1947-02-24

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would like to make a statement to the house regarding questions. It is not generally known that oral questions
are not permitted under any rule in this house. Standing order 44 provides for placing questions on the order paper seeking information relating to public affairs, and it adds that if any member requires an oral answer he may distinguish his question by an asterisk. In former years a few urgent questions were orally addressed to the government on the orders of the day being called, but now all kind of questions are asked at that stage of the proceedings. Most of them could be placed on the order paper. Even newspaper clippings and telegrams, the accuracy of which has not previously been ascertained, are then read and included in the official report of debates. This practice is resorted to on the ground that it is followed in the United Kingdom House of Commons. There could be no greater mistake. The rule at Westminster is quite different from that, and it could be followed with advantage by this house. Our standing order No. 1 provides that:
In all cases not provided for hereafter or by sessional or other orders, the usages and customs of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and northern Ireland as in force at the time shall be followed so far as they may be applicable to this house.
What is the custom today in the United Kingdom house? I cannot find it in a better place than in the 14th edition of May's "Parliamentary Practice", published a year ago under the control of Sir Gilbert Campion, K.C.B., present clerk of the United Kingdom house. Let us quote what he says at page 332:
Notice of a question to a minister or other member is usually placed upon the notice paper, unless the question relates to a matter of urgency or to the course of public business. The custom formerly in vogue, of giving notice of questions by reading the question aloud, is no longer allowed, unless the consent of the Speaker in the case of any particular question has been previously obtained. Notice of a question is given by delivering the terms thereof in writing to the clerks at the table during the sitting of the house.
This is the same as our standing order 44 respecting written questions. But with regard to oral questions, the same authority says at page 340:
Questions which have not appeared on the paper, but which are of an urgent character and relate either to matters of public importance or to the arrangement of business, may be taken after a quarter to four o'clock, provided they have been submitted to the Speaker and have been accepted by him as satisfying the conditions imposed by standing order No. 7 and provided notice has been given to the minister concerned.
This is a very wise rule. Under the practice now followed here, a member may have shown his question to the minister concerned but he has kept it away from the Speaker, who, taken-
Rental Ceilings

by surprise, has no idea of the wording of the question and still is called upon to decide whether the question is in order or not. This is unfair to the Speaker, who is thereby placed in the same position as a judge called upon to render judgment without having seen the documents in the case. I venture to suggest that we accept the United Kingdom practice whereby the Speaker be shown beforehand any question to be addressed to ministers. Our procedure in this matter is hardly parliamentary. The time has arrived when it should be governed by practical rules.


Mr. BRACKEN:: With respect to the statement you have just made, Mr. Speaker, may' I ask a question in order that I may be clear as to its intention? Are we to understand now that prior to the orders of the day being called we are precluded from asking any but urgent questions, and is it the Speaker's ruling that he should see copies of these questions before they are asked?


Mr. MACKENZIE:: May I humbly say, Mr. Speaker, that I think any such rule must be adopted by a committee of this house. I respectfully submit that the suggestion made by Your Honour a few minutes ago is one that could with advantage be considered by a committee, formal or informal, of the house. I do not think that we can adopt forthwith a new ruling setting out procedure without further consideration of it. That is my own opinion.


John Bracken: I only want to be clear as to what the practice is to be. If we are to be precluded from asking these questions before the orders of the day are called, I should like to know. If we are not, we can continue as we have done in the past until some formal decision is made to follow a different practice.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I understand that Mr. Speaker merely made a suggestion which he thought would be a good one for this house to adopt.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Angus MacInnis: In my opinion the suggestion is a good one; at least I would consider it favourably, but before it is enforced in the house I think it ought to be discussed by some such committee as the leader of the house mentioned.


James Horace King: I must call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that I did not give any ruling. I thought it was my duty to help the house by calling attention to what the practices and rules are in the British parliament, and I suggested to hon.

members that when they have an urgent question to put before the house and they send notice of it to the minister, it would be only fair to do as they do in England and send a copy of it to the Speaker.


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce that the government has authorized certain amendments to the rental orders and regulations of the wartime prices and trade board. These amendments will permit an upward adjustment in rental ceilings of commercial accommodation and make provision by which this accommodation will gradually become free of controls. They will provide for the release from control of the prices of rooms in hotels and boarding houses in holiday resorts, and also provide certain relief for those who purchased tenanted houses as homes for themselves between November 1, 1944, and July 25, 1945.
More than a year ago, landlords and tenants of commercial accommodation were freed from rental controls if they were able to agree on a lease for a minimum term of five years with respect to premises then occupied by the tenant. Many landlords and tenants have made such leases and considerable commercial accommodation has already been thus released from control.
It has now been decided that another step along the road to complete decontrol of commercial accommodation can appropriately be taken. Accordingly a provision has been made that commercial accommodation will be released from rental control in cases where the landlord and tenant negotiate a lease for a minimum term of three years.
Rental control will be removed from commercial accommodation that is offered for rent for the first time, or that is now vacant or that hereafter becomes legally vacant, or which is wholly sublet.
The maximum authorized rental for all other commercial accommodation is increased by twenty-five per cent, provided that the landlord is prepared to enter into a lease for a minimum term of two years with the tenant. Such lease may be terminated by the tenant at any time on thirty days' notice but is binding on the landlord for the full two year term. If the tenant is not prepared to enter into such a lease at the increased rental, he may be required to vacate at the end of his present lease, and the accommodation will

Railway Act
thereafter be free from rental control. If the landlord is not prepared to offer such a lease to the tenant, the tenant may remain in occupancy after the expiration of his current lease as a tenant from month to month at the previous rental ceiling.
Accommodation in holiday resort hotels and holiday resort boarding houses is released from control. However, summer houses, tourist cabins and the like which, during the present housing shortage, are being used as permanent housing by non-transients will remain under control for the time being under the same regulations as other housing accommodation.
The only change which is being made in the present restrictions on eviction is in the case of a landlord who bought a tenanted house between November 1, 1944, and July 25, 1945. Such a landlord will be given an opportunity to prove to a court of rental appeals that he needs the house more than the tenant needs it; in which event he can give the tenant three months notice to vacate. This will provide relief for those who bought a tenanted house between these dates in the justifiable belief that they would be entitled to obtain occupancy of the house by serving notice on the tenant. This right was taken away by the "freezing of leases" order passed on July 25, 1945.


Mr. LOCKHART:: I should like to ask a supplementary question with particular reference to four cases which came to my attention today. I understand that the restrictions are lifted from those who purchased houses between November 1944 and July 1945. In the case I have in mind the purchase was made in 1943. What is the application of these amendments there?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is not affected by the new regulations. There was a brief period during which persons who bought houses for their own occupancy were entitled to believe that under the law as it stood at that time they could get possession on giving notice. That right was taken away, in effect retroactively, by the passing of the freezing of leases order in July, 1945.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Whether the purchasers were returned soldiers or not?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It does not matter to what class the tenant belongs. Now it is felt that some measure of relief can be given as indicated in my statement, and that class of purchaser may go before the court of rental appeals and endeavour to show that his need is greater than that of the tenant.



RAILWAY ACT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 24, to amend the Railway Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, section 122(1)(c) of the Railway Act gives to railway boards of directors authority to establish retirement or pension plans. This bill would add to the appropriate paragraph thereof the following words:
Provided that in the administration of any railway retirement or pension plan, leave of absence, suspension, dismissal followed by reinstatement, a temporary lay-off on account of reduction of staff, or absence due to an industrial dispute, strike or lockout, shall not disqualify any railway employee from any retirement or pension rights or benefits to which he would otherwise be entitled.
The purpose of this amendment is to make it perfectly clear that the pension rights of railway employees, provided that such other conditions as are laid down in railway pension plans are met, cannot be lost or abrogated because of a break in service for any of the reasons indicated in the proviso which I have just read. This legislation, I regret to say, cannot be made retroactive to take care of the C.P.R. men involved in the 1919 strike, but it would prevent the recurrence of that kind of an injustice. That is the purpose of the amendment.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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

Mr. LENNARD:: What remuneration was received by W. C. Thomson, Esq., K.C., of Toronto, for work performed for the dominion government while acting for the Department of Veterans Affairs from January 1, 1946 to December 31, 1946, in the way of (a) salary; (b) fees; (c) commissions; (d) expenses?


Mr. TUCKER:: (a) Nil; (b) $66,169.45; (c) nil; (d) $27,400.25. This represents disbursements for abstracts of title, tax certificates, sheriff's certificates, registration fees, continuing abstracts, postage and long distance charges.


CENTRAI. MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. AYLESWORTH:: 1.	What are the names of the directors and senior officials of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?
Questions

2.	What salary and/or honorarium is paid to each such director or official?
3.	What, in detail, is the experience of each such director or official in construction or housing problems?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1 and 2. The directors of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as of January 31, 1947 were as follows: The president, the vicepresident, the governor of the Bank of Canada, the deputy minister of finance. (All the above named in section 6 of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act.)
Mr. Charles Gavsie, authorized by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply to act as director in the place of the deputy minister of reconstruction and supply, pursuant to section 6, subsection 3 of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act.
Mr. George A. Smith, carpenter, Halifax, N.S.
Mr. J. J. Perrault, architect, Montreal, P.Q.
Mr. W. W. McLaughlin, barrister, Toronto, Ontario.	'
Mrs. Robert McQueen, social worker, Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Brig. N. D. Lambert, construction engineer. Vancouver, B.C.
The five directors last named were appointed by order in council P.C. 350 dated January 31, 1946. These directors receive a fee of S150 for each meeting attended by them. Other directors receive no remuneration.
The following are senior officers of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation:
President-Mr. D. B. Mansur, Ottawa, Ontario, appointed by order in council P.C. 7464 dated December 28, 1945, at a salary of $18,000 per annum.
Vice-President-Major-General Hugh A. Young, Ottawa, Ontario, appointed by order in council P.C. 388 dated February 5, 1946, at a salary of $12,000 per annum.
3.	Directors-All the directors of the corporation were appointed by governor in council after due enquiry and consideration of their various qualifications.
Senior Officials-D. B. Mansur, C.B.E., is a graduate of the university of Manitoba and is an associate of the actuarial society of America. He was an officer of the mortgage department of the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada and has a knowledge of practical mortgage administration both farm and urban in all parts of Canada. He was appointed general superintendent of the Central Mortgage Bank in 1939. During the war D. B. Mansur served as assistant to the chairman of the foreign exchange control board and assistant chairman of the national war finance committee.

Major-General H. A. Young, C.B., C.B.E., D.S.O., holds a bachelor of science degree from the university of Manitoba in electrical engineering, graduating in 1924. He obtained a commission in the Royal Canadian Signals and for a number of years was concerned with the installation of radio stations in the western Arctic and northern Manitoba and Saskatchewan. He served overseas on active service in both world war I and II. During world war II he held various important staff appointments and commanded an infantry brigade in the Normandy operations. He held the appointment of quartermaster-general of the Canadian army in Ottawa from September 1944 until his recent retirement on March 31, 1946.


FEDERAL COORDINATOR OF PUBLIC PROJECTS
Mr. CARDIFF:: 1.	Who is the federal coordinator of public projects?
2.	What, in detail, are his duties?
3.	What experience has he had and what are his qualifications for the position?
4.	What salary and/or allowance is paid to him ?
5.	Who is associate coordinator of public projects?
6.	What, in detail, are his duties?
7.	What are his qualifications for the position and what other public positions does he hold?
8.	What salary and/or allowance is paid to him?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	Mr. H. W. Lea.
2.	To direct the activities of the public projects branch of the Department of Reconstruction and Supply, the functions of which are to collect and register a reserve of public projects, to administer the operations of the reserve, and in cases where public authorities are unable to secure engineering advice, to assist in the preparation of plans and specifications enabling public projects to be registered.
3.	Qualifications: Graduate in civil engineering from McGill university, licensed professional engineer, veteran of world war I.
Experience: Fifteen years on engineering design and construction, including eight years in public service; ten years in administrative or executive capacity, including five years in private industry, and five years in the service of the dominion government.
4.	Salary: $7,500 per annum; no allowance other than for accountable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in the course of duty.
5.	There is no associate coordinator of public projects, but the Honourable J. A. Brillant is coordinator of public projects (Quebec).

Questions
6.	To advise on matters concerning public projects, particularly those which originate within the province of Quebec.
7.	Graduation from St. Joseph's university, followed by over 40 years' successful experience in private industry and public service, most of which has been in administrative and managerial capacity. The Honourable J. A. Brillant is a member of the legislative council of the province of Quebec.
8.	The Honourable J. A. Brillant serves without salary, and to date has made no claim for out-of-ipocket expenses.


WHEAT-EXPORTS AND PRICES
Mr. BRACKEN:: 1.	How many bushels of wheat were sent from
Canada to:	(a) The United Kingdom; (b)
other countries, specifying amount to each country, by the Canadian wheat board during each month from August, 1946, to January, 1947, inclusive?
2.	What was the average price per bushel of such sales to each country, by months, as above?


Mr. MacKINNOX:: Answered in the House of Commons on Thursday, February 20, and appears in Hansard of that date, pages 625626-627.


SALMONHURST, N.B., RURAL MAIL SERVICE
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	Has a survey been made by the post office department of proposed rural route No. 3, Salmonhurst, Victoria County, N.B.?
2.	If so, when was the survey made?
3.	When will the service be in operation?
4.	If not, where are the people receiving their mail?


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Survey has just been completed.
3.	Arrangements have been made to invite public tenders to ascertain cost.
4.	At the Lake Edward and Salmonhurst post offices.


ALBERTA RURAL MAIL DELIVERY ROUTES
Mr. SHAW:: 1.	How many rural mail delivery routes have been established in Alberta since January 1, 1940?
2.	How many rural mail delivery routes were extended during the same period?
3.	How many new post offices were opened in Alberta since January 1, 1940?
4.	How many post offices were closed during the same period?


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: 1.	Seven.
2.	Seventeen.
3.	Twenty-three.
4.	Eighty-three.


HARTLAND, N.B., RURAL MAIL SERVICE
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	Is rural route 5, Hartland, Carleton County, N.B., presently in operation?
2.	Were tenders called for this route?
3.	If so, what was the lowest tender?
4.	If the service is not in operation, when will the service be resumed?
5.	If the service is not in operation, where are the people receiving their mail?


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Tenders are still under consideration. This information will be available as soon as new contract has been executed.
4.	See answer to No. 1.
5.	See answer to No. 1.


ELNORA, ALTA., POSTMASTER
Mr. SHAW:: 1.	Who is the present postmaster at Elnora,
Alta.?
2.	When was he appointed to this position?
3.	What previous post office experience did he have?
4.	What was the nature of his employment at the time of his application for the position of postmaster at Elnora?
5.	How many applications were received for this position?
6.	How many of the applicants had had previous post office experience?
7.	Upon whose recommendation was the appointment made?


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: 1.	Harry Thomas Protheroe, returned soldier.
2.	1st December, 1946.
3.	1st August, 1929, to 12th July, 1930.
4.	Grain buyer.
5.	Two.
6.	Two.
7.	C. J. Davidson.


MILITARY PASSENGER VEHICLES
Mr. FRASER:: 1.	What are the names of all officers of the navy, army and air forces who are entitled to the use of a chauffeur-driven motor vehicle?
2.	What are the names of all such officers who make use of such vehicles to be driven between their residence and office?
3.	What control exists over the use of military passenger vehicles?
4.	Have any military passenger vehicles been used for private purposes, such as week-end trips, fishing expeditions, etc.?
5.	If so, by whom?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Officers of the navy, army and air force required to proceed on duty may request service transport when the duty is urgent or

Questions

the points between which such transportation is required are not adequately served by public conveyance.
2.	The names of officers for whom transportation is available and which may be used between their residence and office as at 18th February, 1947 are as follows:
Navy
Vice-Admiral H. E. Reid, R.C.N., Chief of the Naval Staff, Ottawa.
Rear-Admiral C. R. H. Taylor, R.C.N., Commanding Officer Atlantic Coast, Halifax.
Rear-Admiral E. R. Mainguy, R.C.N., Commanding Officer Pacific Coast, Esquimalt.
Commodore R. I. Agnew, R.C.N., Naval Member Liaison Staff, Washington.
Army
Lieut. General C. Foulkes, Chief of General Staff, Ottawa.
Major-General H. W. Foster, General-Officer-Commanding, Eastern Command, Halifax, N.S.
Major-General E. J. Renaud, General-Officer-Commanding, Quebec Command, St. Jean, Que.
Major-General C. Vokes, General-Officer-Commanding, Central Command, Oakville, Ont.
Brigadier M. H. S. Lenhall, General-Officer-Commanding, Prairie Command, Winnipeg, Man.
Major-General F. F. Worthington, General-Officer-Commanding, Western Command, Edmonton, Alta.
Brig. J. R. Agnew, Area Officer Commanding, Fredericton, N.B.
Brig. J. P. C. Bernatehez, Area Officer Commanding, Quebec, P.Q.
Col. M. P. Bogart, Area Officer Commanding, Kingston, Ont.
Brig. P. Earnshaw, Area Officer Commanding, London, Ont.
Col. R. E. A. Morton, Area Officer Commanding, Regina, Sask.
Brig. E. E. Plow, Area Officer Commanding, Vancouver, B.C.
Brig. G. Walsh, Area Officer Commanding, Whitehorse.
Air Force
Air Marshal R. Leckie, Chief of the Air Staff, Ottawa.
Air Vice Marshal A. L. Morfee, Air Officer Commanding Eastern Air Command, Halifax.
Air Vice Marshal E. E. Middleton, Air Officer Commanding No. 1 Air Command, Trenton.
Air Vice Marshal Iv. M. Guthrie, Air Officer Commanding No. 2 Air Command, Winnipeg.

Air Vice Marshal J. L. Plant, Air Officer Commanding Western Air Command, Vancouver.
Air Commodore R. C. Gordon, Air Officer Commanding North West Air Command, Edmonton.
Air Commodore L. E. Wray, Air Officer Commanding No. 9 Transport Group, Rockcliffe.
Air Commodore F. R. Miller, Air Officer Commanding Maintenance Command, Ottawa.
Air Vice Marshal F. G. Wait, Canadian Joint Staff, Washington.
Air Vice Marshal R. E. McBurney, Chief Liaison Officer, London, England.
3.	Officers Commanding are held responsible for the proper administration and use of all vehicles under their command. Directions common to the three services provide that transport shall be used solely for service purposes and shall not be used for journeys that can be made by public transportation services without prejudice to the interest of the ^ services. In each defence service, there is an official charged with the overall control of vehicles in that service and is responsible for bringing any irregularities or recommendations arising from operations or changed conditions to the attention of higher authorities for appropriate action.
4.	Instructions governing the operation and employment of service vehicles preclude their use for private purposes.
5.	Answered by No. 4.


WAR ASSETS-OFFICE EQUIPMENT
Mr. FRASER:: 
George James McIlraith: Stand.


Mr. FRASER:: I believe the minister wanted this question changed a little and I would be quite willing to change it in the first part, to read, "To what firms or individuals in the Toronto district did War Assets Corporation sell this equipment during the years 1945-46."


ESQUIMALT DOCKYARD
Mr. PROBE:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Department of National Defence to replace the civilian guards at the naval dockyard at Esquimalt with personnel drawn from the Canadian corps of commissionaires?

Questions
2.	What is the wage scale being paid to the civilian guards and what wage scale is it proposed to pay the Canadian corps of commissionaires for these guard duties?
3.	What equipment does the Department of National Defence provide to each of the present civilian guards?
4.	Is it proposed that members of the Canadian corps of commissionaires receive the same equipment?
5.	Do members of the civilian guards and/or the Canadian corps of commissionaires contribute to unemployment insurance and/or come under the Workmen's Compensation Act?
6.	Is any portion of the pay received by members of the Canadian corps of commissionaires deducted for use of the corps, and if so, at what rate is the deduction made?
7.	What is the purpose of this deduction?
8.	Have members of the Canadian corps of commissionaires any voice or share in the administration of the corps?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	The Department of National Defence have had under consideration a proposal to transfer to the Canadian corps of commissionaires the administration of the civilian guards at the naval dockyard in Esquimalt but the matter is still in the discussion stage.
2.	The civilian guards are at present paid a basic wage rate of 80 cents per hour based on a 40-hour week; the services of guards operating under the administration of the corps of commissionaires are paid for to the corps by the government department employing them, and not to the individual. The amount which might be paid to the corps if the above-mentioned proposal should be implemented is also still in the discussion stage.
3.	The only equipment provided is clothing for protection against inclement weather such as rubber boots, oil skins, etc. Such equipment is issued on loan as found necessary.
4.	No proposals have been advanced.
5.	Civilians employed as guards in the dockyard come under the Unemployment Insurance Act and also the Workmen's Compensation Act. As the members of the Canadian corps of commissionaries are signed on and are paid by the corps, the department is not in a position to indicate what arrangements are made for protection of its commissionaires in the matter of unemployment insurance or workmen's compensation.
6.	Under agreements at present in effect at naval establishments other than H.M.C. dockyard, Esquimalt, the Department of National Defence pays the corps the authorized wage rate per hour per man covering the services provided, plus five cents per hour per man for corps administration.
83166-45J
7.	The department has no information concerning deductions made by the corps from the basic wage rate per man paid to the corps.
8.	No information.


FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Mr. FULTON:: 1.	Was any attempt made to have the provinces administer family allowances, or make family allowances payments, through their existing provincial public and private welfare agencies?
2.	If so, what were the reasons for the failure to adopt this procedure?
3.	If not, why was the attempt not made?


Mr. MARTIN:: >
1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	The Family Allowances Act, 1944, as passed unanimously by parliament, provides throughout for the administration of the act to be the direct responsibility of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. See in particular section 3, (providing for allowances to be paid from the consolidated revenue fund); section 9, (granting powers to the minister to administer the act); section 15 (requiring the minister to submit a report to parliament of expenditures and administration in connection with the act) and section 16 (providing for the appropriation by parliament of expenses necessary for the administration of the act).


CONFERENCE ON INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Mr. DROPE:: 1.	Did the dominion government hold a conference with the provincial authorities on industrial relations?
2.	If so, what conclusions were reached or recommendations made by such conference?
3.	What action has been taken by the dominion government in respect of such conclusions or recommendations?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	Yes-October 15, 1946.
2.	The conference recognized that the responsibility and jurisdiction in the matter of collective bargaining rests in the provinces, with the exception of the coverage of those industries which come within dominion jurisdiction, and recommended the adoption as far as practicable of uniform collective bargaining legislation by the provinces and the dominion.
The conference further recommended that a draft bill be prepared by a drafting committee covering labour relations in so far as the same are within dominion jurisdiction,
Questions

and that such draft suggestions be submitted to the ministers of labour for the provinces for their consideration and advice.
The conference also suggested the desirability of annual conferences of provincial ministers of labour and their officials, to be participated in as well by officials of the dominion Department of Labour and to be convened at Ottawa by the dominion Minister of Labour.
3.	Copies of the draft suggestions as prepared by dominion Department of Labour-officials have been forwarded to all provincial ministers of labour, under confidential cover for consideration and comment.


DIRECTOR OF HOUSING
Mr. FLEMING:: 1.	Who was director of housing in the national housing administration?
2.	How long had he been engaged in the public service, and in what capacity and at what B^lciry rfltcs ?
3.	Has he been retired? If so, for what reason?
4.	On what terms as to retirement allowance and otherwise was he retired?
5.	What is the authority for payment of the retirement allowance?
0.	How was the amount of the allowance arrived at?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1.	F. W. Nicolls.
2.	October 11, 1935 to July 31, 1936, architect, S3.600 per annum; August 1, 1936 to March 31, 1939, director, Dominion Housing Act, $4,800 per annum; April 1, 1939 to December 31, 1940, director of housing, 85,400 per annum; January 1, 1941 to December 31, 1944, director of housing, 85,700 per annum; January 1, 1945 to June 1, 1946, director of housing, $6,000 per annum.
3.	Yes. Abolition of position.
4.	S97.86 per month, less $7.51 per month payment of arrears of contribution for temporary service,
5.	P.C. 76/1523 dated April 17, 1946, passed pursuant to the Civil Service Superannuation Act.
6.	Allowance based on a service of 10 years and 8 months and an average salary for the last 10 years of $5,505, as provided by section 6(a)iii of the Civil Service Superannuation Act.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-MOTOR VEHICLES-COMPLIANCE WITH PROVINCIAL REGULATIONS
Mr. FRASER:: 1.	Do all national defence motor vehicles carry provincial licence plates? If not, why do they not do so?

2.	Are national defence motor vehicles supposed to comply with provincial and municipal motor vehicle laws and regulations?
3.	Does the national defence department carry insurance, personal and property, on their motor vehicles?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	All wheeled motor vehicles carry provincial licence plates.
2.	As a matter of law, no, but in practice, the instructions are that to the extent compatible with service exigencies there shall be compliance with provincial and municipal motor vehicle laws and regulations.
3.	No.


INSPECTION BOARD OF CANADA-RESEARCH WORK
Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	Does the inspection board of Canada maintain a laboratory for research work?
2.	If so, what personnel is employed and what was the cost of maintenance during .1946?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	No; the laboratories maintained by the inspection board are operated as routine test laboratories only, providing the data governing the acceptance or rejection of manufactured stores under supply to the services.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


QUEBEC BRIDGE
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaCROIX:
What was the cost of maintenance of the Quebec bridge (a) during the year 1945; (b) during the year 1946?
Mr. CHEVRIER:: This question asks for certain information concerning the Quebec bridge. The Canadian National Railways inform me that it will be a matter of some time and some cost to get this information. I have consulted with the hon. gentleman and he is willing to withdraw the question.
Question dropped.


ARMY CANTEEN FUND
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	What is the total amount of money now to the credit of the army canteen fund?
2.	Have any disbursements from the said fund been made since July 1, 1946? If so, how much?
3.	For what purposes are grants or disbursements made from the said fund and what is the basis of consideration determining entitlement to a grant being made?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: (In so far as the army is concerned)
I.	(i) Jan. 31, 1947, Central Trust Fund, $2,883,457.
Equities: Army, $2,753,194; navy, $62,591; air force, $59,983; safe-keeping, $7,689.
(ii)	Feb. 14, 1947, Army Unit Trust Fund, $2,735,820.

Questions
Proceeds from the liquidation of assets of the institutes of wartime active units (on deposit with the Bank of Montreal).
(iii)	Feb. 14, 1947, Army Unit Trust Fund No. 3, $16,256.
Proceeds from the liquidation of assets of the institutes of disbanded or dormant reserve units (on deposit with the Bank of Montreal -safe-keeping account).
(iv)	April 27. 1944. Army Show and Recreation Fund, $24,042.15.
(1)	Gratuities from civic authorities or organizations for emergency assistance by troops (snow clearing and forest fires).
(2)	Army show and recreation.
2.	Disbursements made since July 1, 1946,
(i)	Central Trust Fund, nil.
(ii)	Disbanded Active Units, Army Unit Trust Fund, $1,603.85.
Payments made in settlement of outstanding liabilities as at date of disbandment, insurance protection on assets held for disposal, insurance and postage on securities transferred to the army unit trust fund and cartage re disposal of furniture and equipment.
(iii)	Army Unit Trust Fund (Safe-keeping A/c), $701.72.
Remittance of funds to reactivated reserve or perpetuating units.
(iv)	No requisitions issued.
3.	There have been no grants made from central trust fund to date.


WHEAT-DOMESTIC, EXPORT AND WORLD MARKET PRICES
Mr. McCUAIG:: How much have the wheat growers of Canada contributed in cash to date, in the:
1.	Difference in price between $1.25 per bushel, domestic price, and the export price?
2.	Difference between the export price and the world market price?
3.	Estimated indirect contribution in taxes to the federal treasury by way of subsidies?


Mr. MacKINNON:: 1.	The question asked by the hon. member cannot be answered precisely on the basis of any information in the possession of the government. Certain assumptions on both quantities and prices would have to be made and the answers would be no more valid than the assumptions.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.


IMPORTS OP GOODS NOT PRODUCED IN CANADA
Mr. BENTLEY:: What goods does Canada have to import which she is at present unable to produce?


James Angus MacKinnon: To answer the hon. member's question precisely would involve an analysis of statistical data that would involve considerable time and expense. The partial list hereunder discloses in a general way the dependency of Canada on other nations for foods and industrial raw materials and components. The percentages shown represent the amount imported of the total quantity currently consumed in Canada and fabricated for export.
Agricultural products, 100 per cent imported: Bananas, citrus fruits, dried fruits, (raisins, currants, figs, dates, prunes, etc.) coconut, copra, cocoa beans, coffee, peanuts, tea, rice, spices, vanilla beans, cork, cotton jute, manilla, sisal and silk.
Other representative agricultural items imported: Pickled sheep and lamb skins, 55 per cent; wool skins, 95 per cent; calf and kip skins, 33i per cent; wool, 80 per cent; sugar, 84 per cent; animal oils, 66 per cent; vegetable oils, edible, 85 per cent; vegetable oils, nonedible, 26 per cent; oil-bearing materials, 26 per cent.
Chemical and allied products 100 per cent imported: Acids, various; crude medicinal drugs such as caffeine, cocaine, quinine; aniline dyes, tanning extracts; pigments such as carbon black, lithopone.
Partially imported: Sulphur 75 per cent; titanium, 90 per cent.
Various other industrial raw materials: Bauxite, 100 per cent; iron ore, 66 per cent; tin, 90 per cent; coal, 65 per cent; cryolite, 100 per cent; crude petroleum, 85 per cent; natural rubber, 100 per cent; iron and steel scrap, 25 per cent; automobile parts, approximately 50 per cent.
In the fields of capital equipment and machinery, there are heavy imports of farm machinery, metal working machinery, mining and metallurgical machinery, textile machinery and so forth. Basically the decision whether to import, or buy in Canada, resolves itself into factors of cost and delivery.
This list in no sense is intended to cover the entire field. It is significant, however, that during 1945 and 1946, imported items entering free of duty, comprised 49-5 per cent and 44 per cent respectively of total imports.


MERCURY
Mr. KNIGHT:: 1.	What mines in Canada are presently producing mercury?
2.	What is the annual production of such mines?
3.	Has the Pinchi lake mine ceased operating?
4.	If so (a) when did it close down; (b) for what reason?
5.	Is there any of the product of that mine still unsold?
Questions

6.	If so, how much?
7.	Is mercury being imported into Canada:
8.	If so, from what countries, and how much from each?


Mr. GLEN:: 1.	None.
2.	None.
3.	Yes.
4.	(a) July, 1944; (b) Accumulation of stock and lack of market at what the producer considers an economic price.
5.	Yes.
6.	130,772 pounds at December 31, 1946.
7.	Yes.
8.	Imports into Canada for calendar year, 1946:
	Pounds
Chile 			 2,406
Italy			 27.600
Mexico 			 12,500
Spain 			 11,840
UB A 			 98,373
Total 			 152,719


HOUSING-VETERANS LAND ACT-CONTRACTS FOR PURCHASE
Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	How many veterans are now living in V.L.A. homes in each province and each district. who have not contracted to purchase same?
2.	What are the reasons for deals not being completed?


Mr. MACKENZIE:: 1.	With the exception of a relatively small number of cases in which costs could not be indicated and immediate occupation on a temporary rental basis was desirable, veterans living in houses erected under the provisions of Y.L.A. have made the required initial deposits.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


STRAIT OF CANSO-IMPROVEMENT OF FACILITIES
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	Does the government or Canadian National Railways propose constructing a new railway car ferry to operate at the strait of Canso, Nova Scotia?
2.	Have tenders been called for construction or contract given? If so. to whom, and at what price?
3.	When will this ferry be ready for service?
4.	What is the horsepower and carrying capacity?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	The policy with regard to the question of improvements to the facilities at the strait of Canso crossing has not yet been determined.
2,	3 and 4. Answered by No. 1.
[Mr. Knight.1


CANADIAN PALESTINE COMMITTEE
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Who are the members and officers of the Canadian Palestine committee, and what experience and education has each of them to be on such committee?
2.	What is the purpose of such committee, and what were its activities?
3.	Under the control of what minister was this committee placed, and on what dates were reports submitted by such committee?
4.	When was such committee formed?
5.	Is the committee still in existence? If not, when did it cease to exist?
6.	What remuneration is paid to each of the members and officers of the committee, and what amount was paid to each for travelling expenses.
7.	How many members and officers have been to Palestine since the formation of the committee, and who are they?
8.	Has this committee held meetings in Palestine? If so, at what place and on what dates? If not, by whom and how was the committee informed on events in Palestine?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The question appears to presuppose that the Canadian Palestine committee was appointed by the Canadian government. This is not the case. It is a voluntary organization of non-Jewish Canadians in sympathy with the Zionist organization of Canada. It does not come under the control of the government.


HOUSING-VETERANS LAND ACT-COLCHESTER COUNTY, N.S.
Mr. STANFIELD:: 1.	How many veterans' houses were completed at Onslow, Colchester county, Nova Scotia?
2.	What was the total cost of these houses?
3.	How many houses have been sold?
4.	What was each sold for?


Mr. TUCKER:: 1.	Fifteen.
2.	Estimated cost $96,994.25 (houses only) 

figure subject to treasury cost audit.
3.	Eleven.
4.	Sale price including land and services: five at 16,768.91; two at $6428.91; one at $5,676.91; one at $5,817.38; two at $6,809.38.


FEDERAL DISTRICT-DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL
Mr. BOUCHER:: 1.	Has the dominion government consulted (a) the government of Ontario; (b) the government of Quebec, on the subject of the development and beautification of the national capital area?
2.	If so, what is the nature of these consultations?
3.	If not, why were these governments not consulted?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
1.	No.
2.	Answered by No 1.

Questions
3.	As plans for development are still in a preliminary and tentative stage, there has, as yet, been no necessity for formal consultation. The province of Ontario, under the Ontario planning act, has established the capital planning committee which is composed of persons who also serve on the national capital planning committee approved by order in council P.C. 1266 of April 18, 1946.


TAX REVENUES
Mr. BARRETT:: What revenue has been produced by (a) the individual income tax; (b) the corporation income tax; (c) the excess profits tax, in each fiscal year since their first imposition?


Mr. McCANN:: The question is answered for the taxation division in the following statement:
Collections Since Inception by Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year	Indivi- dual	Corpora tion	ExcessEnding	Income	Income	ProfitsMarch 31st	Tax	Tax	Tax1917 	12,506,5171918 	21,271,0841919 	7,972,890	1,376,830	32,970,0621920 	13,495,314	7,068,426	44,145,1841921 	32,532,526	13,849,298	40,841,4011922 	39,820,597	38,863,758	22,815,6671923 	31.689,393	28,022,145	13,031,4621924 	25.657.335	28,546,693	4,752,6811925 	25,156,768	31.091,275	2,704,4271926 	23,849.475	31.722.487	1,173,4491927 	18,043,261	29,343,048	710,1021928 	23,222.891	33,348,156	956,0311929 	24,793.449	34.628,874	455,2321930 	27,237,502	41.783.224	173,3001931 	26.624,1181	44,423,841	34.4301932 	24.772.846	36.481.554	3,0001933 	25,959.466	36,107,231	541934 	29,183,715	27,385,822	nil1935 	25,201,392	35,790,239	1936 	32,788,746	42,518,971	1937 	35,358,302	58,012,843	(t1938 	40,070,942	69,768,605	tt1939 	46,591.449	85,185.887	it1940 	45,008,858	77,920,002	it1941 	103,308,249	131,565,710	23,995,2691942 	295,874,285	185,835,699	135,168,3451943 	533,915,059	347,969,723	454,580,6771944 	811.888,495	311,378,714	468,717,8401945 	767,222.483	276,403.849	465,805,35619f6 	690.815,745	217,833,540	494;196,483


JOHN GRIERSON
Mr. BARRETT:: 1.	Were payments for travelling or other expenses made to John Grierson after he ceased to be an official of the national film board?
2.	If so, what was the amount of such payments?
3.	What was the reason for such payments?
4.	Upon whose authority were they made?
5.	Has any action been taken to recover these payments?
6.	If not, why is such action not taken?


Mr. McCANN:: 
NATIONAL. FILM BOARD  FILM MADE IN CHINA
Mr. MENARY:: 1.	Will the national film board be reimbursed for the newsreel film made by a film board camera man in China?
2.	If so, by whom?
3.	Will the national film board receive reimbursement for the exhibition of this film?
4.	From what sources is this revenue to be expected, if any?
5.	When received, what account is usually credited with such revenue?
6.	Is it the policy of the national film board to produce films on funds supplied by the people of Canada for relief purposes and retain the earnings of such films for the use of the board?
7.	What was the nature of the arrangement between UNRRA and the national film board??
8.	Is A. Grant MoLean. the national film board camera man, related to the government film commissioner?
9.	If so, what is the relationship?


Mr. McCANN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	United nations relief and rehabilitation administration.
3.	No.
4.	See answer to No. 3.
5.	If revenues are received, they are usually credited to the consolidated revenue fund.
6.	No.
7.	On February 12, 1945, the authorities of the united nations relief and rehabilitation administration requested from the Canadian government through the mutual aid board, services not to exceed $50,000 to record in film for the UNRRA public information division the work of UNRRA in certain parts of Europe and the Far East. The motion picture film secured was released in the ordinary way through the international newsreels for public information purposes.
8.	Yes.
9.	Nephew.
Questions


INCOME TAX-CAMPBELLTON, N.B., OFFICE
Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	Has any action been taken by the Department of National Revenue to establish a branch of the income tax office at Campbellton, New Brunswick?
2.	If so, what territory will the office serve?
3.	What will be the approximate number of personnel ?
4.	Will appointments to this office come under the Civil Service Act with preference given to veterans?
5.	How many appointments will be made and what salary paid to each?


James Joseph McCann: (For taxation division):
1.	The matter is under serious consideration.
2.	The office, if opened, would serve-
The counties in the province of New Brunswick:	Restigouche, Madawaska, Victoria,
Northumberland, Gloucester.
The counties in the province of Quebec: Bonaventure, Matapedia, Matane, Gaspe (excluding Magdalen Islands).
3.	Not yet determined.
4.	No-veterans preference will apply.
5.	Answered by No. 3.


MOUNTED POLICE-CITIZENSHIP PROGRAMME
Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg North):: 1.	Does the R.C.M.P. have a citizenship programme?
2.	If so, who is in charge of the programme?
3.	What is his salary?
4.	What are his qualifications?
5.	Is the curriculum or outline of the course available to members of parliament?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Yes; only as part of the programme on "Youth and the Police".
2.	The deputy commissioner, as part of his several duties.
3.	$6,500 per annum.
4.	Thirty-six years service.
5.	Yes.


SILVER CROSS MOTHERS
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	Has the government received any representations on behalf of Silver Cross mothers, suggesting that provision be made to enable these mothers to visit the United Kingdom or other countries where their sons made friends and are now buried?
2.	If so, has consideration been given to this suggestion and what is the status of the matter at the present time?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
1.	Yes.
2.	Consideration has been given to the suggestion. In view of the shortage of trans-
[Mr. McCann.)
portation facilities it has been thought inadvisable to take any decision at the present time.


ARCHBISHOP STEPINAC OF YUGOSLAVIA
Mr. CAOUETTE:: 1.	Have representations been made to the government as to the trial and internment of Bishop Stepinac of Yugoslavia?
2.	If so, has the government taken any action in the matter?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
1.	Communcations concerning the trial and sentence of Archbishop Stepinac have been received from a number of organizations and individuals.
2.	After careful examination of the available information, it was decided that, since the archbishop is a Yugoslav citizen subject to the domestic law of Yugoslavia, the Canadian government could not properly or effectively make official representations to the government of Yugoslavia in respect of his trial before a Yugoslav court.


REFUNDABLE INCOME AND EXCESS PROFITS TAXES
Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: 1.	What was the total amount collected in each fiscal year on account of (a) refundable personal income tax; (b) refundable excess profits tax?
2.	When will these amounts be repaid to taxpayers?


James Joseph McCann: (For taxation division):
1.
Refundable Refundable Personal	Excess
Taxation Year	Income Tax Profits Tax
1942	(estimated).. 58,000,000 31,200,000
1943	(estimated).. 145,000,000 67500,000
1944	(estimated)..	72,000.000 72,700,000
1945		 70,500,000
1946*	 10,100,000
* Corporation fiscal years ending in 1946 prior to March 31.
2.	The law provides that in respect of the 1942 taxation period, repayment shall be made not later than the end of the second fiscal period of the government of Canada commencing after 2nd September, 1945 and in the case of taxes paid upon income for each subsequent year, not later than one year subsequent to the date fixed for the repayment of taxes paid upon income for the next succeeding year.

Questions


CONSOLIDATED REVENUE AND AUDIT ACT- LEGISLATION REGULATING FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS
Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: 1.	What consideration has been given by the government to the recommendation of the auditor general in paragraph 6 of his report, that existing legislation be reviewed in order that statements made to parliament clearly reflect the operations of the public service?
2.	What conclusions have been reached?


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: I do not see anything particularly relating to my department, but if my department is aimed at I will ask that the question stand and try to answer it later.
Question stands.


INDIAN RESERVES-VISITS OF INDIAN AGENT
Mr. BRYCE:: 1.	How many visits have been made by the Indian agent in 1946 to the following reserves: Lake St. Martin; Little Saskatchewan; Fair-ford reserve?
2.	How far does the Indian agent reside from these reserves?


Mr. GLEN:: 1.	Three visits.
2.	Approximately 260 miles.


EXCHEQUER COURT JUDGES
Mr. MacINNIS:: 1. How many exchequer court judges are there ?
2.	What are their names and when were they appointed?
3. How many cases have been before the court awaiting decision for (a) more than one year but less than two years; (b) more than two years but less than three years; (c) more than three years?
4.	Who are the parties to the cases, if any, which have been before the court for more than three years?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Four.
2.	The Honourable Joseph T. Thorson, October 6, 1942; the Honourable Eugene Real Angers, February 1. 1932; the Honourable C. G. O'Connor, April 19, 1945; the Honourable J. C. A. Cameron, September 4. 1946.
3.	(a) 10, (b) 21, (c) 1.
4.	Irving Airchute Co. Inc. v. His Majesty The King.


R.C.A.F.-NO. 5 EQUIPMENT DEPOT, MONCTON
Mr. EMMERSON:: 1.	Is No. 5 equipment depot, R.C.A.F., located at Moncton, New Brunswick, to be a permanent station?
2.	If so, how many (a) civilian employees; (b) enlisted personnel, are to be included in the permanent establishment ?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Civilian employees, 138; (b) enlisted employees, 9 officers and 184 other ranks.


CONSOLIDATION OF STATUTES
Mr. FULTON:: 1.	Have any steps yet been taken to prepare a consolidation of all statutes passed in the parliament of Canada since 1927?
2.	If so, when is it expected that the next revised statutes of Canada will be issued?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


IMPORTS OF COAL
Mr. HANSELL:: How many tons of coal have been imported into Canada from (a) the United Kingdom; (b) the United States of America, for each of the years 1939 to 1946 respectively?


James Angus MacKinnon: Imports of coal into Canada for consumption from the United Kingdom and the United States were as follows:
	United	United
	Kingdom	States
Year	Short tons	Short tons1939 	
1,099,419	13,357,3241940 	
1,514,741	15,899,9751941 	
696,777	19,691,6101942 	
389,886	24,547,1051943 	
392,003	27,716,9191944 	
218,511	28,505,3431945 	
28,388	25,033,1681946 	
101,580	26,005,019


PORT ELGIN POST OFFICE BUILDINO
Mr. TUSTIN:: 1.	From whom is the building used by the Port Elgin post office leased?
2.	What is the term of time for this lease?
3.	What is the annual rental?


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: 1.	Estate of Charles F. McPherson.
2.	Five years from July 13, 1946.
3.	8420.


WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD-PROSECUTIONS, HASTINGS COUNTY
Mr. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):: With reference to prosecutions under regulations of wartime prices and trade board in the county of Hastings, what is the name and address of the official who authorizes the prosecution.

Questions


Mr. MAYHEW:: No one may be prosecuted for breach of wartime prices and trade board regulations without leave of the attorney general of the province or the leave of the board.
No leaves have been granted by the attorney general of the province since 1943.
Whenever leave to prosecute is granted by the board, such leave is granted over the signature of the secretary or assistant secretary of the board in Ottawa.


SOLDIER SETTLEMENT AND VETERANS' LAND ACT- HASTINGS COUNTY, ONTARIO
Mr. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):: 1.	How many applications have been made to purchase farms in the county of Hastings, under the Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act?
2.	How many applications have been accepted?
3.	How many applications have been refused?
4.	How many applications are still pending?


Mr. TUCKER:: 1.	Sixty-five.
2.	Fifty-six approved.
3.	Two.
4.	Seven.



ORDERS IN COUNCIL-MILITIA ACT

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	(a) How many orders in council were passed between the 3rd of September, 1939, and the ,10th of May, 1945; (b) from May, 1945 to September, 1945, both inclusive; (c) from the 1st of October, 1945, and to date?
2.	Of these, how many were passed in each of the said periods in connection with the army and under the provisions of the Militia Act?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The hon. member is not in his seat. I have the numbers, but when he is here I should like to make a request of him.
Question stands.



INDIA AND PALESTINE

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Can the government inform the house of the present situation in India and Palestine?
2.	Has the government of Great Britain abandoned these lands as part of the British empire?
3.	Was the government advised or consulted in these matters and what was the reply of the government in each case?
4.	Did the government of Australia and New Zealand have any consultation with the government of Canada on the liquidating of these parts of the British empire?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
1.	The present situation in India was outlined in a statement made on February 20 by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
[Mr. G. S. White.!
The present situation in Palestine was outlined in a statement made in the United Kingdom parliament on February 18.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Commonwealth governments keep each other informed on matters of foreign policy in accordance with the practice described by Mr. Attlee, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, in the House of Commons in London, on May 8, 1946, as follows:
It is our practice and our duty as members of the British commonwealth to keep other members of the commonwealth fully and continuously informed of all matters which we are called upon to decide, but which may affect commonwealth interests. The object is to give them an opportunity of expressing their views in confidence, if they so desire. These views are taken fully into account, but the decision must be ours, and the other governments are not asked, and would not wish, to share the responsibility for it. Dominion governments follow the same practice.
This practice has been followed with regard to United Kingdom policy in India and Palestine.
4.	Answered by No. 3.


Mr. CHURCH:: They are being liquidated so fast there will soon be nothing else left.



INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION

Mr. DROPE:: ,1. Who are the members of the international joint commission?
2.	What salaries do they receive?
3.	What are their duties?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: This same question was asked by the hon. member last session and the answer appears in Hansard for Monday May 6, 1946, at page 1219.
Since the answer given by the Prime Minister on May 6 last year, two vacancies have occurred in the Canadian personnel of the commission due to the death of the chairman, the Hon. Charles Stewart, on 6 December last, and to the death of the secretary, Lawrence J. Burpee, on October 13 last.
The salary of Miss E. M. Sutherland is now 82,399.77 and that of Mrs. Montgomery is $2,219.77.
In all other respects the answer remains unchanged.
national council of physical fitness


Mr. ARSENAULT:: 1.	Who are the members of the national council of physical fitness, created by section three of The National Physical Fitness Act, chapter 29 of the statutes of .1934-44, proclaimed in force on the 1st of October, 1943?

Orders for Returns
2.	Which provinces have entered into agreements with the Minister of National Health and Welfare and have obtained financial assistance under the act?
3.	\Yhat amounts have been paid to each province in each fiscal year since the proclamation of the act?


Paul Joseph James Martin: E Prince Edward Island, Mr. L. W. Shaw; Nova Scotia, Dr. W. C. Ross; New Brunswick, Mr. M. H. Brewer; Quebec, Dr. Jules Gilbert; Ontario, Mr. A. A. Burridge; Manitoba, Mr. Wray Youmans, Mr. Hart Devenney; Saskatchewan, Mr. W. A. Wellband; Alberta, Mr. J. N. Ross; British Columbia, Mr. J. Mathisen; chairman and national director, Temporarily
vacant.
2.	and 3.
Provinces	1944-45
Prince Edward Island	 S	
Nova Scotia	 7.418.43
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia	 16,015.75
 Provinces	1945-46
Prince Edward Island	 $	
Nova Scotia	 6,747.50
Manitoba	 2.692.44
Saskatchewan	 17.044.65
Alberta	 23,070.53
British Columbia	
Provinces	1946-47
Prince Edward Island	 $	774.49
Nova Scotia	 4,743.54
Manitoba	 7510.13
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	 12,426.24
British Columbia	 16.015.75



RADIO BROADCASTING-PACIFIC COAST TO THE ORIENT

Mr. IRVINE:: Has the government given consideration to the establishing of a C.B.C. high-power station at some suitable point on the Pacific coast, so that the voice of Canada may reach the orient?


James Joseph McCann: No.



WAR SAVINGS CERTIFICATES

Mr. COCKERAM:: 1.	What was the total amount of war savings certificates sold in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1946?
2.	What was the total cost of the sales including administration, advertising and publicity in the same period?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1.	$40,218,324 (at issue price).
2.	$296,673.12.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. DORION:: 1.	During the last fiscal year, what educational institutions have been in receipt of grants for the training of cadets?
2.	What amount was received by each institution?
3.	What amount will each institution receive during the current year?


Hugues Lapointe: Return tabled.


WAR ASSETS-RECEIPTS IN 1945 AND 1946
Mr. CASE:: 1.	What revenue was received during the calendar years 1945 and 1946 from the sale of goods, equipment, buildings, material, etc., by war assets corporation?
2.	Were these receipts credited to capital or current accounts or both, and if the latter, what was the gross amount in each case?


AIR TRANSPORT-PRIVATE LINES-RATES AND CHARGES
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	On what basis are private air lines supposed to charge for transportation of goods by weight and distance, by weight and time, or otherwise?
2.	In the case of passengers is the charge supposed to be by time, distance, or otherwise?
3.	What rates are charged by Canadian Pacific Air Lines on its routes in Manitoba and Saskatchewan?
4.	Are there extra charges for landing or other items?


George James McIlraith: Return tabled.


DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC PRINTING AND STATIONERY
Mr. AYLESWORTH:: 1.	How many employees were there in the Department of Public Printing and Stationery on: (1) September 1. 1939; (2) June 1, 1945; (3) January 1, 1947?
2.	On each of the above dates, how many employees were there in, (a) an executive or clerical capacity; (b) a mechanical capacity?
3.	How many of the present employees are resident in (a) Ottawa; (b) Hull; (c) other municipalities?
4.	What was the total annual payroll in, (a) 1939; (b) 1945; (c) 1946?
5.	What was the total volume and value of the work produced for the king's printer during (a) 1939; (b) 1945; (c) 1946, (l) in the government printing bureau; (ii) outside the government printing bureau?
6.	From September 1, 1939, to the present what was the total volume and value of the work done by outside printers, the statement thereof to be broken down by provinces of the location of the outside plants.
Orders for Returns


NATIONAL FILM BOARD-16 MILLIMETRE FILM PROJECTION CIRCUIT
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	Does the national film board or any other government agency operate a 16 millimetre film projection circuit?
2.	If so, how many persons are employed in connection with this work?
3.	What are their names?
4.	What is the total salary paid to each such person?
5.	What is the total amount of travelling expenses paid to each such person during the past year?
6.	What is the previous experience of each such person?
7.	What equipment has been purchased for use in this work?
8.	What is the total cost of such equipment?
9.	What was the total expenditure on this work during the calendar year 1946?
10.	What has been the total expenditure of this work from its commencement to December 31, 1946?


James Joseph McCann: Return tabled.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Mr. WEBB:: 1.	What was the total appropriation voted by parliament for the work of the national film board during each year since its establishment?
2.	What was the total amount made available to the national film board from any war appropriation during each year since its establishment?
3.	What was the total amount made available to the national film board by transfer from other branches of the government during each year since its establishment?
4.	What is the grand total of the expenditures of the national film board in each year since its establishment?


James Joseph McCann: Return tabled.


ROYAL COMMISSIONS
Mr. BRADSHAW:: 1.	Since October 23, 1935, how many royal commissions have been appointed by the government ?
2.	Who were the members of each commission?
3.	What was the total cost of each commission?
2.	What is the estimate of the cost by provinces, of the administration of family allowances in the fiscal year ending March, 1947?
3.	What is the estimate of the cost, by provinces, of the administration of family allowances in the fiscal year ending March, 1948?


EXPORTS AND IMPORTS
Mr. HERRIDGE:: 1.	What was the total amount, in dollars, of (a) exports; (b) imports, to and from all countries during each of the years 1936, 1937 1938?
2.	What was the total amount, in dollars, or
(a) exports; (b) imports, to and from all countries during each of the years 1939 to 1945 inclusive?	.
3.	What was the total amount, in dollars, ot (a) exports; (b) imports, to and from all countries during the year 1946?
4.	What amount to and from each country during each of the above years?
Mr MncKTMNON:	Return tabled.


UNEMPLOYMENT-DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PERSONS OVER FORTY YEARS OF AGE
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	Have representations been made to the government by the Senior Citizens' Association of Canada for the appointment of a royal commission to inquire into ways and means of preventing and combating discrimination against persons over forty years of age when seeking employment?
2.	Has consideration been given to such representations since July 15, 1946, and is anything being done about the matter at the present time?


Mr. MITCHELL:: Return tabled.


IMPORTS OF UNITED STATES COAL
Mr. GILLIS:: 1.	What duty is charged on imported American coal (a) bituminous: (b) anthracite?
2.	What draw-back is paid for imported American coal used for metallurgical purposes?
3.	What subsidy is paid tile importers of American coal used for domestic purposes (a) bituminous; (b) anthracite?
4.	What are the names of the firms or companies that import American coal from the United States?	.
5.	Are any of the firms or companies importing coal from the United States subsidiaries of operating coal companies (a) in Canada; (b) in United States?



POLISH IMMIGRANTS


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: Of the 60,000 houses reported to have been completed in Canada in 1946, how many were completed in each province stating the cities, towns, and other municipalities in each?



FAMILY ALLOWANCES

Mr. FULTON:: 1. What was the cost, by provinces, of the administration of family allowances in the fiscal year ending March, 1946?
[Mr. Aylesworth.l


Mr. KIDD:: 1.	What has been the total cost of bringing Polish immigrants into Canada since January, 1940, including transportation, food, clothing, medical and hospitalization, distribution and administration?
2.	How much of this expenditure has been borne by Canada?
3.	How many British immigrants have entered
Canada since January. 1946?	.
4.	How many of these British immigrants
received assistance from the Canadian government?	.
5.	What was the total amount they received?

Orders for Returns



VETERANS LAND ACT-SWIFT CURRENT CONSTITUENCY

Mr BENTLEY:: 1.	How many veterans have been settled under the Veterans' Land Act in the federal constituency of Swift Current, to date, on: (a) small holdings; (b) full-time farming?
2.	In which trading area has each veteran been settled?



BEER, WINE AND SPIRITS

Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	With what countries have trade agreements been made specifying that spirits, wine or beer are (a) an export commodity; (b) an import commodity?
2.	How much has been (a) imported; (b) exported, under such agreements?
3.	When were the wartime regulations introduced restricting the manufacture and sale of liquor?
4.	When were the regulations relaxed?
5.	When were the regulations repealed?
6.	What effect did the wartime regulations have on the quantity of materials used in the production of (a) spirits; (b) wine; (e) beer?
7.	What changes did wartime regulations make in the alcoholic content of (a) spirits; (b) wine; (c) in the fortification of beer?



FILM PROJECTORS

Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	How many projectors for 16-millimetre films are in possession of the Department of National Defence?
2.	How many others have been declared surplus by the army, navy and air force?
3.	How many have been disposed of by war assets?
4.	How many were sold or otherwise disposed of to educational authorities and institutions?
5.	Were any destroyed? If so, how many?



TOURIST ADVERTISING

Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Does the government advertise tourist attractions of Canada in United States, South American countries, European countries and Canada?
2.	What magazines, periodicals and newspapers were so used in each country; what amount was spent on each in 1946, and what is the estimated amount to be so spent for 1947?
3.	Are films or motion pictures used?
4.	If so (a) how many different films were shown in 1946: (b) in what provinces were they taken; (e) what were their titles; (d) what was the cost of each one; (e) in what countries were they shown and how many showings in each country; (f) what was the total amount spent on such films in 1946; (g) what is the estimated amount to be spent on films in 1947?
5.	What other methods are employed to increase the tourist industry?
6.	What advertising agencies were employed; where are they located and what amount of advertising did each receive?
7.	How many persons were employed in Ottawa in the travel bureau in 1946?
8.	Has the staff been increased in 1947? If so, by how many?
9.	Who is the present head of the travel bureau; what are his duties and how long has he been so employed?
ilO. What was the estimated value to Canada, in dollars and cents, of the tourist industry in 1937, 1938, 1945 and 1946?
11.	Does the government cooperate with the provinces to promote the industry? If so, in what way?
12.	Has the government contributed to the construction of highways in any province to promote the tourist industry? If so, to what provinces and what amount to each?
13.	Do trade commissioners in any country further our tourist industry? If so, in what manner?
14.	How many inquiries were received from each foreign country for tourist information in 1946, and to February 15, 1947?


James Angus MacKinnon: Return, tabled.



RED DEER, ALTA., POST OFFICE BUILDING

Mr. SHAW:: 1.	Upon what date was the present post office building at Red Deer, Alberta, procured by the Department of Public Works?
2.	What was the total number of patrons of the Red Deer office at the end of its first full year of operation in its present quarters?
, 3. What total sum has been spent on renovations to this building since it was first acquired and when were such renovations made?
4.	What was the total number of patrons of the Red Deer post office as at December 31, 1946?
5.	What was the total revenue of the Red Deer post office for the first full year of its operation, in its present quarters?
6.	What was the total revenue for 1946?


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	In each of the years 1941 to 1947 inclusive, what has been (i) the average price per one hundred pounds paid in sugar control or by the sugar controller for raw sugars, f.o.b. (a) Cuba; (b) San Domingo; (c) British West Indies; (d) other British possessions? (ii) The laid-down cost of such sugars at the ports of Saint John, Montreal and Vancouver?
2.	What was the freight per one hundred pounds in each of said years from (a) Cuba;
(b)	San Domingo; (c) British West Indies; (d) other British possessions, to each of said ports?
3.	What price was paid per one hundred pounds for raw sugars f.o.b. from each of the following sources; (a) Cuba; (b) San Domingo;
(c)	British West Indies; (d) other British possessions, for the fourth quarter of the year 1946?
4.	Will the prices paid during the fourth quarter of 1946 for Cuban and San Dominigan raw sugars be the minimum prices for sugars from their respective 1947 crops. If the prices have not been settled yet, what is it estimated the prices for 1947 will be?


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Is the British duty preference on British West Indies sugar still in effect?
2.	If not, when was it eliminated or suspended?
Orders for Returns

3.	Was it eliminated or suspended with the approval and consent of the British West Indies or by special arrangement with the United Kingdom government?
4.	Has any duty been set for the restoration of this duty preference?


Mr. DIEFEXBAKER:: 1.	Has the loss in revenue to the dominion treasury through the exemption of raw sugar duty and reductions of sugar excise tax been taken into account by the sugar administrator in his statement of profit and loss on sugar transactions?
2.	What would be the cost of refined sugar in Montreal, refined in Canada from Cuban raws at the current laid-down price of same, including the statutory general tariff duty and the refiners' margin, but excluding the sugar excise tax?
3.	Has the government given consideration to restoring the statutory custom duties on imported raw sugar?



SUPERANNUATION&quot; AND ANNUITY SCHEMES

Mr. REID:: 1.	How' many companies in Canada have established superannuation or annuity schemes on behalf of their employees up to the end of 1946.
2.	What number of employees both male and female are operating under these schemes?
3.	What is the total number of dominion government employees at present entitled to superannuation?
4.	Has the government any information regarding the total number of persons in Canada at present employed and under superannuation or annuity schemes?
5.	If so, what is the number?



CANADIAN OVERSEAS FIRE FIGHTERS

Mr. KNOWLES:: 1 Has the government received representations from or on behalf of Canadian overseas fire fighters asking that their position be reconsidered with reference to veterans' benefits, the Canadian volunteer service medal, civil service preference, and other matters?
2. If so, has consideration been given to these representations and w'hat is the status of the matter at the present time?



CONSTRUCTION OF GOVERNMENT SHU'S OUTSIDE CANADA

Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Have orders been placed by the government and by government-owned companies for the construction of ships outside this country since the end of the war?
2.	If so, how many; where were they placed and w'hat kinds and sizes of ships have been ordered ?
3.	Has the government a record of contracts placed by private Canadian companies for the construction of ships outside this country since the end of the war?
4.	If so, how many orders have been placed; w'ith what companies; what kind of ships; what companies have ordered them and how' many have been delivered?
j Mr. Diefenbaker.]



SOLDIER SETTLEMENT-VETERANS OF FIRST WORLD WAR-CONTRACTS BY AGE GROUPS

Mr. FAIR:: As at December 31, .1946, how many veterans of great war I, holding contracts under the soldier settlement board were in the dge groups: under 50 years; 50 to 55; 56 to 60; 61 to 65; 66 to 70; 71 to 75; 76 to 80; 81 to 100?



JOHN GRIERSON

Mr. FLEMING:: 1.	Is John Grierson, former commissioner of the national film board, a Canadian citizen?
2.	Is he entitled to enter and reside in
Canada?	.	.
3.	Has the government any information concerning the refusal of the United States_ authorities to grant him a quota visa for residence in the United States, and any information concerning the reasons for such refusal?
4.	Would such reasons affect his right to enter, reside in, or depart from Canada?



VETERANS' LAND ACT-SASKATCHEWAN FEDERAL CONSTITUENCIES

Duncan John McCuaig: Howr many veterans of world war II bad loans approved under the Veterans' Land Act on farm property (not for "small holdings') up to December 31, 1946, in each of the federal constituencies of Saskatchewan?



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE-FIELD MEN

Duncan John McCuaig: With regard to the drought bonus in Saskatchewan for 1946:
1.	What are the names of the held men employed under the P.F.A.A.?
2.	How many days was each employed
3. How was each man paid for his services.
4. How was each of these men paid for his expenses?	_ ,	.	,
5.	How many of these field men were returned soldiers?



IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS OFFICIALS ON TRAINS ENTERING CANADA

Mr. MURPHY:: 

DEPUTY MINISTERS AND ASSISTANT DEPUTY MINISTERS

Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	How many persons of (a) deputy minister or equal rank; (b) assistant deputy minister or equal rank; (c) director of division or equal rank, are in the employ of the government of Canada?
2.	How many of such persons in each category have resigned to take positions outside the government service during the calendar year 1946?



CANALS-TRENT AND RIDEAU-TOURIST ADVERTISING

Mr. MANROSS:: 1.	Does the dominion government pay the sole upkeep expenses of the Trent canal system and the Rideau canal system?
2.	Does the government advertise these waterways to the cruising tourists of Canada and the United States?
3.	What magazines, periodicals or literature were so used in 4946 and what is the estimated amount for 1947?
4.	Are motion pictures used?
5.	If motion pictures have been made, are they available to take to meetings of yacht clubs in the United States and Canada surrounding the great lakes?

Mr. FULTON;
1.	(a) What was the highest retail ceiling price per pound authorized for cheese, sold in Canada for domestic consumption, in the year ended December, 1946; (b) what was the highest price per pound, including subsidies, paid by the Canadian government when purchasing cheese for the purposes of the cheese agreement with the United Kingdom during the same year?
2.	Of the cheese produced in Canada during the year ended December, 1946 (a) what percentage was sold in Canada for domestic consumption; (b) what percentage was purchased by the government for export to the United Kingdom; (c) what percentages were exported to what countries other than the United Kingdom ?
3.	Of the cheese consumed in Canada during the year ended December. 1946 (a) what percentage was produced in Canada: (b) what percentage was produced in the U.S.A.; (c) what percentages were produced in what other countries?



FREDA LINTON

Mr. FLEMING:: 1.	Was Miss Freda Linton an employee of the national film board?
2.	If so, when was she so employed, and in
what capacity, and at what rate of remuneration?	.
3.	When was her employment terminated, and for what reason?
4.	Is she the same Freda Linton who was mentioned in the proceedings of the royal commission on espionage?
5.	Are her present whereabouts known to the government or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?
6.	Are any proceedings, including extradition proceedings, contemplated against her?



LEGAL SERVICES-HASTINGS COUNTY, ONTARIO

[Stage Direction]
Mr. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough);
1.	What are the names of the legal firms and solicitors in the county of Hastings (a) receiving fees from the dominion government or any of its commissions from 1st January, 1945 to date; (b) to whom any fees are still due and payable?
2.	What amounts have been paid to each of them, in what year and for what services?
3.	What amounts are still due to each, and for what services?
4.	What are the names of the legal firms and solicitors at present employed by the dominion government or any of its commissions in the county of Hastings?

Mr. THATCHER:: 1.	During 1946 how many railway freight cars were exported from Canada?
2.	To what country were they sold?
3.	Are any Canadian railway freight cars at present leased or rented to American railways?



DISMISSALS FROM ARMY AND OTHER SERVICES IN HALIFAX

Mr. ISNOR:: 1.	How many civilian employees of the government have been dismissed in Halifax city between January 1 and present date from (a) naval service (H.M.C. dockyard); (b) army services; (c) R.C.A.F. services; (d) Department of Veterans Affairs (Camp Hill hospital) ?
2.	What was the reason for such dismissals?
3.	Has similar action been taken in other military districts throughout Canada?



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	What is the number of full townships in each of the prairie provinces which have received prairie farm assistance payments the following number of times: (a) 7; (b) 6; (c) 5; (d) 4; (e) 3: (f) 2; (g) 1?
2.	What was the total sum of payments received by each individual township and what was the total number of individual farmer payments in 1 (a)?
3.	What was the total acres of cultivated land in 4946 on the farms which received prairie farm assistance in I (a) ?



NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAMME

Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	What was the estimated cost of hospitalization in Canada for each of the last five years for which statistics are available?
2.	What are the estimated per capita costs of hospitalization per province for the last five years for which statistics are available?
3.	What offers, if any, have been made by the dominion government to the provinces which concluded financial agreements with Ottawa to
Orders for Returns

implement part or all of the national health programme outlined to the dominion-provincial conference in 1945?
4.	What expenditures have been incurred annually by the dominion government since March, 1043. in connection -with planning and organizing a national health programme?



INQUIRY AS TO QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOB RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day :
['For a copy of all taxation agreements entered into by the dominion government and the various provincial governments from September ,1. 1939, to February 15. 1947.']
John Bracken: May I ask a question of the acting leader of the house? It arises out of questions on the order paper for today, some 180. Some of them were answered and the answers will appear in Hansard. As regards some of them, the ministers concerned asked that they stand, and they will come up again; as to others it is requested that they- be made orders for returns. In that case the answer is filed away in some government office and-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Returns are tabled every day.


An hon. MEMBER :: They are downstairs in the records.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They are all tabled.


John Bracken: As regards those that do not appear in Hansard, may I suggest that as many of them as possible be printed.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Returns are constantly being tabled, but frequently, owing to the inordinate length of the question, the return is quite bulky and a considerable amount of time is required to prepare the material. The general policy, however, is that wherever possible questions put on t'he order paper are given a direct answer.


John Bracken: I wonder whether the leader of the house would refer to question No. 63 on today's order paper and discuss it with me later.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.



John Bracken: For a copy of all communications dated since January 1, 1946, between the government of Canada and the government of the United Kingdom or the government of New Zealand regarding the importation of New Zealand butter into Canada.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Perhaps the leader of the opposition will allow this to stand. We have asked for the consent of the other governments, and have not yet received their answers.	-
Motion stands.
CMr. Nicholson.]


STATUS OF BRITISH INDIANS IN CANADA
Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg North):: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the government of Canada and the government of India and/or Pandit Nehru regarding the disabilities suffered by and status of Indians in Canada.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Return tabled.


AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT COMPANIES- DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCES
Stanley Howard Knowles: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the government or any department or branch thereof and (a) The Massey Harris Company, Limited, and (b) The Cockshutt Plow Company, Limited from September 1, 1939, to date, relating to special depreciation allowances and/or accelerated depreciation allowances in relation to plants constructed, owned or operated by the foregoing companies in relation to plants constructed, owned or operated by the foregoing companies during world war II; also for a copy of all orders in council and contracts relating thereto.


ESTABLISHMENT OF INDIAN RESERVATION ADJACENT TO NORDEGG, ALTA.
Mr. SHAW:: For a copy of all recommendations received by the Indian Affairs branch. Department of Mines and Resources, since January 1, 1946, respecting the establishment of an Indian reservation adjacent to the village of Nordegg in the province of Alberta.


RED DEER, ALTA., POST OFFICE BUILDING
Frederick Davis Shaw: For a copy of all correspondence, including petitions, telegrams and resolutions, received by the Post Office Department or the Department of Public Works since January 1, 1940, respecting the Red Deer post office building, and the service at that point.


REPORTS ON PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
Mr. MENARY:: For a copy of all reports made by the present Minister of National Defence on the Paris peace conference or on his visits to other parts of the continent of Europe.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The only report made by the Minister of National Defence with respect to the Paris conference which is suitable for tabling in the house was presented on February 10, in the form of a statement, at the time the final text of the treaties of peace with Italy, Roumania, Hungary and Finland were tabled. Some additional confidential dispatches were addressed by the Minister of National Defence to the Prime Minister while the minister was abroad. These contained observations on conditions in Europe generally, as well as on the Paris conference. But they were all of a confidential nature

Motions jor Papers
and such as could not properly be tabled here.
I hope with that explanation the hon. member will allow his motion to be dropped.


Thomas Langton Church: They might as well have stayed home from the conference.


TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES-CARRIAGE OF MAILS
Lewis Menary: For a copy of all contracts, or other agreements with Trans-Canada Air Lines for the carriage of air mail.


Ernest Bertrand: This motion has reference to both the Post Office Department and the Department of Reconstruction and Supply. The Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) is not present today, and I do not dare answer for him.
Motion stands.


ATOMIC ENERGY-REPORTS OF CANADIAN REPRESENTATIVES ON CONTROL COMMISSION
Lewis Menary: For a copy of all reports made to the government by the Canadian representatives on the atomic control commission.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Perhaps the hon. member will allow this motion to stand. I expect within the next few days to be making a statement to the house with respect to the activities of the atomic energy commission. Perhaps after that statement is made the hon. member will not feel that he needs to insist upon his motion. Meantime I would ask him to allow it to stand.
Motion stands.


FEDERAL DISTRICT-DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL
Mr. BOUCHER:: For a copy of all reports made to the government, since September 1, L945, by Mr. Jacques Greber, regarding the development or beautification of' the city of Ottawa and adjacent territory.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: As the hon. member is not in the house I would ask that this motion be allowed to stand. No official report has yet been made, and the preliminary reports I think are not such as should be tabled in parliament.
Motion stands.


C.ADET TRAINING
Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: For a copy of all orders and instructions issued by the Department of National Defence since the 1st of January, 1946. governing, authorizing and restricting the training and number of
cadets in the primary and secondary schools of the province of Ontario for which allowance was paid.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government of Canada or any branch of the Department of National Defence and any principal or teacher in authority of the primary and secondary schools in the province of Ontario, relative to the governing, authorizing or restricting the numbers of cadets for which allowance was paid in the province of Ontario.


BRITISH PREFERENTIAL TARIFF
Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: For a copy of all letters, cables, briefs, or other communications exchanged since January 1, 1944, between His Majesty's government in Canada and His Majesty's governments in other parts of the commonwealth on the subject of the British preferential tariff.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The. hon. member appreciates that as this motion involves intergovernmental communications we would have to get the authority of the other governments concerned before tabling any papers. I shall ask for that consent if he wishes me to do so, and in the meantime perhaps the motion could stand. I will inform the hon. member as soon as I get the answers.


Joseph Henry Harris: I suggest that the matter be expedited in view of the March conference overseas; and the dossier will not be quite so heavy when it does come through.
Motion stands.


VETERANS' LAND ACT-KAMLOOPS-VALLEYVIEW PROJECT
Mr. FULTON:: For a copy of any report or reports made to the Minister of Veterans Affairs following the recent special investigation into the cost, construction and condition of the houses in the "Valleyview" project built under the Veterans' Land Act at Kamloops, B.C., and particularly of any recommendation as to refinancing submitted therewith.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have not yet received this report, although I hope to receive it next week. Two members of the committee were servants of the department, the deputy minister and the director of land settlement, and their opinions or findings might not be relevant. The third member was a technical adviser and not a servant of the department. As soon as I receive the report I shall be glad to look into it at once and advise my hon. friend.
Motion stands.
Motions for Papers


TAXATION AGREEMENTS WITH PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS
Mr. HAMEL:: For a copy of all taxation agreements entered into by the dominion government and the various provincial governments from September ,1. 1939, to February 15. 1947.



AMENDMENT OF BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, or other communications dated since January 1, 4944, exchanged between the government of Canada and the government of any of the provinces on the subject of amendment to the British North America Act.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Usually the government
informs the house that as a matter of courtesy it will consult the provinces before producing communications, and I think we should do that in this case. Subject to that observation, and to the fact that any confidential communications should not be produced, I have no objection to the motion passing.


John Bracken: May I raise a question in connection with some of these motions? One can understand, and I agree, that there might be objection to tabling correspondence between different countries, but are we to understand that it is the policy of the government not to table correspondence between the provinces and the dominion without first getting the consent of the provinces? I respectfully suggest that we get away from that practice, if it is the practice.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't give in to George Drew.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I must say that I think that if the house wishes to have tabled correspondence on public matters passing between the dominion and the provinces, it ought to be tabled regardless of the wishes of the provinces but as a matter of courtesy the provinces ought to be consulted before it is done. As I recall it, that is the position which has been taken by the Prime Minister in the house in previous sessions. The reservation goes to a matter of procedure rather than to a matter of right, and that is what I intended to indicate. If one of the provinces said, "No, we intended that communication as confidential and we do not want it produced," the situation would be awkward, and I think in that case we would have to report it to the house. I must say that substantially I agree that if this house orders the tabling of 
communications on public matters passing between the dominion and the provinces they ought to be tabled if they are not confidential.


John Bracken: I do not think there was any desire to ask for any confidential communications.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


James Horace King: Carried with the reservation stated by the Minister of Justice.



CONTRACTS FOR SHIPMENTS TO BRITAIN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Bracken: I have a question which I wish to direct to the Minister of Agriculture, but in view of Your Honour's advice I am not sure whether I should ask it. The question is not of immediate urgency, but it is of immediate importance. In view of his statement on March 26 last that an extension of the British cheese contract for the season ending March 31, 1949, had been agreed upon, with prices to be fixed later and reviewed before January, 1947, has the minister any information to communicate to the house on the present status of the contract?


Right Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: I presume this question was sent to me earlier but I received it just as I was coming into the house and I have not had an opportunity to obtain an answer.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Humphrey Mitchell: With reference to questions asked by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the hon. member for Ros-thern (Mr. Tucker), I promised that I would obtain further information with reference to the closing down of the prematriculation classes at Prince Albert Vocational Training School.
The school will have in training on March 31, 1947, the following:
Bricklaying	   19
Machine shop	 8
Welding	 7
Sheet metal	 1
Carpentry	 13
Motor mechanics	 22
Farm mechanics	 26
Vocational agriculture	 60
The total of the above numbers is 156, but the courses in farm mechanics and vocational agriculture terminate on March 31, which will

Inquiries oj the Ministry
leave a net enrolment in the vocational subjects of 70 veterans. The enrolment in prematriculation classes on February 8 was 62. All of these, with the exception of fourteen, will have finished their courses by March 31.
The general plan we are following all over Canada is to discontinue operations where the number of pupils makes it uneconomical to carry on. We are not proposing to close the Prince Albert school, but it is felt that we have to make some special arrangement in regard to the prematriculation students. Fifteen subjects are taught in the prematriculation classes, and it is a very intensive course. At the present time there are four instructors, and to teach a class of fourteen at least two instructors would be necessary, possibly three. Instructors are paid S220 per month, and to continue the classes on a basis of two instructors would be expensive; and, I must point out, the class will diminish in number rather than increase.
The recommendation of the principal of the school, of the regional director of vocational training, Doctor W. A. Ross, of the Saskatchewan Department of Education, and our own director of vocational training, Mr. R. F. Thompson, is that the prematriculation classes be closed and the remaining pupils move to Saskatoon to complete their courses.
After considering all aspects of the matter it has now been decided to delay the date of discontinuing these classes until April 15, in order to make certain that only those requiring some months of training will have to be moved.
We have a very good prematriculation school in Saskatoon and, after all, it is only thirty-one miles away from Prince Albert-


Mr. MacNICOL:: Is that all it is?


Mr. KNIGHT:: It is 110 miles.


Humphrey Mitchell: I stand corrected-110 miles; and there is housing accommodation there for the additional number of pupils.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, of w'hich I have given him notice? Can he inform the house whether the subsidy agreement between the government and the Dominion Coal Company under which the loss of the company is guaranteed will remain in effect to March 31 this year, as suggested by
the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe) when answering me on Friday last? His answer was not quite clear.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There has been some misunderstanding about the subsidies. All coal production subsidies with the exception of the subsidy to the Dominion Coal Company were transferred to the wartime prices and trade board, but that particular subsidy was retained by the Department of Reconstruction until March 31. I shall bring my hon. friend's question to the attention of my colleague, who is away today, and I am sure he will answer it tomorrow.


Clarence Gillis: Thank you.



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. L. SMITH (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue, of which I have given no one notice, but it is in regard to a matter which I am sure the minister must have been considering. In view of the recommendation of the radio committee last, session that that committee be set up yearly and early in the session, will the minister [DOT] please tell us when the committee will be set up?


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time the matter has been brought to my attention. It will be given consideration at once.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) asked the following question:
Can the minister say why it is that air express shipments from South America to Montreal are, in many instances, not released by the customs authorities in Montreal for from seven to eleven days, and whether it is possible to have customs clearance speeded up?
The answer is, from a customs standpoint there is no reason whatever why there should be any delay in the clearance of express shipments arriving at Montreal by air from South America. As a matter of fact we have established complete customs long room and examination facilities at the Montreal Dorval airport in order that any importer in possession
Inquiries of the Ministry

of the necessary documents may present his entry and obtain immediate delivery. Even if the importer does not have available certain documents such as the regular customs invoice, he is still at liberty to present a sight entry and obtain immediate release. It should be understood that I am referring only to customs requirements, and not to import permits or quarantine regulations.
I notice that the hon. gentleman also made a statement to this effect: "To clear customs at the present time it takes as long as it does to fly the air express from Rio de Janeiro." That statement is extravagant and exaggerated and not borne out by the facts.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, my statements were based on facts, and I shall see that the minister has those facts within the next few days.



POULTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. I am sorry that I have a cold and that we have not amplifiers. When may we expect a statement from the minister as to what action is to be taken in regard to the serious position of British Columbia poultrymen?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not just sure what my hon. friend has reference to, but I assume it is feed for poultry.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I shall be glad to clarify my question. I wrote the minister five days ago and also had an interview with him but I have had no answer yet.


James Garfield Gardiner: If it is the price of feed for poultry that my hon. friend refers to, which is one of the things about which he interviewed me, I am afraid he will have to make his request to some other department.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Following up the question asked by the hon. member for Fraser Valley, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will the minister say whether any action is contemplated to enable the producers of eggs to offset the effects of the increased price of wheat which they must use for feed?


James Angus MacKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that question can properly be addressed 
to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but from the knowledge I have I am sure that consideration is being given to that matter.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, may I be privileged to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, in the hope that some of us from British Columbia can get direct action? My question is this: Was the price of eggs discussed by the Minister of Agriculture and his officials with representatives from Great Britain during the past week in the light of the situation now confronting the poultrymen who have to pay an increased price of $10 per ton for feed wheat?


James Garfield Gardiner: The question of prices for farm products generally and farm products to Great Britain was discussed with the minister of food while he was here, but I am quite sure that he did not have the authority while here to come to a conclusion, nor could any decision have been reached, during the limited time he was here, on a question so technical, as to whether the price of eggs should be increased to the British government at the present time, as well as the prices of other food products. These questions will require much greater discussion over a longer period than time permitted the minister of food of Great Britain to devote to them while here.


Thomas Reid: I rise to a question of privilege. The Minister of Agriculture has just got around the question. My question is this- Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Thomas Reid: The minister is the one to whom I am addressing the question. The question had reference to the increased cost of wheat and price of eggs. I asked the minister whether the question as to the price of eggs had been discussed by himself and his officials with the British authorities and, if so, whether any decision had been arrived at. It was a direct question, and we should have a direct answer.


James Garfield Gardiner: I answered that.


George Alexander Cruickshank: May I ask a supplementary question of the leader of the government? I do not know who is leading the government today, but whoever is, I should like to be informed when we may expect an answer to the question regarding the action that is to be taken on the emergent problem confronting the poultrymen of British Columbia. I would like to get an answer; otherwise I will move the adjournment of the house tomorrow.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The reply is, the question will be answered by very competent ministers.

Redistribution


James Garfield Gardiner: May I be permitted to ask and to answer the question? I presume the question in the minds of hon. members is whether any arrangement has been made up to date to increase the price of eggs in consequence of the fact that the price of feed has gone up. The answer is no. No arrangement has been made up to the present time to increase the price of eggs, and that, I would say in passing, is a much wider question than simply the matter of increasing the price of eggs to Great Britain.



FATS AND OILS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. H. WINTERS (Queens-Lunenburg):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries? In view of the urgent and acute shortage of essential fats and oils, what action is being taken by the government on applications of vessels of foreign registry to engage in the seal fishery in 1947 from Atlantic ports?


Hon. H. F. G. BRIDGES (Minister of Fisheries):: Consideration is now being given to these applications by the Department of Fisheries and the Department of National Revenue. While the vessels in question are of foreign registry, my information is that no similar applications have been received for any vessels of British or Canadian registry to enter the seal fishery from Canadian Atlantic ports. It is recognized by the department that fats and oils are in continued short supply and it is therefore hoped that arrangements can be completed very soon for three vessels of foreign registry to engage in the seal fishery, each for one trip during the spring sealing season of this year.



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

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Knapman Fraser: May I direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply? Notice of the question was given six months ago, and again on February 4, I brought the matter up and the minister intimated that he would answer it some time about the middle of this month. I refer to the cost of the North Star.


George James McIlraith: I have no knowledge of the
notice which was supposed to have been
given six months ago. I am not aware that this session of parliament was in progress at that time. With respect to the inquiry of February 4, I will look it up and if there is a question outstanding that can be answered the answer will be procured as quickly as possible.



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Frida3% February 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gibson (Hamilton West) for the second reading of Bill No. 18, to readjust the representation in the House of Commons, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Knowles.
John Ritchie MacNicol: In 1933 when the question of redistribution was under consideration I had the honour of being on the committee. I believe I am the only member of the present committee who served on the previous redistribution committee and therefore I feel some responsibility in assisting the gentlemen who are on the present committee in carrying on their labours.
When the minister introduced his bill I expected that he would give a number of rules and principles which the committee that is to be set up should follow. The bill itself contains nothing in the form of rules or principles. That is not the custom in the old country. In Great Britain in 1944, when the government brought in their bill to set up a commission to carry out redistribution, the Right Hon. Herbert Morrison, secretary for home affairs, did lay down a number of rules and principles to be followed by the commission. In other words the house did not propose to allow the commission to have all the say as to what it should do. The house itself, through the appropriate minister, gave certain directions.


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: If the hon. member will permit an interruption, I did mention the fact that our Prime Minister, in introducing a similar bill on a previous occasion, had gone into that question very throughly, and the matter is reported in a previous edition of Hansard. I did not think there was any need to go over the same ground again.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I suggest to the minister that it would have been better had he gone over the ground once more so as to refresh the memories of the members of the committee.
Redistribution

When Australia, New Zealand and South Africa set up their commission-and I may say that all these countries carry on their redistribution through a commission-they gave instructions regarding principles and rules. Since the situation in Australia is much like that in Canada, I will read, though not verbatim, the import of the rules in effect there.
(a)	That the committee give due regard to community interest or the diversity of community interest.
(b)	That the tradition and history of the ridings should also be taken into consideration.
(c)	That regard should be had to communications, such as railways and highways- and I presume we can now add aeroplane routes and water routes as well.
(d)	That the committee take into consideration the topographical characteristics of the ridings. They were to have regard to municipal boundaries as existing, as well as existing parliamentary boundaries and existing boundaries of the state ridings, Australia having several states corresponding to our provinces.
(f) That attention be given to the value of the vote in rural and urban communities respectively.
The basis of distribution in Australia comes down very largely to the basis of five, seven and nine. In other words, in a widely extended riding like West Algoma or Algoma, they would count five votes equivalent to nine votes in a city riding; or in a riding which was semi-city and semi-rural, like Oxford or Norfolk, for instance, they would count seven votes equivalent to nine votes in a large city riding. One of their previous acts pertaining to redistribution allowed a difference of twenty-five per cent above or below the quota. Their present act gives an allowance of twenty per cent above or below the quota. In New Zealand the limit was seven and a half per cent above or below the quota. Although I am not specifically speaking about the United States at the moment, I may say that in the United States the directions were ten per cent above or ten per cent below. In South Africa it is fifteen per cent above or fifteen per cent below; in Australia, twenty per cent above or twenty per cent below, and in Great Britain, twenty-five per cent above or twenty-five per cent below. I might say that those are only directions. There is a wide variation, as one will observe in studying the individual constituencies, in each one of those countries. I offer to this merely in order to show that the 'Mr. MaoNiflol.]
committee now being set up will at least have some other guide than the two directions which the minister gave.
As I started to say when I was speaking on Friday night, on the last occasion the late Hon. John Elliott and I-Mr. Elliott was chairman of the whole opposition committee and I was chairman of one-third of it, the Ontario section-established our own rules and regulations, and they were very largely those I have outlined. Of course, as any redistribution committee will find out, they cannot be followed exactly; so many factors have to be considered for and against. We did the best we could and, as I said previously, our final recommendations went through the house unanimously.
I look back with a certain amount of pleasure on what we did. We left thirty-two seats out of eighty-two wholly unchanged. We made eighteen seats out of full counties- that is, a full county made a seat; because one of the principles which is kept before any commission or committee is that of adhering as much as possible to county boundaries. In the United States more emphasis is laid on that principle than anywhere else I know of. In the United States no county is allowed to be cut in two. If a county has not sufficient population of its own, arrangements are made to take in another county with it. We can not wholly follow that here. I do not say that I am entirely in accord with it, because we have to make certain adjustments.
Four seats consisted of two counties each in Ontario. Two seats were a full county and part of a county, like the county represented by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario, who has the full county of Muskoka and the remainder of the county of Ontario outside of southern Ontario or Ontario seat. In no instance I believe did we make ridings out of three different counties. I am opposed to that. I can see a reason why you might cross from one county to another, but when you cross over three counties, that is going too far. Thirty-two seats were wholly within their counties. Seven seats were within the county and included a part of another county. Forty-six seats were within a spread of thirty-three and a third per cent above or thirty-three and a third per cent below the quota, which at that time, as you will remember, was 44,186. I admit that is not very close to the quota, but I think this committee will also find, when it gets into operation, that it will be difficult to get much closer to the quota than that in many cases. However, nineteen of the seats were over the quota, and seventeen under the quota beyond 33i per

neaistribution
cent. Thirty seats exceeded the quota and fourteen seats were within twenty per cent of the quota.
I have no apologies to make for anything we did. We did the best we could. I am satisfied we can defend every action we took.
I have always felt that it is the duty of a committee, particularly a parliamentary committee, to do the fair thing above everything else. Examination of the results of the several previous elections following redistribution will show that the government did not always win. It was not so the last time. I myself would not hesitate to go into any seat which has been called a gerrymander, but for which I was not responsible and do my best against whoever opposed me. I believe it is the opinion of the people of Canada generally, wherever they may live, that there should be fair play. That is the one thing they like above everything else. They resent having what they interpret as a gerrymander inflicted on them, and they generally resent being moved from one place to another.
I look forward to the committee doing its best, to see that nothing of the kind takes place in this redistribution. I have mentioned these rules, regulations and principles because I suppose every member of the house has heard certain rumours along the corridors as to what is to be done. I do not know that anyone really knows what is to be done in this redistribution, and I suppose the talk is just rumour. But I realize that the government must do certain things. There are some ridings which should be cut in two. The government's difficulty is going to be in finding the seats for what they want to do, because every time you disturb a seat you disturb half a dozen seats round about, unless you cut a county in two. Therefore I want to warn-perhaps I should not use the word "warn"; I suggest to members of the committee that they use their best judgment when it comes to eliminating seats in order to obtain the seats that are required to give necessary representation.
The riding of Nipissing has the largest population in Canada. I have always felt that anyone representing Nipissing during the last fifteen years should have had two or three indemnities, although they would likely have refused them; considering the work they have to do, they were entitled to them. I know that the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Gauthier) and his predecessor worked like Trojans from early morning to midnight; the correspondence they had to handle must have been tremendous. I believe the recent hon. member for Nipissing had more files in his
office than any other hon. member in the house, necessitated by the terrific amount of correspondence he had to handle. That is one seat which must be cut in two. When I say "must", I mean that I am very strongly in favour of cutting it in two. I know my word will not have any particular effect on the committee.


Mr. GAUTHIER (Nipissing):: We will help you on that.


John Ritchie MacNicol: We are to have one extra seat in the province of Ontario and I would say that above everything else that seat should be given to Nipissing, the present population of which I suppose is closer to
125,000	than the 113,000 odd it had in 1941. Another very large seat is Ottawa West, but it has nothing like the right of Nipissing to another seat. In the one case, Nipissing covers a large area.


Léoda Gauthier: (Nipissing):	Better
people, too.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Well, the Ottawa people are as good as the people anywhere else; I shall not make that distinction. But the county of Carleton has three members, and its population does not warrant any more when compared with other ridings. Ottawa West is the second largest riding in Canada in regard to population.


George James McIlraith: It has the largest number of voters.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is second largest in population.


George James McIlraith: That is right, but it has the largest number of voters.


John Ritchie MacNicol: But I say to my hon. friend it is right beside two or three radio stations; it has several newspapers and has other means of obtaining information which the county of Nipissing does not have. So when it comes to showing a preference between Ottawa and Nipissing, I say Nipissing should get that seat. Then certainly before Ottawa West has another seat the riding of Cochrane should be given consideration. It has a very large population; it covers an immense area; it takes in many gold mines, and I am sure the hon. member for that riding has worked night and day looking after his people. I believe the time is long past when this seat should have been divided. So far as I am concerned, seat No. 2 goes to Cochrane; but you have to find it first.
The county of Welland is the third largest in population. On the last occasion we did our best to give another seat that county, but we could not find one; so if Welland is to have
R edistribution

another seat this time it will be up to the government to find it somewhere else. There are others as well. I am told the county of York is to have another seat. We have fifteen constituencies there now, with a population of close to a million. I may be taking my own political life in my hands in saying this, but personally I am not going to be in favour of giving the county of York another seat on this occasion if it means wiping out a couple of other seats in Ontario. If seats must be found, it is the first duty of the committee to find them. Later, before I close, I am going to offer some advice in that regard.
Then I have heard rumours about putting certain counties together. I could deal with several of them, but I shall refer to only one. I heard that the riding of Muskoka-Ontario was to be added to two other ridings. Today that riding comprises the full county of Muskoka and the remainder of the county of Ontario not represented by the hon. member for Ontario. The constituency of Ontario has a population of some 52,000 at the present time, I believe, and takes in two or three townships in the county as well as Oshawa. I would be opposed to putting any more people in that riding. If you wipe out Muskoka-Ontario, where are you going to put it? I did hear some talk about putting that portion of the county of Ontario in the riding of Muskoka-Ontario into the constituency of Victoria, and Haliburton, but that now takes in two full counties; it is one of the largest ridings in Ontario, and it would be a monstrous thing if you added to it the largest portion of another whole county. Then I have heard it suggested that Muskoka be put in. with Parry Sound. That would be a monstrous thing, too. That would make Parry Sound the largest county in Ontario, with the exception of the northern counties. I say these things so that those planning what must be done may be warned of the position in regard to these matters.
I could go on to deal with a number of other constituencies which I hear are to be put together. Later I shall give my opinion as to what should be done in that regard, but right at the very beginning I wanted to state that in my 'humble judgment the riding of Nipissing has a better claim to the extra seat Ontario is going to get than any other constituency in this province, I do not believe many hon. members have made a more exhaustive study than I have made into election acts, systems of voting, redistribution and so on, not only for Canada but for all the British dominions. I have thoroughly

studied the situation in evrery riding in every British dominion, in addition to the redistribution acts that have been put through.
I see the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. McCubbin) looking at me. I might tell him I am not in favour of any change being made in his constituency. Middlesex county has three members including the city of London. It has been suggested that the two Middlesex ridings should be put 'together, but I can tell my hon. friend I shall oppose that move strenuously. It would not be fair at all. I can tell him further that on the last occasion his predecessor, Hon. John Elliott, and I agreed at 'the very beginning that Middlesex should not be altered.


Colin William George Gibson: - You will not have any say if the amendment goes through.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am going to support the amendment, too, a little later on. I said that Great Britain, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand have commissions. The other night someone asked the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) to whom the commissions reported and whether their reports could be changed. In New Zealand and South Africa the reports cannot be changed; it is sudden death down there. The proclamation is made by the governor general, I suppose on orders of ithe government, and there is no change. In Great Britain and Australia the report of t'he commission must come back to the house, where it is reviewed. If they are not satisfied it is sent back to the commission with their recommendations. So if a commission is set up here I would wish to feel that we were in the same boat as Great Britain and Australia. I would not want to surrender the right of this house to make any comment on the changes in seats; and I am sure that will not 'be done.
Before going further, while I yet have time,
I want to refer to what was said by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black). I am perhaps the only member of the House of Commons who is thoroughly familiar, by travel, with the Mackenzie district, which is to be added to the Yukon, as well as with the Yukon itself. The hon. member for Yukon told me he was not familiar with the Mackenzie river district. In my opinion a very grave error has been made; I want to state that as emphatically as I can. In the first place, when we decided to have only 255 seats, we erred in that some study was not given to the proposed constituency taking in Mackenzie and the Yukon. This is an impossible seat, over 1,000 miles long by 750 miles wide, containing something less than 750,000 square miles. The Mackenzie area comprises

Redistribution
the great Mackenzie river basin north of parallel 60. The community interests of the Mackenzie district area are different from those of the Yukon. I 'have here on my desk a sheaf of telegrams from mining men in Toronto who know I am familiar with that area. It would take too long to read them all, so I shall read just the last one that came in, which reached me just a moment or two ago. It is from the Frobisher Exploration Company, Limited:
Regarding distribution of seats. If the plan is to give the Northwest Territories representation in the house a new seat should be created. Do not consider advisable combining Northwest Territories with Yukon as the areas are mountains apart. From Ottawa they may appear to have a lot in common, but we who operate in both districts find the problems are entirely different and separate representation is definitely advisable.
That is the tenor of the telegrams, but not in the same wording. The next one is from Akaitcho Yellowknife Gold Mines Limited. The next one is from the Giant Yellowknife Gold Mines Limited.


Colin William George Gibson: Possibly
they have not heard of the British North America Act.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I shall say a word about that myself in a moment. The next is from the Mining Corporation of Canada Limited. I may say these are all dated from Toronto. The next is from the president of Transcontinental Resources Limited, and the next from Noranda Mines Limited. The one from Noranda, which has mines in the Yukon area, is as follows:
This company has interests in the Mayo district and in our opinion it would be a serious mistake to combine the Yukon with the Mackenzie district.
The next letter I have is from Mr. A. W. Johnston, who is also a mining operator located in Toronto.
The minister mentioned the British North America Act. I pored over every record I could get yesterday, even if it meant desecrating the Sabbath, to see if I could not find a way to let the government out of the mess they are in-because it is a mess. In the beginning all we had to do was to give a seat to the northwest territories. I have favoured that on numerous occasions in the house. I met a delegation in Yellowknife, at which point I delivered an address some few years ago, and they urged me strongly to help get them representation when the time arrived for the consideration of that matter. It would have been so simple, either before or at the time the petition went to England to arrange for representation of the Mackenzie district.
I realize now, after careful investigation, that it would be difficult to take a seat off any one province. But that could have been done easily by limiting the use of the highest quotient to two provinces.


Colin William George Gibson: I do not think it was suggested when the amendment went through.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It should have been. I
do not want the minister to think I am finding fault. It is just a condition we are up against -and it is a difficult one. Here we have
750,000	square miles represented by one man.
I have been up there, over the ground. Starting at Forty Mile, down the Yukon river from Dawson, near the international boundary and going up the river one passes Dawson, McQuesten, Stewart, and off to one side there are Mayo and Keno. Then you go on up to Whitehorse and Carcross. That is about 750 miles, or a round trip of 1,500 miles.
Now we go to the other part of the proposed riding, Mackenzie district. Under ordinary circumstances one cannot fly across the mountains although, through the courtesy of the United States government, I had that privilege. A plane was put at my disposal when I was up there a couple of years ago. It was a very large plane, the largest I had seen up to that time, and one with power sufficient to go over those high mountains between Norman Wells and Whitehorse, a distance of 650 miles.
For the ordinary passenger plane to go to the Mackenzie district from the Yukon it would be necessary that it first go down to Nelson, 750 miles from Whitehorse, and then another 750 miles north to Norman Wells, and, over to Yellowknife. Or probably he would go over to Fort Smith, first. If he starts at Fort Smith, by plane, he would go to Resolution, on Great Slave, and from there to Providence, and from there to Simpson and from there to Wrigley, and from there to Norman, and next to Norman Wells, and next to Good Hope, and next to Arctic Red River, and then to McPherson and then to Aklavik.
That is over a thousand miles by plane, I went over it, and I know. I know how long it takes. And of course, I went by boat part of the way, too. Then, when one gets to Aklavik, it would be at least 500 miles to Coronation, where there is a settlement on Coronation gulf. Then he would go from there down to Rae on Great Slave lake. But first he would go from Coronation to Port Radium on Great Bear lake where, as the house knows, there is a substantial settlement, Then he
R edistribution

would go to Great Slave lake, and thence to \ ellowknife-and that is another thousand miles.
So I am going to say this to the minister, that in all fairness and justice if the amendment offered by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is defeated-as I expect it will be, although I am in favour of it-then in fairness to any candidates for the lukon, the nomination day should be four weeks in advance of the general election. It could not be done in anything less than that; it would keep anyone going for at least four weeks.
In addition to that, the official candidates should be provided at the cost of the government with commercial plane mileage and should be authorized a mileage of not less than 5,000, having in mind the mileages I have just placed before hon. members. Otherwise it would be impossible for any candidate to visit that gigantic area, which I believe is the second largest in the world. The only constituency which would be larger than the new Musk-Ox riding-if we call it ithat-^would be the constituency of Kalgoorlie in Australia. But there the conditions are wholly different; the climate is hot and the country is flat.
Our far north Musk-Ox constituency, comprising about 750,000 square miles, with" its two high ranges of mountains to overcome, would present gigantic problems. I believe in places the mountains to which I have referred are
6,000	feet high. When we were going over those mountains I was asked by those in charge of the aircraft if I wanted to wear a respirator. I said no, that I was strong enough to get along without it. It did not bother me, and I was certainly pleased to make the trip.
In fairness to any candidate the government may offer, and to the hon. member who now represents that constituency, and who has done so well and faithfully, for so many years, I make the plea that they be given the expense of an aeroplane. The same would apply to the candidate of any other party having ten seats in the house. It would be easy to prevent the use of that plane for anything other than government business. I make the plea in the belief that the measure will pass, and that the government's candidate and other candidates are entitled to British fair play, hnder present conditions a campaign to cover this area would be wholly impossible. After the election, once a year, or at least once in two years, the successful candidate should have the same privilege so that he might visit his constituency. Anyone who represents Yellowknife, Whitehorse and Dawson should be in a position to visit the territories. The country 
and parliament would expect the sitting member to do so, but it would not be possible without the use of a plane, free of charge. If necessary, I would ask the minister to introduce another bill to amend the elections act so that this plane expense could be shouldered by the government.
My concluding remarks will have reference to the amendment offered by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He is on sound ground, and on different occasions the Prime Minister has supported a similar suggestion. Every time he did so, advocating a commission, I gave him my support. My own leader and other leaders have advocated that the seats should be designated by a commission. I realize that this cannot be done now because we must work under the British North America Act.
If the amendment is defeated, then I appeal to the government either to extend the life of the committee after its work is through or set up a new committee, possibly to be called a Speaker's committee, the same as they did in England, which would make a careful survey- it will take possibly a year or two-of the workings of the commissions in the four countries of the commonwealth that now have commissions. That committee could then report back to this house.
No present member of the house would be affected in any way because nothing could be done until after the next election. No one will know what may happen several years hence when another election would be coming along. I suggest that the minister consider doing this after the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is defeated. I believe we are the only member of the commonwealth which does not redistribute its seats by a commission.
What do we find? Every member on the committee is importuned by those members whose seats are in jeopardy. I do not blame any hon. member for doing that. When anyone came to me I always treated him courteously and kindly; I treated him as I should have liked to be treated. A member cannot be blamed for trying to defend his seat; but that is not fair to the future candidates, it is not fair to the country, and it does not bring about a proper redistribution. If, as I know it will be, the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is defeated, then I advise the government to consider the proposal I have just made.
I recollect the last occasion I had a warm feeling for the Acting Speaker (Mr. Golding). It was proposed to eliminate his seat; but he is a working man; he has a thorough knowl-

edge of everything pertaining to industry and I said to myself, "If at all possible, that is the type of man we want in this house. We want more of them." So your own seat, Mr. Speaker, was saved by your good sense in approaching the committee in connection with it.
I heard the other day that an attempt was to be made to wipe out the seat of the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Mac-donnell). This house should be proud of what the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario has done since he has been here. He has been an acquisition to the opposition and I know, if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) were here at the moment, he would agree that he has been a great source of help to him in unravelling financial problems. I could hardly believe it when I heard that an attempt would be made to wipe out the hon. member's seat. If the seat is wiped out I know we shall have to try to get him another one, because this house cannot afford to be without the wisdom of the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario.
He represents a rural riding and, if you wipe out that riding to give another seat to York county, I am not in accord with that.
I have heard no request from Toronto or York county for a new seat. There are some small adjustments that perhaps could be made. The hon. member for York East (Mr. McGregor) has a large constituency, almost as large as that of the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith). It is a larger constituency to cover because it consists of a populous suburban area and the large township of Markham. I quite agree that perhaps something could be taken off the riding of York East. That would be a simple thing to do. The township perhaps could be taken off and put in with York North, thus reducing the number of people in York East.
I appeal to the committee through the government to make as few changes as possible. There will be another census four years hence, after which there will be another redistribution. Perhaps in the meantime the government could set up a commission and then everything which was not adjusted this time could be adjusted. Why upset ridings everywhere just for four years? Why disturb the Acting Speaker's riding or the riding of the Deputy Speaker? I repeat that an effort should be made to have as few changes as possible. There are very few that really have to be made. I have looked over every seat in Ontario and very few of them need to be changed. Some could be reduced if necessary without injury to the rural seats. Let us set an example to the world by making as few changes as possible. That is why I said I
Redistribution
was not in favour of reducing the ridings in Middlesex county. Some say if necessary we could take some from Middlesex East and put them into Middlesex West, but I would advise to leave them alone. The hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. McCubbin) is a cattle man, and there are too few of them here. One of the best speeches I ever heard him make was on that subject.
I close with one further thought. If Carle-ton county is to have another seat it will mean taking another seat away from eastern Ontario, and I am opposed to that. As long as I am here I will be opposed to altering the Prime Minister's constituency of Glengarry. If that were altered it would affect the riding of the hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Bertrand). One of the best speeches I ever heard the hon. member for Prescott make in this house was on the subject of cheese making. There would be a distinct loss if we reduced the number of seats in Ontario by combining Glengarry and Prescott. The riding of the hon. member for Prescott would thus be left out. To eliminate that riding would be a distinct loss to this house because the hon. member is one of the few members who knows all about cheese. There are too few men in this house who know about cheese making and cattle raising.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, I must confess that in rising to speak on the second reading of the redistribution bill I am just a little bit confused over the wording of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). It seems to me that if we dissect the amendment carefully and then read the speeches that have been made with respect to it we are bound to be confused as to the difference between the readjustment of representation and the readjustment of the electoral districts. I submit that there is all the difference in the world between the two, but the speeches which have been made do not indicate that.
The bill is an act to readjust the representation in the House of Commons and is based upon the constitutionality of the British North America Act. I take it that the bill is simply writing into the law that which already is basically the law as provided by the British North America Act. In other words, the British North America Act contains provisions which determine the number of representatives to be returned to the House of Commons from each province. That is one thing. But the readjustment of the boundaries of electoral districts is quite another thing. It seems to me-and I stand to be corrected if I am not right-that the amendment proposed by the
Redistribution

hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre might have more properly been proposed to the resolution standing on today's order paper in the name of the Secretary of State (Mr. Gibson). The difference is this. The resolution on the order paper is to refer the bill to a special committee, with instructions to prepare schedules. The bill itself, of course, is to have schedules attached to it. I fancy that what was in the mind of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in proposing his amendment was that the schedules should be given to an independent tribunal to prepare. I do not see the wisdom and I cannot see the use of having the readjustment of representation referred to a tribunal, because the readjustment is already provided for in the British North America Act. What could a tribunal do but sit around the table, take out their pencils, figure out the population of the different provinces according to the last census and then, according to the mathematical results obtained, declare that such and such a province is now entitled to so many representatives? That is all they could do. But if the hon. member had in mind a readjustment of the electoral districts I cannot see that I have a great deal to say against his proposal.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I make it clear that that is what is meant by the amendment-


Ernest George Hansell: Then it says one thing but the hon. member means another.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, no.


Angus MacInnis: It is in accord with the bill.


Ernest George Hansell: You may have a technical point there, but I claim I am right on that technicality. If the amendment carried, what we would be doing would be giving the right to an independent tribunal to come back to this house and recommend changes in the British North America Act. I know that is not the intention. If the resolution had read this way, "Resolved that in the opinion of this house the readjustment of electoral districts for representation in the House of Commons be referred to an independent commission," it would have made all the difference in the world.
After the amendment had been proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, a government member or at least a member on the government side of the house I refer to the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power)-rose to answer him and stated that on one occasion that very thing was in the mind of the government. He referred to as far back as 1903 and went on to say that 
in 1939-and some of us remember it-a committee was set up to find out how other countries handled the redistribution of seats. The report referred to New Zealand, Australia, the United States, the Union of South Africa, so fourth and so on, and then the hon. member for Quebec South stated that on the basis of what those countries had done the government of that day saw considerable merit in referring the matter to a commission and was so impressed with the suggestions arising from the report that they decided to introduce a bill setting up a redistribution commission. In other words, the hon. member, speaking, I fancy, for the government, was making a good case for the amendment, but before he got through, of course he said that there were certain difficulties in the way with respect to the proposed bill. That bill was proposed but never introduced. If there were difficulties in the way it does seem to me that the government of that day must have known of those difficulties before they even proposed such a bill. I do not think that things have since changed in principle to give them any particular reason for changing their minds.
The hon. member on the government side then went on to say that the government, instead of introducing the measure, retraced their steps because one difficulty was to decide what instructions should be given to such a commission. The instructions that were proposed to be given to that commission appear on page 699 of Hansard. The commission was to give due consideration to:
(a)	The physical features;
That was referring to electoral districts.
(b)	Means of communication;
(c)	Existing boundaries of electoral districts, both provincial and federal;
(d)	Boundaries of administrative areas;
(e)	Such other pertinent factors as may occur to it or to which its attention may be drawn.
Those instructions are fairly explicit, although personally I think the last one, (e), leaves the thing pretty well wide open to the commission to do what they want. If there is any merit now in discussing the readjustment of electoral districts, I suggest that the body to which this task is entrusted, whether it be a special committee or, if the amendment carries, an independent tribunal, should divide the provinces into constituencies equal in population so far as possible, excepting, of course, that it is recognized that in cities and urban areas some allowance must be made in that respect.
The other matter which I think is more or less important is that the electoral district

Redistribution
should be in as complete a block as possible, and when I say "a block" I mean as square as possible, although I am not going to labour the square part of it. We know there are certain physiographical features that must be taken into consideration. There may be rivers. I do not know that that would apply so much in Ontario as in some districts of the far north where there are huge rivers and very few bridges. In some instances geographical features have to be considered, but that is not true of any great number of constituencies; it applies to a comparative few.
What we have to get away from is the tendency toward gerrymandering things around to gain some political advantage. That is, because one particular district voted a certain way in the last election, therefore it should be included here or there in order to give the government of the day a certain support. That is a thing we have to get away from, and that is the thing which I fancy has happened in the past.
I do not know the description of all the electoral districts in Canada but I have in mind one in the province of Alberta. Take, for instance, the constituency of Calgary East.
The fact of the matter is that it is not in east Calgary at all. It takes a slice of two or three blocks clean through the centre of the city of Calgary and then toward the south it takes in a lot of rural territory. East Calgary proper is in the constituency of Bow River. Surely there must have been some gerrymandering to bring that about, and so I say that is the tiling we have to get away from.
In this respect may I suggest that while, of course, railroads and highways have something to do with the facilities of travel of members in their constituencies, we are living in a day that is remote from the horse and buggy age. I believe most members travel by automobile. There are a few constituencies -Peace River, Cariboo and some of those ridings-where you have to fly or wade through mud or something of that sort, but such constituencies are not large in number, and I think they should be made as much as possible in a complete, well-rounded or square block, although, as I said before, I shall not labour the square part of it.
As regards gerrymandering, there is, of course, no guarantee that an independent tribunal would not do the same thing. They could do as much of that as a committee of the house could. Another matter is this. I do not quite know what may be meant by 'independent tribunal". That is a term that would have to be defined. One might say that a judicial committee is independent. I
do not know; perhaps it is. I should like to think it is or that it would be, and I believe that, if anything, it should be, because it is composed, for the most part, of judges chosen from the judiciary of the country. But there is no guarantee that they would not do some gerrymandering just the same, and so I think we need to define the term and to say what we mean by "independent tribunal."
If by "an independent tribunal" is meant a tribunal composed of men designated by the various political parties in the country, the only fair thing to do would be to give the biggest party the biggest slice of the personnel on the committee, and there is no guarantee that such a committee would not do some gerrymandering.
The hon. member for Quebec South, speaking against the amendment, said that another feature which caused the government of some years ago not to introduce their bill was that such an independent tribunal would eventually have to report to parliament, and what would we do with their report? Of course the same is true now even under a parliamentary committee, because you have to adopt their report. That has to be done in any event. But that, to my mind, was the best argument he had, although even that argument must have occurred to the government of some years ago before they ever thought of bringing down a bill at all.
That argument is one which I would classify as a choice between democracy and bureaucracy, and that, to my mind, is the principal test in connection with a vote on the amendment. I see in the amendment a tendency *toward putting the thing in the hands of bureaucrats, and I must say I am pleased that the hon. member for Quebec South looked at the matter with a view to making democracy a little more effective. If he can be as persuasive with his own government in all that they do in that regard, perhaps we shall be more satisfied; for the country in the past few years has certainly been run by the bureaucrats. We want to get away from that, and the truth of the matter is that this is a piece of legislation applying to the House of Commons, which is the business of the House of Commons, and it should be the right of members of the house to determine it. With that principle in mind, I am afraid I shall have to vote against the amendment.
There is one other point I would bring out. The committee that is eventually to be set up will be one composed of twenty-five members. I believe that, in the allocation of these members among the various parties, the Liberal party will have fourteen members and
Redistribution

the combined opposition, eleven. This means that the government party will have three members to the good.


Mr. MICHAUD:: If they are here.


Ernest George Hansell: I did not say "three good members." I said, "three members to the good." This will simply mean that they will have to be on their toes just the same; that they have not such an overwhelming majority that they can simply swamp the committee.


Angus MacInnis: The government will look out for themselves.


Ernest George Hansell: I think, with a committee composed of that number of members, it is a fairly safe thing to put the matter in their bands. But I suggest to the committee, when it meets, that in the slicing up of constituencies it take into consideration that the constituencies should be as geographically compact as possible. With those few words, and with thanks for the kind attention the house has given to me, I shall resume my seat.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just taken his seat has said some of the things I would have said, but I cannot agree with him in his general conclusion. One thing I think the emphasis should be put on is that the readjustment of the electoral districts in this country is perhaps of more concern to the people themselves than to the members of parliament who represent those people; because members of parliament, efficient, good and honest as they may be, are bound to be prejudiced by the position in which they find themselves.
I thought the speech of the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) was probably one of the best arguments that could be advanced for the amendment proposed by my colleague and friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I can see that in a committee appointed from the members of the House of Commons there would be an entering into of interminable arguments about Bruce county, for instance, or some other county and the boundaries which should be fixed, particularly as it would affect the fate of certain members, either friends or enemies on the respective sides of the house. In a committee of that kind I think there would even be what they call political wrangling and horse trading of all kinds. That is the opinion which I think is held by many of the electors of this country to whom I have referred.
I have not had a long experience in this house, but I have some experience of what the

people outside the house talk about. They say that there would be political juggling, with every man playing his own hand. It has been hinted, of course, that any committee which is chosen from among the members of this house would have a predominance of votes from the government side; that a government man would be the chairman and that on that committee there would be a majority of votes on the government side. I am making no accusations; I am stating that merely as a fact. Some people have mentioned the word "gerrymander". I do not suppose that either I or the people of Saskatchewan are the only ones who have that idea. For instance, I was noticing that some people in Quebec have the same opinion, because I see that our new colleague, the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Caouette), used the following words. I hope hon. members across the way will forgive my French. I speak with good intentions, even though with poor pronunciation :
(Translation):
Mr. Knight:	Some would even lead us to
believe that the government might even exert their influence or their power to operate a redistribution in favour of the Liberal party.
(Text):
I notice that hon. gentlemen did not applaud either my pronunciation or the sentiment expressed in that sentence. .
The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) said that the fate of this amendment in his mind-and perhaps as to his vote-depends somewhat on the meaning of the word "independent". When one mentions an independent committee in this country, one somehow thinks of a judicial committee or a committee headed by a judge. We have already had a statement made in this house, although, I forget which hon. member made it, that perhaps even judges have their prejudices. So far as I am concerned, I do not see the necessity for having a judge on such a committee. This is a matter of geography. It is a matter of numbers of people. It is a matter of statistics. I see no reason why we could not have statisticians and' geographers on that committee-and them only, if you like- and have the thing fixed on a scientific basis.
I do not think the members of the committee should be people who are implicated and whose political careers depend upon the results of the decision of. such a committee.
There was mentioned here the other day another matter to which I am violently opposed. I do not believe that any consideration should be given to any member of this house, whether he be a leader of a political party, such as the Prime Minister (Mr. FEBRUARY 24, 1947
Redistribution
Mackenzie King) or anyone else. I have the greatest respect, in many ways, for our Prime Minister; and I certainly have the greatest respect for my own leader. But I do not think either one of them is entitled to any consideration such as one often hears, "Oh, that is So-and-so's seat; we must do this or we must do that." I do not think any member of this house should have any consideration whatever in that regard. The moment this parliament is dissolved, every hon. member ceases to have any vested interest in the particular seat which he has occupied.
As I said before-and this is the thought I wish to leave with the house as I sit down- redistribution should be out of the hands of those who are implicated or who are personally concerned in the result. I think a scientific committee such as I have suggested would be independent. It could be chosen from men who have never shown any disposition for any particular activity in politics. I think this principle of impartiality is vital. So far as we in this party are concerned, we believe in hewing to the line of fairness; let the chips fall where they may. In any scheme of distribution we believe that the principle of impartiality must be preserved.
Mr. II. G. ARCHIBALD (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I should just like to bring out a few points which to some extent apply to my own position and the position of .some of the other northern members. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black) the other evening brought out the position of one who is a member representing a vast area. The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) mentioned the fact that air services should be put at the disposal of members in given ridings, to which suggestion I heartily agree. Take, for instance, Atlin, which lies just below Whitehorse and is in the riding of Skeena. That has more community of interest with Yukon than it has with British Columbia; yet, owing to the British North America Act it must remain part of the Skeena ridiing. The hon. member for Yukon pointed out that the riding should be projected into the north country rather than taking the Mackenzie district right across Canada. Preserve me from being any closer to the north pole than I am right here in Ottawa.
I should like to bring to the attention of the minister and the government the fact that science is eliminating time and space with modern instruments such as air transportation, while the pass of the ordinary member is not good for this type of travel. In the case of a member who can prove that he cannot get into an area by any other method than air transportation, I believe such transportation
should be supplied, because these people are not getting the services of their members. I should like to see the government take up this matter and solve the difficulty in some way.


Colin William George Gibson: Perhaps I should say a few words on this matter.


Angus MacInnis: If the hon. gentleman speaks now, will he close the debate?


Colin William George Gibson: No; I am just speaking on the amendment. Several hon. members have spoken in support of the proposal that we have an independent commission, and the hon. member for Saskatoon City (Mr. Knight) spoke of the necessity of having an impartial committee. But the hon. members have not suggested how we may be assured that a committee or all its members will be impartial, nor have they suggested a test of impartiality. It has been suggested from time to time that supreme court judges should be appointed on such a commission; it has been felt that because they are outside politics and do not vote-which I understand is at their own request-they should be qualified to form such a commission.
One of the objections I see to the proposal that we have an outside commission deal with the matter is that the report of such a commission must come back to the house. When a bill is referred to a committee consisting of members of the house, that committee reports to the house and its members can be present to give their reasons for arriving at the conclusions contained in the report. An independent commission composed of men who were not members of the House of Commons would submit a report to this house, and it would be debated without having them present to give any explanation as to how or why they arrived at the conclusions they reached. It is very much for that reason, as well as for the reasons given by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) when this matter was discussed last week, concerning the difficulty of giving instructions to such a commission, that it was felt the bill should be brought forward in the same form as in previous years.


Angus MacInnis: Before this amendment is put, I should: like to say a few words in support of the principle involved. The question of what would constitute an independent commission was raised by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Han-sell) and, greatly to my surprise, by the minister in charge of the bill. I say "greatly to my surprise" because almost every day the
Redistribution

government is appointing commissions that at least are supposed to be independent; and I supposed that this commission, if it were appointed, would be created in the same way and would be considered an independent commission. I imagine, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) suggested that a commission was a better way of dealing with this question than a parliamentary committee, he felt sure that an independent commission could be set up.
What do we consider constitutes independence when we are dealing with a question of this kind? We are thinking of persons who are not interested from a personal point of view in the particular question with which they have to deal. That being the case, I am convinced that we could choose a commission of three or five, or whatever number may be required-I think perhaps three would be sufficient-who would be independent from that point of view.
Another point raised by the minister was that the report of this commission would have to come before parliament and that there would be no one here from the commission to explain it to the members of the house. Well, my understanding of such commissions' reports is that the explanation or reason for the action taken or the recommendations made forms part of the report, and if members of parliament are not sufficiently intelligent to understand those reasons, obviously they should not be here. In Great Britain, where a commission decides such matters, the report of the commission is presented to parliament, and I have never heard of the British parliament having any difficulty in coming to a decision in adopting such reports.
The purpose of the redistribution bill is to rearrange or redefine the boundaries of constituencies because of changes in population that have taken place since the last census, and, on this occasion, because of the changes made at the last session of parliament through amendments to the British North America Act. The proposal of the government is that a parliamentary committee be appointed to redefine the boundaries of the constituencies, and my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has moved an amendment stating that in the opinion of this house a commission would be a better way of doing that work. I think there can be no doubt as to the correctness of the principle contained in the amendment. As the hon. member for Saskatoon City (Mr. Knight) has said, defining or delineating the boundaries of constituencies is a scientific and technical matter, not a political question at [Mr. Maclnnis.l
all; at least it should not be a poltical question. After all, members come and members go but the electors remain in these constituencies, and it is their interests that should be served. It has been suggested by some and implied by others that the sitting member should be consulted before changes are made in the boundary of his constituency. That suggestion presupposes that the sitting member has a vested interest in the constituency. When the committee meets it will be something like a miniature league of nations, with each member being the shah or the fuehrer or the emperor of this or that constituency and horse-trading with the other members of the committee to protect his interests. May I remind hon. members that this measure does not come into effect, except for the appointment of returning officers, until parliament is dissolved. Section 8 states:
This act shall take effect only upon the dissolution of the present parliament:	Provided
that for the purpose only of authorizing and enabling the appointment, pursuant to section eight of the Dominion Elections Act, 1938, of returning officers, whenever required, this act shall be deemed to be in force on the date upon which it has been assented to.
But it does not come into effect until the dissolution of parliament; and when parliament is dissolved there are no sitting members. They may still cluck but they do not sit. We must keep in mind that, if the sitting member has an interest here, so have the candidates already nominated or who may be nominated in any particular riding. So let us get away from the idea that we have a vested interest in our constituencies. If there were anything needed to convince me as to the desirability of this proposal, it would be the speech made by my good friend the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol). I am not reflecting upon the hon. member at all. I believe we both arrived in the house at the same time, in 1930, and in the main we have been good friends ever since. Indeed, since he came to this side of the house we have been more friendly than we used to be when he sat on the other side of the house and tried to defend a government which could not be defended.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Beware of the Greeks when they come bearing gifts.


Angus MacInnis: First he warned hon. members of the house as to what would happen if they did certain things. Then he turned to the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. McCubbin) and said that he would not for a moment think of any interference with his constituency. Then mention was made of the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Mac-

Redistribution
donnell), as to what a fine gentleman he was, what an. asset he was to the house, and that nothing should be done to prevent his sitting here. I imagine all hon. members to my right agreed with that and, although perhaps hon. members opposite did not disagree, by their silence perhaps they gave consent. But let me say that as soon as an election is called, the Liberal party will have a candidate in Muskoka-Ontario to try to defeat the candidate-the present member or whoever may be nominated in that constituency.
So this talk about a man's being indispensable to the house because he knows this or knows that, just does not make any sense. When we stand before our constituents, the people of the constituencies will decide, rightly or wrongly, as to the proper men to represent them.


Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: What about the senators?
Mr. MaeINNIS: I imagine there will be quite a shift to the senate as soon as parliament dissolves.


John Lambert Gibson: Don't look at me.
Mr. MaeINNIS: But what J. wish to draw attention to is the fact that the jockeying for seats is already going on in the members' rooms, in the smoking compartments on trains, and even on the floor of the House of Commons. What will it be like when the parliamentary committee meets, and the real jockeying and horse-trading begin? This is the time when we should get away from these old-fashioned ways of doing things, and act in the scientific and technical manner which this situation calls for.
I should like to see the house approve this principle because I am convinced it would add to the prestige of parliament in the country. What has always happened in committees of this kind, and would undoubtedly happen in the present instance, will not make this parliament more respected. If there is one thing we need more than anything else it is to bring our representative institutions into good repute. I would urge hon. members not to lose this opportunity to support the amendment.
According to the rules of the house, I doubt the propriety of a committee of parliament dealing with a matter of this kind. Standing order 11 states:
No member is entitled to vote upon any question in which he has a direct pecuniary interest, and the vote of any member so interested will be disallowed.
From the statement made by the hon. member for Davenport, all those members mentioned have a pecuniary interest in the boundaries of constituencies.


Colin William George Gibson: In the next parliament.
Mr. MaeINNIS: For the next parliament, then; because, as I understand it, the intention is that boundaries will be arranged so as to eliminate the chance of defeat.
If for no other reason than that, I suggest that the matter be referred to a commission. I am satisfied that the commission appointed by the government, if not independent, will at least be far more independent than a parliamentary committee could be. There is a psychological factor which operates when a person is placed in a position where the assumption is that he is independent, which tends to independent action. I am sure that would happen in this instance.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.



APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE

Colin William George Gibson: That a special committee be appointed to consider Bill No. 18, an act to readjust the representation in the House of Commons, with instructions to prepare schedules to contain and describe the several electoral divisions entitled to return members to this House of Commons, and to report the same, and that the committee shall consist of the following members: Messrs. Archibald, Brooks, Brunelle, Cruickshank, De-chene, Denis, Diefenbaker, Fair, Gauthier (Nipissing), Gauthier (Portneuf), Hackett, Harris (Grey-Bruce), Knowles, Langlois, Mac-Nicol, Manross, Merritt, McCubbin, McGarry,

Mcllraith, Rinfret, Ross (Souris), Tucker, Viau, Wright, and that standing order 65 be suspended in relation thereto, and that Bill No. 18 be referred to that committee.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. FREDERIC DORION (Charlevoix-Saguenay):: Mr. Speaker, the only thing I wish to say on this motion is that I want to register my objection to the way in which it is proposed to set up this committee, because no provision has been made for the representation of an important element of the population. There are in this house sixty-four members from the province of Quebec, of whom fifty-six are Liberals, leaving eight members outside that party.
It has always been the custom, in the setting up of such a committee, to have, as far as possible, representations of all the elements of the population. We have on this side of the house six members from the province of Quebec who are not recognized officially as a distinctive group; nevertheless I can state that we represent not only six constituencies but many hundred of thousands of voters, taking into consideration the number of votes that were given to the Independent and Bloc Populaire candidates in the 1945 election.
My contention is that the way in which the redistribution committee is set up creates grave injustice to those hundreds of thousands of voters who are not represented on it. The government has stated in many instances that there shall be no gerrymandering in the next redistribution but I am afraid that, if things are left as they now are, there is great danger of such gerrymandering. Therefore it is my duty, before it is too late to request of the government that this motion be amended so that the members to whom I have just referred may be adequately represented. It would be very easy for the government to ask these six members to designate one of them to be on the committee and, if the minister would postpone the motion until tomorrow, we would be able to let him know whom we wanted to have as the representative of those six members.


Mr. JEAN LESAGE (Montmagny-L'Islet):: The remarks just made by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion) cannot be allowed to pass without comment. The hon. member has stated that of the sixty-four members from the province of Quebec fifty-six are Liberals While eight are not. For the fifty-six Liberals there axe five members

Redistribution
on the committee and for the eight others the leader of the opposition, or the opposition, has chosen one. 1 think that is fair. The representative of those eight is neither an Independent nor a Bloc Populaire, but it cannot be said that this is the fault of the government because, after all, the whips suggest the names of the members of the different parties and it is up to the authorities in the opposition to designate the member they choose. The hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) was designated, a member in whom I have, and I am convinced my colleague has, great confidence. It can never be said that the hon. member for Stanstead, even if a Conservative, has any racial prejudice.
If my hon. friend the member for Charle-voix-Saguenay is not on the committee; if none of his five friends is on the committee, he cannot 'hold that against the government, because it would be surprising if the Liberal party undertook to name someone to represent the hon. gentleman and his friends on the committee when the hon. gentleman and his friends have not any confidence in the Liberal party.
My hon. friend should blame the opposition, with whom he and his friends have consistently voted and to whom they have given their confidence in the past. Indeed, the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay has had such complete confidence in the party opposite that he was chief organizer for the Conservatives in the district of Quebec.


Frédéric Dorion: In the old days.


Jean Lesage: In the old days? In 1932, when the friends of the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay were in power, when the Conservatives, whose organizer he was in the district of Quebec, were in power, what happened so far as the committee on redistribution set up at that time was concerned? There were then twenty members on the committee: Thirteen Conservatives, six Liberals and one'Labour. Of the thirteen Conservatives there were two Canadians of French descent; the others were not. Of the six Liberals there were two of French descent; one was from the province of Quebec and the other represented the French minorities of other provinces.
Where was justice at that time-with the Liberal party or the Conservative party? Today, justice for minorities is found in the Liberal government again. Of the twenty-five members of the committee, eight members-and they are all Liberals-are of French descent, or one-third. Five represent the province of Quebec, while three represent the minorities in the other provinces. Where was 83166-47J
justice in 1932? Was justice given by the Liberal party, or was justice given by the party for whom my hon. friend was chief organizer at the time in Quebec?
Moreover, not only is justice done to minorities on this occasion ; it is done to all parties, as one hon. member on the other side said this afternoon. I see no reason for complaint or for the fear that there will be any gerrymandering. If there was gerrymandering, it was in 1932 when the counties in the province of Quebec were cut up with a view to electing Conservatives in 1935. Such a thing, I am convinced, will not happen this time.


Mr. J. A. ROSS (Souris):: There are one or two remarks I should like to make on this motion. In the first place, I wish to support what was said by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black) in discussing this bill on redistribution the other evening. His complaints were, in my opinion, quite justified.
With regard to some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in connection with the amendment, the hon. member said:
. . . the rural constituencies . . . varied all the way from Souris with a population of 25,000 to Selkirk with a population of 52,000. Similarly in Ontario the variation in rural constituencies ran all the way from 18,000 for the constituency of Glengarry to 88,000 for the constituency of Nipissing.
I have also found it very interesting to notice that a number of constituencies which seemed to have been traditionally Tory, at the time of the last redistribution, were carved out in such a way as to include a rather small population.
I just wanted to refer to this because recently a couple of editorials have appeared in the Winnipeg papers about the constituency of Souris being traditionally Tory. I am very happy to say that over the years from 1903 to 1940 the electors have divided their votes politically fifty-fifty between Liberals and Conservatives.


An hon. MEMBER:: They voted for the
man.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They are both the same.


James Arthur Ross: I just wish to say
that I was rather confused about how I might have voted on the amendment proposed by the hon. member, especially in view of the fact that my name was proposed as a member of this committee. I do not look forward to membership on this committee with any great deal of pleasure. I never had any such experience before. I should have liked a more independent committee to deal with this matter. I am one of those who, during the war years, became very much fed-up with controls and bureaucracy.
Redistribution


Colin William George Gibson: But you want to appoint another committee.


James Arthur Ross: I am opposed to
appointing the suggested independent committee, and on that very principle, that it seems like the continuation of more bureaucracy and more controls, something to which I am very much opposed. I have never yet refused a challenge, or to do my duty as I saw it. As I say, I do not look forward with pleasure to being a member of this committee, but I think it is a challenge.
I listened intently to the various arguments advanced with respect to this measure. While we are members of the House of Commons, I think it is our duty to deal with these measures, and that is why I voted as I did for the government measure. As a member of this committee I may say that, as far as I am concerned, there will be no attempt whatsoever at gerrymandering. As far as I am concerned and, I think, as far as the speaker who has just taken his seat is concerned, we shall do a job on this on a fair basis. As far as I am concerned, it will be done along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) this afternoon, the chief thought being as to population and geography. We shall give a great deal of thought and attention to this and do the best we can along these lines.


Mr. H. R. ARGUE (Wood Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks, like those of the other hon. members who have just spoken, will also be brief. In setting up this committee, however, I believe we might give some thought to some formula which they might go on. In introducing the redistribution bill the other night, the Secretary of State (Mr. Gibson) explained, as most of us were aware, that the quotient to be applied will be 45,556. I think all of us are agreed that, as far as it is practical, the constituencies should come fairly close to that quotient. We also have to bear in mind, of course, that there are some areas of Canada where the population is very sparse; and if a member is to serve his constituency as I believe he should be able to serve it, he should have an area which will allow him to visit his constituents. An area perhaps up to 5,000 square miles might be reasonably well covered once a year, but if it is any larger than that it will certainly be very difficult to cover it. I think the committee should be under some instruction to attempt to boost the population of the small constituencies so that constituencies very large in area and very large in population may be reduced.
The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) this afternoon stated that, as far as he was concerned, he hoped the Ontario seats might be left somewhat the same as they are. He stated that it had been brought to his attention that the seat of Muskoka-Ontario might be one of those which fell by the wayside, and he hoped the hon. member would be allowed to retain that seat because he had made valuable contributions to this house. With that I agree, especially for this reason, that the population of that constituency is 35,285, and I do not think it is exceedingly small. I think the committee, in bringing in its recommendations, should try to divide up this nation into electoral divisions of a size and character which will allow the people to be truly represented and truly to have a voice in parliament.
I am thinking now of the constituency of Glengarry which has a population of 18,732. At the same time I am thinking of the constituency of Nipissing with a population of 113,866. Surely by no stretching of an argument can it be said that the people of Nipissing are adequately represented in this house. Their population is almost two and a half times the quotient that is provided. I think this committee should be very careful that Canada does not get into the state of having a bunch of pocket boroughs.
I have done some calculating here on the basis of the constituency of Glengarry. If the eight provinces, with the exception of Prince Edward Island and Yukon, had their population divided amongst 242 seats, at 18,700 per seat, that would give a total population of
4,525,000	and the remaining eight seats could then have a population of 6,866,199. I do not think such a report will come from this committee. But we should realize that this committee can bring in any report it wishes, and some consideration should be given to seeing that a proper report is brought in.
The argument used by the Secretary of State that the rural population should have a greater proportionate representation in this house on the basis of population is also a good one. He enumerated what I considered were valid reasons but I do not intend to repeat them.
I have a proposition to lay before the house which I think would help the committee in adjusting the rural seats. It would mean that certain rural constituencies should be expanded, quite a number of them; and I do not wish the house to come to the conclusion that I am advocating that rural representation be reduced because, while some of the rural

Redistribution
constituencies are very small, some others are also very large and certainly they should be evened up as much as possible.
I am going to suggest that no constituency should have a population of less than 30,000 if at the. same time it has an area of less than
5,000	square miles. If the committee would apply such a formula, it would mean no change in British Columbia, which has three seats with less than 30,000 population; Kamloops, Kootenay East and Skeena, the areas of which are all over 16,000 square miles, and the constituency of Skeena having an area of 152,474 square miles. If this formula were applied, it would make no difference in Alberta, which has only one; seat with a population of less than 30,000, namely Acadia, and its area is over 10,000 square miles. It would make no difference in the basis of the representation for Saskatchewan, because that province has no constituencies with a population of less than 30,000. As far as New Brunswick is concerned, there is one constituency, namely Charlotte, with a population of 22,728, and an area of 1,290 square miles. This constituency I think should be increased by one-third in population, and that might well be used to decrease the population of the constituency of York-Sunbury, which has a population of 44,743 and an area of 4,700 square miles.
In Nova Scotia, there is one constituency, namely Antigonish-Guysborough, with a population of 26,006 and an area of 2,180 square miles. Also, in that province, there is the constituency of Digby-Annapolis-Kings, with a population of 57.604 and an area of 2,790 square miles. So that one constituency here, namely the constituency of Antigonish-Guysborough, should, I believe be enlarged to give it a population of at least 30.000, which would help reduce the area and population of one of the other larger constituencies.
Coming to the province of Quebec, I find three constituencies with a population of less than 30,000, and each of these three has an area of less than 900 square miles. But, as has been mentioned here this evening, the constituency of Charlevoix-Saguenay has a population of 67,087 and an area of 385,000 square miles. In other words, its population is more than twice as large as any of the three constituencies I have mentioned, and its area at least fifty times as great. There are also the constituencies of Chapleau and Lake St. John, with areas of 78,800 and 23,950 miles, respectively, and fairly large populations. The constituency of Pontiac is large and, I believe, should be reduced.
Coming now to the last province with which I wish to deal, Ontario, I would not wish to
accuse any political party of gerrymandering, but certainly it is odd to see some of the constituencies in that province, and the population and area of those constituencies. In Ontario there are seventeen seats with populations less than 30,000, and of those, sixteen are less than 5,000 square miles in area. The constituency of Glengarry is the smallest. These sixteen seats have each a population of less than 30,000, while on the other hand the constituency of Port Arthur has a population of 50,833 and an area of 140,800 square miles. The constituency of Cochrane has a population of 81,112 and an area of 72,000 square miles. The constituency of Kenora-Rainy River has a population of 47,743 and an area of 52,200 square miles. Finally, Nipissing has a population of 113,866 and an area of 10,000 square miles. If you add the populations of those sixteen small constituencies and the four large ones you get a total of 800,000, which would give an average population of about
40,000	and an average area of 14,645 square miles. With sixteen constituencies each having an area of less than 5,000 square miles and four constituencies having an area of 10,000 square miles or more, certainly there is room for improvement without reducing the representation from the rural areas. I have totalled the population of the constituencies of Glengarry, Brant, Huron-Perth, Middlesex West and Haldimand, and I get a total population of 107,000. So that the total population of these five constituencies is 6,000 less than that of one constituency in Ontario, Nipissing, while the area of those constituencies totals just a little more than twenty-five per cent of the area of the constituency of Nipissing.
Because I believe the committee should be given some direct instruction, I move in amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson):
' That the motion be amended by inserting after the word "Commons" in the fourth and fifth line thereof the following words:
"provided that with the exception of the electoral divisions of the province of Prince Edward Island, no electoral division described in said schedules shall contain less than 30,000 population according to the decennial census of 1944, except in the case of electoral divisions with an area of more than 5,000 square miles."
I believe that amendment is reasonable. Surely this house has power to recommend a formula for the guidance of the committee. If such an amendment were carried, the people of this country would be more truly represented in the House of Commons.


James Horace King: I would direct the attention of the hon. gentleman to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, page 129, paragraph 50:
Canadian Wheat Board Act

A motion to refer a bill, resolution or any question to the committee of the whole or any standing or special committee shall preclude all amendments of the main question.
So that the amendment of the hon. member is out of order. Is the house ready for the question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, following the remarks of the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) as to the method of dealing with the matter now before us, there is something to which I wish to direct his attention. The hon. member stated his belief that this was the best way to deal with this matter in keeping with our responsibilities as a parliamentary democracy. I should like to refer him to the House of Commons redistribution of seats act, 1944, of the United Kingdom. I would direct attention to the fact that this act was passed by the United Kingdom parliament during the previous administration, and that it sets up permanent boundary commissions to deal with these matters. There are four commissions, one each for England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. I suggest, in answer to his contention, that no parliament anywhere ha3 a greater sense of parliamentary democracy than that at Westminster.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the second reading of Bill No. 23, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935.
Thomas John Bentley: Just a moment, Mr. Speaker. I should like to say a word-


John Bracken: Are we not to have a statement from the minister on a bill of this importance?


Thomas John Bentley: Am I in order, Mr. Speaker? Have I the floor?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. HOMUTH:: I rise to a point of order. The leader of our party has asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether, in view of the importance of this bill, he is prepared to make a statement. Surely our leader is entitled to an answer from the minister.


James Horace King: Order. I put the motion of the minister for the second reading of this bill. The hon. member who has the floor rose, and I saw him first, so he may proceed.


Thomas John Bentley: Mr. Speaker, I shall not be long.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Thomas John Bentley: But if there are many more bursts of applause like that, I shall take my full forty minutes. I just wish to refer to this bill as another of those belated but necessary steps in the long struggle that the producers of this country have had in their endeavour to get orderly marketing. It has been the belief of the organized producers of western Canada, anyway, and, I believe, of most of Canada, that we must have orderly marketing in the sale of our farm products if we are ever to have those products exchanged at a figure that will give the consumer of those products the necessary food supplied at prices he can pay.
It has been a long struggle. We started many years ago, before many hon. members now in the House of Commons were born. Many of the older ones were quite young at the time. There were the old Grangers; then the territorial grain growers' association, and then the older members will remember all those various steps which took place, leading up to the formation of the pools.
With the coming of the pools there came a conscious realization of the part the organized farmers have played; and the realization by those farmers that their safety, security and well-being depended upon the ability of the consumer to use their products. This means a fair price to the farmer and prices to the consumer that he can pay.
To achieve this end, organized agriculture recognized that all unnecessary transactions in marketing must be eliminated, and that production costs must be kept to a minimum. Now, to support that statement, and to lead up to the point I wish to get at as I go along, I should like to quote from the handbook of the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited, printed in 1924, and setting out the aims and objectives of the wheat pools of western Canada. These aims and objectives are as follows:
To reduce manipulation, speculation and waste, and any unnecessary transactions in the marketing of wheat;
To increase consumption, build up new markets and develop new uses for grain;
To market same directly and with regularity, so as to furnish it economically to the users thereof, and
To preserve for the grower and the public their proper profits and economies.
Regardless of all the obstacles they have met, and the set-backs with which they have been confronted from time to time, they have not altered these basic principles. As evidence of that, I shall quote from a statement

Canadian Wheat Board Act
by Mr. A. F. Sproule, first vice-president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, in his "Review of Pool Objectives" since 1924. He made this review in 1946, less than a year ago:
1.	To ensure for the producer of wheat adequate prices, orderly marketing of the crop and efficient handling services, in short, stability and a fair standard of living;
2.	To ensure to the consumer of wheat that he receives his supplies regularly, at reasonable prices, whether in times of plenty or scarcity, and at prices which, while giving the farmer a fair living, are not swelled by excessive costs of handling and distribution.
That is the same principle in 1946 as was announced in the year of the birth of the pools. This should dispel any ideas which some hon. members may have that the farmers wish to extract the last cent from the consumer when he, the consumer, is over a barrel, as he is at present, and, conversely, be exposed to retaliation by the consumer when the farmer may be occupying that unenviable position.
International coordination of marketing and international cooperation have been the consistent aim of the organized growers of this country. They were instrumental in calling a marketing conference in 1926 in St. Paul, Minnesota, and another in Kansas City in the following year. They gave active leadership in the two-day conference of representatives of producers' marketing organizations from all over the Dominion of Canada during the world grain exhibition and conference held at Regina in 1933.
The pools took an active part in promoting the empire producers conference held at Sydney, Australia, in March and April, 1938, and sent representatives to that conference; and I could give countless illustrations of the determined efforts of the farm organizations to have orderly marketing introduced.
They have pressed constantly for a Canadian grain board to market in an orderly way our cereal crops. During the 1930's, in the days of depression, the farmers were well aware that grain surpluses were not the result of over-production, but that they were the direct result of underconsumption-poverty in the midst of plenty-and they tried to arouse the public and the government of the day to a realization of that situation. They were eventually successful in persuading a reluctant Tory government to create the Canadian wheat board in 1935, when a Liberal opposition did their utmost-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: You have no more adjectives, have you?


Thomas John Bentley: -and were ultimately successful, partly to emasculate the proposed act of that time. Replying to the hon. member, I have plenty of adjectives.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Give them to us, then.


Thomas John Bentley: If the hon. member would like me to reel off some adjectives applicable to himself, I would be quite capable of doing so; but the rules of the house would not permit me to use the ones I should like to.
After years of constant struggle, organized agriculture was successful in persuading an equally reluctant Liberal government to improve the act and to improve marketing arrangements and agreements to a limited extent.
The desire of organized agriculture to cooperate with consumers, to the end that all should be served equitably, was refused recognition by capitalist dominated governments, until the recent world war broke out; and it took two great statesmen, meeting in mid-Atlantic, to agree and announce that, if a permanent peace were ever to be achieved, then freedom from want was a cardinal requisite.
Since then, men of good will from over forty nations met at Hot Springs, Virginia, and, after discussion, announced in practical terms the practical methods which would need to be employed if the people of the world, who had never had enough to eat, were to be lifted out of that terrible position. The united nations relief and rehabilitation association showed a most practical application of those methods in the distribution of food to needy people; and it is a great pity that the United States decided to kill that organization.
In my opinion, a synchronization of the machinery of Canada and the United States for the production, processing and distribution of food stuffs would have led the world farther toward peace and good will than standardization of their military equipment will ever do.
The justice of the farmer's contention, that both he and the consumer of his products are of equal importance, is being recognized at high levels of administration today; and that recognition is apparent in the present wheat agreement with Britain, in the much hoped for international agreements, to be discussed at the conference in March, and in this bill. Suggestions for that conference are contained in the appendix to Votes and Proceedings of February 18, for this session of parliament.
If our Tory friends would devote more of their energies to promotion of such worthwhile projects, and less to military preparedness they would serve the cause of world peace much better; and the same can be said cf many Liberals in the house.
Canadian Wheat Board Act

We agree with the principle of this bill and see no valid reason for its passage being delayed by being referred to the agriculture committee. Every member of the house has heard the pros and cons discussed in newspapers, on the radio, on the platform and in conversation, and every member should by now have made up his mind on the principle. We believe that discussion of this bill should be confined to the committee of the whole in this chamber, where every member who has a conviction can, and should, place himself on record for the country and the world to see and judge.
We agree in the wisdom of creating the wheat board. We reserve the right to examine and criticize its operations. This can and should be done by a parliamentary committee. We agree in the wisdom of envisaging long-term contracts with one or more nations willing to enter into such agreements. We are not in full agreement with the domestic policy which is at present a corollary of the agreement with Britain. We sincerely hope that the forthcoming conference in March will result in international agreements which can and, we believe, will, do more than any other single thing to create international good will. Let me point out here that I am not congratulating the Tories for creating the wheat board, even though we wanted it, nor am I congratulating this Liberal government for some improvements in its operations during the past three years or for the amendments offered in this bill. We are in agreement with the principles contained in the act and in this bill, even though we shall offer some advice and possibly some amendments to certain clauses in the bill.
My congratulations are to those thoughtful and cooperatively minded farmers and their elected officers for the partly successful results of their constant and steady pressure to have enactments of this sort. They had to overcome great reluctance on the part of both Liberals and Tories to gain even this much ground. Let me tell this house further that, while the great farm organizations of Canada do not espouse any political party, the membership, who are free to support any party they like, have come to realize that they must fight their battles against speculation in the product of their labour and against monopoly exploitation on the political as well as on the economic front. That is one of the reasons why Saskatchewan has practically eliminated the Liberal and Tory parties.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: And all freedom too.
MR. BENTLEY: There is more freedom there today than we ever had under the

Tory regime. The membership realize that only a party sympathetic to their desires and understanding their needs can carry their demands to parliament.
There have been those in this house, and outside, who have said that the organized farmers have failed in the past. Let me state here that they have not failed. They have met obstacles, but have steadily removed them; they have suffered reverses, but have remained undismayed; they have pressed steadily on toward their objective, and will continue to do so, because they believe in the justice of their goal and they never lie down on the job or turn back.
Let me remind the house of what I said at the beginning of my speech. This bill is only a step, one of a few that have been taken hesitantly by this and past governments, one of many that will have to be taken much more rapidly and more generously by governments in the future. We will support the principle and insist that it carry out its proper purpose, namely, eliminate speculation, manipulation and waste, and all unnecessary transactions in marketing, and preserve for the producer and consumer fair and just relationship in the exchange of the products of the labour of each.


Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, we believe that this bill provides a basis upon which a sound grain policy can be built, a policy which will be in the interests of both the producer and the consumer. Let me say to the minister that, before we can support the second reading of this bill, we must have assurance that when we reach the committee stage he will either move an amendment or accept an amendment to commit the government to accepting all wheat produced and offered for sale prior to July 31, 1950. I believe that it is the intention of the government to accept delivery of all wheat for which they have room, but that is not what the bill says. The bill merely commits the government to taking delivery of a minimum of fourteen bushels to the acre on a specified acreage.
The specified acreage is outlined by the board and in many cases it will be less than fifty per cent of the total cultivated acreage. Really all the government is doing is to guarantee to take delivery of a minimum of from six to seven bushels on the cultivated acreage. Take my own farm, as an example. The specified acreage is forty per cent of the cultivated acreage that is sown to grain. All the government is guaranteeing to me is that they will take delivery of a minimum of five and a half bushels to the acre. I think the minister will agree that that is not a very big guarantee.

Canadian Wheat Board Act
I do not. for one minute doubt the sincerity of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) or the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). I know both those gentlemen would like to see the government committed to taking delivery of all wheat offered for sale prior to July 31, 1950. The Minister of Agriculture is on record, as reported on page 631 of Hansard, in the following words:
Mr. Quelch:	I should like to make it clear
that, as far as this group is concerned, we shall bitterly oppose any proposal to limit the price of $1.35 a bushel to less than the total production during the period in question.
Mr. Gardiner:	You will not oppose it any
more strenuously than I will.
Nobody thinks that this bill as it is worded at the present time commits the government to accept all the wheat offered for sale prior to July 31, 1950. While I do not doubt the sincerity of the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Trade and Commerce, on the other hand I doubt seriously the intentions of the government in this regard. If it was the intention of the government to accept all wheat offered for sale prior to July 31, 1950, why have they not put it in the bill? They have had recommendations from various farm organizations; they have had the statement of their Minister of Agriculture along that line; they have had recommendations from this side and other parts of the house. Why do they bring down a bill which commits the government only to accepting a minimum of fourteen bushels to the acre?
If the government really intend to take all the wheat offered for sale they should not hesitate to amend subsection 2 of section 17 to that effect. We may have an election this year, or if we do not have one this year we shall probably have one next year. If we have an election, in all probability the government will be defeated.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is what you think.


Victor Quelch: I do not want to prophesy in that regard, but I think the government will admit there is a possibility that they will be defeated.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are wrong.


Victor Quelch: I shall leave that to the
opinion of each individual member. There is a possibility that the government will be defeated. If that happens, what do we have? We have merely an act guaranteeing that the government will take a minimum of fourteen bushels to the acre on a specified acreage, or about six or seven bushels per acre of the total grain acreage of a farm. It is all very well for members of the Liberal party 83166-48
to say, "Oh, yes, but the Minister of Agriculture said he would oppose any measure that did not provide for the taking of all the wheat offered for sale prior to July 31, 1950". That would not have any effect upon a government that might come in after the next election. The only thing that will govern will be the act and therefore it is essential that, before the committee rises, that section should be amended. I am hoping that the minister will clarify the situation before we go into committee and show definitely what is the intention of the government.
What is the deciding factor in this whole question? I believe at the present time it is the forgotten factor. I refer to the matter of fair dealing with the farmer.
In the early part of this agreement the farmer is making a considerable sacrifice. He is losing anywhere from fifty to seventy five cents a bushel. In compensation for that loss, the government guarantees to take a minimum of fourteen bushels to the acre at $1.35 a bushel. The loss is being suffered on all wheat offered for sale, a loss of anywhere from fifty to seventy-five cents on every bushel offered for sale. Then surely the compensatory feature should also guarantee that that $1.35 a bushel would be paid on all wheat offered for sale. How can you balance a loss on total production against compensation on a part of production? It does not make sense or justice. Instead of $1.35 a bushel, we think the price should have been $1.55, which is the price at which we are selling to Britain. But that is not our main contention.
Our main objection is this, that the government is guaranteeing to take only fourteen bushels to the acre, instead of guaranteeing to take the total production offered for sale up to July 31, 1950. The government should guarantee to take all the wheat, or its guarantee becomes to a large extent worthless. If in the next two or three years there is a wheat shortage, if crops are poor, the price of wheat will be maintained at probably a high level and will remain there. Then the guarantee become absolutely useless. If that should be the situation over the next two or three years the farmers of this country, as a result of this agreement, are going to lose several hundred million dollars. But we are hoping that that will not be the situation. We all hope that there will be an ample wheat production, that there will be large crops, in which case the price of wheat will very likely fall within the next two or three years and elevators may easily become congested. That is the reason why the guarantee is needed to take care of a situation where, the elevators

Canadian Wheat Board Act

being congested, the government may have difficulty in taking delivery of the wheat. Unfortunately, however, the bill ignores that situation entirely because it guarantees to take only fourteen bushels to the acre. We feel that the government could very well guarantee, by utilizing farm storage, to take delivery of all the wheat produced. I quite realize that, if the elevators are full, the government cannot take delivery at the elevators, but there is no reason why it could not take delivery through a system of farm storage, to which I shall refer later. But we must recognize the possibility of there being congestion and therefore a possibility of the government being unable to accept delivery at the elevators. I shall leave that question for a moment to speak on the broad principle of an international wheat agreement.
We in this group have for several years, ever since we have been in this house, supported the principle of an international wheat agreement between the great wheat exporting nations of the world. We feel that there should be a long-term agreement in order to encourage high production and in order to stabilize farm prices at a level that will be fair to both producer and consumer. It is well to remember that the new world order which we used to hear so much about during the war but which we do not hear so much about today was to promote security throughout the world. Security throughout the world requires stock-piles of food. I think we all realize today that it is essential that stockpiles of food should be established in as many countries as possible. But unfortunately in the past stock-piles of wheat have invariably been used as an excuse to force down the price of wheat on the open market. Therefore in the future we have to establish a system whereby stock-piles may be maintained without forcing down the price of wheat.
I believe that the wheat agreement with Britain was fully justified but it does entail in its early stages a considerable sacrifice on the part of our farmers. We feel that the sacrifice should be borne by the people of Canada as a whole, and that is why we are so concerned about the guarantee that the government makes regarding the acceptance of fourteen bushels to the acre, which is supposed to remove the sacrifice from the farmers and place the burden squarely on the backs of the Canadian people.
In the future, we believe that wheat agreements should be made between all the wheat producing and wheat consuming nations. I say that we support the agreement with Britain, but at the same time we feel that the

solution of this problem requires international agreements to be made between all wheat producing and wheat consuming nations.
We believe that the proposal for an international wheat quota is absolutely sound in order to ensure orderly marketing, so that in a year of surpluses exporters will have their fair share of the market. It is also needed to encourage maximum production. Otherwise nations might very well restrict their production in order to maintain prices at a high level.
We believe that, in order to carry out our part in providing ample quantities of food in the world, the storage facilities in Canada will have to be greatly expanded and improved. We also believe that importing nations should assume responsibility for building up storage facilities within their own country for stockpiles of food, depending, of course, on the type of food needed.
I am not for one moment an alarmist, but I believe that it would be a very good thing if the European countries established storage warehouses under ground. Scientists tell us that old disused mines may be air-conditioned and used as storage space. I am not suggesting that there will be another war. You do not insure a house against fire because you want a fire. You insure against a loss that might occur through fire. Similarly I think it would be well that large warehouses should be established under ground in Europe as a precaution against war and serious sabotage.
We believe that in Canada the storage facilities should be greatly decentralized and that the government should establish a policy of farm storage, so that bins built to government specifications can be utilized for storage in times of surpluses. A system of government-approved farm storage would simplify the change-over from one pool period to another in the event of congestion. I believe that such a system of farm storage could very well be in operation before July 31, 1950, and the government would then have no difficulty in taking delivery of all the wheat offered. Such a policy of government-approved storage was in operation, I believe, in certain states of the United States during the war. I quite realize that there are difficulties in establishing such a policy, but they are difficulties which, if we seriously address ourselves to them can, I believe, be solved.
In closing^ I wish to say a few words regarding the whole question of price. We in this group stand four-square for a policy of parity prices. That is a price which will give the farmer his fair share of the national income, so that the income of our farming population will bear the same relationship to the national income as our farm population

Canadian Wheat Board Act
bears to the national population. We know very well that that has not been the case in the past and that farmers have not received parity. The only period in which agriculture in this country has received parity was in the years from 1915 to 1919. At that time the farm population was one-third of the national population and farm income was one-third of the national income. From 1926 to 1929 our farm population received one-sixth of the national income; and from 1930 to 1940, one-tenth. I understand that at the present time the farmers receive approximately twenty per cent of the national income, or still around ten per cent below parity.
I have often heard people ask the question, would an international agreement not interfere with a system of parity? I would say, on the contrary, international agreements would greatly help the government in establishing parity within the country, because it would safeguard the government against the danger of slump and make it that much easier for the government to balance their exports and imports. Let us remember that the price to the producer would not necessarily be the same as the price under the international agreement. It would be purely an accident if the price were the same. In all probability the price to the producer would be generally higher than the price obtained under the international agreement.
The question of course is asked: how would a parity price be paid, and who meets the cost of parity price? I would say that the cost of maintaining a parity price would be met automatically through prices; that is to say, if the payment of a parity price resulted in an increased demand in relation to supply the price level would rise, absorbing the increased demand. If, on the other hand, as a result of parity price payments, production increased equally to the increase in demand, there would be no increase in the price level and the parity price payments would be met by increased production. And parity payments would unquestionably greatly stimulate production in this country.
We in this group believe that stabilized agriculture throughout the world would greatly help to stabilize the world economy. I believe history proves conclusively that where you have a prosperous agriculture you have a prosperous nation. We are satisfied that in order to build up the prosperity of the nation, and the prosperity of the grain grower under this agreement, it will be necessary to have an amendment to subsection 2 of section 17 definitely committing the government to the acceptance of all wheat produced and offered 83166-48J
for sale prior to July 31, 1950. I hope the minister will give that assurance when he replies.


Mr. C. C. MILLER (Portage la Prairie):: Coming from a province that is reckoned as one of the greater wheat growing provinces of the dominion, and from a constituency that is also reckoned as without parallel in the wheat growing industry, I should like to say something on the bill. Government speakers and some of the members of the C.C.F. suggest that we of the Progressive Conservative group are, first of all, against the wheat agreement; second, that we are favouring interests other than the farmers to the prejudice of the farmers; and, third, that this group is against the wheat board. I do not suggest for a moment that hon. members opposite are not acting in good faith, but at the same time I ask for this group on this side of the house the same recognition of our honourable desire to benefit the farmers and to advance their interests.
Hon. members of various political groups may differ as to the methods that are to be followed, but surely we all desire that the best treatment possible should be accorded to the farmers, because the welfare and prosperity of the farmers are so desperately vital to the welfare and the economy of the nation. Any of us who come from the west must unreservedly and immediately acknowledge that our dependence is mainly on agriculture, it does not matter what our occupations may be. It does not necessarily follow that because we are dependent on agriculture we are farmers. Whatever our occupations may be, whether one is a farmer, whether one is a businessman, whether we are professional men or men of labour, the same thing is true, that directly or indirectly all of us who live west of the great lakes depend for our prosperity and our very existence upon the prosperity and welfare of the farmers of the west.
Most of us living in the western country have close friends; some of us have relatives, who depend for their livelihood upon the prosperity of the farming community. If we admit all these things, Mr. Speaker, it is certainly beyond me how any hon. member in any part of the house can suggest for one minute that we on this side would countenance or support any policy or principle that was designed to create, or which would result in creating, hardship or discrimination to or against the western farmer.
The hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) the other day set up and knocked down a few straw men in this house when he
Canadian Wheat Board Act

predicated much of his argument, directed against this group on this side of the house, upon the supposition that we were opposed to the security of the farmer.
We want the farmers to have security, but we feel that the government of this country is not giving them security. For instance, we are often alarmed at the price provided by the British wheat agreement. That agreement has been made and we are prepared to honour it, but I feel that a better price could have been obtained and should have been secured in the negotiations between this country and Great Britain.
I contend, as members on this side have urged time and again, that the government, out of the treasury of the country, should increase the payments to be made to the farmer on all grain that is delivered and sold under the British wheat agreement. That is our position. I also maintain that the farmers have been left in a vulnerable position. Their costs have mounted even since the agreement was signed and will continue to mount, but very little is proposed to be done by the government to give them any security if the cost of production equals or exceeds the selling price to Britain.
That situation is virtually upon us now, that costa of production to the western farmer are virtually exceeding, or at least equalling, the selling price to the British people under the British agreement, and that is the very situation about which we on this side of the house, and particularly this group, have been urging the government long before this session came into being.
The hon. member for Rosthern also said that the farmers are entitled to an assurance of income the same as the people in any industry or occupation. I agree. That is our contention. The hon. member for Rosthern thinks the farmers have security and stability by virtue of the British agreement. I believe the farmers are already getting into a precarious state of insecurity because of the rising costs of production that are setting in every day. I shall be satisfied with the British contract price if the government of this country will give an assurance that they will supplement the price to the farmer on wheat sold by the farmers under the contract price of the British agreement; and the supplement should be made out of the consolidated revenue, out of the treasury, as the hon. member who preceded me said.
The government and the hon. member for Rosthern suggest that farm leaders mostly support this British wheat agreement and the price that was secured under it I think the

example given the other day in the house was an organization known as the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. Already apparently, the officials of that very organization are deeply concerned with the very problem I have raised tonight, namely, the rising costs of production; and if newspaper articles are to be accepted as a fact, those very officials are shortly-if they have not already been here-coming to Ottawa to discuss that very feature of the farmers' problem.
Let me repeat for the record the statement so often made by hon. members on this side which hon. members of the government and also of the C.C.F. refuse even to hear, namely, that repudiation by Canada of the British wheat agreement is not being and never has been urged by any of us. We say that the farmers have been done an injustice in that the sale price was too low, but we do not and have not urged repudiation. We say that the price should be supplemented, so that the entire nation and not the farmers alone should bear the burden of cheap wheat to Great Britain.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) a few days ago announced in the house the correction of one injustice at least to the farmers. At long last the burden of the loss on wheat for domestic consumption is to be more equitably borne by the nation as a whole and not by the farmers alone. I do not know how much the farmers have already lost by getting thirty cents a bushel below even the British price for wheat for home consumption, but I could hazard a guess, and I think it would be a pretty close one. In any event, the minister admits an injustice and corrects it, but he corrects it only as of a few days ago. The hon. member for Rosthern-and I am using him because he spoke on this point- admits that even he saw this injustice more than a year ago, and took it up with the department at that time. But he is happy now that at long last the Minister of Trade and Commerce has corrected this injustice to the farmers. He is apparently satisfied to forget that that injustice he saw over one year ago has continued since then, and he does not worry about what has happened to the farmers in the interval.
If the minister wants to do complete justice to the western farmer in this respect, he will make amends in full and he will make his thirty cents a bushel increase on wheat for home consumption retroactive, paying the money into the present or the future participation pool which will ultimately be divided among the farmers of this western country. I urge the minister yet to give consideration to

Canadian Wheat Board Act
this angle. If the government does not do this, it seems to me that the farmers of the western provinces are being deprived of at least $30,000,000-and I think it is more-for the period of, say, the preceding eighteen months. I urge the minister to give the farmers their due. There is no reason why the farmers should finance this domestic sale of grain to the tune of $30,000,000 or whatever the amount would be. I fix that $30,000,000 in this way. A newspaper article a few days ago calculated it and estimated that, by the minister making that announcement the other day, he made it possible for the farmers of the west to receive an additional $10,000,000. That would be, roughly, in a period of six months. Therefore in the preceding eighteen months I suggest that a fair estimate is that sum of $30,000,000 which I have mentioned.
I say the country should do this, financing it out of the general revenues. I do not agree on the necessity of making the feeders of grain pay any increased price. I do not say it is wrong, but I cannot see at the moment where it is right that the feeders of this grain should not have some subsidy or something to ensure that they do not pay an increased amount. But I think the farmers should get an increased amount because they should not have to finance millers, or feeders of any kind.
Some hon. members opposite delight in suggesting that we on this side are saying that Britain will not honour her agreement. No one has a greater appreciation of the honour of Great Britain than I have. But while I do not suggest that Great Britain will dishonour her agreement, I do say that the agreement leaves loopholes, not for repudiation or for dishonouring, but for misunderstanding. Let me read from this wheat agreement, or a part of it, as reported in Hansard of August 15, 1946, at page 4848. I am going to read only one small part. It is section 2 (a), which provides the method of fixing the price per bushel of the grain to be delivered under this agreement for the various years. In particular, I wish to read paragraphs (iii) and (iv) of section 2 (a), which are as follows:
(iii)	in respect of wheat bought and sold in the crop year 1948-49, not less than $1.25.
(iv)	in respect of wheat bought and sold in the crop year 1949-50, not less than $1.
Then paragraph (b):
The actual prices to be paid for wheat to be bought and sold within the crop year il948-49 shall be negotiated and settled between the United Kingdom government and the Canadian government not later than the 31st December,
1947,	and prices for wheat to be bought and sold within the crop year 1949-50 shall be negotiated and settled not later than the 31st December,
1948.	In determining the prices for these two crop years, 1948-49 and 1949-50, the
United Kingdom government will have regard to any difference between the prices paid under this agreement in the 1946-47 and 1947-48 crop years, and the world prices for wheat in the 1946-47 and 1947-48 crop years.
The point is this, Mr. Speaker. They agreed on a floor of $1.25 and $1 respectively, and provided for further negotiations. If wheat on the world market in 1948, 1949 and 1950 is, say, $2 a bushel or even $1.50, then Canada may be bound to deliver for $1.25 or for $1, as the case may be, according to tihe year, if Great Britain says so; because it is stipulated in that contract, if you read it one way, that they shall deliver so many million bushels in those years. Canada and Great Britain will negotiate. The agreement says so. But they may not come to an agreement that Britain is to pay more than 'the floor. If that happens, Canada would be annoyed for Canada might be justified in saying, "If you do not give us more than the floor of $1.25 or $1, as the case may be, we will negotiate but not agree." Then what would happen? Would the deal be off? Suppose they did negotiate according to the terms of this agreement, but did not agree. What would be the position? Would Canada have to deliver at $1.25 or $1, or would the deal be off because on further negotiations Canada and Great Britain could not agree? Or in their negotiations Great Britain might say, "Yes, we are going to take into consideration the fact that you gave us cheap wheat in 1946, but we think $1.35 is about right." Canada might and, if the price of wheat was up pretty high, likely would want more. Would this agreement fall, then; or, if not, wha't umpire is to tell us what the price of wheat should be in those years? The agreement says there is to be a sort of floor, and they are going to negotiate the question and tell us; but that agreement is absolutely silent, and no one can tell us who is to say what the price will be if, following negotiations, the two contracting parties cannot agree on any price at all over and above the floor.
My suggestion, then, is that within the four corners of this agreement there is room, not for dishonour, not for repudiation, but for squabbling, misunderstanding, disagreement and bad feeling between Great Britain and Canada, which should not be the case. Might not this agreement even terminate at the end of the first two years if the two governments could not agree, each thinking the other to be unreasonable? Each might be justified in thinking the other unreasonable. Let me suggest to either the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) or the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) that he ask twenty-five lawyers in succession what the
Canadian Wheat Board Act

clauses I have just read mean., and I venture to suggest that there would be twenty-five very peculiar answers.
Whether what I have said is right or whether some other hon. member has offered the right suggestion; whatever may be the situation, I deplore the suggestion of some hon. members on the government side and some hon. members speaking for the C. C. F. party that they alone have the interests of the western producers at heart. I am deeply concerned about the economic welfare of the farmers of western Canada, and I will not take a back seat to any hon. member on that score.
There is some suggestion from some hon. members of other parties that our group are opposed to the Canadian wheat board.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Calvert Charlton Miller: I know of no one on this side who is opposed to a wheat board; certainly I am not. My attitude throughout on that point has been clear and consistent.
In regard to the deferring of payments on participation certificates, however, I wish to say this. I am in favour of those holding certificates participating in the profits for that year. I am opposed to having the farmers' money kept for distribution until 1950. If they were to get it by 1950 it might not be so bad, but I hazard the guess that it will be closer to 1955 than 1950 before they get any money, if they ever do get any. Take this example. Suppose farmer A had a big summer-fallow in 1945. He was put to a great deal of expense in getting that summer-fallow in shape. In our part of the country at least, they usually sow wheat on summer-fallow. In 1946 he sowed it to wheat and, as it turned out, he was fortunate because we had a very large crop last year. This wheat, remember, is now being sold; it is moving to the market, and is bringing what even the government expect will be the highest price we shall receive for wheat in the period from 1945 to 1950. All right. This farmer may not sow wheat on that summer-fallow again before 1950. He may get one more crop of wheat, but it is possible and very likely, the way they farm nowadays, that he will not sow another crop of wheat, certainly not on that particular land; he may have another little strip somewhere else, but I doubt if between 1946 and 1950 he will have another wheat crop on this land he summer-fallowed in 1945.
This farmer should be entitled to participate in the profits on his 1946 wheat, and payments to him on his participation certificates should be and normally would be very material. But is he allowed to get those profits? No.

According to the decision of this government, he is being made to donate those profits to a participation pool for the purpose of supporting an alleged stabilization scheme proposed by the government. And remember, Mr. Speaker, that stabilization is to be carried on in the years at the end of the contract, 1948-49 and 1949-50, when this government visualize much lower wheat prices. I suggest that the government are taking credit for a grand, original stabilization scheme. They are letting the farmers of the west believe that the government is creating this stabilization fund, that government money is being used to make the payments of $1.35 a bushel every year. It is not the government's money. It is the money of farmer A, whom I mentioned a few moments ago, and of thousands of other farmers, which is being retained by this government to the extent of hundreds of millions of dollars and will be retained until 1950, to stabilize this so-called government scheme. It is not the government that is doing the stabilizing at all; it is John Jones and the other farmers who are stabilizing that scheme.
I believe in stabilization. The government say they are doing it; I say they are not. They are making the farmers of Canada donate their profits in order that this price may be stabilized. I believe the farmers should get all their profits each year, with a guarantee from this or any other government in office in Canada that the price will be maintained at a decent floor level, and that from the treasury of this country the government-not the farmers-will donate the money necessary to maintain this stabilization fund and provide at least a fair floor price during the years of low wheat prices which the government envisage.
I do not like these regulations. I have always opposed them, particularly under the old wheat board act. There is too much power in the bureaucrats; there is too much regimentation. In this case a great many regulations to which I as a practising solicitor have objected in past years have been embodied in the proposed statute, so that much of my objection has been overcome. However, we, the people of Canada, are putting the wheat board into big business, and I do not believe we should place them in too much of a strait jacket by including everything in this proposed statute. After all, we cannot foresee the eventualities that may arise in handling these millions of bushels of grain, and I admit that some latitude must be given the board to make orders and regulations so that they may efficiently and properly carry on their business. But let me suggest to the minister that, in the past, many of the prose-

Canadian Wheat Board Act
cutions under these regulations were completely uncalled for. Perhaps my view has been coloured by the fact that I happened to be defence counsel in a great many of these trials, but I believe that many of the prosecutions were actually unjustified. Certainly over a period of years I convinced myself many times, and convinced the court of appeal of Manitoba once, that the prosecutions undertaken by the wheat board were completely unjustified and uncalled for. If you have a prosecution and you beat the wheat board, as I have been fortunate enough to do on two or three occasions, then they just make new regulations. The next time I went to court my case was out of court because they had fixed it in the meantime. They were the champion Mr. Fixit. In the new bill proposed, this should be taken into consideration, too.
It would be fairer if the expenses of the board were paid out of the consolidated revenue fund. I am afraid some may think I am giving that fund quite a ride.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Hear, hear.


Calvert Charlton Miller: Nevertheless I am serious in that, and I think it is of great importance. I do not believe that the cost of operating this expensive set-up should be taken out of the proceeds of the sale of farmers' crops. It is too expensive a set-up for farmers to handle.
This expensive way of handling our western crop is devised not only for the welfare of the farmers but because it is essential to the welfare and economic stability of the country as a whole. That is why I say that the expense of this seemingly almost top-heavy organization should be paid from the common funds of the country, and should not be deducted from the moneys the farmers should receive from the sale of their grain. The expenses should be paid by the whole nation.
I am afraid that the cost of operation of the board with its hundreds, yes, its thousands, of officials, none of whom is underpaid, will take a large slice from the farmers' receipts. If the country would undertake that expense and relieve the participation pools to that extent-and I believe I am right when I say the participation pools bear it-then there would be larger participation payments for the farmers.
One further point, and I shall have finished. The penalties which have always appeared in the regulations, and which are carried forward by this measure, are too high. Imagine the spectacle of a solicitor employed by the board standing in the court room of a small town in a western province, as I have seen them, and asking the magistrate sitting on the bench to impose on a farmer, or on some poor unsuspecting elevator agent who has accepted delivery of sixty bushels of wheat too much, a fine of $500 or $1,000! Imagine that solicitor coming out from the city of Winnipeg, and being paid by the wheat board-


Mr. MUTCH:: That is the real grievance.


Calvert Charlton Miller: I will say this to the hon. member for Winnipeg South that the board did me the honour of asking me to act for the board. On the occasion I have in mind, the solicitor asked that the magistrate impose the outrageous penalty of something like $500 or $1,000. Why, the man I was defending turned forty different colours.
I have told this story because I wish to make clear the pure silliness of asking a penalty of $5,000. We might as well make it a reasonable one. If we did so, there would be more uniformity in the penalities imposed throughout the western provinces, instead of having one man fined $10 for an offence and, a few towns farther down the line, another man being fined $50 or $100 for the same offence. If the penalities were brought down they would be more in keeping with the offences committed, if any are committed, under the act.


Mr. J. S. SINNOTT (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to congratulate the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch). I was almost going to do the same for the last speaker, the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Miller). He made a most commendable speech, and presented it well. Indeed, I believe if the Liberals had chosen him he would have been on this side of the house, right now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You ought to know.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: However, his task, sitting where he now sits, will be a most difficult one, if he ever hopes to obtain any results for the farmers. There are on that side of the house three sincere Conservatives who are representing the farmers. I am not going to give their names at the present time, but I know them all very well, and all happen to come from Manitoba. So that if those three Manitoba members ever hope, from where they now sit, to get anything for the farmers, it will be a sorry day for them.
This wheat agreement is a long-term agreement, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) should be congratulated upon it. It would have been disastrous if the government had asked the people of Great Britain, who were in such dire circumstances at the time, to buy wheat at a price they could not afford. Further-
Canadian Wheat Board Act

more, I believe it was the intention of the government to encourage other nations not to grow wheat, and to make long-term wheat agreements with other countries, so that different nations could trade with us, and we could take their commodities in return.
It is all very fine for some hon. members opposite, under the cloak of the Progressive Conservative party, to put up a big fight for the farmers; but had the hon. member who has just taken his seat sat in the house in 1932, I suggest that he would have found it most awkward if he had attempted to defend the position in which farmers were placed at that time when they-and I had the same experience-sold No. 1 wheat at the elevator for thirty-one cents a bushel. I have nothin* further to say at this time, except that I shall support this measure to the fullest extent.


James Horace King: Is the house ready for
the question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker,
I think we have to hear from a couple of ministers at least. Meantime, however, while they are getting material together, I shall have a few observations to make.
First of all, may I say we propose to respect and honour agreements entered into with other nations. I believe that is taken for granted. May I also add that I support in every particular the necessity for the continuance of the Canadian wheat board. I hope that is clear to hon. members to my left.


Mr. BRYCE:: What about the grain exchange?


James Arthur Ross: I shall deal with
that before I take my seat, and make it very clear, too. If it is necessary to supply the people in Great Britain with cheap wheat, then the contribution should be made by the entire population of Canada; not by one section, the farmers, as it is being done today. I think we are all fairly clear on that point.
The avowed principle of the bill is to make provision for meeting the requirements of the contract with the United Kingdom. The price provided in the agreement is the vital part of the bill. I should like to put a question or two with respect to the great obscurity of this measure on that point. The relevance of this question is obvious because of its direct relation to the initial price of *1.35 which the Canadian wheat board is authorized to pay to farmers. This may be too high or too low, depending upon the [Mr. Sinnott.l
answers given to the questions which I wish to propound. Clause 2 (b) of the agreement reads:
The actual prices to be paid for wheat to be bought and sold within the crop year 1948-49 shall be negotiated and settled between the United Kingdom government and the Canadian government not later than the 31st December, 1947, and prices for wheat to be bought and sold within the crop year 1949-50 shall be negotiated and settled not later than the 31st December, 1948. In determining the prices for these two crop years, 1948-49 and 1949-50, the United Kingdom government will have regard to any diiference between the prices paid under this agreement in the 1946-47 and 1947-48 crop years and the world prices for wheat in the 1946-47 and 1947-48 crop years.
I wish to emphasize the last few lines. I hope the people get that clearly. No one with whom I am associated impugns the good faith of the United Kingdom government. Let us be clear on that. That is not the issue, that Great Britain will keep her word. But we have some doubts about this contract and we should like to have them cleared up. We should like to know what the wording of that contract actually means. I know it is idle to speculate as to what interpretation the United Kingdom now puts or may later put upon the words in that agreement; but there is one thing we can and should do now, that is, put upon the record in public and imperishable form, for every Canadian farmer to see and hear, what interpretation Canada puts upon these words in that agreement. What did we mean by these words when we signed:
The United Kingdom government will have regard to any difference between the prices paid under this agreement in the 1946-47 and 1947-48 crop years and the world prices for wheat in the 1946-47 and 1947-48 crop years.
That is the point I should like to have cleared up and I think there is one minister in particular who may be able to do that. In his speech in Montreal in December last before the Montreal local of the agricultural institute of Canada, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) said:
The third provision is the important one from the point of view of those who are impressed by the arguments of the grain exchange. In their advertisements they ask this definite question:	"What guarantee have you that because
vou accept a lower price now, you will get a higher price later?"
My answer is this provision in the contract: in determining the price for these two crop years, 1948-49 and 1949-50 the United Kingdom overnment will have regard to any difference etween the prices paid under this agreement in the 1946-47 and 1947-48 crop years and the world prices for wheat in the 1946-47 and the 1947-48 crop years.
The grain exchange say in their advertising there is no guarantee at all and don't let anyone tell you anything to the contrary. It isn't true.

Canadian Wheat Board Act
All I can say in reply is that I personally discussed the matter with the British officials and their minister. They have agreed that we are entitled to have possible losses in the first two years made up in the last two. They have so stated in the contract.
In the same speech the hon. gentleman also said:
In so far as agreements made by Britain with other nations are concerned they are only for short terms, most of them from year to year. Those will be the best evidence to show what Canadian farmers are entitled to in the last two years to make up for any losses they may have taken in the first two years.
Those seem to be plain words, but we want to be sure that the way they are being interpreted by the Canadian farmer is not contrary to the meaning intended by the right hon. gentleman. Despite the fact that it is the Department of Trade and Commerce which handled this agreement, I think we all understand that it was the Minister of Agriculture who really negotiated this deal and who, with all due respect to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon), probably knows more about the deal than any other member of the government at this time.
I remember reading the statement by one of his advisers, Mr. Hannam, head of the federation of agriculture. Last fall he told the farmers that they had one choice, either to accept this wheat deal between the United Kingdom and Canada or to market their grain on the open market through the Winnipeg grain exchange. I consider that statement was extreme and misleading to the wheat producers of Canada, because I do not think they had only that choice as he put it. I will deal with that a little later.
I think we could have had a different agreement negotiated without having to deliver our wheat on the open market or to the Winnipeg grain exchange. I do not think the president of the federation of agriculture was as tolerant as he might have been. Quite often, people are carried away in their antagonism to the grain exchange. As is well known, I have no brief for the Winnipeg grain exchange.
On February 22, just last Saturday, the price of No. 2 Canadian export wheat was quoted at $2.51 a bushel. Durum wheat was quoted at ten cents above that, or $2.61. The last time we were discussing this bill, the Minister of Trade and Commerce said that the wheat board had sold export wheat at that time for $2.49, whereas the United Kingdom agreement price is $1.55. Does the Minister of Agriculture agree that on sales completed today we enter in the actual, not possible, loss column an item of ninety-four cents a bushel?
That is something that might be cleared up when he speaks on this matter with a simple answer "yes" or "no".
A few days ago the United Kingdom made a short-term agreement with the Argentine at a price, according to published newspaper accounts, of $3.21 a bushel. If that is the best evidence to show what Canadian farmers are entitled to in the last two years, ninety-four cents a bushel will be much too low a loss to enter in the accounts. These two current illustrations must show how hopelessly vague the matter has been left, even with the explanations given in Montreal last December by the Minister of Agriculture.
Before voting upon this bill which so vitally affects the well-being of a large number of Canadians, this house in fairness is entitled to know, beyond all chance of misunderstanding, what interpretation this government now puts upon the clause in the agreement which I have read, and what interpretation it will urge should be put upon it by the United Kingdom government. I can put the issue very simply and directly.
If not later than December of this year, when the actual prices to be paid for wheat to be bought and sold within the crop year 1948-40 are being negotiated and settled between the United Kingdom and Canada, the world price of wheat is the same as it is today and the average world price of wheat throughout the 1946-47 crop year has been $2.49 a bushel, will Canada urge upon the United Kingdom government that as there has been a difference of ninety-four cents between the price paid under the agreement and the world price for wheat; as regard must be had for this difference, and as, according to the Minister of Agriculture, we are entitled to have this loss made up, the contract price for 1948-49 should then be $3.43 a bushel.
My example of price is as good as any other for the purpose of finding out what we say or think the agreement actually means in detail. The hon. minister can take any figure or price he likes for the purpose of putting our position upon the record. Let him, if he will, assume that, when setting the 194950 price, the world price is $1, but the average world price throughout the contract has been such that a loss has been sustained by Canada of seventy-five cents a bushel. Now will Canada contend that the contract price for 1949-50 must be $1.75 a bushel? That question should be plainly answered.
These are not academic or hypothetical questions, but of the greatest relevance and importance in coming to a conclusion on the vital price terms of this bill. It may be that our interpretation of the contract is such that
Canadian Wheat Board Act

if we had it clarified and confirmed by the United Kingdom government, we could be much more generous-I prefer the term "more fair"-to the Canadian farmer in fixing the initial price of SI .35.


James Garfield Gardiner: You read a good section of it and it was quite clear.


James Arthur Ross: I think the minister
should explain exactly how he interprets it. I have also a question to put to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. A lot of questions were asked on the orders of the day this afternoon about the price of feed grain, and I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce should clear up a vital point and tell us how much the feeder in Canada is required to pay for feed wheat today and how much he has been required to pay since 1942. The minister should also tell us how much the producer of that wheat receives per bushel, as well as the number of bushels of wheat consumed annually for feed in Canada since 1942. There has been considerable misunderstanding on this point and I think the minister should put the figures on Hansard, because a great many people are interested in knowing just what the facts are.
I wish to endorse what was said by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), with respect to establishing farm storage facilities in Canada. It will be remembered that in the early years of the war provision was made by the government for the storage of wheat on Canadian farms when the elevators were full. I trust that provision will be made for adequate farm storage.	,
I also hope that the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture will tell us more definitely than they did the other day whether any limitation will be placed on the acreage production of wheat during the term of the five-year contract with the British government. The bill as I read it is a little vague on that point.
I am much concerned as to my attitude on this bill in the absence of a definite statement from the responsible minister as to whether a limit will be placed on the wheat acreage or wheat deliveries for sale at any time in the life of the agreement. I think the house and the country are entitled to an unequivocal statement from the minister on that point.
I said that I would state where I stand on the Winnipeg grain exchange. I do not know why the C.C.F. should keep asking me what my attitude is with regards to the Winnipeg Grain Exchange. I doubt if any other mem-


An hon. MEMBER:: Because we represent the farmers.


James Arthur Ross: I doubt if any other ber of this house has done more than I have in my humble but sincere way ever since I came into this house to promote the welfare of the western farmer. If anybody cares to look up the record they will find that on March 30, 1943, as reported at page 1698 of Hansard of that session, the then member for Qu'Appelle and myself moved the following resolution:
The policy of the government with respect to the marketing of Canadian field crops is detrimental to the public interest, and that steps should be taken forthwith to provide for the marketing of coarse grains as well as of wheat, by the Canadian wheat board, within the provisions of the Canadian Wheat Board Act of 1935 and amendments thereto; and that action should be taken immediately to abolish trading on the Winnipeg grain exchange in order to prevent speculation and profiteering at the expense of the farmers.
Surely that is clear enough for anybody!


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Do you still stand by that?


James Arthur Ross: I am still standing right on my own feet, and you usually know where I stand. At the time that resolution was put to a vote on March 30, 1943, the government voted solidly against it. Yet that same government, in that same year, on September 28, 1943, passed an order in council doing exactly what we had asked them to do in that resolution. Surely that is clear enough for anybody.


William Scottie Bryce: That was after two byelections.


James Arthur Ross: I do not know anything about that. What I do say is that I have been consistent right along in my attitude toward the Winnipeg grain exchange, and as long as the wheat board1 continues to operate I do not care whether the grain exchange operates or not if it can find any business for itself. We are living in a democracy and should be tolerant of all. I am out to get the best deal I can for the western producer, who has not had any too good a deal in the past.
I hope that the Minister of Agriculture will rise in his place and give us detailed information on the points I have raised and that, following him, the Minister of Trade and Commerce will answer the questions I have put to him. Then we shall have a clear understanding of what we should do with respect to this legislation, which has an important bearing on the marketing of our future wheat crops.

Canadian Wheat Board Act


Arthur Leroy Smith: Mr. Speaker, I join in this debate with some reluctance, as a sheer matter of compulsion. The studied silence of the two ministers who are dealing with this matter compels me to rise in my place and say at least a couple of things.
Of course I am a farmer, as all hon. members know, farming the public from a law office. But I have lived in that section of the country for a long, long time and I want to say a word about the Winnipeg grain exchange. I have listened to this twitting which has come from my left for some considerable time. I have this to say about the Winnipeg grain exchange or anyone else. I am ready to condemn them or anyone else when it is proven that they do not function in the interests of the country. Until that is done, I do not intend to join in the hysteria which exists to my immediate left and try to get popular with people by complaining of individuals simply because they have made a little money. I heard the other day about a man who died worth $250,000. I do not know who he was, but I wish he had left half a million, if he had brains enough to make it. I should like to see him do even better.
I can see no reason why the Winnipeg grain exchange should not operate at this moment. I cannot see that it has anything to do with the operation of the wheat board. If the operation of a wheat board is the best way to dispose of our grain, let us do it in that way. But you are going to operate it now by compulsion, and compulsion suits my hon. friends to the left, because they know that neither their philosophy nor the philosophy of any other ism can exist without compulsion and dictatorship from the top.
Why should a farmer not be able to sell his grain to me if I can do a better job for him than the wheat board? I am not criticizing the wheat board. The chief officer of the board who was sitting here has been a friend of mine for thirty-five years. At one time when he was a poor man he was a client of mine. Perhaps that is why he rose to his present position. His predecessor, Mr. Murray, was also a very good friend of mine. I am not for a moment suggesting that these men are not doing the best they can, that they are not doing a good job. But what that has to do with giving the farmer an option of disposing of his produce through one channel more than another is utterly beyond me. I may believe in the wheat board; I may believe they are doing a good job and hope they will continue to do so. But if I, a farmer, granted I were a farmer, sitting on that prairie thought
I could do better by using some method of marketing, I would not want my neighbours to come and say, "You do it this way and this way only". In that direction lies socialism, in that direction lies dictatorship, and it can operate in no other way.
That is my view of the Winnipeg grain exchange and the wheat board. Remember that the only time the Winnipeg grain exchange has ever been abolished in the dominion, and trading on it abolished., was on a rising market. Trading was never abolished on a falling market. Having said that, I am not in a position, nor is anyone else I know of here in a position to form a judgment, whether good or bad; and so we have asked and I ask again that we have a committee of this house to which we can let these people come and tell their story.
I have not a client on that grain exchange; not a single grain company have I now, nor have I had for twenty years. But I will not condemn somebody; my instincts and training both forbid me to condemn anyone, without a hearing, either the grain exchange or the wheat board or a grain dealer or anyone else. Perhaps trading should be abolished. They are having a lot of fun with a little bit of rye they have there now-and I mean the rye grown on the ground. I watch the papers, and it is doing some quick dances. But I have not yet heard anyone in this house give me one reason, to show where the farmer lost any money dealing on the open market while there was an open market.
I cannot help thinking of the United States; I cannot help thinking of Liverpool; I cannot help thinking of the United States first, with infinitely more wheat than we have. The Chicago exchange operates and there is no suggestion anywhere of closing it. It may be that it should be closed. The position is this at the moment : I am unconvinced, and I have listened, to all the reasons -that we have heard in this house. But I Should like to listen to the reasons of the persons who really know.
I know Mr. Justice Turgeon very well. I worked for him when he was attorney general, when Saskatchewan was first formed. He was deputy and then attorney general and I know he is a reasonable man. His commission went through this country as did others and found as a fact that the grain exchange did do a service in the marketing of grain. He may have been wrong. Probably he was. Probably times have changed. But I refuse at the moment to accept the hysteria of a lot of people clamouring against the considered judgment of Mr. Justice Turgeon; and so I again say, let us have a committee and let us
Canadian Wheat Board Act

get at the facts. If these people are no good, let us close them up. If the wheat board are not doing the job we might improve them. That is the position in which I stand with respect to that institution.
Just another word. We have all been asserting our great friendship for Great Britain and I think we as a House of Commons might accept that in its entirety and as applying to every one of us. I do not think we gain much by saying, impliedly at least, that we are the great friends of Britain, that we know she will not dishonour her word, and all these statements made in the air, which really mean nothing.
What is the real situation? I think it is this. I think, if you have a terrible drop in the world price of wheat, no contract anywhere can stop an avalanche of that kind. I think the most we can do is, within ourselves, to support some sort of floor; and if we have a real slide the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) knows at least how difficult even that is going to be.
I trust I shall not be accused of disloyalty when I say this. In my humble opinion, if in the last two years of this contract, which God forbid, wheat should hit the toboggan, not being disloyal.to England I would say that this House of Commons and the people of this country will not hold up at the point of a gun poor struggling Britons to pay a price away in advance of the world price. I think we are more decent than that.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are holding them up now.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I will hold you up in a minute and you will be sorry you spoke. I do not want to hold them up and I have never suggested any such thing. We have suggested that the dominion treasury, and not the farmers, should bear the gift to Britain, and I defy the hon. member to say that anything else was ever said by anyone on this side of the house. You have your chance now to reply. Not a word. I knew you would not. So I come back squarely to where I was a moment ago-


An hon. MEMBER:: That is nowhere.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I really wish I could keep track of these hon. members because, while I have a sense of humour, when I cannot hear them I cannot answer them.
I am sorry about that, but I did not hear the last remark. I come back to this position. In so far as those latter two years are concerned, I do not think they are serious. I do not think the people of this country, granted we have a fall, would ever permit the 
British people to suffer, in the event of foodstuffs rising; and certainly not within the four years has anyone whose remarks I have read foreseen a supply enough to feed the world, to say nothing of a surplus. Those last two years amount to very little. With that, sir, I conclude.


Robert Fair: Will the Minister of Trade and Commerce answer the question asked by the member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) before we pass the second reading? The question was in connection with the acceptance of all wheat offered for sale prior to the end of July, 1950.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Golding):: I must warn hon. members that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Ernest George Hansell: I am not going to debate the question, but I suggest that the feeling, at least on this side of the house and perhaps throughout the entire house, is that the bill should not pass the second reading until we hear from the government in answer to the speeches that have been made. I do not think the answer to one question, extremely important though it is, is sufficient. We should hear something more than just the answer to one question, because this is an important matter.


William Henry Golding: I should like to remind hon. members that we are not in committee, and that members are not privileged to ask questions one after another in a debate of this kind. They can do that in committee.


Ernest George Hansell: I am not willing that the bill should go to committee until we hear an adequate statement from, the government.


James Angus MacKinnon: Mr. Speaker-


William Henry Golding: It is understood that if the minister speaks now, he closes the debate.


John Bracken: Mr. Speaker, I must express some surprise that on an important measure like this the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) did not see fit to make a statement when he was moving second reading of this bill. I had fully expected that he would do so, and I had equally fully expected to follow him and make a statement with respect to the attitude which this party would take on the measure. He did not rise in his place; the Speaker saw someone else and the debate went on. Mr. Speaker now advises us that, if the Minister of Trade and Commerce speaks, he closes the debate. Under the circumstances,
I think I should take a few minutes to make some observations with respect to this measure

Canadian Wheat Board Act
and to outline clearly where the party I have the honour to lead stands on this bill.
Before I proceed, I should like to make one observation, and by so doing I do not mean to detract from the addresses made by any of the hon. members who have so far spoken. But I do wish to say how much the statement made by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) agreed-and I am now speaking generally-with the attitude taken by myself and this party with respect to this great problem of agriculture, and more particularly toward the question of the marketing of wheat. I desire to compliment the hon. member on the clarity of his statement and on the soundness of his views, speaking generally.
Bill No. 23 is a bill to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. The Canadian Wheat Board Act is an act that was passed in 1935, twelve years ago. The purpose of that act was to give the wheat farmer some greater stability of income. Under that act, the government undertook to guarantee an initial price; and after the crop was sold and the difference between what was received and what was paid was made up, the government undertook to pay to the farmers the balances left over at the end of each crop year. There was in the bill at that time no power to limit acreage and no power to limit the bushelage per acre, which would be accepted. As I have said, the moneys left, after one year's operations were over, were to be distributed to the farmers on the basis of the crop sold by each farmer.
The history of the initial price paid under this measure since it was passed can be stated briefly. In 1935 it was 87i cents a bushel. In 1939 it was reduced to seventy cents a bushel. In 1942 it was made ninety cents a bushel. During the war under the war measures legislation, by order in council in 1943 the initial price was fixed at $1.25. Then last year it was made $1.35. By order in council during the war years two other things were done. By one order in council the government killed the practice of paying participation certificates at the end of each crop year; and some of those participation certificates were not paid for a period of three, four or more years. Those for the year 1944 are not yet paid and I understand that some of them for 1943 are not paid, although I am not positive as to that. Then, by another order in council this board was given the power to carry out the British agreement. That brings us up to date with respect to the major changes under that act.
I now come to the bill before us. The main purposes of the present bill are outlined opposite one of the initial pages of the
bill itself. If I may be permitted to do so,
I should like to summarize the purposes of the bill as briefly as I can. First, it gives to the government statutory power, through the wheat board, to carry out this British wheat agreement. That is the feature of it which has to do with external or international policy. Second, the bill provides for paying the farmer $1.35 a bushel as an initial price during the period of the British wheat agreement, which is five years altogether, and which ends three or four years from now, in 1950, to be exact. The third purpose of the bill is to enable the government to hold any balance of the farmers' money for five years rather than distribute it at the end of each crop year as was the purpose of the act and the actual policy carried out under the act in its early years. The fourth purpose of the bill is to give the government, through the board, power to take over and sell the farmers' oats, barley, rye and flax in the same manner if it chooses as it now does with wheat, and to do that without any stipulation whatever as to the price to be paid for those crops. I think, Mr. Speaker, that is a fair statement of the main intent and purpose of the bill.
Our attitude toward this bill may be stated briefly. Some of our members, speaking as they have a right to do as individuals, have already stated something of where we stand. I am very glad to have the opportunity now to make it clear for the party generally. We recognize this bill for what it is, a measure made necessary by the government's wheat contract with Britain. We recognize that contract to be an international agreement, an agreement entered into by two nations and officially signed by the recognized representatives of those two nations. As leader of the Progressive Conservative party, I do not propose to dishonour an international agreement. We shall take no step that will result in wrecking that agreement, certainly not without the full concurrence of the other agreeing parties.
Having said that, let me say this also. Let me make clear that we take no responsibility for that contract. It was not brought before us before it was agreed to; and when it was brought before us, after it had been agreed to, we took exception to certain features of the agreement. We did not agree with it then; we do not agree with certain features of it now. We thought the contract was unwise in certain particulars. We thought it was unnecessary, and we thought it was harmful to Canada's international trade. Nevertheless it is a contract entered into between governments and cannot be broken by either side, without the agreement of the other, without dishonour. We recognize it as that, and we
Canadian Wheat Board Act

have no thought whatever of repudiating such an international agreement. All we can do now, all any party can do now; all this parliament can do now is to try to make the best of it, try to see that we make no mistakes in administering it, try as far as we can to correct its ill effects and, if I may be permitted to say so, try to substitute for it, if we can with the approval of the other contracting party, an international wheat agreement which will bring something of stability to international wheat prices. Briefly that is our position with respect to this bill and the agreement.
Having referred to the purposes of the bill, I may be asked: what are the main features of it? In an early page of the bill the purport of it is stated as the government sees it. What, in simple language, are the main features of the bill? It has many features. I shall deal briefly with only four of the main ones. First, the government is taking the right to usurp the powers of the board. If it were in order to refer to the clauses of the bill I would do so, but I am a little afraid I might be asked to sit down if I went on to deal with its clauses. The government is taking the right to usurp the powers of the board. And it is taking the right to extend the powers of the board. And it is taking the right to order the board around in certain important particulars. When we get into committee we shall point out where these things are provided.
Second, and to be more specific, the government is taking the power to possess the farmers' oats, barley, rye and flax in exactly the same way as it has taken power to possess their wheat and control its marketing. It is taking power to sell these crops at any price, even below the world price if it wishes to do so. I say it is taking that power and, that being so it must expect to use it; otherwise why have it in the bill? It is taking blanket power to do with these crops as it does with wheat, but in this case by order in council with no guarantee as to price, no guarantee as to the principle or formula that will be followed in arriving at the prices of these products. That, Mr. Speaker, is wartime order in council legislation in its most high-handed form, carried out now in time of peace.
That is something of the power being left with the board. I say it not by way of criticism at the moment but only by way of analysis of what is contained in this bill. I do not oppose the board taking over coarse grains, but I point out that under this measure it has power to take them over without any guarantee whatever as to the prices it will pay for these commodities.
A third main feature of the bill is that the government is planning to hold large sums of

the farmers' money for a period of five years. Part of that money may be used to offset future losses, but in any event the government is not going to pay participation certificates at the end of each crop year but is planning to hold the money for five years. In other words, money properly owing to the farmers at the end of each crop year is being held by this government under this wheat board for five years, earning rates of interest much lower than the farmers are paying on the money they have to borrow.
A fourth feature of the bill is that the government is taking power to limit the acreage of grain on which it will accept delivery, and it is taking power to limit to as little as fourteen bushels the amount it may accept from each acre. I say those powers are in the bill. As far as those features are concerned, what I want from the government is a statement indicating exactly what it means. Either there is to be a limitation some time on the acreage, if it is necessary, and a limitation on the amount that will be accepted for delivery from each acre, or there is not. As I read the bill, it contains that power. Any man of sense knows the government will never use that power unless it is considered necessary. The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) wanted an assurance from the government that it would never be used. What I want from the government is a clear statement. What I expect they will say-I was going to add "if they are perfectly frank" but I will not say that-is that they hope it will never be necessary to use this power; but that having the power, if there should be much more wheat than can be sold, they would use these limiting powers on the delivery of wheat they would accept. I can read nothing different in the bill.
With respect to the wheat agreement I should like to make a few brief observations. The government is giving statutory form to a wheat agreement with Britain. So far this has been done by international agreement; now, under this bill, the administration of the agreement is to be put in statutory form. Second, in this agreement the government has taken blanket authority for five years to market the farmers' wheat. Those things are self-evident. Third, as a result of this agreement, together with the announced domestic policy with respect to the sale of wheat, first at $1.25 a bushel, now at $1.55, for consumption at home, the government is selling the farmers' 1946 wheat crop for $100,000,000 less than that crop would bring at the world market price. That is the estimate. It will probably be more than that.
I tried to get the minister to give an estimate.

Canadian Wheat Board Act
I do not blame him for not giving one, but it is very easy to make a calculation. My estimate is on the conservative side.
Then, fourth, as a result of this agreement the government has sold more of the crop to one country than that country has ever used for its own purposes, in a year of peace-many millions more.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, more than it has received from Canada, not more than it has ever used.


John Bracken: I meant to say that-more than it ever received from Canada. Under this arrangement 160,000,000 bushels is being sold to one country by Canada. The normal amount taken by that country from Canada in the past has been 90.000,000 to 100,000,000 bushels, or thereabouts.
What is the result? Canada cannot depend upon Great Britain alone for a market, important as that market may be. Now, in these critical times, other nations are denied a reasonable share of our grain. What is to be their attitude with respect to trade with us when this arrangement is over, after they have entered into arrangements with other countries for grain, and after those countries have had to pay higher prices than Great Britain is having to pay?
I say the government has sold more of one crop to one country than that country has ever obtained from Canada for its own use in a peacetime year. And the government has sold that portion of the crop at a considerably lesser price than it has sold to other nations. As the minister said the other day, the figure was $1.55 a bushel, and he told me of some sales to other countries which had run up to $2.49. In those two -ways the government has prejudiced our future trade in every land that buys grains.
One other observation with respect to that agreement. The government has excused itself for this kind of bargain by saying that it stabilizes prices to Canadian farmers. In my judgment that is just pure bluff, and nothing else. There can be no stabilized price to the Canadian farmer by an international agreement with one nation, when in that agreement in one year, it pays $1.55; in another year it may pay $1.25 and in another year it may pay $1. It is no stabilization of prices to the Canadian farmer to have an agreement of that kind.
And, Mr. Speaker, there is less stabilization of prices in an agreement of that kind when, at the end of five years, the world price of wheat may be $1 a bushel, even less. If then this nation comes to deal with Great Britain in an
effort to make a new agreement, at what figure will it be made? Perhaps it will be at $1. Perhaps it will be less. Where is the stability to Canadian agriculture arising from an international arrangement of that kind? Any stability that is in this bill, anything that gives stability of price to Canadian farmers, is not in the international agreement at all, but in the domestic arrangement where, after the government sells grain at a large price now, risking a lower price in the future, it proceeds to give to the farmer during the period of this agreement $1.35 a bushel1. That is all the stability there is to farmers' prices; and that does not come from the international agreement. It comes from the domestic arrangement here at home. It could have been done without the international agreement at all. It could have been done even better and at a higher price without that international agreement at all.
As to the government's domestic wheat policy, I shall content myself by making five brief observations. First, the price the government is paying farmers for wheat is less than it is getting for the wheat. The government is getting $1.55 from Great Britain. They are getting $2.40 or $2.50 from some other countries. Just now they are getting $1.55 for wheat sold for local use, although up until now they have been selling the farmers' wheat for Canadian use at $1.25 to make cheap bread for Canadian homes.
I say the price the government is paying farmers is less than the government is getting for the wheat. I say it is less than a fair price. I say it is less than a parity price. If the term "parity" may be taken to mean a fair price, then parity for wheat today is not $1.35, but is $1.55. And under this arrangement the only amount the farmers are assured of getting for these five years is $1.35. There may be something at the end of five years, or there may not; it depends altogether on what happens to the world price in the next three or four years.
In addition to all that, the price the government is paying farmers is less than enough to keep agriculture in an equitable position in the Canadian economy. Anything less than parity will not keep agriculture in a relatively equal position in that economy. I say $1.35 is less than parity, less than a fair price and less than it should be, having regard to the increasing costs of farmers' production.
And the price the government is paying these farmers is not enough to keep the Canadian economy on its present high level of income and employment. As soon as you
Canadian Wheat Board Act

let one section of our economy drop down in purchasing power, immediately, or shortly after, that drop is translated to every; other section. If we let agriculture drop down from the fair position it has held in the last two or three years we are immediately weakening the whole Canadian economy, at the very time when our efforts should be to try to keep a high level of national income and a high level of employment.
Second, with regard to our domestic wheat policy, certain impressions have been left to the effect that the government does not intend to limit sales of wheat by farmers. I say that that impression has been left. Let us have it made clear what the intention is, and what the powers are. But whatever the intention is, the government is, in fact, taking power to limit the amount of wheat it will allow farmers to sell. That is in the bill; I cannot read it in any other way.
Third, the government is asking power to take the farmers' oats, barley, rye and flax, without any guarantee as to price, and without any formula as to how it is to arrive at what is a fair price. The government may say that it does not intend to use that power, but why is it in the bill if it does not intend to use it? I suggest that under the government's policies of undertaking to sell overseas such large quantities of other farm products, bacon, cheese, et cetera, it has tied its own hands. I say that in order to carry out its own undertakings it will be forced to bring in policies to take over the marketing of oats, barley, flax and peas and to sell these crops in this country at less than the world market prices That is one of the consequences of its policies. I am not saying at the moment whether that is a good policy or a bad policy, but I am saying that, in undertaking to supply not only local Canadian needs but so much of the needs of the outside world, the government has tied, its hands with respect to the continuance of such controls as these on the price to be paid for those coarse grains, and oni the interferences to the export of them.
Fourth, the government by adopting such price policies as this is freezing the wheat income of Canada at a level below parity.
I have said that before in substantially similar words. Since wheat prices in the long run influence if they do not determine the prices of oats, barley and other coarse grains, this policy is tending to lower the relative position of agriculture in our whole economy. If that is true, and I believe it is, that step is introducing the first major deflationary factor in our Canadian economy. That is

why the price the farmer should get for his wheat today should be a fair price, and' not less than a fair price.
Fifth, with further respect to its domestic wheat policy, the government is not only getting ready to let agriculture fall back into an inferior position in our economy, but is holding back a portion of the farmers' money for five years. That is a major objection I have to this bill; and that is a feature of this bill we are going to try to have amended. We intend to fight that feature of this bill with all our capacity and endeavour to have it adjusted. If $1.55 is a fair price for Canadian wheat, there is no excuse for not giving it to the Canadian farmer, either in the form of an initial price or if the government still requires that he take less-it is $1.35 now or twenty cents less-then at the end of each crop year the farmer should be given whatever balance there is.
As I have said, the bill should be amended in at least that one respect. We cannot press that amendment at this stage, but we will try in committee to find the place where an amendment of that kind can be proposed. Our amendment will be that any surplus in a year's- operations should be distributed at the end of the year instead of being held until this act expires three or four years from now. In other words, there should be a one-year pool instead of a five-year pool. Let the government hold the surplus money for no more than the end of the crop year; let it give whatever there is back to the farmer each year. It may be a lot; it may be a little; it may be none at all. It may be that in the third and fourth years the price of wheat will be down and the surpluses will have to be used up in order to keep the average up to $1.35.
There are two new features in this bill. One is the power to limit the acreage of wheat and to limit deliveries from each acre and the second is the power to hold back the farmer's money for his participation certificates until this legislation expires in 1950. This it does in the hope that there will be some money left; in the hope that it will have enough to avert possible losses. The initial price guaranteed under this bill of $1.35 is a gamble against a possible drop in prices, but it does not guarantee a stable parity price. It either does that or it does not. I think any careful student of agriculture will agree that it does not. The only hope of the government getting a fair return to farmers under this measure is that there will be at least a twenty-eent increase over the $1.35 payment during the whole five years of this contract. Personally I do not believe that that will be so or

Austiia
anything approaching it. In any event it is money which belongs to the farmer, it does not belong to the government.
Either the first payment should be a parity payment, which is now about $1.55 a bushel; or, if the government will not make it that, then it at least should see that the balances left at the end of each crop year are paid to the farmer and not held for five years.
That, in brief, is our attitude toward this measure and the general question of marketing wheat and other coarse grains. That is our attitude with respect to one particular feature of this bill-the payment yearly of the participation certificates. We think the government should not hold the farmer's money for five years, but should pay him every year the difference between what it receives for the sale of his grain and what it ras paid him as an initial price.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to proceed at any length in the few minutes that are left tonight and I shall in a moment move the adjournment of the debate. However, I should like to reply to the last statement made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) to the effect that the initial price of $1.35 a bushel was a mere gamble. The initial price of $1.35 a bushel was not a gamble in any sense. It was arrived at by taking the average marketings of wheat over a long period in Canada and calculating that if that wheat was marketed at $155 for the first two years of the contract, 'taking into consideration the fact that one year's wheat had already been marketed at a price of at least $1.55 and the further fact that it would be marketed for another two years at $1.55 at least, then should the price drop to the minimum price of $1.25 provided in the contract for the third year, and if it dropped again to $1 in the fourth year, there would be enough money obtained for the wheat to pay the farmer $1.35 a bushel without any person in Canada outside the farmers paying one cent of it.
In other words, the farmer of western Canada who produces this wheat would not be depending upon the taxpayers in eastern Canada, either in its cities or on its farms, for one cent of the payment wdiich included $1.35 a bushel. That is no gamble; that is a basic fact in connection with this contract. It makes it one of interest to the western farmer who produces the wheat. It is one which we ask the members of this house to support, on the understanding that it is a policy in which the western farmer believes.
If I may be permitted to adjourn the debate at this point I shall continue tomorrow.
On motion of Mr. Gardiner the debate was adj ourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Tuesday, February 25, 1947