamation system in operation today is the Borstal system. It is doing a mighty fine job, but it does not apply to hardened criminals. First offenders should not be put in with hardened criminals. The penitentiaries branch might well set apart one of the penitentiaries where first offenders serving sentences up to five years, we will say, could be incarcerated, so that they w'ould not come in contact with the hardened criminals who cannot be reformed.
I do not know' what should be done for these later. Perhaps I am too soft-hearted to wish severe punishment to be inflicted upon anyone. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of [DOT]cure. I am firmly convinced that the Borstal system can do a big job in reformation of prisoners, but I want to get behind the necessity for reclamation. I want to get to the youth of this country. I do not know how it is going to be done, but I certainly would like to participate in it myself.
The Ontario government is doing a good job at the present, time. The provincial secretary, under whose jurisdiction these matters come, was sent to England. As far as I could see from the press reports he pretty well followed the trip I made. He visited Leeds prison, the prison at Glasgow, the original florstal prison and different prisons in the 'London area. I felt complimented when I saw -that. I do not say that he followed my itinerary, but it looked like it. He came back convinced that as far as first offenders go the Borstal system can do a grand work. I know it can. because I have seen it in operation.
JMr. MacNlcol.]
I notice the Ontario government has purchased 600 acres in the vicinity of Ottawa which I presume will be used as a boys' farm, a first offenders' farm or something like what they have outside of Glasgow. It should do a good work. The Ontario government have schools at Galt and Bowmanville and other places to which first offenders are sent. I say again that the federal government cannot enter any field in which the province now is but can make their own application of the Borstal system to first offenders sentenced to two years imprisonment and over. I was glad to read a few days ago that 'the Quebec government is also starting to promote reclamation, perhaps along the same lines as they are doing in Ontario, with schools and farms. I wish them every success, as I wish Ontario every success.
I am sincere in what I have said, and I am intensely earnest in the belief that there should be some means of prevention to reduce the number of those who are sent to prison. If that does not prevent crime, there should be some such system as the Borstal system which has proven so satisfactory and which has been adopted almost universally throughout the world for the reclamation of first offenders.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Before the hon. member sits down I should like to correct him. He has made the statement two or three times that the Borstal system applies to first offenders. It does not. On page 201 of the report it is stated:
It should be emphasized that no first offenders are as a rule sent to Borstal institutions. They are not for novices in crime but for those young offenders who have failed to respond to other courses of treatment.


John Ritchie MacNicol: How old is that report?


Mr ILSLEY:: 1937.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I think you will find they have advanced since then because I was informed by the officials in charge of the prison at Glasgow that many of those there were first offenders. I am only taking the information given to me by those associated with the reclamation work. I do not see why it should not apply to first offenders sentenced to two years and over, as well as to first offenders sentenced to eighteen months.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Just to get this right, I quote again from the report:
Youths between 16 and 23 years of age, when brought before the court, are divided roughly into three classes:	those who are not bad
enough for Borstal, i.e., who can be dealt with by probation or other non-institutional treatment, those who are too bad for Borstal, and the balance, mostly proved recidivist offenders, who are selected for Borstal treatment. It

Penitentiary Act
should be emphasized that no first offenders are as a rule sent to Borstal institutions. They are not for novices in crime but for those young offenders who have failed to respond to other courses of treatment.


John Ritchie MacNicol: When I visited the Borstal institution in England they gave me pamphlets dealing with the reclamation of those who were brought to their prisons. In those pamphlets it was pointed out very clearly that this one or that one was a first or a second offender. They stated that the number of third offenders had been reduced. In any event, those who are sentenced to the penitentiary for two. three or more years might be reclaimed if kept apart from hardened criminals and given the benefits of the Borstal system. What is there about the Borstal system that they should not have? There is nothing that I know of. I watched it at work in the various prisons; I discussed the matter with their teachers, and I cannot see anything but benefit that would derive from the application of this system. Most persons who commit a crime are reformable, leaving out of consideration the hardened criminal, through the application of the Borstal system.


Mr. L. PHILIPPE PICARD (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, the bill at present under study deals only with the change in the set-up of the penitentiary commission as provided in the Penitentiary Act, 1939. It is intended to change the number of commissioners from three to one and to provide for the appointment of two deputy commissioners. The sections of the 1939 act concerning the appointment of assistant commissioners are not changed, as well as other sections of the act, A single authority of one commissioner is to replace that of a board of three commissioners, but two deputies are to act directly under him. That appears simple enough and it might call only for an expression of opinion as to the merits of a one-man show or a three-man board. The debate which has followed the introduction of this legislation has covered the whole question of penitentiary administration and penal reform. I think that is most commendable because, with the introduction of the present bill, is brought forward again the whole problem of our penal system in Canada. I do not think too much can be said about the urgency of bringing it in line with improvements in penology throughout the world. Hon. members who have spoken from all sides of the house have shown a public spirit and a keen sense of appreciation of the gravity and urgency of the situation.
It may be distasteful to hear anyone speak of his previous experiences and make personal
references during the course of the debate, but I find myself in the awkward predicament of having to do this in order to justify myself and to substantiate certain opinions which I may express. During the last six years I have received numerous letters from people who have devoted much of their lives to this question. They have expressed their disappointment at my silence over the years. I must confess that there are letters which I have not dared to answer because I would have had to admit the opportunism which had prompted me to stay silent.
The people who wrote to me, and others, knew of my long association with the Department of Justice and my great interest in such questions as the handling of prisoners, the reform of criminals and the general administration of our penitentiaries as well as the necessity of reorganizing our whole penal system. Many of these people were in contact with me at the time when my efforts were directed toward the entire remodeling of our penal set-up. Therefore I feel it my duty to acquaint the house with some aspects of the problem as I know and understand them.
I do not want to pose as an expert in such matters but, as the solution of this problem should be the concern of all of us, I think we must all contribute within our limitations our share to its solution. The present bill providing for a reorganization of the administrative set-up of Canadian penitentiaries is intimately connected with the vast problem of how can we best organize and administer our penal system; how can we best deal with those who have violated our criminal laws; how can we act to curb recidivism and orientate our penal system so as to reform criminal offenders and liberate the country from the burden of mounting costs of handling those whose first incarceration has failed to reform them, if it has not launched them in a career of crime?
As I proceed with my remarks I trust the minister will be able to dissociate himself from a common ministerial habit of considering as personal criticism any remarks made about a branch of his department or about the civil servants or officials who are responsible therefor. During my long association with ministerial activities and observing the house under other governments, I have found that this is an attitude which is unfortunately too often taken by some members of cabinets. It is an attitude that is not conducive to good government, which demands free and open discussion of any and *11 angles of the administration's policy, not only from the opposition parties, not. only from different
Penitentiary Act

groups who try to find something wrong with the government, but from government supporters. Yet the latter, faced with such an attitude, are often prone to hesitate to utter remarks which, while critical, would be in the interests of better administration. It is a well known fact to most of us that many departmental officials rely on the popularity and respect enjoyed by their minister to save them from any severe scrutiny of their acts. That does not apply particularly to one department but to most of them. The speed with which a minister's estimates or bill is passed is considered a great feat by his officials and as more or less of a criterion of the popularity of the minister. But I am convinced that the Minister of Justice has not that unhealthy attitude and that it will never be a part of his mentality.
Before I go on with my remarks, I should like to congratulate the minister upon, having at last brought this measure before us, which means the reorganization of the penitentiaries branch. This is only a first step and it took a long time to come, but at last we are getting moving and, I think, in the right direction.
If I may be permitted I should like to read from a lecture which I myself gave some time ago. If I did not explain that I might be reproached for reading my speech.
In 1910 Mr. Churchill, who was then Home Secretary in Great Britain, laid down the proposition, which received the approval of all those qualified to speak on the question, that the degree of civilization to which a nation had attained could be measured by the way in which it treated its lawbreakers. By that test Canada does not stand as high as it should. For a full understanding of Canada's situation respecting prison administration I might be permitted to review a few historical facts.
Shortly after the Act of Union in 1842, a prison board was created to inspect and administer all gaols, prisons, and hospitals in the united provinces, including the penitentiary at Kingston. This board found an almost unbelievable situation, even for that day and age. I am making that, reference to 1842 and afterwards shall compare conditions then with conditions in 1947. Even if I might be thought to be going too far back in history, it is relevant to the problem, because some of the problems brought before that prison board have not yet been solved after 105 years, and are still receiving our attention. As I said, this board found an almost unbelievable situation, even for that day and age, to exist in the local gaols an<^ prisons of the provinces, and a great unwillingness on the part of local authorities to invest any money in improving [Mr. Picard. 1
conditions. After a bitter struggle and the exercise of considerable patience, however, the board finally achieved its purpose. It then turned to the improvement of the penitentiary at Kingston. In the performance of these two tasks, it became obvious that the great, problem was the reclamation of young offenders, for whom no fitting quarters were then available. The board turned, therefore, to the establishment of reformatories, which in those days were places devoted to reformation and not, as now, merely places of incarceration.
I say that, because some of our institutions have been called reformatories when to all intents and purposes they were just still gaols or penitentiaries as all the others were.
In Lower Canada, a reformatory was established at lie aux Noix, which was later moved to St. Vincent de Paul. In Upper Canada, a reformatory was established at Penetan-guishene. A hospital for mental cases was also constructed at Kingston, Rockwood hospital, which is still in existence. The period wTas one of awakening social consciousness in all countries and by 1867 the board had made the Canadian penal system one of the best in the world, at least as compared with Great Britain and the United States.
The British North America Act brought an end to many of the hopes of the penologists of that time. The architects of that act were engaged in the attempted solution of much greater problems and. in seeking this solution, lost sight of the effect on penal administration of the division of powers made between the federal government and the provinces. Jurisdiction over gaols, reformatories, and hospitals was given to the provinces, while the federal government was given jurisdiction over the penitentiaries only. An arbitrary distinction came to divide these institutions. Any sentence under two years involved imprisonment in a provincial or local institution, and any sentence of two years or over involved imprisonment in a penitentiary. This arbitrary division of jurisdiction destroyed the uniformity of treatment applied to lawbreakers.
The royal commission which reported in 1938 realized the fatal defects of the division of jurisdiction brought about by the British North America Act and recommended that all penal institutions be replaced under one authority, the new penitentiary commission. This is, of course, a matter for constitutional amendment based on agreement between the provincial and federal governments. Whether or not it can be realized remains to be seen. Reading the report of the new commissioner, General Gibson, one realizes that his conversations have not been such as to give him

Penitentiary Act
much hope that most of the provinces will agree, except perhaps the maritime provinces. Yet this is something we should be working upon to try to attain and it may be attained in the years to come, even if it is not of immediate concern to us in the matter of the reorganization provided for in the bill.
Sir John Thompson was Minister of Justice from September, 1885, to December, 1894. Almost alone among ministers of justice until the advent of the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, he was interested in penal reform. I am making this reference to a man whom I have served and with whom I have been in the Department of Justice. Prior to Mr. Lapointe, Sir John Thompson was the Minister of Justice who gave the most personal interest to this question. Sir John Thompson was aware that Canadian penitentiaries were not properly equipped to deal with the reformation of young offenders and he conceived the establishment of a reformatory institution for this purpose. To this end he purchased a site near Cornwall, Ontario, had blueprints drawn and approved, and arranged for the purchase and manufacture of building supplies and equipment. Before the completion of the project, another minister of justice supplanted him, through what historical fact I do not know. The new minister referred the matter to the deputy minister of justice of that day and asked for a report on the inception and progress of the new institution. It has been my experience that reports of commissions are prone to die or lie a long time on the desk of a deputy minister or some other official. That is what happened in this case. I think the deputy minister reported to the new minister that this was a whim of his predecessor, and the whole project was scrapped. This was the last attempt to have special reformatories under the federal government up until the time when the Right Hon. Mr. Lapointe in 1926 announced his intention of doing something. He said in the House of Commons on May 31, 1926:
There is another thing which is not made the subject of the resolution, but to which I am giving a good deal of thought, and that is the possibility of segregating the young convicts who are sentenced for the first time. If wre could find a way to build a special institution, or even two institutions for the purpose of receiving and keeping these young men rather than put then with hardened criminals, I think that would be a good reform to undertake.
Three years later funds had been granted by parliament for the construction of two institutions, one of which was Collins Bay and the other Laval building near Montreal. I might say that work started to. proceed on both these
institutions, but after the short Liberal eclipse of 1930 to 1935 when the late minister, Mr. Lapointe, came back to the house, little had been done. Twenty years after the project was started, Laval is not completed. Collins Bay was completed but has served not directly for the purpose it was intended. I will discuss later, on an item in this year's report of the superintendent, the claim that Collins Bay has been made a reformatory or that it has reclaimed people or made it so .that they would not be sentenced again; in fact that they will be reformed better than under the Borstal institution. We shall have these figures in a short while. Today, 105 years after the first penitentiary board reported on the unsatisfactory conditions of penitentaries for the treatment of young criminals we are exactly or, let us say, 99-9 per cent where we were 105 years ago. We are still discussing the opportunity of segregating reformable persons. We are told that we shall have real reformatories. That is why I am so glad to see that this measure is brought before the house now. I repeat, this is the first good move made in a long while.
If anyone thinks, after a survey or a close study of our penal institution systems, that they have been operated according to the discoveries of experienced penologists throughout the world and in comparison with those of the United States and especially Britain, I cannot see how he can arrive at this conclusion. The two major trends concerning the administration of penitentiaries are based on different theories of penology. The first that prevailed up to the last part of the nineteenth century was purely the punitive aspect of incarceration. The second that has gained more supporters throughout the world since 1875, and especially since the beginning of the century is that the punitive is only one aspect, but the reformative is the essential one if one wants to avoid the curse of recidivism. As the Archambault report states at page 9:
Entirely apart from humanitarian ground*, and. from a purely economic point of view, and for the eventual benefit of society, the task of the prison should be, not merely the temporary protection of society through the incarceration of captured offenders, but the transformation of reformable criminals into law-abiding citizens, and the prevention of those who are accidental or occasional criminals from becoming habitual offenders.
Although in Great Britain, as well as in certain parts of the United States, much has been done toward the efficient reformation of the inmates, it is sadly to be admitted that to many of those who have visited and inspected the Canadian penal system, in Canada little has been done in that regard. That
Penitentiary Act

is said, despite the statement which 1 mentioned a moment ago, and which I shall look into, about the claims that Collins Bay has reformed the people who were sent there.
In last year's report of the superintendent, figures are given which were ably analysed by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), which still stand, and are ample evidence that we have not yet advanced far in the right direction. I shall avoid going into any details of the royal commission's report, but I commend the reading of it to all those interested in the problem. After reading it, few I am sure would not come to the conclusion that it is a splendid piece of work.
In my opinion there are three main sources of inefficiency in our penal administration. The first is the wrong or the punitive attitude of the penitentiary officials and of the departmental authorities, up to a very recent time which could, be counted in months; second, the incompetence and lack of vision of most of the men connected with the administration; and, third, the wrong attitude of all authorities as well as of succeeding governments throughout the years for the building programmes of the penal institutions, and also toward the implementing of recommendations which have been made by different commissions from time to lime. This may appear to be simplifying the problem too much; but I think all that goes wrong in the system can be traced back to one of these three causes. Had we the proper reformative attitude, coupled with the necessary punitive methods, many of the wrongs outlined in the report would soon be corrected, provided that the second cause was also corrected and that the incompetent officials were removed or that some of the departmental attorneys assigned to penitentiary matters were removed or reassigned to other duties. There would remain then the necessity for the government to understand that to erect a building by convict labour on antiquated plans cannot be coupled with an efficient tackling of the penal problem, and I shall deal with this in the final recommendations I shall make at the end of my remarks.
For a number of years prior to 1932 tne penitentiaries were administered by General Hughes. I was in the department while he was there, and I think I can say that I seldom agreed with the recommendations he made, many of which I did not find in the proper and right reformative spirit. Nevertheless I would pay this compliment to him. He was the only one who had a system and a method and operated it. He was succeeded afterwards by General Ormond, a most prom-

ising, hard working and sincere man, but not cut out for this type of work. Despite his effort, during his administration the mistakes of the past brought about serious conditions of unrest, and we know all the sad happenings, the riots, fires and so on. We owe, in fact, a great deal to a former member, Miss MacPhail, who, assisted by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) who spoke today, the former Minister of Justice, Mr. Lapointe, and a few others, aroused public opinion to such a point between 1930 and 1935 that there came about a general feeling that an investigation of our penal system was necessary.
I well remember in 1935 the late Norman Rogers, who was then a Liberal candidate in Kingston, telephoning me in Quebec to meet him in Kingston to discuss certain aspects of the problem. The moment he arrived there he had been faced with the question as a large number of his constituents in Kingston were interested directly in the penitentiary because they were employed there, or indirectly because some of them had relatives working there.
I had been in the department from 1925 to 1930, but at the time I was out of the service. Mr. Rogers subsequently pledged himself to look carefully into the problem and seek information from people who had been connected with the service. A few days after our meeting Mr. Rogers pledged himself to insist on a full investigation. It was the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) who, in 1935, promised the people of Canada that if his party wTere elected a free and impartial investigation of our penal system would follow.
The history of the penitentiary system of Canada has been one of recurring cycles. Neglect is followed by disturbances. Disturbances give rise to investigations, which are made and reported. The public believes, quite naturally, but erroneously, that once the causative evils are exposed they will be rectified. The officials of the Department of Justice, however, take it merely that they have weathered another storm and continue in the same old way until another cycle is started. We had investigations in 1876, 1913, 1920. 1937 and 1938. It is now time to stop going around in these vicious circles, and this can be done if the present commission or the present new set-up understands the situation fully and sets to work immediately in the right direction. There is no reason why the penal system of Canada should not be the best in the world. We have the example, which has been given to us by the British, of a system

Penitentiary Act
which has been called a character reformer, and we have the example of what has been done in the United States. We could couple both with a better understanding of our problem and by drawing from the experience of these people, we could have one of the most efficient services in the world.
To revert to the history of our system, within six months after the present government came back to power in 1935 a commission of three men was appointed, consisting of Judge Arehambault, who had been a criminal lawyer in Montreal, a crown attorney for a number of years, a prominent jurist and a judge of great experience; Hon. Mr. Craig, a former attorney general of Manitoba and a man thoroughly acquainted with all such questions; and the present Chief Justice McRuer, who was then one of the most prominent attorneys in Toronto. These people made a report which, as J said a moment ago, everybody should read. This report is one of the milestones in the progress of penal reform. When the report was tabled, the minister asked to have changes made in the act. They were accepted here but refused in the senate. In the next year. 1939, he came back again. Unfortunately, the royal commission's report was more or less tabled and made inoperative, I would sajr, because of the strong influence of the departmental officials of the time, who did not believe in it. Some of them had been reproached by the report for their way of running the affairs of the penitentiaries. None were accused of ill faith, dishonesty or anything of that kind, but the report concluded that the attitude of these men was not a proper one to be held by those who were to run the penitentiary system. Yet these men were there, and they stayed there and prevented the report from being implemented. It may be said that the recommendations were not carried out on account of the war, and there is some ground for that. I would not want to go on and give the details about the prospective appointment of a commission in the first days of 1940, an attempt which failed because the one selected to be chairman finally changed his mind, and the one selected to be vice-chairman decided to run for parliament. Then at the end of 1940 another commission was under consideration. Again the prospective chairman, at the last moment, said his doctor advised against his acceptance of the appointment; since then he died. In 1941, the then Minister of Finance, who is the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) was rightly pressing the department to curtail expenses that were not of the utmost importance. That gave sufficient ground to
the departmental officials who were for the status quo to keep matters in abeyance and prevent anything from being done.
Last year, fortunately, an aroused interest in the country with regard to this question brought the matter to the attention of the then minister of justice, who decided to appoint a commissioner to look into the report of another commission. We now have that report before us. Between the bringing in of the report in 1938 and the present time, eight or nine years have elapsed. A great deal could have been done in that time. During that time we were most fortunate, in a certain way-although I suppose it cannot be said to be fortunate to have a war, but my remarks apply to the penitentiaries-in that people found employment, a large number of men went into the armed forces, and the penitentiary population was small, as was the case in most other wars.
Immediately at the end of the war or toward the end of it, a new crime wave started; our penitentiaries started to fill up again, and we were faced with the same situation as obtained before the war. But in that time, shall we say-and the commissioner himself mentions it in his report, but, of course, in diplomatic language-the former superintendent who had been blamed by the commission, was withdrawn from the service by the then minister of justice, Mr. Lapointe, in 1938. The commission was not yet appointed. One of the inspectors, Mr. Sauvant, acted as superintendent, and he was one about whom the commission had said they could not say much, that he had had no chance to prove what he could do, but on the other hand had not shown any special ability. One of the other inspectors, who had also been blamed by the report, was withdrawn. The third one had only accountancy experience and was more or less going around looking after the accounts; he was also supervising to a certain extent, without being experienced in that field, the industrial end of the penitentiary system. Soon after the war started, Mr. Sauvant, the inspector who was acting as superintendent, asked leave of absence to join the Free French forces. The remaining official, the accountant, asked leave to join the royal air force, and the third commissioner, Doctor George Shortt, who had been appointed on a temporary basis by Right Hon. Mr. Lapointe also left the branch. He had served as assistant secretary to the Arehambault commission, and was brought into the picture to help start a reorganization of the system. He was brought in because of his long and intimate connection with the Arehambault commission and his experience with social problems and investigations. He had been with the

Penitentiary Act
combines investigation board and others of the kind. This gentleman also was seconded, some time afterwards, to the wartime prices and trade board; so at one time during the war, instead of a commission approved by parliament, instead of a superintendent and two inspectors, we had only a chief engineer running the whole show.
Today at last, after nine years, the minister brings in a resolution providing that we shall finally have a commission. It will be a one-man instead of a three-man commission. Our first reaction might be to see what General Gibson has done up to now. I must say that it seems to me he has made a thorough survey of the problem and has carefully read the files of the department and many of the memoranda prepared. In the interim, after the royal commission report was brought in, when I left the department, and When Doctor Shortt, who had been charged by Mr. Lapointe to deal especially with that problem, was left in the background, the old crowd gained influence anew and prevented any reform from being brought forward. General Gibson seems to have made a thorough survey of these reports and the suggestions made by Doctor Shortt and by the commission, and I think 'his report has much to commend it. Last, year many people smiled when the then minister of justice recommended that a commissioner be appointed to look into the report of a commission that reported on conditions in penitentiaries. But this year, after seeing General Gibson's report, I do not think it will be necessary to appoint a new commissioner to look into the report of the commissioner who looked into the report of the royal commission. So finally we have something on which we can work.
I do not think I have time enough to analyse the whole of General Gibson's report, but there are a few things which might be pointed out. The commissioner states at page 5 that the establishment of separate reformatory institutions for young offenders can be done only with the consent of the provinces.
I think this is just partly true, because there is nothing to prevent the penitentiary commission, if they wanted to put into effect one of the most important clauses of the Archambault report, from establishing a Borstal type of institution for young offenders. If such institutions were set up, well staffed, were as well organized as possible and were superior to provincial institutions, there is nothing to prevent judges from sentencing young offenders to these institutions in which they would be reformed, instead of sentencing them to two years, less one day, which means a sentence

to a local or provincial gaol, while a two years' sentence would send them to these new federal institutions. Then the parole board could take charge, if we got one that would also be revamped, as has been suggested bj the Archambault commission, or even if it remains as it is, because I believe it is much better than the penitentiary administration and is working very well under the present system, though not with the proper facilities for following up these people after they are released from gaol. However I believe this part of the department works well even under the present system, and this would permit these young offenders to be released when their reformation had reached the proper point, which would be at about the same time as they would be released from the gaol, and we would have in the country a sort of Borstal institution that would be worth while.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Does the hon.
member not think it would be advisable that every possible means of reforming these offenders should be attempted, while they are still young?


Louis-Philippe Picard: Of course, and I do not see that what the hon. member says conflicts in any way with what I am saying. I am advocating an institution for young offenders, a reformatory, instead of sending them to gaols. I want to give them a better chance to reform, and not continue as criminals.
The report itself states quite frankly that the reorganization has not been undertaken. Up to the present the yearly reports of the superintendent would lead us to believe that something had been done. They always included such words as ''when possible", "if possible", "to the extent possible", and so on; but I think the present commissioner is frank when he says it has not been undertaken. He gives a list of about twenty improvements having to do with the treatment of convicts which have been introduced as a result of the report of the royal commission, but I believe all these improvements were brought about within eighteen months after the report was presented and mainly through the efforts of Doctor Shortt and myself. These changes have not been made since 1939 or 1940; they were made in 1938 and 1939. Paragraph (f) states that convicts are now provided with lighters at public expense, and I understand that this was an improvement brought about by the acting superintendent, while all the others were the result of the study made by the temporary inspector, Doctor Shortt, who had knowledge of the work of the commission and was eminently qualified to do these things in the right way.

Penitentiary Act
The report goes on. to deal quite frankly with conditions in the penitentiaries; but many of the improvements indicated, while they make a good showing, deal with such matters as new pigsties or new barns at this or that penitentiary, and have little bearing on the question of the reformation of criminals and the reorganization of the whole penitentiary set-up. They do nothing to decrease the incidence of crime or to help in the reformation of criminals, which my hon. friend mentioned a moment ago. These improvements have bettered the farm production and others have contributed, to relieve the harshness of the regime, but they are not improvements that will affect conditions in the penitentiaries for the betterment or reformation of individuals. In my opinion the present report is a great improvement over what we have seen in the past, and I have great confidence that General Gibson will get things done. Now is the time to get to work; but I hope the new commissioner will not let some statements that can be found in this year's report of the superintendent pass unnoticed. On page 47 appears a statement which has been commended by the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Jaenicke) as showing a great improvement. He read the statement and believed it; but let us compare the facts with the report. The report states;
One thousand four hundred and eleven convicts out of 1.779, being apparently reformed and leading a normal citizen's life is. I submit, a most interesting achievement. As already stated, the percentage of repeaters-
But here is the catch, in the next eight words:
-as far as penitentiary sentences are concerned, is 20-68.
That would be a really extraordinary record if it applied to all sentences, but it is not so. This would make us believe that, after being discharged, these people were reformed, but it is wrong to compare this figure with the English and United States statistics. When the English reports say that many people have not been sentenced, they do not mean to penitentiaries only but to any gaol or any other penal institution throughout England. Here the acting superintendent gives the picture in the words "as far as penitentiary sentences are concerned." Then latter he says:
Figures show that 79-32 per cent of those discharged went straight.
I do not think that is a fair statement, because of every six men throughout Canada sentenced for crimes, five go to county or local gaols and one goes to the penitentiary. I am sure the superintendent could not bring in the records of these men after investigation
and prove that they had not been sent to other institutions, though they might not have gone back to a penitentiary. Here he says they went straight, because they did not go back to a penitentiary. In England, when they say such men were reformed they mean they were not sentenced to any institution. The same thing applies to the statement made in the report about the El Reno reformatory in the United States. There the records of these men are followed, and if they are said to have reformed it means they have not been sentenced anywhere. In this report, however, we are asked to believe that a man has reformed because he has not been sent back to a penitentiary. I am sure the new commissioner would not make a statement of that kind, to judge by the report he has brought in this year.
To get back to the bill, however, the point remains whether we should have one man or three men to start this work of reorganization which is so badly needed. At first, after a few years in that kind of work in the department, I had the idea that a one-man commission might work along the lines of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Then I realized that in the past we had been very unfortunate in most of the men to whom we had given these considerable powers. On one occasion the three members of the royal commission were in my office, unofficially, and we discussed that point. At that time I understood from them plainly that their survey of the whole penitentiary set-up in Canada had convinced them that three men would be better' than one as far as this type of work was concerned. That was not because they had recommended that provincial gaols and other institutions should be included in the set-up but because they felt strongly that it should be a three-man board. The man the minister told us he would recommend to council for the approval of the governor general appears to be a better man than those we had previously. I have never met him, but his report impresses me favourably. It may be that there will still be the danger suggested by the commission, of giving a man too much power so that he may run these institutions in a dictatorial way, which the penitentiary commission was definitely against in its report; but I am willing to support the bill as it now is in the hope that the man will do what we expect him to do. It has been said that the commission favoured a three-man board because they wanted cu include the other penal institutions; but hon. members may believe me or not, as they wish, when I say that when I spoke to the com-
Penitentiary Act

missioned they were definitely against the one-man system, even in regard to the penitentiaries themselves.
I could talk on this subject for hours and perhaps bring in a good deal of other material that would be of interest to those who concern themselves in such matters. I believe much has been said up to now in this debate that is good. In my view the new commissioner should be given every opportunity to begin work as quickly as possible.
In conclusion, let me say that the most important thing he has to look into is the matter of staff, the question of obtaining proper staff both in respect of higher officials and even with regard to the lower ranks. The improvement which has been made in the lower ranks can be continued, because some improvement was attempted immediately after the report was brought in.
I would point out that paragraph 12 at page 8 of General Gibson's report states that a group of men was sent to the British training school at Wakefield, and the establishment of a training school in Canada was foreseen in the near future. That was done in 1938 and 1939. It cannot be said it was done between 1940 and 1947. One of the main points is that all preparation and selection of personnel were then made by Doctor Shortt who also recommended the appointment of a special officer, Colonel Megloughlin, to pursue that work.
First of all, I hope those men who will be commissioner, deputy commissioners and assistant commissioners will be chosen very carefully. Few people who had anything to do with the previous administration, at the head office should be included in that. I do not say that the wardens do not deserve to be given a chance to prove good under the new methods of improving the system and their institutions, because I consider they have been handicapped until now.
But at the head office let us clear the ground; let us clear away the dead wood. Let us have men who will understand the problem and who will be able to support the commissioner who has been appointed, or whose appointment is pending.
Then, let us plan for the penitentiary system the buildings which are to be built, and for the repair of others. Old buildings have been readapted, but much has still to be done. It has been done in England, and there is no reason why repairs cannot be made in Canada to some extent on old buildings. But this should be done by people who know better than those who have been handling it up to now.

With respect to new ones, I would advocate that they be built by contract, instead of by penitentiary labour, as has been done in the past. As I stated earlier, a building was started at Laval twenty years ago but has not yet been completed. A penitentiary building which has been planned by experts, whether it is at a cost of $3 million, $6 million or $10 million, will cost less than the institutions we now have throughout Canada. And I would dare any accountant connected with the penitentiary system, or any man from the auditor general's office, to dig out what the penitentiaries branch has paid in the last fifty years in connection with the building cost of the penitentiaries we have had in that time. The cost has been staggering. Yet it does not show, because it has been a case of repairing this and repairing that, and only small amounts each year are included in the estimates. But the total actual cost of each building would frighten the house.
Recommendations which have been made by the Archambault commission show that our building methods are now outdated, according to new theories of penology. Let us see things a little more broadly, and if the new commissioner dares-and he will, if he is given support by the minister, and if the house gives him a chance to bring in his new policy-let him have these institutions built as the modern institutions they should be. They will cost less in the end. They will be better.
Someone will ask what the men will be employed at during that time. There are many things to be done. Prisoners are not confined to the crushing of stone, the laying of bricks, or the putting of one stone on top of another.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order; I must inform the hon. member that he has exhausted his time.


Louis-Philippe Picard: With the permission of the house, I should like to conclude. The next item should be the classification of prisoners, something which the commissioner sets out as being most desirable, but which he admits has not yet been done properly. The segregation of prisoners is another point. Then, there is the treatment of the reformables and the incorrigibles. Much is made in the report as to the need of having a reformatory institution in the maritime provinces built after agreement with the three provincial governments, and three other such institutions, one in Quebec, one in Ontario and one in the west, which would be in addition to the regular penitentiaries.
This is far from being a Borstal system. As the minister said, some magic seems to attach to the word "Borstal" in the minds of

Penitentiary Act
many people. But Borstal does not apply to all cases. The fact that we would have a Borstal institution does not mean that all our evils would be corrected. The minister was right when he made that statement. It is only part of a system, and people should not place too much magic in one word. There is a limit to what it can do; it cannot perform miracles, and our system can be vastly improved even if we do not have immediately Borstal institutions.
In connection with the building of these institutions there is one further point, and that is: What will you employ your men at? We could do the same thing as is done in the United States penitentiaries. We could incorporate a crown company which would administer the institutions. We could have workshops and turn out products which could be sold to the government. They could be operated at a profit. At the present time, when the department gets in any money it goes to the receiver general. The institutions could make money from year to year and become self-supporting. In the United States an independent state company has been organized. It is administered independently, but it is under the supervision of the department of justice. This company operates shops in all the institutions. The men are taught trades in the shops, which are operated just as a manufacturer -would operate them. They do not compete with outside manufacturers who are supplying the public. But they do sell to the government at a profit, receiving the same prices which are received by private manufacturers.
The prisoners are employed in this way. They are allowed fair salaries to be given to them when they leave the institutions. I suggest that the idea of a crown company should be surveyed.
Now that we know that General Gibson will be appointed, 1 am prepared to give him full confidence and encouragement. It matters little whether he is accompanied by one man, two men or three men; if he is the right man he can do the job. I am willing to support the bill, and to recommend it. The commissioner should not procrastinate. He should put into operation as soon as possible either the whole report, or whatever portion of it he intends to make effective. I have great hope that he will prove to be the man who can give proper leadership, and for that reason I am -willing to support the bill.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I am glad to see the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Picard) back in his seat. I always listen to him carefully, and read his speeches, but
an hour- is too much for anyone to speak here on this subject at the present stage of the session. I shall occupy only about ten minutes of the time of the house.
I have sympathy for the minister who has started out in his new department to try to clean things up in connection with prison reform. Nothing was done during the war; although what the war had to do with it, I do not know. I believe those who were in charge of the department were largely to blame.
Prison reform is not connected with a war.
I wish to compliment the minister because he has started out actively to clean up in the matter of law reform. I would thank him for what he has done thus far. I believe that in the minister we have a man who is sincere and one who has rendered splendid service to his country. He is now in a position to do something by way of real prison and law reform.
It is one of the cardinal principles of magna carta that the people should take a large share in the administration of criminal justice. Whether these institutions are managed rightly or wrongly, they are managed solely and entirely by crown officers. Nobody knows what is going on in them; nobody knows night or day what is happening to the poor unfortunates in these stone piles.
This debate has been going on and I noticed there were only eleven members on the government benches, but there are two or three more now. Last night there were twelve on the Conservative benches; there were eight government members up until 10.30 o'clock; there were six C.C.F.; there were two Social Credit members and one or two other independent members; a total of twenty-nine. The number has not increased very much since that time. Is it any wonder that so little is done in connection with this work? Is it any wonder that these things are going on?
The whole question of reform started in Toronto back in 1908 and 1909 when Mr. Hanna was provincial secretary. Three of the newspapers took it up and they kept it consistently before the public. One was the Toronto Telegram; the second was the old Globe under the editorship of the late Harry Anderson, a former member of the press gallery, and the third paper took a great deal of interest in it. What kind of inspection do we have? Members of the House of Commons and of the Senate are on the board of visitors, but how many of us have visited these institutions?
Penitentiary Act

We all know what Mr. Hanna did to clean up the situation in Ontario. The city of Toronto established two gaol farms, one on Yonge street for men and the other at Concord for women, to help close up the Mercer reformatory. The latter is there yet. Many of these institutions were built before confederation. The Don gaol, which is in my riding, was built just a little after confederation. The late Doctor Hastings, the medical health officer, and I visited it, and we both condemned it as being unfit for human habitation, but it is still in use today. Thousands of prisoners go through that gaol every year, many of them who have never been in trouble before. It is not the fault of the fine officials there. The system and plant are to blame. It is a public scandal that prison reform is nowhere. We talk about the magna carta and freedom, but in these institutions there is nothing but fear. They should have the motto over their doors: "Abandon hope all ye who enter here."
Let us look into this problem. The attendance in the house was only twenty-nine up until 10.30 o'clock last night, 216 members being absent. It is up a bit today, but it has never been over thirty-five while this discussion has been going on. The first thing we should do is to appoint twenty-five members to visit these institutions and find out if this report has given value for the expenditure of the money that was made. I have a great deal of sympathy with the gentleman who has been appointed. He has taken hold of this thing. He is a good citizen and a likeable and able man. I shall give him any support I can. and to the two gentlemen the minister has chosen. The report has recommended changes that should have been made twenty-five or thirty years ago but forgets to get on with the Borstal system federally and do something now.
Some sections of the country have been getting relief in connection with these matters while others have not. I remember when the Hepburn government was in power in Ontario in the thirties and early forties. The federal government enacted a measure to assist in the building of municipal institutions by provinces in order to relieve unemployment. In Quebec,
I hree Rivers got a court house; other places in Quebec and other provinces got new schools, new gaols, new roads, new sidewalks, parks and many other things. These were paid for one-third by the federal government, one-third by the province and one-third by the municipality, We did not get a cent of that fund in Ontario because the premier would not permit the municipalities to accept it. The result is that we have a lot of old,
[Mr. Church.1
dilapidated gaols, some of which are not fit for pigpens. The late Doctor Deslauriers, then member of parliament for St. Mary, Montreal, who was here before His Honour the Speaker, said that he found some of these places to be public hazards, and I can say the same myself. After inspecting them, he said they were operated contrary to all known laws of public hygiene.
If these things were known to the general public they would not be permitted to go on for fire minutes. This problem was nearly solved in Ontario and it would have been solved had it not been for the two wars. Penal reform by Howard really started one hundred years ago. After that time Mr. Thomas Fowell Buxton, M.P. in 1818, said:
I am well persuaded that the penal evil exists only because it is unknown; that it arises not from insensibility, on the part of the nation, but from ignorance; and that a faithful disclosure of the scenes which may be witnessed in almost every county jail in England, would speedily be followed by an impulse to prevent them.
Y ou would think that the public of this country, in modern days like these, even after two great wars when everything is topsyturvy, would know what is going on in these institutions. If they did know', d'o you think they would approve? We know how some businessmen try to get off from serving on juries. As I say, Mr. Hanna did a lot toward solving this problem in Ontario. The premier of Quebec has announced the formation of a committee in Montreal to consider conditions there. The provincial secretary's department in Ontario are doing something. Mr. Dunbar opened a school for youthful offenders at Brampton and there is one also at Bowman-ville.
A lot of these people should never be in gaol. Unfortunately we have many magistrates today-I am not referring to those in my city-who like to remand accused persons. They are then sent to gaol until the magistrate takes one or two weeks to make up his mind. Many of these people have never been in gaol before. There should be some change made. I had a bill before parliament which would have remedied this condition, and I hope the minister will do something about it.
I have visited many of the county gaols in Ontario and in many cases the people were too poor to pay their fines. We should adopt the law which was passed in England twenty years ago. Their summary convictions act closed half the gaols in the old country. That act gives a person a chance to find the money with which to pay his fine. All over this country people are in prison because of debt,

Penitentiary Act
a thing which Dickens wrote about when he wrote about Little Dorrit. We have the same condition here in this country. Everybody knows it is wrong, but nothing is done about it. In England when a man is convicted for some petty thing and fined they give him time to pay his fine and he goes home the same night. The bill which I introduced this year had the support of the John Howard society in Canada. They wrote several tetters to me commending the bill, and I hope the minister will give consideration to that bill and the clause regarding time to pay fines, because many people are in gaols who should not be there at all.
Many references have been made in this House of Commons to the Borstal system. I can remember when I first came here; in fact one of the reasons for my coming here was to get something done about this penal institution business. The old gaol in my riding was to be torn down, but I am sorry it has not been. We had the promise of the Ontario government that the moment the two gaol farms were ready they would close it up, but it has not been closed up at all. The excuse is that there would be no place to which to remand prisoners. We could have had a fine new one, if Ontario in 1935 had allowed our city to get funds the way towns and cities in Quebec did, as I mentioned before.
There should be some changes in the law. We have judges complaining about people not wearing hats. Ladies in the House of Commons and in the galleries are not wearing hats. I have seen all kinds of ladies' hats. As I said the other day in the house, some of these hats I see on women are not much larger than the size of the little cartons you get containing a spoonful of marmalade. The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) said that these hats would be too big for certain justices in courts. The other day a boy of thirteen fainted in the witness box in a Toronto court after being obliged to stand in the box for one hour. Why should witnesses have to be in the box at all and not be given a chair? I think the House of Commons should be in the box to find out modern reform.
Regarding some of these other offences, as we are talking about the other fellow, what about the poor fellow who tries to commit suicide? In Rosedale it was a popular occurrence for people who wanted to commit suicide to jump off one of the bridges there when they got that tired spring feeling or were out of work and nobody wanted to be bothered with them. A few days ago a magistrate sent one of these would-be suicides to gaol for
thirty days because a section of the criminal code says that a would-be suicide must be committed to gaol. He needed a hospital, not a gaol. I hope that things like that will be eliminated from the criminal code.
We should long ago have had a legal committee here to consider legal bills, as they have in the provinces. I hope the minister will bring down an amended criminal code. There should be a decennial revision of the code just as there is of the Bank Act, to bring it up to date. We should not leave it the way it is, where nobody knows the law.
Here we are in this House of Commons within two hours of one of these penal institutions and within three hours of another one. Surely twenty or twenty-five members could go through one of these institutions and see what the actual conditions are. The Archam-bault commission on prison reform came about because of Toronto and other members, aided by Toronto newspapers, keeping before this house the need of prison reform. This report, after three years, cost half a million dollars, and only for a few recommendations, still not law.


Mr. H. W. HERRIDGE (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to this debate and have learned a great deal. I listened with much interest to the speech of the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Jaenicke) and to the brilliant speech made last evening by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). I represent a large number of people and a good number of organizations who are much interested in this problem, and for that reason I wish to make a few comments at this time. I would not for a moment suggest that I could speak with the same authority or knowledge possessed by some other members. But I can say this. I speak personally and for many persons in my district who are much concerned about what is to be done about this problem.
This is not a spectacular bill, not one that creates a good deal of ferment in the country, and apparently not a great deal of interest in the house, but it is an important bill because it is one aimed to do something to assist our unfortunate Canadian citizens in a new way. In doing that, I say that we are taking a step forward in the development of Canadian civilization. In my opinion this bill, together with the remarks made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley), the report of General Gibson, and the speeches of hon. members, indicates that at last something is to be done to implement some of the provisions of the Archambault report.
Over the years I have made it. a point to visit some of these institutions and have
Penitentiary Act

visited in them individuals whom I had known previously in, civilian life. I have talked with them and come away somewhat sad because I realized the unfortunate circumstances that do prevail in some cases. I have felt up until recently that the great majority of the Canadian people were very remote from this problem. I think it has been a question of their not seeing the problem because they were not thinking about it, and those who were concerned were a small number who were interested in it from humanitarian motives, and the relatives of the unfortunate inmates. But I think that situation is changing. I have noticed that appreciably in the last year or two and in this debate in this house, which I think will do a great deal to inform many people in Canada who have not been interested to date in this great problem.
As far as my own experience in my constituency is concerned, I have a personal knowledge of several unfortunate cases, the result I should say of a mixture of impulsive youth, excessive drinking, and in some cases unfortunate companions. I have visited some of these people in the institutions and have talked with their relatives, and more than ever have I become convinced that the time is right to adopt new methods in our penal institutions. I have discussed this question with senior police officials, judges, magistrates and many other people, and the general opinion expressed by those competent and responsible people was that there was a great need for segregation. That is one thing which impressed me in visiting these institutions. There is also a great need for training while in the institution and a great need for after-care. The hon. member for Lake Centre mentioned an unfortunate person who spent some time in a penal institution and reformed and returned to civilian life. For some reason or another there is a stigma attached to those who have paid their penalty to society in a penal institution. I have known several men who could not regain positions because somehow or another some person was mean enough to remind someone that they had served a prison sentence.
I do want to support the plea of urgency that has been made by several members. This is an urgent matter and action should be taken as soon as possible. I am not in accord with some of the severe criticisms that have been made of the proposals in General Gibson's report or the outline given to the house by the Minister of Justice. I prefer to wait for a year or two and see what happens as a result of this legislation.
In concluding, I say that many of us have great hopes, and I hope that, after the passing
	,
of a year or two, we shall be able to commend the minister and his officials upon the results which have been obtained in that time.


William Ross Macdonald: I must remind the house that if the Minister of Justice speaks he will close the debate.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It will not be necessary for me to say very much in concluding this debate. The bill before the house is a simple one, as I said when I introduced the resolution. The debate lias taken a wide range. I am not sure whet her the rules of the house permit so wide a range, but I did not wish to take any exception to the latitude of the speeches, because I thought the discussion was so useful and I preferred to have it at an earlier stage rather than at a later one in the session.
Much of this discussion would ordinarily have taken place on the penitentiary estimates. Other parts of the discussion would have taken place in the normal course on amendments to the criminal code. However I am grateful to hon. members for expressing their views on so many subjects connected with the administration of the penitentiaries, and for expressing them so frankly and so fully as they have in this debate.
I do not know that it is necessary for me to reply seriatim to the points which have been made by various speakers because, as I have indicated, there will be occasions later in the session when these matters can be discussed more properly than they can be on this bill.
The hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Jaenicke) somewhat sharply challenged the principle of the bill. I think he was the only member who has spoken in the debate who did. He took the position that he was opposed, and that the house should be opposed. to the setting up of a one-man commission instead of a three-man commission. On the resolution I gave the reasons why the government took the view that in the circumstances a one-man commission was preferable. It may be that if all the recommendations of the Archambault report could be carried out the argument for a three-man commission would be stronger; but the main recommendation of the Archambault commission cannot be carried out,
Recommendation No. 1 reads as follows:
The Canadian penal system should be centralized under the control of the government of Canada, with the federal authorities taking charge of all the prisons in Canada, the provinces retaining only a sufficient number to provide for offenders against provincial statutes, prisoners on remand, and those serving short sentences.

Penitentiary Act
I am not convinced that that would be a desirable thing to do. There are a great many opponents of centralization in this country, and a great many who believe that decentralization, even in matters such as this, is preferable. The arguments for decentralization in this field are about as strong as they are in a great many other fields where they are admittedly strong. I am not convinced that that recommendation should be carried out, but even if it should be, I have no reason in the world to think the provincial authorities would be willing to have it carried out.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: Will the minister permit a question for the purposes of information? *


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: Have the provinces been communicated with recently with a view to ascertaining their position in that regard?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Not so far as I know. After all, that would involve the taking of a decision by the federal government to press for centralization and the control of all the prisons of Canada. We have been pounded during the greater part of this session whenever we allegedly approached anything like centralization. We have been attacked for desiring to centralize authority by some of the provinces and by a great many hon. members. As I say, I am not convinced that it would be desirable to attempt to vest in ourselves control of all the prisons in Canada. If hon. members wish to advocate that I should like them to take some responsibility for advocating it. I say that if the provinces of Canada desire to discuss that with us we shall be glad to discuss it. They will not find us the least bit stubborn on this point. If they want to discuss the matter we have an open mind on it. But under the constitution theirs is the responsibility, and instead of our reaching out to get more responsibility and vesting it in ourselves, it seems to me it is for the authorities who have the responsibility and who think they should divest themselves of it to approach us, rather than for us to approach them.
As I say, if we could carry out the main recommendation of the Archambault commission's report, maybe the argument would be stronger for a commission of three, but we cannot. I think one-third of the prisoners of the country are under the jurisdiction of the dominion parliament and approximately two-thirds of the prisoners are under the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures, so our field of activity is hardly one that requires an elaborate organization. It is a field of activity where, in my judgment, one commissioner provided, as I said, that he is a good man, is better than three.
In the late thirties we were going in for these three-man boards, five-man boards, seven-man boards and so on. All over the country it was said that they were the salvation. It was said, let us have a board; put the board outside of the control of the government if possible, and certainly well away from the control of parliament, and let it function, as it was said, without any political interference; then we would get efficiency. Now we have had a lot of experience with these boards, and personally I do not believe in going too far. There again the opposition in the house has criticized us for our boards, our commissions, our controllers and so on. If I am to be responsible for the administration of the penitentiary system of Canada I want to be dealing with one responsible official, not with a board. When something goes wrong I do not want to have to find out, if I can, which man or which two men or who it was that was responsible for its going wrong; I want to be able to hold one man responsible instead of an aggregation, which is very much harder to put your finger on. You cannot say that three men are three times as good as one man; you cannot say, the more the merrier, the more the better in these things. You have to pay some attention to the human factor. If you get one good man who is responsible to the minister who, in turn, is responsible to the government and to parliament, in my judgment you get a more efficient organization in a matter such as this than if you set up a board.
The reasons for setting up boards in some instances is to give all the parts of the country representation or something of that kind. There is no such reason here. Therefore I ask the house, which I think it is prepared to do, to support the recommendation of the government in this regard.
It was very interesting to hear the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Picard) say this afternoon that the former minister had difficulty to get men to accept appointments in this field. It may very well be that if we stuck to the idea of a three-man board we would have a little difficulty getting appointees. That will not be a difficulty with this legislation, because we have the commission set up as soon as the legislation is passed, and at least we shall not have much of an excuse if we do not make some progress in the very near future, as the house and the country expect us to do.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister permit, one simple question? He mentioned that in the late thirties the practice of estab-
Supply-Agri-culture

lishing large commissions came into vogue. Would he mention what commission he has in mind which started that tendency?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, I do not think so. I do not want to mention any particular one. If I did it would be thought I was criticizing a particular one. I do not want to do that.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall the
motion carry?


Mr. JAENIGKE:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
Progress reported.
At. six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.

Right Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply,. Mr. Golding in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Administrative service-
1. Departmental administration, $191)314.


Percy Ellis Wright: I do not know whether
the minister intends to make any statement on this item. If he does, I shall wait.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know that it is necessary to make any lengthy statement at this time. Matters having to do with agriculture have been under discussion on more than one occasion since the beginning of the session, and I do not wish to cover ground which has already been covered. Probably I should say, however, that there have been some changes in the estimates, as hon. members will see. The general or ordinary vote has been increased by $1,224,135.34, while the special vote has been increased by $1,125,000. The items which go to make up these increases are shown in the estimates, and I do not intend to go into them in detail, but I think I should call attention to two because they do have some bearing upon other items.
It will be noticed that there is an increase of $451,340 in the vote for experimental farms, but I should explain that this represents an amount which was previously in the prairie farm rehabilitation vote and which is now being extended under the experimental farms vote. The amount which has been voted for the St. Mary river dam project, $1,500,000, is a new vote in these estimates. This work was commenced last year and is being carried on this year, with a larger amount being expended.
The only other point I wish to make at this time in regard to the agriculture estimates is that through the administration of the agriculture department we are attempting to carry out the policies which have been laid down during the last few years. In 1944 we brought in legislation which tended to indicate the direction agricultural policy would take throughout the transitional period. I think it was generally agreed that during the last three years of the war agriculture had experienced conditions under which the returns from the activities of farmers throughout Canada were at least as satisfactory as, if not more satisfactory than, they had ever been in the history of Canada. That being so, there was considerable concern as to whether we would be able to maintain that position throughout the transitional period. The government brought forward legislation providing that floor prices might be established under farm products; and during the time the discussions were taking place many hon. members were concerned as to the level of those floor prices in the years immediately following the war. We are able to say definitely that the floor prices which have been maintained are at least as high as the prices of any of our products during the last three years of the war, and much higher than the prices of most products during that period. As a result, the returns from agriculture across Canada on a cash basis have been higher than the average of the last three years of the war, and that condition has prevailed in spite of the fact that the quantity produced has been smaller. In other words, we have had a lower production of dairy products, animal products and feed grain during the years immediately following the war than the average of the period I have mentioned toward the end of the war; yet we have had a higher average return during the last two years than during the preceding two years. The average cash return for farm poduets disposed of by famers during the last three years of the war was about $1,600,000,000.

Supply-Agriculture
The return for each of the last two years was considerably over $1,700,000,000. So I say that as far as returns from farm products are concerned, on a cash basis, in spite of the fact that production was down, the returns themselves have been higher than during the years which we undertook to attempt to maintain our position in relation to them.
The other objective set at that time was to attempt to stabilize prices for farm products, or the returns from farm products, over as long a period of years as possible. That matter has been discussed, in considering other measures, at such great length that I do not think it is necessary to say more than that prices have been stabilized at a higher level in, the months since the end of the war and for some time into the future than was maintained during the last three years of war. That being the case, we feel that the policy as laid down at that time in relation to stabilization has been carried out.
One point I should like to make at this time is that we have also made provision for enlarging upon the plans for rehabilitation. I believe it was two weeks ago I brought down in the house a statement dealing with rehabilitation, not only in relation to the rehabilitation act itself, which applies to the drought area of western Canada, but with regard to rehabilitation in general across Canada. Under the provisions of that statement it is intended to carry on rehabilitation in the drought area with expenditures at least equal in actual amount to the amount expended in the years immediately preceding the war. We intend to set- out the amounts in the experimental farms vote that will be required for certain of the work which previously was carried on under expenditures from the prairie farm rehabilitation vote. To that extent the amount which may be expended on the usual works which have been carried on under prairie farm rehabilitation has been increased.
In addition to that, it was provided that a certain sum would be set up from time to time, either in the general or in the supplementary estimates, to take care of special projects. It was mentioned that among those projects would be some development in connection with marsh lands in the maritime provinces, some development in connection with special projects in British Columbia, and some expenditures in the other provinces across Canada in order to deal with certain developments which were thought necessary for the promotion of agriculture.
I repeat that the first vote of that type which we have in the estimates, which is in
the same form as others to be passed, will be found in item 31, under which vote we have set apart an amount for the St, Mary river dam project. Money will be provided in the same way.
At the time I brought down that statement I was asked a question. I think by the hon. member for Swift. Current. Afterwards, when I saw the question and the answer in print, I realized that, I had not really answered the question which had been asked. We have set up certain methods of dealing with problems which arise in the drought area of western Canada, or what has been known as the drought area. I was asked the question as to whether the last proposal made in the statement issued at that time covered such projects as that which might be put into effect around Elbow on the Saskatchewan river.
Elbow, on the Saskatchewan river, is in the drought area. It might be correct to say that any project which might be undertaken at Elbow would be taken under a vote similar to that with regard to the St. Mary river dam. There is. however, this difference between the two projects, that all the waters controlled by any projects which may be brought into being on the Saskatchewan river are projects having entirely to do with waters having their origin in Canada; whereas the project on the St. Mary river is one which has to do with waters which come directly under the international waters commission. So that the two are not on all fours, but they are both within what is known as the drought area.
The other projects to which I referred in what might be called number 3 in the proposals set out in the statement were projects which were intended to be carried on outside the drought area altogether-along the northern part of the three prairie provinces, anywhere in the province of British Columbia, where it might be considered desirable to proceed with projects, and in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and the maritimes, where it might be considered advisable to proceed with projects. The only projects specifically named were those having to do with marsh lands in the maritimes. and some special projects, which were not determined, in British Columbia. But the third item was intended to cover the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, the northern areas in the three western provinces, and then any other developments of a similar nature which might be brought about in the maritime provinces or British Columbia, all of which would be outside the drought area.
Supply-Agriculture


Major James William Coldwell: What progress is being made with the Saskatchewan river project? I have a reason for asking the question, because the possibility of building a bridge across the Saskatchewan river at North Landing depends upon the project. One is anxious to find out what is being done with regard to this project in order that one might know something to tell one's constituents upon returning to his constituency.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would rather discuss that situation when we reach the proper item, but perhaps I can give information sufficient to serve the purposes of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. The present position of the project is that the engineering necessary to determine whether a dam which can be maintained can be built on the Saskatchewan river has been completed. While I was out west a week ago, I made inquiries as to when we might expect to receive the report in Ottawa. I was told that the report was then with the consulting engineer, who was in Washington, that it was being considered by him and that it was expected back within a short time. I returned to my office in Ottawa only this morning, and have not yet had an opportunity to go into all the matters concerning the department; but, so far as I know, the report has not yet reached Ottawa. I am hopeful, however, that it will be here before we reach the item in question.
With regard1 to the general question having to do with the bridging of the Saskatchewan river, I have some knowledge on the subject because I think nearly all the bridges on the Saskatchewan river which were built in Saskatchewan were built during the time I was in the government of that province.


Major James William Coldwell: But by joint project, federal and provincial.


James Garfield Gardiner: But financed largely by the province. The projects they have there which permit persons to cross the river by car or by horse were projects considered to be the responsibility of the provincial government. I believe that is still true. The attachments which were put on the railway bridges were also considered to be the responsibility of the provincial government. And where bridges were built to serve both the railway and highway traffic, those projects were financed by the railway and the province.


Major James William Coldwell: What about the Borden
and Outlook projects?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think the federal government took any part in financing them.


Major James William Coldwell: Oh, yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: Or any considerable
part. If they did, it was a very small part. The Outlook bridge was one which was built when I was not in the government. It was built in the days of the Anderson government; but the others were built during the time I was in the government. And during the greater part of the time they were being built I was minister of highways. Those bridges were largely financed by the province with the help of the railways.


Major James William Coldwell: The reason I asked the question was that what is done with respect to the bridge at North Landing depends upon what is being done on the Saskatchewan river.
M.r. GARDINER: Of course, if the dam is built as it has been projected by the engineers, it will mean that the bridge at Elbow-not the bridge at Outlook-will have to be raised, or will have to be placed on a different location. In so far as the bridge north of Swift Current at Saskatchewan Landing is concerned, my understanding is that if the dam is built to the height to which the engineers consider it should be built-the depth of the river is to be increased to fourteen feet

there would1 be some additional cost of building the project, but it would not be very great. The abutments and all that kind of thing would cost more, but otherwise the expenditures would not be much greater.


Major James William Coldwell: My understanding is that a high level bridge will be required.


James Garfield Gardiner: It depends on what you are going to do, whether you are going to sail boats under it. I believe the hon. member for Davenport did hope that boats could be sailed through there. If you have a lake 100 and some odd miles long which is fourteen feet deep at its shallowest end, there is a possibility that boats could be sailed there and that would have a considerable effect upon the kind of bridge you would want to build at that point. To the extent that we might have increased costs if we undertook to build a dam we might then be required to add something to what the province and the railroads would spend on a bridge, but I think it is still the responsibility of the province to finance the building of the bridge.


Major James William Coldwell: On the same basis as it was done before?

Supply-Ag ricul ture


James Garfield Gardiner: On the same basis as it was done before. Those are the only remarks which I desire to make at the present time with regard to the estimates. As is usual, we shall be able to discuss any point that may be raised as we go along with the different items.


James Arthur Ross: The minister referred to the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act which will come up under another item. Since the commencement of this session, I have had on the order paper a resolution reading as follows:
That in the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration the advisability of expanding the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act into a national soil conservation and farm rehabilitation act and extending its activities to all the settled farm areas of Canada.
As the minister knows, there has been quite an agitation, not only this session but during the past couple of sessions, from the mari-times to have the provisions of this act applied to the reclaiming of their marsh lands. There have been similar requests from British Columbia and from other sections of the prairie provinces which do not come under this act. Is it intended during the present session to make this act a national measure?


James Garfield Gardiner: No. I announced at the time I made the statement that there was no intention of doing that at this session. In looking at my book. I believe I stated the position in relation to the $451,340 the wrong way about. The amount spent has been transferred from the experimental farms vote over to the other.


Percy Ellis Wright: I should like to make a few remarks on this general item, following what the minister has stated. I do not think the minister needs to offer any excuse for the increase of some $2,349,000 in the estimates of his department this year, especially in view of the facts which he has just related with regard to the development of irrigation projects under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. As a matter of fact, I think he would have been justified had his estimates been considerably higher.
In 1939 we were spending some $18,000,000 under the agriculture estimates, and this year we propose to spend $23,202,000. However we must realize that with the increased cost of materials and labour today we shall probably be able only to supply services somewhat below those which were supplied in 1939 with $18,000,000. There have been great shortages of food throughout the world and today Canada is one of the greatest reservoirs of
food in the world. In view of that fact., our expenditures might have been increased to provide an impetus to increase food production in this country.
As the estimates indicate, the increase in expenditures is largely on irrigation projects in western Canada. However, there are many other items in connection with which I think increases would have been justified at- this time. I refer to health of animals, the enlargement of T.B. free areas, more inspection work in connection with Bang's and other such diseases. I think we would have been justified in making much greater expenditures than we are.
The world position today with regard to food indicates the necessity for increased production. Sir John Boyd Orr. speaking at the food conference held at Virginia Springs in 1944, stated that, while science would win the war. food would win the peace. I think we realize today the truth of that statement. We won the war through advances in science, and the conditions in the world today indicate that it will be food that will wrin the peace.
Canada had a remarkably good record for food production during the war. We increased our production of meat products, dairy products, and various other farm products tremendously during those years and at a time when there was a scarcity of help on our farms. But today we find that the increases in. production which we made during the war years are slipping away. In my estimation we should at least be holding the gains we made. I realize, as the minister has stated before in this house, that our increased production of meat and dairy products during 1944 and 1945 were due to quite a large extent- to the fact that when the war started we had surpluses of grains in storage and that during the early years of the war we increased those surpluses until in 1943 we had probably the greatest storage of grain in Canada, we had ever had or probably ever shall have. It. was through the use of those grains that we achieved an increased production of meat and dairy products during 1944 and 1945.
However, as I say, that production has dropped seriously. Last year the drop was some thirty-three to thirty-five per cent in the production of bacon, and there was also a reduction in the production of beef. According to the Department of Agriculture marketing services for May, there was a decrease this year to date of 33-8 per cent in the production of hogs in western Canada, and a decrease of 12-3 per cent in eastern Canada. In beef there was a decrease of 27-2 per cent in western
Supply-Agriculture
COiMMONS
Canada and a decrease of 1-3 per cent in eastern Canada.- That reduction in produce tion is serious.
It has come to a point, at least in the area which I represent and which is one of the better stock producing areas in western Canada, where our production today is less than it was in 1939. That is a serious situation and one which cannot be justified. To a large degree it has been brought about by the policies of this government. I remember the minister stating in 1940 that the policy of the government w'as to see that we had a diversification of agriculture in western Canada. That stock should be fed on the farm where it was produced, that was the place to finish them. Yet we find that that is not being done today, largely because of policies initiated by this government. These policies are not economically sound. They are not good so far as our western agriculture is concerned, and I doubt whether they help eastern agriculture to any great extent.
This drop in production is, in my estimation, due to two or three definite things which the government has done or failed to do. One of the reasons for the drop in agricultural production in western Canada has been that agriculture is not holding its own in our Canadian economy. I may be asked why I make that statement in view of the fact that, according to the statistical summary of the Bank of Canada, using 1935-39 as the base period, agricultural prices in 1939 were 91-8, while in 1946 they had reached 183-7, or a rate of increase of 100 per cent in the returns to agriculture. But when we give those figures we must take into consideration that the cost of production of agricultural products in 1939 was 99-1, while today it is 149, or an increase of some 50 per cent. We must also take into consideration the fact that in 1939 the average farm income in Canada was only $743. That is a pretty low base from which to start, and even when we have doubled that amount we still have not got very far so far as the returns to agriculture are concerned. The result is that fewer people are prepared to enter agriculture today than at any other period in our history.
In 1941, when we were discussing the Veterans Land Act in the veterans committee of this house, a survey was made to find out the number of boys in our army who would prefer to enter agriculture when the war was over, and out of the first 200,000 who enlisted some 70.000 indicated their desire, when that survey was made, to go into agriculture, even though agriculture had gone through a very much depressed period during the 1930's. But
today, now that our boys have actually returned, a much smaller number of them indicate their desire to enter agriculture. That is an indication that, after their return to Canada, they have looked around and decided that there are other occupations in which the returns are greater than in agriculture, in spite of the fact that the returns to agriculture have doubled during the last six or seven years of the war. Notwithstanding that the returns have doubled and that, according to the bureau of statistics, the net farm income in 1946 was $1,925, we must remember that to earn that net income it is necessary for the farmer to have a capital investment of from $10,000 to $15,000, and when we subtract the interest on that capital investment from the net income we find that the net income is quite small as compared with that of any other group in our Canadian economy. The result is that fewer young people are prepared to enter agriculture today, and the government feel that they must go to Europe to secure people to come to Canada to work on our farms here, because farming is not a sufficiently paying proposition to our own people to induce them to remain on the farm. That is not a healthy condition. It is a condition which, in my opinion, justifies a larger appropriation in our agricultural estimates than is indicated by the increase proposed in these figures tonight.
Another reason why our production of live stock products in western Canada has dropped is the price relationship which grain bears to live stock products. That relationship today is such that it is just not interesting to the farmer to go ahead and produce meat and dairy products, and consequently we find less of them being produced. I am convinced that the new prices announced to the house by the minister on March 17 for coarse grains during the coming season will not get the production that is required. The coarse grains situation in eastern Canada has been indicated today over the radio and in the press. It is forecast that there will be a serious shortage of these grains in eastern Canada. I do not believe that the increased acreage in western Canada, if there is any increased acreage, will supply that deficiency. Take barley, for instance. The price of barley to the farmer today is ninety-three cents a bushel f.o.b. Fort William, and with the present price of hogs and the present price of wheat, I do not think we shall get the increased barley acreage we should have if we are to have the increased meat and dairy production that we need in this country. The government should give serious consideration now to raising the malting premium on barley. We have the lowest malting premium on

Supply-A g ricul t ure
barley of any country in the world. The premium in Great Britain and the United States varies from thirty to fifty cents a bushel, whereas in Canada we have a ceiling of 5 cents a bushel on the malting premium that can be paid to our producers. That is not enough to get the increased production we should have. Some may ask, why do you want an increased production of malting barley if it will be made into beer? My answer is that last year when we were trying to get an increased production of meat and dairy products the brewers got all the malting barley they wanted and they will not use any more for such purposes if the premium on malting barley is increased. If it were increased it would induce more farmers in western Canada to produce barley, and more barley would be left over for feed purposes. I am convinced that, until the premium is increased, you will not get the increase in coarse grains that is necessary for an increased production of meat and dairy products in Canada.
Another factor that has been curtailing production in western agriculture is the shortage of machinery in this country and our large exports of farm machinery. Last year I gave the house figures which indicated that our exports of farm machinery had increased tremendously, and that increase in exports has continued this year, with the result that there is a real shortage of equipment in many parts of Canada for the production of agricultural products.
Just before I came here at Easter I visited the local offices of the Veterans' Land Act people. They told me that they had 200 tractors on order which they could not supply. Returned men who had their farms had everything ready to go to work this spring, and yet at Easter they were, in that one area, 200 tractors short of being able to supply what was needed by these men. That is only one small section. There were hundreds of other farmers as well who needed new equipment and were unable to obtain it at that time. In spite of that, we are exporting the largest amount of farm machinery that we have ever exported in Canada's history. I have no objection to exports so long as they are not hindering the production of food in Canada. I do not think machinery shipped to any country in the world will produce more food than it would produce on Canadian farms where we know how to use the equipment and have as good land as there is any other placf in the world. By increasing these exports and 83166-239
selling our own market short, we are not serving either ourselves or the interests of other parts of the world for greater food production.
Another matter which I believe should be dealt with is that of tariffs on farm machinery. The minister may say that we have no tariffs on farm machinery, but that is not a fault. If you look at the old tariff schedule you will find that it was made up at a time when much of the modern equipment which we are using today was not on the market. There are a number of items of new farm equipment which have power attachments which are paying tariff. I need onR' mention some of the newer implements used for the production of sugar beets in this country or the modern hay press which bales the hay as you take it from the windrow, or some of the modern tillage equipment which has a power unit and attachments to operate it, to illustrate my point. This new equipment has come on the market since our tariff schedule was made up, and today it is paying a tariff of up to twenty-five per cent for entry into Canada. Until we are prepared to modernize that tariff schedule, we shall not be giving agriculture in Canada a fair deal; we shall not be giving it the machinery which is necessary for it to compete with production in other parts of the world. They have this equipment in the United States and we should be able to get it here. These are a few of the things that, I believe, should be dealt with if we are to get a greater agricultural production.
Another matter is that of the use of fertilizers in this country. We can increase our agricultural production tremendously by the use of fertilizers. In 1944 I visited England, and I was on a farm where the man was threshing his twenty-fifth consecutive crop of wheat; he was threshing fifty-two bushels to the acre. His statement was that all he required the land for was to hold the plant; that he could feed the land with fertilizer containing everything that was necessary to grow the crop. I did not agree with him entirely, but I do know that they have increased their production in the European countries tremendously by the use of fertilizer. Of course you must have plenty of moisture to do that. In western Canada we can use fertilizer to a limited extent, to the extent only that we have moisture to grow the crops as well as the fertilizer to feed them; but in eastern Canada I am sure that we could, to good advantage, increase the use of fertilizer and thereby raise larger amounts of grain, vegetables and other farm produce. Yet in spite of that, we find the government disposing



Supply-Agriculture

of plants that during the war, were used to produce fertilizer. I shall not go into that matter at great length now; we shall have an opportunity to go into it further when we come to that particular item, but that is one of the methods which can be used to increase agricultural production. I am sure that, until we have increased our production, until we have seen that our farmers have equipment, until we have seen that the agricultural economy of this country receives as large a share of the national income as any other group we shall not have successful agriculture in Canada.
The farmers of this country compose 17-3 per cent of the working population, and yet they receive some eleven per cent of the national income. As I said, until some of these things are rectified we shall not have increased agricultural production. I believe that the Minister of Agriculture has the direct responsibility for that. Through these estimates he is the man who can and should direct our Canadian agriculture to greater production.


Major James William Coldwell: May I butt in for one moment? I asked the Minister of Agriculture a question regarding some figures in which we were interested. I hated to contradict him because I did not know whether my memory or his was at fault, but I should like to put the figures before him with regard to the two bridges which were mentioned. The one at Outlook cost a total of $345,690.27.


James Garfield Gardiner: That was relief work.


Major James William Coldwell: The provincial government paid $36,653.37, or 10* 6 per cent. The Borden bridge cost $322,120.94. The provincial government paid $32,212.09, or 10 per cent. The Saskatoon bridge cost $713,673.19. The provincial government's share was $178,418.25, or 28 per cent. I remembered that. When the minister said that the provincial government had paid the greater part of the cost of these bridges I was astonished, but since I had not the figures before me I did not care to contradict him. But in view of the statement the minister made and my memory of the transaction, I thought I should put these figures on record. I do not want to enter into this discussion tonight. We shall discuss bridges on another occasion. I quite agree that three of the bridges were built during the years of depression, but the facts are that the federal government bore the major cost of these undertakings.


James Garfield Gardiner: Just to keep the record straight, the statement I made a few moments ago was that most of the bridges which were

built across the river were built while I was in the government and were the responsibility of the provincial government.


Major James William Coldwell: I asked about the Borden bridge.


James Garfield Gardiner: There were two exceptions built in the days of the Anderson government ; Borden I was not certain of at the time but I understand that it was built during the time of the Anderson government under the same programme and, I may say, during the time Mr. Bennett was in office in Ottawa. These bridges were built as part of the relief programme. They were carried out during that period and were, like many other things which were done at that time, provided by the dominion government, in spite of the fact that the responsibility was that of the provincial government. It will be found that the other bridges were built under arrangement between the provincial government and the railways. I do not think the federal government put anything into these bridges. The province and the railways built the Nipawin and the Dunblane bridges, and the province placed the attachments that they put on three or four of the other bridges across the Saskatchewan river. The general policy has been that the provincial government is responsible, but on these relief projects it is correct that the federal government did put up a considerable part of the money.
I wish to reply to one or two of the remarks made by the hon. member for Melfort. The first has to do w'ith hog production. It is perfectly true that down to six weeks ago hog production was on the decline across Canada as compared with the same period in the years immediately preceding; but there was a turn in the production about six weeks ago. I wish to place on record, alongside the statements that have been made, the present position in relation to hog marketing. Hog marketing showed a remarkable recovery throught the month of April. Eastern Canada, as a whole, marketed 28-6 per cent more hogs than during April, 1946. The marketings for the province of Quebec increased by 41-9 per cent; for Ontario, twenty-six per cent. Total marketings for the dominion during April, 1947, were approximately the same as those in April, 1946, notwithstanding the fact that marketings in western Canada were approximately thirty per cent below the same period a year ago. During April, over sixtyTive per cent of total marketings originated in eastern Canada, Ontario supplying 48-5 per cent of the hogs marketed. During April, 1946, the province of Quebec manceted approximately 1,000 hogs as compared with

Supply-Agriculture
45,000	from Saskatchewan and 30,000 from Manitoba. During April, 1947, the province of Quebec marketed over 55,000 hogs as compared with 46,723 from Saskatchewan and Manitoba combined. So the general statement is that the production has been going up very rapidly during the last month in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and it has been going down still in the provinces west of the great lakes. That is the general picture in relation to hog production.
Beef marketings have also been up during the last six weeks. On total, from January 1 down to the present they are lower, but the fact is that they have been going up recently. I may say that I made this statement when I was out in western Canada recently, and I was very much astonished to find that the Winnipeg Free Press, which is an old friend of mine-*


James Arthur Ross: A new friend.


James Garfield Gardiner: -took up the story with regard to this hog production and made the definite statement that the reason why hogs had gone up so rapidly in eastern Canada as compared with western Canada was the fact that on March 17 of this year we had made an announcement to the effect that the cost to the farmer in western Canada would be higher as compared with the cost to the farmer in eastern Canada; that is, to the man who fed the hogs on the farm. I was astonished to realize that we have such remarkable sows in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec that inside of a month from the announcement of the new policy we could be producing and marketing so many more hogs than we had produced and marketed in the preceding period. That is typical of some of the criticisms which are made of agricultural production by people who apparently do not know much about the history of breeding.
That is all I wish to say with regard to that one matter.
The other question I wish to say a word about is the fact that we spent $23 million in 1939.


Mr. FERGUSON:: May I ask the minister a question?


James Garfield Gardiner: Please sit down till I finish placing this on the record.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: It is a very short question. Do you think there is any significance in the fact that Ontario is being run by a Conservative government, and in Saskatchewan where there is a decrease, the province is being run by the C.C.F.?


James Garfield Gardiner: That might produce more hogs; I do not know. Anyway, the 83166-2394
statement was made a few moments ago by the hon. member for Melfort that in 1939 we spent about $23 million on agriculture.


Percy Ellis Wright: I said $18 million. That is what I meant to say, if I did not say it.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was actually $23 million, and it is about the same this year. I presume that what has been quoted is the main estimates but there was added to that some S4 million in supplementaries.


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes; the main estimates were what I quoted.


James Garfield Gardiner: There was added to that some $4 million for relief. That is included in the $23 million.


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes.	:


James Garfield Gardiner: All of which means that, while the expenditure in 1939 was approximately the same as it was in 1946, or the same as we are proposing to have in 1947^8, $4 million of the expenditure in 1939 was for relief. We are avoiding making similar expenditures by what is contained in these estimates. I think it will be found that, by spending almost a similar amount in the estimates under the special votes, we are having farmers maintained on their farms without the necessity of spending money on relief. For example, last year in the two western provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan we had as great an area which required payments under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act as has required payments in any year since the act came into being. As a matter of fact, I think our payments were higher last year than in any other year since 1939, and the area requiring prairie farm assistance was just as large as it was in some of the worst of what we are pleased to call the depression years; but still there was nothing in the nature of what we generally call direct relief. In other words our rehabilitation expenditures are having some effect in these areas.
Something was said with regard to the costs of farming in Canada in relation to the returns from it in 1939 as compared with 1946. I have the official statement here which I think I should read into Hansard, in order that we may have the figures as prepared by the economics branch of the Department of Agriculture. It is estimated that the net income of Canada's farmers has increased from $387,058,000 in 1939 to $1,004,299,000 in 1945. In the case of Saskatchewan the increase in net income over the same years was almost $194 million, from $26,032,000 in 1938 to $219,-
931,000	in 1945. This increase-I am speaking now of the dominion-is due to higher prices
Supply-Agriculture

and higher output. Let us look at the picture for Canada as a whole. Cash income from the sale of farm products increased from $664,-
317,000	in 1938 to $1,685,846,000 in 1945. Income in kind over the same period increased from $184,781,000 to $285,967,000. This meant that the gross income increased from $884,-
989,000	in 1938 to $1,738,161,000 in 1945. That is, it almost doubled in that period of time. What about expenses? Operating expenses and depreciation charges increased from $497,-
931,000	in 1938 to $750,592,000 in 1945. These operating expenses include:
1.	Taxes on all farm lands.
2.	Net farm rent.
3.	Wages paid to labour.


Thomas John Bentley: May I ask the minister a question?


James Garfield Gardiner: Let me put this on Hansard first.


Thomas John Bentley: I wanted to find out what the minister was reading from.


James Garfield Gardiner: I already gave that, if the hon. member had been listening.


Thomas John Bentley: I was following the report I had.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am giving the findings of the economics branch of the Department of Agriculture.


Thomas John Bentley: I have the bureau of statistics report.


James Garfield Gardiner: Going back, these
expenses include:
1.	Taxes on all farm lands.
2.	Net farm rent.
3.	Wages paid to labour.
4.	Interest on mortgages, agreements of sales and unsecured debt on all farms.
5.	Feed and seed purchases from marketing channels.
6.	Tractor fuel, oil and grease.
7.	Truck expenses, including licences and operating.
8.	Farm automobile expenses.
9.	Blacksmith and machine shop charges.
10.	Binder twine.
11.	Fertilizer.
12.	Fruit and vegetable supplies, sprays; boxes; crates; sashes, etc.
13.	Fencing.
14.	Repairs to buildings.
15.	Machinery repair parts.
16.	Water rent.
17.	Nursery staff.
18.	Miscellaneous, including veterinary expenses, rope, salt, hardware, etc.
19.	Depreciation on buildings.
20.	Depreciation on machinery.
I think it will be agreed that this pretty well covers the costs of operating. This picture is, of course, for all farmers. Different
farmers in different regions will show different results. Final results will be influenced not only by the price a farmer receives but also by the weather and by his managerial ability.
The next question is:	What has happened
to the prices received by farmers for the sale of their products? The answer is that a good way to measure this is to use a percentage figure called an index. This simply means that if we say that in November, 1946, the index of farm prices of agricultural products is 182-9 we are saying that prices of all farm products as reported by farmers have gone up since the years 1935-39-that is, the 1935-39 average-by 82-9 per cent. The figure given a few moments ago I think indicated that costs had gone up by about 58 per cent. If we take the figure given by the hon. member for Melfort, then, costs have gone up by 58 per cent and returns have gone up by 82-9 per cent. Thus the index of farm prices of agricultural products in January, 1940, was 100. By December, 1946, it was 183-7, or an increase of 83-7 per cent. Different commodities, of course, showed different gains.
The next question is: What about costs? Here again we have an index, but this index does not measure total operating costs. It is a measure of how much prices of commodities and services used by farmers went up. The price index for commodities and services used by farmers for Canada as a whole was 106-8 in April, 1940. By January, 1946, it was 124-6, and by August, 1946, it was 130-5, or an increase of 24 per cent over April, 1940. This means that prices received by farmers increased more than prices paid by farmers. An important question that must be answered is, what commodities and services are included in a prices paid index? There are eleven groups, as follows:
1.	Farm implements.
2.	Building materials.
3.	Gasoline, oil and grease.
4.	Feed.
5.	Fertilizer.
6.	Binder twine.
7.	Seed.
8.	Hardware.
9.	Wage rates.
10.	Interest rates.
11.	Tax rates.
These figures give the latest information with regard to the relationship between the farmer's returns and the fanner's costs, and they indicate that he is in a much better position today than he was prior to the war. I may say his position has been improved in the period since these records were made up, covering 1945. It improved in 1946, and is

Supply-Agriculture
improving again in 1947. So that the relationship today is even better than it was at the time these records were made up. I jus* wanted to put these statements on Hansard in order to reply to some of the statements that are being made in this discussion.


Percy Ellis Wright: I think the minister's statement rather heads up what I had to say. Hon. members will notice that he carefully avoided stating what was the farmer's income in 1939, on which these increases are based. That is the point I was making. The average farm income for Canada in 1939, according to the bureau of statistics, was $743. The average
by provinces was:
Prince Edward Island	 $400
Nova Scotia	 420
New Brunswick	 349
Quebec	 611
Ontario .. ,	 837
Manitoba	   678
Saskatchewan	 942
Alberta	 816
British Columbia	 552


Mr. McIVOR:: What year was that?


Percy Ellis Wright: That was in 1939; but you have to take what you started from in order to find out whether or not agriculture is prosperous today. Certainly it is more prosperous than it was in 1939, and I admitted that. Goodness knows it needs to be, or you would not have an}'body farming. As the minister has stated, the farm income has approximately doubled, while the increase in costs has been approximately fifty-eight per cent. So we are better off; but we are still not as well off as other economic groups within our country.
The minister had a word to say with regard to the increased production of pork. He admits that this increase is in eastern Canada, and that it is due to the assistance given by way of freight rates and subsidies on feed grain to the east. I have maintained that the increase, in production in eastern Canada is not economic. It is costing the government of this country $3 for every hog produced in eastern Canada, through freight assistance and subsidies on feed grain. That pork should be produced in western Canada, where the grain is grown. That is where you can get the most economic production of pork and poultry products in Canada; and until we get an agricultural policy under which we shall have economic production we shall not be able to compete in the world markets; we shall not be able to give our own people food at an economic price; and until we change our policies so that we can do these things we shall not be any better off.


James Garfield Gardiner: Perhaps I might make just one further observation. The farm organization which markets a great many of the hogs produced in Alberta has an advertisement going out over the radio and appearing in every Alberta newspaper, stating that farmers can make twenty-five per cent more at present prices by feeding their grain to hogs and selling the hogs than they can make by selling the grain. So, if they really want to feed hogs I cannot understand why they do not feed the grain under those circumstances. There may be many reasons, but certainly one of them is not the fact that they cannot make more by feeding the hogs than by selling the grain.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to suggest, on behalf of several hon. members in this corner of the house, that it would be to our advantage if the minister would kindly move down more toward the centre of the chamber. We can hear him quite well when he is offering a rebuttal, but it is very difficult to hear when he is dealing with ordinary items.


Mr. FAIR:: I thank the minister for moving this way. I hope he will continue his movement, and that he will meet us half way or a little more in our requests for a better agricultural policy in Canada. Tomorrow, when reports of this discussion are sent out over the radio and in the newspapers, it may be that once more people will be contending that the farmers all over Canada are becoming millionaires, and I am afraid the figures given tonight will be taken as an indication of a prosperity that does not exist among our agricultural population. A number of people have the idea that living on a farm is all milk and honey, but many of us here in the house tonight realize that farming, particularly this year, is a tough proposition for those actually engaged in it. At the present time I understand not more than ten per cent of the crop around this section of Ontario is in the ground, and I understand that in Quebec the percentage is still lower. So that the farmers of those two provinces particularly, and other provinces throughout the dominion, are facing losses amounting to millions of dollars, because of weather conditions over which they have absolutely no control.
Many people tell us that farmers are much better off than they have ever been before and I am willing to admit that to some extent. But I am still quite conscious of the fact that the farmers are not in as good position as many other occupational groups in Canada. While the improvement in income of farmers ihown by the minister is apparent, it must not
Supply-Agriculture

be forgotten, that at the beginning of the war farming was in a depressed condition, and remained in that state until 1942. To realize that, one has only to look at the amount of debt charged up against farmers at the present time. In addition, we have only to look at. the state of farm buildings, particularly dwelling houses, and the need for improvements in those buildings.
Then again one must consider the situation with respect to the replacement of farm machinery. During the past five years we were not able to buy many machines. By the time the farmers of Canada have reequipped their farms, their financial position will not look nearly as good as it does at the present time. Prices of farm machinery are almost double what they were at the end of the last war; but I do not think anyone would claim that present prices of farm products are double what they were after the last war.
It might be interesting to note that in the period 1915-19 the farmers of Canada, comprising approximately one-third of the population, received thirty-three per cent of the national income. At the present time I understand that we are receiving about nineteen per cent.
Then again, while some people undertake to compare present prices with parity prices, such a comparison is made on a false foundation. The period used is that of 1926-29. At that time the average income received by the farmers of Canada was 16-6 per cent, which is not nearly sufficient for one-third of the population to receive.
I understand that many questions which have been discussed this evening will be discussed again when the different items are called. While it has been the custom for hon. members in different parts of the house to make long statements when departments are opened. I feel that we in this corner are prepared to desist from that practice on the present occasion. Long speeches would only be repeated when the different items are called. For that reason I do not intend this evening to speak at length.
We in this group shall have something to say when the different items are discussed. May I repeat that agriculture is not yet in as healthy a condition as it should be. Until agriculture is a healthy industry, the whole of Canada cannot prosper, and we cannot have that degree of unity to which the people of Canada are entitled. With a prosperous agriculture we could look forward to general prosperity throughout the country.


James Arthur Ross: I should like to speak briefly on the hog question. A discussion has been carried on between the minister and the hon. member for Melfort. While both set out interesting figures, I believe they have thrown a misleading light on the present situation of the Canadian farmer. While those figures may be true, so far as domestic markets are concerned, or revenue from within Canada, everyone will agree that the agriculturist of Canada is the only producer who is tied down in respect of his export market.
Even the farm implement producers export a percentage of their output to other countries of the world at prevailing world prcies. Our lumber producers do that. But the farmer, whose wheat or live stock is exported, is on a control basis, and he does not receive the same percentage of income from his export of goods as does any other producer in the Dominion of Canada. There is still that great difference.
Then, in the matter of hog production, I stated earlier in this session-and no one has refuted it-that the eastern hog producer did enjoy about $9 per hog advantage. That is, the producer in eastern Ontario or Quebec enjoys that advantage over the producer in western Alberta. If it took twenty bushels of barley at twenty-five cents a bushel subsidy to produce a hog, then the eastern producer had an advantage of about $5 in the matter of feed alone. Then there is the difference in freight rates which has not been evened up, and which amounts to about $4 a hog, as between the cities of Edmonton and Montreal. That is another advantage which I do not think anyone will refute.
I wish to ask the minister what control the board, or those in charge of meat, have over hogs marketed and slaughtered in the abattoirs of this country. I believe the board has still some control in order to supply the bacon market of Britain. If it has, I want to know how far that control extends. I ask that because when I was home last Easter, at the St. Boniface stockyards across from Winnipeg there were a great many sows heavy with pig at those abattoirs at that time. I also read reports in the Regina press to the effect that the same thing was taking place in Regina; and I read reports from other marketing centres where people were marketing their brood sows heavy with pig at that time. So I presumed that if the government had the control over this situation it was supposed to have-and I understood it still had that control-it would be able to tell me approximately how many of those brood

Supply-Agriculture
sows were marketed at each centre. But the answer I got was that the Minister of Agriculture had no information.
I say the meat board should be able to obtain some approximate information on the question I asked. I trust the minister will tell me to what extent these controls exist today, and why it was not possible for the department to get at least approximately the information for which I asked. I know that in April of this year a great many brood sows were marketed in western Canada, probably for various reasons to which the minister has referred. All this does not come within his own department.
My colleague, the minister for Portage la Prairie-


An hon. MEMBER:: The minister?


James Arthur Ross: I should say the member; but I am satisfied he will be a minister, at the first opportunity. However, he is still the member for Portage la Prairie. In his maiden speech he asked that farm producers in Canada should be exempt to the extent of S500 for the production of hogs and dairy products. In my view that was a worth-while suggestion, and, while it does not come within the purview of the Minister of Agriculture, it is under the control of one of his colleagues. I know there are some difficulties in the present situation.
There is another matter which will be discussed more fully under the marketing item, which arises from the fact that we have been prevented from marketing our beef cattle in the United States, the greatest natural market Canada has ever had. True enough, we do ship to the market in Great Britain, at a controlled price; but if we were able to market our cattle in the natural market offered in the United States we would be obtaining over fifty per cent more for those cattle than we are allowed by exporting them to Great Britain.
The point I should like the minister to deal with is that of the control on the marketing of hogs, in order to supply the British market; and I wish to know why I cannot have information with respect to the marketing of brood sows in western markets.


James Garfield Gardiner: With respect to the first question, the extent of the control at present is that the meat board are taking from the inspected plants about eighty-five per cent of the amount delivered in 1940, and that amounts to about forty-five per cent of the marketings at present. They are taking about forty-five per cent of the marketings in the inspected plants; they are not enforcing any
regulations with respect to uninspected plants. That product from the inspected plants is being sent to Great Britain.
With regard to the record of the sows marketed while in pig, I doubt very much if it would be possible to provide any record which would be useful. There is an estimate made from time to time, which shows that the number being marketed is not greater and has not been greater during the early part of this year than in normal times, if these times could be called anything but normal. If anything, they are a little less. Of course, that does not bear out the suggestion that sows which had been bred were being marketed in great numbers in the early part of this season. Again I would say that I do not think any check can be made which would be sufficiently close to be able to say that across Canada there has or has nGt been five or ten per cent more or less marketing of sows. I say that in view of the fact that records cannot be kept, or they have not been able to keep records which were reasonably near the facts; such records have not been kept and hence have not been made public.
These are important questions in relation to production. While I had not intended to get up to say it, while I am on my feet I will say that I agree with the hon. member for Battle River and the hon. member for Souris that certain statements put out, if not followed up by other information, give a wrong impression with regard to the prosperity of farmers. For example, thirty mortgage companies put out a statement a short time ago that the mortgage owing to those companies on farms in western Canada had been reduced twenty-one per cent last year as compared with the year before, and that the mortgage indebtedness was down to a level lower than it had been for a long period of time. Those statements are both true.
But what is of as great importance is the fact that statements with regard to farm income do not bear out the suggestion that farmers in the Dominion of Canada are well off as compared with other people. I have before me a record of farmers' income tax payments which was partly placed on the record in reply to questions asked. I think this should be put on a little more fully and if the committee will permit me I will place this on Hansard.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


James Garfield Gardiner: Before doing so. I should like to use a few illustrations. This gives information from 1942-43 down to 1945-46. The number of farms in Canada is given as 732,832. On many of those farms there would
Supply-Agriculture

be two or three farmers. There might be a farmer and his son, and then, if you called his daughter a farmer, there might be more.


John Ritchie MacNicol: A farmerette.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, a farmerette. There would be possibly three, four or five farmers on many of these farms. In 1942A3. only 3,569 paid income tax, or one-half of one per cent. In 1943-44, 7,571 paid income tax, or
one per cent. In 1944A5, 15,714 paid income tax, or 2-14 per cent. In 1945-46, 27,411 paid income tax, or 3-7 per cent. A return was brought down the other day giving the number of inspectors that have been put out in the different provinces to bring in income taxes. The putting out of those inspectors brought in a great many more returns. The number has been placed on Hansard before and I do not think it is necessary to repeat it.
No. of Farms
P. E. I	 12.230
N. S	 32.977
N. B	 31.889
Que	 154.669
Ont	 178.204
Man	 58,024
Sask	 138.713
Alta	 99.732
B. C	 26.394
Canada	 732.832
Farmers Income Tax No. Assessed with Tax
1942-43	%	1943-44	%12	0-1	70	0-617	0-05	25	0-0811	0-035	41	0-1372	0-05	129	0-08784	0-44	1.234	0-7392	0-68	1.903	3-31,544	1-1	2.450	1-8497	O'-5	1.060	1-06240	0-9	659	2-53,569	0-5	7,571	11944-45	%	1945-46	%82	0-67	190	1-583	0-25	56	0-1744	0-14	72	0-22251	0-16	280	0-184.000	2-25	5.589	3-15.562	9-6	7,955	13-83.465	2-5	7,958	5-71.316	1-3	4,459	4-5911	3-4	852	3-215.714	2-14	27,411	3-7
1942 Calendar Year
No. of farmers assessed in Canada
Up to $2,000 per annum income-14,013-63%
Over $2000 per annum income-7,145-33J%
While the number of returns brought in have been greatly increased it has been found that not more than seven per cent of all the farmers in Canada were making an income which the inspectors thought sufficiently large to pay income tax or to be checked further with regard to whether or not they should pay. With those facts before us, I do not think there is anyone in the committee who will say that our farmers are rolling in wealth. They are not rolling in wealth.
There is no question about it that ninety-three per cent of the farmers did not have a net income of 11,200 in those years. Now that the net income has been increased to $1,500 for a married man on a farm, the number will probably be less rather than more. We are not in position to say that our farmers are rolling in wealth. This brings me to the suggestion made a few moments ago by the hon. member for Souris that an additional $500 exemption should be given to those producing hogs, and, I presume, to those producing dairy products as well. If ninety-three per cent are not now making enough to pay income tax, I do not think that would do any good. I think you will find that the ninety-three per cent are the ones who are producing nearly all the hogs and dairy products.
There are a few large producers near the cities who are making good profits selling milk or perhaps raising hogs when they are able to get refuse as feed from the city. Some of

them are making enough to get into the income tax brackets, and all of those will be found in the 3-7 per cent of farmers I have mentioned. The others who are questionable and who would raise the percentage to seven per cent, if the statements turned in by the inspectors are correct, would probably include many more of the same group. The producers of great quantities of wheat provide part of the number.
Only ten per cent of the beef produced in this country is produced on what would be considered large ranges. Ninety per cent is produced by the farmer who raises two or three or a dozen steers-you might go as high as twenty steers-but he is not the man who is paying income tax. The large ranchers produce only ten per cent of the beef produced in this country, the remainder is produced on the small farms. As one goes out through Ontario it is an exceptional thing to find a farm with more than two or three sows. They do not grow enough feed to feed more than the pigs from two or three sows and at the same time feed a milking herd of, say a dozen cows. Even to feed that number of animals they have to buy half their feed grains from western Canada. Half the grain fed in this province is shipped here from western Canada in order to produce that stock. But it is on those farms with those small herds and that small number of sows that nearly all the cattle and pigs marketed

Supply-Agriculture
are produced. So, when we talk about getting more production by doing something with the income tax I think we are talking about a condition which does not exist. (I am sure that the expected results would not be obtained.


James Arthur Ross: What is the percentage of these cattle in eastern Canada and on the prairies?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not the figures
before me, but I shall be glad to give them when we come to live stock production. I think there are more in eastern Canada.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: Has the
minister available the comparable figure for Alberta in relation to the ten per cent?


James Garfield Gardiner: There would be a
higher percentage than that in Alberta, where most of the large ranches are. I can get that information.


Mr. FULTON:: The minister said that
somebody behind him remarked that all the farmers who were paying income tax must be in western Canada. I think that what he said about the producers of beef cattle certainly applies there, because it is a very sore point in the district from which I come that the farmers have to pay taxes on the sale of their herds. Has the minister changed his mind, or has the department changed its minds with regard to the principle that the breeding or basic herd is a capital asset?


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I explain why I am
in order, Mr. Chairman? Last year the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Finance submitted a brief on this question, and this is the only opportunity I have to ask the minister if he is still of the same mind.


William Henry Golding: That matter should be discussed with the Minister of National Revenue.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I just wanted to ask the
minister if he was still of the same mind.
I think that is germane to the discussion, and it is the only opportunity I have.


William Henry Golding: We do not
wish to go off on that tangent. If we allow one member to discuss that matter we are in trouble if we try to stop somebody else.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not want to discuss
it. I just wanted an answer to my question.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the shortest
way to answer it would be for me to say that a submission by the Department of Agriculture 83166-240
to the other departments concerned is not necessarily the last word on a question of that kind. We have made a submission of our point of view, and a decision was reached and has been applied by the department concerned. I think the first decision reached and applied was not found to be entirely satisfactory, and they worked on the matter still further. I am sure it is not yet satisfactory to the persons concerned, and they are still working on that question.


Mr. BRYCE:: A few minutes ago the
minister said that the meat board was taking forty-five per cent of the hogs. How are they doing it? Are they doing what they did last year, taking fifty per cent of No. 2's from the eastern provinces and taking all the A's and B's from the western provinces?
Might I say that what hon. members have said about the income tax is quite right. About $500 is quite feasible. I have advocated something like that myself. In fact I advocated that there be no income tax on the hogs raised or the cream produced. It is not the income tax the farmer has paid or what he is likely to pay yet. When you send a bunch of inspectors around you scare the daylights out of the farmer. He is producing hogs and butter as an overtime job, just as the industrial worker in the city gets paid overtime for after-hours work. Hog production on a small farm, where most of the hogs come from and where most of the cream for butter is produced, is done by the farmer working fourteen hours a day. If you assure that man who is producing these necessities of life that he will not be taxed on his overtime production, the production will go up by leaps and bounds. Would the minister answer my question?


James Garfield Gardiner: To answer the last question first, I do not think the government should attempt to tell the farmer just what he can do on his farm. If we attempted to do that we would get into a great deal of trouble. I think most farmers know-I am sure they do, because I talk with them when I go out-they are nowhere near the income tax brackets on a basis of $1,500 of net income. All one needs to do is to take the figures I have given of the number of farms and divide that into the gross income, leaving aside the fact that there is more than one man working on a farm, to find that the whole cash income plus the amount of produce which is used on the farms only produces an average of about $2,300, and all the costs of operation have to be taken out of that $2,300 to obtain the net average on farms all over Canada.

Supply-A gricul lure


William Scottie Bryce: These inspectors have the minister's ability to make black look white.


James Garfield Gardiner: Let me go back to the figures. One-half of one per cent paid income tax in one year, one per cent in another year, and 2-14 per cent in another year. The highest number ever was 3-7 per cent. If the farmer has not the income to pay income tax on, there are not many of them going to pay it, and I do not see how any inspector can collect it. He may make the farmer very angry, but that does not mean he collects the money, and the record's show that he is not collecting the money.
With regard to hogs, a certain percentage remains for domestic use and all the others go to the British market, as has always been the case since we entered into agreements to market hogs in Britain. In so far as east and west are concerned, practically all the A's in Canada and the greater part of the B-l's go to the British market, but the percentage of B-l's which go from the west is higher than the percentage of B-l's which go from the east. The reason is that the domestic market in eastern Canada is very much greater than it is in western Canada.


William Scottie Bryce: You would not say they are better hogs in the west?


James Garfield Gardiner: I would not go so far as to say that, although I might think it.


Mr. McCULLOUGH (Assiniboia):: I am always pleased when we reach the agriculture estimates and have the minister on the other side of the house, because he conducts his department with great ability, and I say that without meaning any reflection on the other ministers. When I heard the minister reply in such vigorous terms to the hon. member for Melfort I felt that he was trying to decry that hon. member's statements. The hon. member for Melfort had indicated that the farmers were not well off, and the minister came back and put figures on the record as to income tax. I want to go farther and substantiate that the farmers today are not well off. I have here a report of the research department of the United Farmers of Canada, which gives figures for the province of Saskatchewan taken from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. In 1944 farm capital was $1,152,826.000.	The average per farm was
$9,036. The value of farm buildings in 1941 was $152,286,600. In other words, the value has increased until in 1944 it stood at $172,705,946. This gives ns an average per set of buildings of $1,235. The value of farm implements and machinery, including trucks and cars, was estimated in 1940 at $142,754,000, or

an average per farm of $980.50. I just made a flight out west and I saw a lot of buildings on that flight. The condition of our farm buildings is deplorable. I also drove across two of our prairie provinces. Western agriculture may be in the best position that it has ever been, but we have a long way to go to rehabilitate our farm people before we can be in a position to say that we have done an adequate job.
The chief thing I wish to say tonight is that I feel sure that many parts of the western provinces will have a small crop this year. In the southwestern parts of the provinces continued blowing and drought conditions exist. When I first came to the House of Commons I advocated the principle of an ever-normal grant. At that time the minister of agriculture rose in his place and said that the Liberal party had talked about this principle before there ever was a C.C.F. May I say that so far no plans have been made for adequate storage of feed grain to take us over the lean years. Because of the conditions which exist in eastern Canada today where there are flood conditions and where, according to press reports, we shall get only a thirty or forty per cent normal crop, and since we are already scraping the bottoms of our bins, it is high time that we had a little bit of statesmanship in our government to realize that in good years everything should be done to store in vital places seed and feed to carry our live stock and to provide seed for next year. Nothing along this line has been done. It is not sufficient to talk about it. We have to plan; we have to put a real plan into effect where these things would be integrated.
Another reason for my rising tonight was to say that something should be done _ to increase production in this country. During the war the government asked our farm people to produce supplies of food and grains, not only for our own armies, but for our allies. The results were marvellous, not because of particular planning by the government, but because the Canadian people put their hands to the wheel. The older people and all our people really went to work; but the fact remains that little has been done to make sure that we shall maintain a sort of scientific production or stability in agriculture.
In the other departments of our natural resources we have developed our assets; we have cut our forests; we have gone into the bowels of the earth and taken out our resources of minerals and depleted them. We have done the same with our soil. All these things were put here, as some of us believe, by God as a trust. In the last forty or fifty years we have depleted the fertility of our s >il. It is not

that we have not scientific data from the departments of agriculture in this country. If we properly conserve our soil we can maintain its fertility, but we have not instituted a policy to maintain that fertility.
On February 10, 1947, I spoke on the fertilizer situation in this country. There is a background to that whole problem. One of the chief reasons why we are not using fertilizer today is that the price has been too high for farmers in western Canada. It is true that they have got along one way c. another without it, but in eastern Canada, where it is used generally for the production of feeds and other things, the reason it has been used is that it is a necessity. The soils are such that certain ingredients have to be added to them to build up the fertility to grow these products. What is happening in the west? We are depleting the soil. Unless we can get a policy wrhich will conserve the soil for posterity, we shall have deserts in many of these places. I state candidly that < his government have betrayed the organized farmers, in fact all the people of Canada bjr the way in which they have handled our war plants and by selling them out to private industry. It seems to me that the government have been seduced by capitalism and have gone down the path and sold out to them rather than keep the interests of the Canadian people at heart. It is not only the farmers' problem; it is the problem of everybody who eats in Canada, because unless we can produce food and supply our people with cheap food not only will it be too bad for our own people in the low income brackets, who are today undernourished, but also statesmen realize that, unless we can produce food and supply the other nations, we shall not have peace. That is the only way we can help to establish peace, because so long as you have starvation and hunger you will not have any sort of stable peace in the world. Therefore I say we should have established the principle of maintaining one of these fertilizer industries to produce cheap fertilizer for the farmer.
I wish to put on record the situation with regard to fertilizer in Canada. There are three ingredients which enter into the manufacture of fertilizer. Before the war, the compound which is most costly, nitrogen, was obtained from our coke plants and other steel industries. When the war came, the government built three large plants, one at Trail, one at Calgary and one at Welland. The government gave an undertaking to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture that, after the war, one of these plants would be kept to produce fertilizer for the farmers. One of the facts 83)06- -240 J
which have come out is that, before the war, sulphate of ammonia, which is a by-product of the coke mills, was sold for $21 a ton. This was chiefly handled by Canadian Industries Limited. All that the company did was to take this material from central Canada and hand it over to the mixing plant at $33 a ton. Therefore, even though the cost of transportation would be about $2 a ton, they made around $10 a ton. The mixture was sold at around $44 a ton, with the nitrogen going into fertilizer.
During the war through experiments it was found that the Welland plant, the Calgary plant and the Trail plant could produce a new type of nitrogen for fertilizer. When I pointed this out in the earlier debate on February 10 the minister said that we would have to export a lot of this nitrogen if we kept one of these plants. I wish to ask him now what is wrong with exporting some of it if we could produce cheap fertilizer for our own people in Canada? The government sold the plant to the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company at a greatly reduced price. The original plant of the North American Cyanamid cost approximately $19 million, and it was sold for $4,750,000. Is it realized the profits that this private company is making? I hold in my hand a list of the profits that the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company showed in 1946. They amount to $23,323,168, or $7.12 a share. This was an increase in profits of 100 per cent over 1945. Then it goes on to say that the chief reason for the increased sales was the greatly increased use of fertilizers. In the investigations which have been made by university men, to whom we pay good money to find out what these fertilizers can mean to us, it has been found that, by using them, we can produce eight to ten bushels more per acre. That being so, I wonder why it is not good business for this government to see to it either that our farmers are subsidized so that they can use fertilizers, or that we at least keep a plant and provide fertilizers to our farmers at cost. This has been dealt with by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. Even one of the hon. members to my right, as far back as 1941, asked the Minister of Agriculture at, that time why the price of fertilizers had been "upped" $12 a ton. I understood the minister to say he was going to look into that and see what the reason was but, as I understand it, he has never given an answer to the house.


James Garfield Gardiner: We subsidized the use of fertilizers after that, during the war period.


Edward George McCullough: Yes, but why did the price go up at that time? That is the point. As I indicated in this house
375S
Supply-Agriculture

before, prior to the war we had a world cartel in the production of fertilizer, and today here we have the government selling the Canadian farmer and the Canadian people out to these cartels, so that once again we have the growth of monopoly in this country. I feel this has been a sell-out. Here we have the North American Cyanamid people and Canadian Industries Limited who control the production of fertilizer in this countiy. I think I should put on record part of the agreement which this government made with the Welland plant and Alberta Nitrogen Products Limited. I am going to read it into the record, if I may. Hon. members will recall that when the minister was approached by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and asked that one of these plants be maintained, he stated that his [DOT]understanding was that one of them would be kept; and the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply said the same thing. Going back as far as the recommendations of the war expenditures committee, a request was made that the contracts with these companies be renegotiated, so that these plants might have been kept by the government. Nothing was done about that. As I said before, I am just going to read this into the record. This is the disposal of plant clause in the government contracts regarding the fertilizer plants at Welland and Calgary, and reads as follows:
If hereafter for any reason the (U.IC.) government at any time or times within twenty (20) years from the date hereof shall desire or determine to lease or dispose of said plant or any department or part thereof except to "any government within the British empire or North America," N.A.C.L. shall be given the first opportunity (for a period of ninety days after receipt of written notice stating the determination of the government to lease or dispose (as the case may be) of the same and the material terms upon ivhich such lease or disposal will be made) to lease or purchase (as the case may be) the same upon as favourable terms as the government is then willing to accept therefor before the government shall lease or sell the same to any other party except as aforesaid and the government will not at any time during the twenty (20) year period lease or sell said plan or any department or part thereof to anyone (except as aforesaid) on terms less favourable to the government than offered to N.A.C.L.
This is article XII of an agreement between the United Kingdom government, the Canadian government and the Chemical Construction Corporation and the North American Cyanamid Limited dated August 26, 1940.
I might say that a similar agreement was made with Alberta Nitrogen Products Limited. Another clause of the agreement was that this plant would have free use of patent rights on everything which had been discovered during the war. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I think this government has failed

organized agriculture and has failed the citizens of Canada by not keeping one of these plants, at this time when we are scraping the bottom of our bins and when we may be facing a tragic situation this fall in the way of having no feed for our live stock, loss of seed and lack of production to feed a hungry world. If we had done this, I think it would have been one really constructive step toward maintaining production in this country.


James Garfield Gardiner: I judge, from the trend the discussion has taken up to the present, that the C.C.F. party are carrying out what their leader announced the other day was an organized plan in the party; and I compliment them upon carrying it out, because of its effectiveness. But the representative of the Social Credit party stated a few moments ago that they intended to carry out what is the recognized and proper procedure in connection with this discussion, and would discuss each one of these matters on the appropriate item when it came up.
Mr. ROSS	(Souris): And the official
opposition.


James Garfield Gardiner: And the official opposition, while they have not announced it, have carried it out in practice all evening.
Mr.	ROSS	(Souris): Which is more
important.


James Garfield Gardiner: I should like to suggest that an address like the one to which we have just listened is an appropriate one to have in connection with these estimates, but the place to have it is on the item of fertilizers. I do not want to start in to answer the speech which has been made, and I presume there are others in the different groups in this committee who would like to answer the speech, agree with it, or say something about it. I think it is hardly fair to the rest of us to have this organized plan carried out on a general discussion. I have no objection at all to its being carried out as the items come along and each item being dealt with by any hon. member. But I hope we can get on with this general item on administration without that type of speech which takes up only one item in the estimates.


William Henry Golding: Shall the item carry?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Before it does, I should like to ask the minister a question with regard to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. Did he indicate that he would not object-to a general discussion on the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, embracing the question of its extension to British Columbia, when the item is reached?

Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. That is the proper place for any general discussion on any particular item. A general discussion on fertilizers is proper when the fertilizer item comes up, and a general discussion on the Prairie Farm Assistance Act is proper when we come to that item. But if we carried on as we are doing now, other members who have said nothing so far have now a perfect right to start discussion all over again, and we shall have it twice. I think that takes up too much time.


Mr. HARKNESS:: I should like to ask the minister one question with regard to hog production in western Canada, upon which I am far from clear after listening to his arguments. As a matter of fact, it seems to me that he has argued himself around in a circle and down into a gopher hole which, has no back door.


James Garfield Gardiner: All gopher holes have a back door.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is occasionally one where the gopher has not had time to build a back door, and I think that is the kind the minister has got into. The minister has stated, and produced a great many figures to show it, that the level of income tax has nothing material to do with the reduction in hog production in western Canada. He also produced a great many arguments to show that it pays the farmer about twenty-five per cent better, I think his figures were, to feed his barley and other coarse grains to hogs rather than to market them. In spite of all those arguments, the fact still remains that the farmers of western Canada have been going backwards steadily as far as the production of hogs is concerned. The thing has apparently been falling off for the past three years. If the arguments the minister has advanced are correct I should like him to explain why this reduction has been going on so steadily. In other words, what is the reason that we are not producing more hogs, or anything like the number of hogs we should be producing in .western Canada?


Victor Quelch: I should like to say a word on this same question. As the minister knows, before the war the people of eastern Canada were continually urging the farmers of the west to go into live stock more heavily, but at that time government policy and the price situation did not encourage this. Then, during the war there was a tremendous increase in the production of hogs in western Canada, partly as a result of government policy and partly as a result of price increases. A few years ago, however, the farmers of western Canada got the idea that the government actually wanted a reduction in the production
of hogs. I do not say they should have got that idea; the minister quickly made it clear that this was not government policy, but the farmers had that idea. The point I should like the minister to clarify is .this. Is it the policy of the government today that the production of hogs in western Canada should be maintained at the present level rather than increased, thereby making a greater percentage of the coarse grains available to eastern Canada? I ask that question because, in spite of what the last speaker said, I believe that we shall see an increase in the production of hogs in the west. I know that in my own part of the country all the farmers seem to be increasing the number of their brood sows once more, and I am wondering whether or not that will be a wise policy. Does the government think it is wise to bring about an increase in the production of hogs in western Canada during the next four or five years? Will the result be a glut; or would it be better to maintain the production of hogs there at present levels and allow more coarse grains to come to eastern Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: The policy of the government and of the Department of Agriculture is, the more hogs produced in Canada, the better for the farmers. Too many people are circulating the idea that we are producing these hogs for the purpose of feeding somebody. The purpose of the farmer is to make as much income as he can on his farm, while producing food. The suggestion was made by the hon. member for Calgary East that I had used figures and arguments to show that the farmer could make twenty-five per cent more by feeding his hogs in Alberta than by selling the grain. I did not produce any such arguments. I said there were advertisements over the radio in Alberta, by a farm organization, in which this statement was made. There were advertisements in Alberta newspapers, of which I have copies. In those advertisements the farm cooperative is saying to the farmer, "You can make twenty-five per cent more feeding your grain to hogs than by selling it. Feed hogs." Those are not my figures; they are the figures of the farm organization in Alberta.
On the other question, as to why hog production has been down, that has always been so obvious to every farmer in Canada that I cannot understand why even people who do not feed hogs should not understand it as well. The reason is that it takes grain to feed hogs; and I do not know of any better reason than the fact that there is not enough grain to feed any more hogs.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There was always enough in western Canada.
Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: There is not enough there if western Canada sells it. On the question of whether or not we want the western farmer to produce grain for the eastern fanner, the answer is definitely no. We want the western farmer to feed hogs on his own farm; at least we are suggesting that it would be a good thing for him to do so. We are not pleading with him to do it; we are simply saying to the western farmer that his own cooperative is saying, "It will give you twenty-five per cent more return, even as far away as Alberta, and it will give you a higher return the closer you get to the market, if you feed grain to hogs instead of selling the grain." That is what the farm organizations themselves say, and we repeat it, using their figure. After we have said that, however, if the farmer still continues to sell a considerable part of his feed grain, we shall not criticize him for doing so. After all, a great deal more is involved than merely the question of having the grain. A man must have labour, and he must be prepared to divide up his day in a different way from the way in which he would divide it up if he were selling grain. I said last week in Saskatoon, and I am going to repeat now, that I went west, as did many other farmers out there, because I had become tired of getting up at half-past four or five o'clock in the morning, milking from half a dozen to a dozen cows, feeding the pigs, getting a team of horses ready and out in the field by seven o'clock; then working until five o'clock in the evening, having my lunch and going back to the field again to work until sundown; then coming in and feeding the pigs again. That is why a lot of us went west. We felt that we could grow grain out there and would not need to milk the cows or feed the pigs.
Some of us kept to that opinion pretty well until 1942. Then we had a crop of coarse grains twice as large as any we ever grew before, with just as much wheat as we grew in the best years we ever had; and nobody wanted it. No one except Britain wanted the wheat, and Britain wanted 200,000,000 bushels of it, We produced 560.000.000 bushels in one year, and at the end of the season we had in the elevators 600.000.000 bushels for which we had no market, with another crop about to be marketed in August of 1943. Under those circumstances we said to the farmers, "If you want cash now, feed your grain to hogs and cattle. But if you can get along without cash now, keep the grain stored. Call it an ever-present granary, or whatever you like, but keep the grain Stored either on the farm or in the elevators. At the end of the war you will be able to sell every bushel of it

at a higher price than you have sold your grain for a long time." The farmer did just that. He fed an enormous quantity of pork and beef in 1943 and 1944 on grain he could not sell on the market. He could not get any price for grain at the time, except what the government gave him by way of allowance when he put it in the elevators. The government did not sell the wheat until years later.
Then someone says, "Well, why didn't we keep the ever-present granary?" There is not a member in this house who did not get up in 1945 and 1946, or who did not agree with those who did get up, insisting that this government ship every bushel of wheat, every bushel of oats and every bushel of barley we had in the country to Europe in order to feed starving people. There is no house of commons that would have permitted the government of any country, under the circumstances existing in 1945 and 1946, to keep grain in its bins and elevators. So of course the grain was shipped out to feed starving people, and you could not feed as many hogs in this country with our elevators empty and our bins on the farms empty, with only a month's supply of feed in the middle of the summer of 1945, about the same in 1946, and a little more at the present time. You could not produce any more hogs and cattle than have been, produced; you could not produce any more dairy products than have been produced. I repeat that I do not understand why people keep on arguing the point. They are just as bad as the editor of the Free Press was in connection with the pigs. You cannot breed pigs in March and have them on the market in April of the same year; and you cannot finish pigs unless you have grain. We have not had the grain. Only this morning Mr. Kennedy made the announcement that, unless something unforeseen happens, unless something happens that has never happened before, Ontario will have [DOT] only one-third of a crop of feed grain. Out west, fortunately, we have been able to get in our crop in fairly good condition, two weeks later than usual it is true, but it is not yet impossible for us to have a good crop. And to anyone who asks me in this house, "Are you going to plead with farmers out west to feed all the grain they grow this year", I say that so far as I am concerned, if the condition develops which Mr. Kennedy says is going to develop in Ontario, we shall not insist on any such thing. We shall ask the farmers of western Canada to help the farmers of eastern Canada to finish their live stock. And I have no doubt that when the western farmer requires support and assistance again, as he did in the thirties-if indeed he ever

Supply-Agriculture
requires it agaiu-because of a continuation of crop failures, the people of eastern Canada will be just as helpful to him as we shall ask the people of western Canada to be to Ontario this year, if there is a shortage of feed in Ontario.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The first part of the minister's argument was one which personally, coming from the west. I resent very much. It actually came down to this: His statement really was that the farmer in the west is too lazy to feed hogs, and that that is why production has gone down. As a man from the west, 1 am surprised that the minister, who also comes from there, would make that argument. I am very much surprised, because in my opinion that is not the reason for it at all.
What the minister is trying to cover up is his own wrong oat and barley policy, a policy which convinced the farmer in the west that it paid him better to sell grain than it did to feed it to hogs. The. farmers saw their neighbours feeding hogs with grain which they bought at ten or fifteen cents less than the western farmer could sell it for. or feed it for; and the result was that western farmers refused to feed their grain to hogs. They preferred to sell it.
In my opinion one of the reasons the farmers of western Canada are still not producing anything like the number of hogs they did produce is that they are still convinced, despite the advertising the minister has mentioned. that it, pays them better to sell their grain than to feed it.
In other words, this government policy, so far as grain is concerned, is responsible to a large extent, and not the laziness of the farmer.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: Does he believe a man is lazy who does not wish to get up at halfpast four o'clock in the morning and work until as late as ten-thirty o'clock at night?


Mr. MILLER:: But they all do it.


James Garfield Gardiner: But he does not need to be considered lazy if he does not W'ant to do it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That does not enter into the matter at all. If the farmer of western Canada, as I know him, can secure twenty-five per cent more through feeding his grain to hogs, then he will certainly feed it, as soon as he is convinced that that is so. The whole thing is that he is not convinced of it. Whether it is so or not, I do not know. The minister
has been most evasive about it. I suggested he had stated that farmers could make that much more. Then, however, he got up immediately and said that he did not say that.
Another argument he put up was that we did not have the grain. So far as the western Canadian farmers are concerned, they certainly had the grain. We might not have had it in Canada as a whole, but so far as the Alberta farmers are concerned, they had it. They could have fed it, and finished the hogs right there. The reason they did not do so was the government's coarse grain policy. The minister should be prepared to admit that it was his policy to a large extent which has driven the farmer-and particularly the farmer in Alberta-out of hog producing. He should not try to put the blame on the farmer for not being willing to get up early enough in the morning.


Mr. BURTON:: Mr. Chairman, usually I am a mild mannered man, and only rarely is that fact abused by some people. I had not intended to say anything in the general discussion of the minister's estimates. But when a few minutes ago he went out of his way to see if he could pick a scrap, I felt I should say something. And I want to tell him this much, that if he wants one we are here to give it to him.
No sooner had he resumed his seat after accusing some of us in this group of taking part in a deliberate plan which was not according to the best principles of the house, than those who agreed with him carried on the discussion.
Let me say this much, that the short speech of the hon. member for Assiniboia was just as much in order on this item as was anything we have heard since, and a good deal of what we heard before. I could point to a number of places in the discussion which has just concluded where the minister could have taken the same exception. After the hon. member for Assiniboia had spoken as briefly as possible in giving a general resume of the situation in respect of agriculture, he concluded his remarks by referring to one subject to which he had given special study. The minister thought that was the time to pick the quarrel.
We are just as pleased as anyone could be that we have an opportunity to discuss the estimates on agriculture with a man who has given considerable thought and attention to the department of which he is the head. As I have said in previous sessions, when I have complimented him, even though we do not always agree with him we are prepared to credit him with knowing his department. But
Supply-Agriculture

we do object to his trying to tell us when and where we should question the administration of his department.
The minister referred to the reason a number of people had gone to the west. Let me say that I was born in the middle western states and I did not need to go west; I went north, along with my parents. The part of western Canada in which we settled, and in the area for many miles around, extending up into the district represented by the hon. member for Melfort, up into the Prince Albert district, into the northwestern part of the province, and right down into that part of the province represented by the minister himself, has never been a straight grain-growing proposition.
There are too many people with the false impression that farmers in western Canada are only grain growers. Ever since I have been in the area I have described, we have had mixed farming. During the years in which we opened up and developed that country, we produced enormous amounts of foodstuffs. We did not mind the hard work; we were prepared to put in long hours. But we did object when the rest of the nation was not prepared to give us a decent wage for the work we did.
I contend that that is where the great difficulty has been all these years. As I have said before in the house, even in the times of so-called wartime prosperity the farmers of this nation have not received a fair share of the national income. Even during the time when they were not receiving a fair share of the national income, no matter what branch of agriculture they are lending their efforts to, you find that in between there is no attempt made to have a proper relationship of the commodities that are produced.
I have contended all the time that we should have a system of parity prices which would give the farmers a fair share of the national income and provide a fair relationship between the prices of the things they have to buy and the things they have to sell. There must be a fair relationship between the various products the farmers produce. I contend that when the minister and his department lend their efforts to providing a fair and square deal for the farmers, when they make that parity price possible, then it will be found that the farmers will go to work and produce the things best suited for the farms that they have.
I contend that it would be foolish to urge the man who has a wheat farm and who possibly cannot afford to spend $1,000 to drill a well to obtain water to go into hog or cattle raising. In many parts of the west there is land more adaptable to the raising of coarse grains than to the raising of stock. The farmers have common sense enough to know

what is the best thing to do with their own land if they are only given a decent chance. The trouble is that there is continuous jockeying, an effort to get the farmer to produce as much as he can for as little as you can get him to take for it.
The farmers have made up their minds that they are going to have a different deal from what they have had in the past. The estimates of the Department of Agriculture are the most important that we have to consider in this session. Whether it is considered on this first item or on the last item, in so far as I and my colleagues are concerned we are prepared to cooperate with the minister if he wants cooperation. But I contend that "cooperation" to be effective must be used both ways.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administrative service-
2.	Publicity and extension division, $170,439.
James Arthur Ross: There is an increase of $15,635 in this item, and I notice on page 81 of the main estimates there is a new chief, press services. Can the minister say what this covers?


James Garfield Gardiner: The greater part of the increased expenditures for publicity is in salaries, this totalling $20,829. There is a decrease in unemployment insurance, proficiency allowances and other payments which are down $7,694. Express, freight and cartage are up $500; supplies and materials are up $11,000; travelling is up $1,000, the net result being an increase of $25,635.


Mr. FRASER:: Has the department asked the civil service, either this year or last year, for additional help in connection with publicity?


James Garfield Gardiner: The increase is largely caused by the adjustment of salaries which was made last year when we had the different branches gone over.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: There is no new help in this section?


James Garfield Gardiner: The details on page 81 show the number of persons employed in the different branches, and it is actually down two for this year.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Does the department work with the Canadian information service? Do they help you at all?


James Garfield Gardiner: It really works the other way; as a rule we help them by supplying information as to what conditions are.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I noticed, in a return tabled, that $627 was provided for a broadcast, either this year or some time in the past. Does the

Supply-Agriculture
department carry on any broadcasts or is that done by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?


James Garfield Gardiner: We have no broadcasts, but we do supply information to the CBC for their farm broadcasts.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Are you putting out any new pamphlets this year? I believe most of the ones you put out date back pretty far.


James Garfield Gardiner: Publications which have been published, some for as long as fifty years, are rewritten from time to time and brought up to date. We have farmers' bulletins, household bulletins, technical bulletins, circulars and what we call other publications. There were 770,100 publications mailed in 1945-46 on personal requests and 363,402 mailed in bulk for redistribution; 1,753,037 copies of market reports were mailed on request and 8,993,831 copies of mimeographed, multigraphed and multilith jobs, comprising press releases, market information leaflets, et cetera.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That would include your monthly reports?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Robert Fair: When I spoke during the budget debate on May 12 I suggested that either the Department of Finance or the Department of National Revenue put out a booklet to inform the farmers of the proper procedure to be followed in making out fairly accurate income tax returns. Would the minister consider putting out a booklet of that kind? When discussing the same question previously the minister referred to a number of expense items that could be included and he also enumerated other items that could go on the other side of the farmers' account.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that the Economic Annalist does give a considerable part of that information. I would suggest that probably this is not the department that should be putting out information with regard to income tax or the manner in which the forms should be filled out. That is really the task of the national revenue department, and I am afraid that we would be exceeding our functions if we were to go into that field. The other night, when I was out west, I did put out what I would suggest is the proper procedure to be followed. If our farmers generally would do what some farmers do, keep a very simple record themselves, they could save themselves a lot of money. I am told that farmers are being charged from $5 to $25 to have these forms made out to prove that they do not need to pay income tax. There is a
much simpler method of doing it than that. I know the difficulties. The trouble is that the farmer puts in long days. But if he could sit down each evening or once a week and put down what he has paid out and what he has taken in, and then glance at the list of items that are properly chargeable to expenses as indicated in the statement I made tonight, which is put out by the department from time to time, I would say that in ninety-nine out of a hundred cases the farmer himself would find out whether at the end of the year he would be liable for income tax. Most of them are $200 or $300 away from having the necessary income. They can determine with a system of accounting that is very simple whether they are in the income tax brackets, and I think that is the only way in which a farmer can save himself expense in connection with income tax returns. I did say this, that I was certain that if a farmer did that and sent in his statement of what his position was to the income tax authorities in his own district he would save the department the expense of sending out inspectors.
I did not quite finish the statement I was making a while ago and I should like to finish it now. I think the department has done the farmer a good turn in sending out twenty-five inspectors from the different offices in western Canada. I run into persons all over Canada, some of them members of this house, whom you just cannot convince that a farmer is not making enough to pay income tax. People hear stories about the farmer selling so many thousands of bushels of grain, so many cattle and so many hogs, and they conclude that the farmer must be in the income tax brackets. I do not know how they figure it out. The inspectors have gone out and proved to their own satisfaction that the farmer it not. That is a good thing for the farmer, and I think that the more often we repeat the facts that have been found by the inspector, the better. Eventually we may come to the conclusion that it. does not pay to send out so many inspectors. An experienced inspector just requires to take a look at many of the farms to see that they could not make enough to pay income tax.


Robert Fair: I have already made my suggestion to the Minister of Finance, the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of Agriculture, and perhaps the three departments will cooperate to put out this booklet. I am satisfied that the farmers are quite willing to pay their fair share of income tax, but I am not satisfied that the farmers should pay a tax on the basis on which it was levied during the years 1941 to 1945, and I am speaking from my own personal
Supply-Agriculture

knowledge. If they were given the information in a small booklet it would not cost very much and you would have far better co-operation from the farmers and a lot less hard feeling, but of course that must go hand in hand with proper prices for the things the farmer has to sell.


James Garfield Gardiner: We put out a booklet which the farmer can get for ten cents, and if he just fills in the columns and puts down the items weekly he can make a complete report.


Robert Fair: What is the name of that booklet?


James Garfield Gardiner: The Farmer's Account Book.


Douglas Scott Harkness: At page 81 of the details in the main estimates I find provision for a supervisor of race track betting. What does that fellow do? I have been intrigued by that detail for some time.


James Garfield Gardiner: That gentleman is Mr. Higginson. I am told by those who have knowledge of horse racing, about which I know very little, that he is the best expert on horse racing in Canada. We get a considerable revenue from the pari-mutuels in connection with horse racing. Our department has the administration of that operation and Mr. Higginson has charge of it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administrative service-
S.	Advisory committee on agricultural services, $3,000.
Mr. HAMEL:: Mr. Chairman, if I may revert to item 1, with the permission of the committee, are all the employees mentioned in the details given on page 81 dealing with problems concerning the country as a whole, or are they limited in their work to geographical sections of the country?


James Garfield Gardiner: The first item deals with the administration of the department for the whole country.


René Hamel: My second question is this. Would the minister give the names of the officers from the deputy minister down to principal clerks? They are only about seven or eight of them.


James Garfield Gardiner: I could give that
information in a return. I have not the names here.


René Hamel: May I have the information tomorrow?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. We could get these names for the hon. member. I could give some of them offhand, but not all of them.


Joseph William Burton: The details of item 3 for the advisory committee on agricultural services state that $3,000 is for miscellaneous services, including travelling expenses. I would ask the minister how many people are on this advisory committee and what their names are, if that is not too much trouble.


James Garfield Gardiner: I put them on the record about two weeks ago when they were appointed; the names are all on Hansard.


Joseph William Burton: The same committee?


James Garfield Gardiner: The same advisory committee. I can put them on again; I have them here.


Joseph William Burton: Are there as many as last year?


James Garfield Gardiner: Is it the national committee on agricultural services? Which one is the hon. member referring to?


Joseph William Burton: The advisory committee on agricultural services, item 3.


James Garfield Gardiner: The committee consists of the provincial ministers of agriculture as follows:	Hon. F. H. Putnam, Victoria, British Columbia; Hon. D. B. MacMillan, Edmonton, Alberta; Hon. I. C. Nollett, Regina, Saskatchewan; Hon. D. L. Campbell, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Hon. T. L. Kennedy, Toronto, Ontario; Hon. Laurent Barre, Quebec, Quebec; Hon. A. C. Taylor, Fredericton, New Brunswick; Hon. A. W. Mackenzie, Halifax, Nova Scotia; Hon. W. F. A. Stewart, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island.
Then there is the national advisory committee on agricultural services which is as follows: H. Barton, Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Ottawa, Chairman; W. R. Reek, acting president Ontario Agricultural College, Guelph, Ontario; C. D. Graham, Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Toronto, Ontario; Jules Simard, Deputy Minister of Agriculture for Quebec, Quebec, P.Q.; E. S. Archibald, director, Experimental Farms Service, Ottawa, Ontario; K. W. Neatby, director, Science Service, Ottawa, Ontario; A. M. Shaw, director, Marketing Service, Ottawa, Ontario; R. S. Hamer, Director, Production Service, Ottawa, Ontario; L. C. McOuat, General Agricultural Agent, Canadian Pacific Railway, Montreal, P.Q. Mr. McOuat has recently died, and someone will replace him. C. G. O'Brien, General Secretary, Agricultural Institute of Canada, Ottawa; W. H. Cook, National Research Council, Ottawa, Ontario; S. R. N. Hodgins, General Executive Assistant, Ottawa,

Supply-Agriculture
Ontario, Secretary; J. B. Munro, Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Victoria, B.C.; F. M. Clement, Dean, Faculty of Agriculture, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.;
O.	S'. Longman, Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Edmonton, Alberta; R. D. Sinclair, Dean, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta; R. Newton, Director, Alberta Research Foundation, Edmonton, Alberta; M. E. Hartnett, Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Regina, Saskatchewan; L. E. Kirk, Dean, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; J. H. Evans, Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Winnipeg, Manitoba; J. W. G. MacEwan. Dean, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba; H. B. Speakman, Director, Ontario Research Foundation, Toronto, Ontario; A. L. Mac-Nabb, Ontario Veterinary College, Guelph, Ontario; W. H. Brittain, Dean, Macdonald College, P.Q.; M. l'Abbe L. P. Garon, Director, Ecole Superieure d'Agriculture, Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere, P.Q.
Rev. Fr. Leopold, Director, Institut Agricole d'Oka, La Trappe, Quebec; J. K. King, Deputy Minister, Department of Agriculture, Fredericton, N.B.; F. W. Walsh, Department of Agriculture, Halifax, N.S.; W. R. Shaw, Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Charlottetown, P.E.I.; G. Bouchard, Assistant Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Ottawa, Ontario; T. W. Grindley, Secretary, Canadian Wheat Board, Winnipeg, Manitoba ; D. G. MacKenzie, Board of Grain Commissioners of Canada, Winnipeg, Manitoba; J. S. McGowan, Director, Department of Colonization and Agriculture, Canadian National Railways, Montreal
P.	Q.; J. B. Rutherford. Chief, Agricultural Branch, Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Ottawa, Ontario.


Joseph William Burton: How often does the committee to which the minister has referred meet in a year?


James Garfield Gardiner: They both meet at the same time, once a year.


Joseph William Burton: Judging by the imposing list which the minister has just read, I would suggest that the gentlemen are not overpaid or overfed, because the amount set aside for their expenses appears to be skimpy. The minister is sure they are worth as much as they get.


James Garfield Gardiner: They are already paid; we pay their expenses while they are here.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administrative servicei.	Contributions to Empire Bureaux, $86,139.
James Arthur Ross: There is an increase
in the contributions to empire bureaux of some 838,000. Can the minister explain the organization and its functions?


James Garfield Gardiner: In view of the fact
that the leader of the house desires to have the committee rise at 10.50 o'clock for some other business, probably we should leave the item until we meet again. It would take some little time to go over it all.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. MACKENZIE:: I move that the house do now adjourn. Some hon. gentlemen have been asking whether the house will sit on the king's birthday. It is the intention of the government to ask the house to sit on June 9, because we believe the finest respect we can pay to His Majesty the King is to be about the king's and the country's business.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.50 p.m.
Wednesday, June 4, 1947