1948-03-23

Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I wish to make an announcement concerning the 1948 crop of flaxseed. The government has been advised that to meet our domestic requirements we can do with a somewhat smaller acreage of flaxseed than was sown last year. There are some definite signs of easing in the world situation on oil bearing seeds and distinct possibilities that we will no longer have the serious shortage that we have been facing for the past several years. With this changing situation in mind, it has been decided that the Canadian wheat board will be instructed to support prices of $4 per bushel for the top grades of flaxseed, basis delivered at Montreal or basis in store at Fort William/Port Arthur for the 1948-49 crop year commencing next August 1, should the market drop to that level. On the same date, the wartime prices and trade board ceiling of $5 per bushel will be removed, thus permitting buyer and seller to trade freely at prices above the support levels. In any event, the producers sowing flaxseed this year will be sure of a price not less than $4 per bushel for top grades.



FLOOD CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. T. RICHARD (Ottawa East):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. It has to do with the flooding in the Rideau river district. In view of the fact that the government now owns the riverfront from Rideau falls to Hog's Back will the minister state (1) what assistance has been offered in the past to the adjoining municipalities to prevent floods; and (2) whether his officers have studied the responsibility of the dominion government to assist in the prevention of floods on the Rideau river, and its liability therein, especially in the case of an emergency?


Hon. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Minister of Public Works):: I will take this question as a notice and will give full answer tomorrow. I shall have to look over the files to see if this is a case under the jurisdiction of the federal government.


Mr. COLDWELL:: I should like to ask a supplementary question. In view of the widespread damage from floods, will the minister give consideration to trying to enter into some form of co-operation with the provincial governments with a view to taking effective steps for flood control, inasmuch as we have some responsibility for navigable waters?


Alphonse Fournier: It is admitted that the federal government has no jurisdiction in these cases. There is only one statute which gives us jurisdiction, and that is the Navigable Waters Protection Act. We are ready to consider any situation, but at this time I would not want to commit the government to any obligation in this respect.


Major James William Coldwell: I simply asked for cooperation.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: I should like to ask a supplementary question in view of what the minister has just said. The federal government has rights with respect to navigation through the placing of dams across rivers. I do not think it can escape its responsibility for flooding caused by dams put in these rivers by its authority.


Alphonse Fournier: Whenever floods are caused by federal works, there is a responsibility. But in the instance cited this afternoon it is not established that any works which the federal government has constructed are the cause of these floods.


Mr. GRAYDON:: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Public Works? Will he be kind enough, when he makes a statement tomorrow with respect to flood responsibilities of the federal government, to include in the report a statement regarding the situation in connection with the Etobicoke river?


Alphonse Fournier: We have looked into that question with respect to the condition at Etobicoke river and other places, and there is absolutely no federal jurisdiction in
Inquiries oj the Ministry

connection with them. That is the information that comes from my department. I understand it is exclusively a matter of provincial jurisdiction.


Gordon Graydon: The Grand river, which would be in a somewhat similar situation to that of the Etobicoke, is the precedent upon which the people in my part of the country are basing their claim.


Alphonse Fournier: The scheme in connection with the Grand river was entered into by the federal government, the provincial government and the local municipalities during the depression years. During those years moneys were spent by the federal government to relieve unemployment, and we did enter into an agreement with the province of Ontario and with the municipalities and made an expenditure of over one million dollars. This scheme is being continued from the point of view of surveys for future works, but no similar agreement was signed or entered into by the federal government with regard to the Etobicoke and their problems. I understand that application was made some time ago by these municipalities to the province, but to my knowledge actually nothing has reached the Department of Public Works.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. As municipal welfare departments are receiving many applications each day for public assistance from unemployed persons during the time that these persons are waiting to receive their first cheque from the unemployment insurance commission, and as the minister knows this welfare is charged one hundred per cent to the municipality, this is the question: Will consideration be given by the commission to shortening the delay in the payment of the first cheque to a waiting period of six days instead of the present waiting period of nine days, during which time no payment is made of unemployment insurance benefits?


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The hon. member should not make a speech.


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: The hon. member need not finish it. I can answer the question.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I have another question. Has the dominion government considered increasing these unemployment insurance benefits owing to the increased cost of living?


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member has stated the position correctly. Of course, the responsibility for unemployment relief is that of the municipalities and the provinces. At the moment amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act are being studied by my department and an announcement of government policy will be made in the usual manner.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. HOWARD C. GREEN (Vancouver South): I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Press dispatches of the last day or two indicate that militia ranger units are to be established in northern Canada. Will the minister make a statement with regard to this proposal and indicate whether or not that will include northern British Columbia?
Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Defence):: I should like to have had time to get full information for the hon. member. Speaking from memory I can say that last April when I was in Vancouver I announced the formation of the Canadian rangers as a corps of the Canadian army, to be organized on the general pattern of the Pacific coast rangers during the second world war. The intention is that this corps shall be organized in companies in areas where there are no reserve army units, particularly in the north and along the coasts of Canada. The purpose will be to act as guides, to make available local knowledge, to assist in search and rescue work, and to report any activities that should not be going on in consequence of action by an enemy, or the like. These men in the Canadian rangers will be issued a rifle, bayonet, belt, and some ammunition, and they will have training in their companies in line with the kind of work they are intended to do. In this way it is hoped to supplement the work which the reserve army units do in the more organized centres of population.



R.C-A.F.-PRESS REPORT AS TO FIGHTER STRENGTH

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. B. McKAY (Weyburn):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Defence, a copy of which I sent to his office. In view of the large expenditure of public money on the R.C.A.F. would the minister state whether or not the article which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on March 20 last is a statement of fact, namely "Not one

Inquiries of the Ministry
fighter ready for action-Canada woefully weak on land and in the air should war come again."


Brooke Claxton: The statement as quoted by the hon. member is not in accordance with the facts.



BUILDING OF HIGHWAY FROM BORDER TO CHURCHILL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the diay:
Mr. RONALD MOORE (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister state whether recent reports in the press that an all-weather highway is to be constructed from the United States border to Churchill, Manitoba, are correct? If so, is the road to be built by the Canadian government., the United States government or jointly by both.


Brooke Claxton: I have no knowledge of any such road. I should think it might be a matter for the provincial government.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: Can the Minister of Finance give us any indication as to the date on which the budget will be brought down, and also when he proposes to introduce the revised Income Tax Act and get under way in that matter?
' Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance): I am afraid I cannot give any indication as to when the budget will be brought down. My time so far has been taken up with other matters, with which the house is familiar, and I have not been able to give the consideration to budget matters that I should like to have given to them. I am hoping, however, that I shall soon be able to turn to that important phase of my activities.
On the question as to when the revised Income Tax Act will be brought in, I cannot say definitely. I had tentatively thought of bringing it in after the presentation of the budget, either incorporating in it the budget provisions, if that is desirable, or otherwise, but I am not in a position yet to say definitely when I can bring it in.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: With regard to the Income Tax Act, does the minister think that if it is brought down as
late as that, having regard to the complexities and the difficulties involved, it will be possible to pass it during the present session?


Mr. ABBOTT:: I would hope so. We are still receiving some important representations in connection with it and are doing a good deal of work considering those representations and considering what changes if any should be made.


Mr. FLEMING:: May I ask the Minister of Finance a supplementary question as to the matter of procedure in connection with the new Income Tax Act? Has the minister considered referring the bill to one of the standing committees of the house-for instance, to the committee on banking and commerce- so that representations of interested organizations can be made with regard to it?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, the question of doing that is still under consideration. No decision has been made.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. DANIEL MaTVOR (Fort William): I would like to ask the Minister of Labour if there is anything in the report which I have noticed published in the press that Captain R. Scott Misener, of Port Colborne, who is head of two shipping companies, has applied for authority to bring five hundred British seamen into Canada. I have information which indicates that there are quite a number of Canadian seamen now unemployed.
Humphrey Mitchell: The dominion authorities have no knowledge whatsoever of an application-[DOT]


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Humphrey Mitchell: Just a minute.


Gordon Graydon: Kindly address the Chair.


Humphrey Mitchell: What kind of meat do they raise these fellows on?


An hon. MEMBER:: Raw meat.


Humphrey Mitchell: The dominion government has no knowledge of an application by Captain Scott Misener for the admission of five hundred British seamen. But it should be pointed out and clearly understood that there is perfect freedom for people from the British isles to enter Canada provided they comply with the usual regulations. In addition, I would say to my hon. friend that, as he well knows, this is a seasonal industry and
Inquiries of the Ministry

I would assume that unemployment among seamen will clear up as soon as the ice disappears from the lakes and transportation is resumed in the normal way.



WAR ASSETS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. G. ARCHIBALD (Skeena):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, of which I have given notice. If the agreement which Mr. Kenneth Meek made regarding the American built installations at Prince Rupert is not fulfilled by March 31, will the government agree to consult with civic bodies as to their disposal?


Clarence Decatur Howe: If the present option is not exercised, the property will be disposed of following the usual practice of War Assets Corporation.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON INCREASE IN INITIAL PAYMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. J. BENTLEY (Swift Current):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I have not sent notice, because he does not need notice for this question. In view of the fact that Bill No. 135 has been passed, is the minister prepared to make a statement to the house as to what the increase in the initial payment on wheat will be?


Mr. POULIOT:: It has not passed yet.


Clarence Decatur Howe: To the best of my knowledge and belief it is far from passed.


Thomas John Bentley: What was the answer?


Clarence Decatur Howe: To the best of my knowledge and belief the bill in question is far from having the approval of parliament.



COMBINES ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker I undertook yesterday, in response to a question by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), to give the house a statement today respecting the circumstances surrounding the recent dismissal by a Toronto court of the crown's case against members of an alleged combine in the dental supplies trade. Since the matter is

still open to appeal and thus is or shortly may be sub judice, hon. members will not expect me to make any extended comment on the case at this time.
Following a report by the commissioner of the Combines Investigation Act, I referred the matter for prosecution to Mr. D. L. McCarthy, K.C., of Toronto, whom all members will recognize as, one of the outstanding barristers of the dominion. He was ably assisted by two experienced Toronto counsel, Messrs. Peter Wright and D. A. Keith.
A charge was laid at Toronto against eighteen dental supply companies for conspiracy in undue restraint of trade. The trial began on February 23 and ended on March 18. The crown's case was based on more than five hundred documents seized under search warrant from the possession of the accused companies. No evidence was submitted by the defence, and after argument lasting almost three days the learned trial judge, the Honourable Mr. Justice Barlow, upheld the defence motion for a directed verdict and directed the jury to enter a verdict of not guilty.
Acquittal was not based on the information contained in the documents found in the possession of the accused companies, but followed the judge's ruling that the documents had not been sufficiently authenticated by the fact of possession, as claimed by the crown. According to the ruling, the crown should have proved specifically that the companies actually existed during the period of the charge, that the persons purportedly acting on behalf of them actually had authority to act, and that signatures of persons signing letters should have been proved by other evidence.
The eminent counsel acting for the crown proceeded with full confidence in the merits of the case disclosed by the documents and in the manner in which they were proved. Withdrawal of the case from the jury resulted not from inadvertence or unintentional omission on the part of crown counsel, but from a basic difference of opinion as to the rules of evidence to be applied.
In view of the importance of the matter and its possible implications affecting future cases under the Combines Investigation Act, I have asked Mr. McCarthy for a special report. Until I have received and considered it, I shall not be in a position to indicate what may be done by way of appeal or otherwise.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: May I ask this supplementary question: After the crown's case had been concluded, is it not a fact that counsel asked to have the case reopened, as is

Inquiries oj the Ministry
usual when technical proof is not forthcoming, in order to advance certain further proof to meet the objection raised?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: And did not the judge refuse?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: What reason did he give for refusing such an obviously just request?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have read the report of that part of the argument, and the reasons are there given by the judge. I would not however undertake to recapitulate them for the benefit of the house.


Arthur Leroy Smith: May I ask this question arising out of the same subject matter-


Mr. GILLIS:: Legal jargon.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Did I understand the minister to say that they simply put these documents in, having produced them from the crown's custody, without an effort to prove the signatures?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I was so informed, but I have not read the long transcript of evidence. I am informed that crown counsel based their case upon this proposition, that the documents were sufficiently authenticated by the fact of possession.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it not also a fact that they failed to prove that these were incorporated companies?



OLD AGE PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. O. PROBE (Regina City):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. What is the present policy of the federal government in regard to sharing of costs with provinces in respect of old age pensions and pensions for the blind? How does the minister reconcile this policy with the proposals made to the provinces in August 1945?


Hon. PAUL MARTIN (Minister of National Health and W'elfare):: The hon. member has merely to look at the Old Age Pensions Act, which sets out the government's administrative policy. The government, unless it changes the act, cannot have a policy
beyond the direction contained in the statute itself. The statute is quite clear, and I am sure the hon. member is familiar with it. I cannot add anything further at the moment.


John Oliver Probe: Would the minister comment on the second portion of my question? How does he reconcile the policy of the federal government with the proposals made to the provinces in August 1945?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is no occasion for reconciliation.



REFERENCES TO REMARKS IN DEBATE ON MARCH 22

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a matter of personal explanation? At page 2480 of Hansard for yesterday I am reported accurately as having stated that Your Honour had given a ruling and that your ruling had been supported by the house. I could not believe that you had not rendered a ruling, nor could I believe that if you had rendered one it would have been reversed by the house- which shows that truth and likelihood are two different things.


Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege, Yesterday I had the presumption to ask the chairman a question in connection with a ruling and he courteously answered me at the close of the sitting after he had had time to consider it. The hon. member for Calgary West thought that I was out of order and that as I had not got an answer at the time I would not get one. He said:
My hon. friend was a much better soccer football player than parliamentarian. He never won a game playing football, so that will give the committee an idea of my estimate of his ability as a parliamentarian.
For six years Wesley college never beat us, so I could not always have been on the losing team. I should also like to say that I did not seek his estimate of my ability as a parliamentarian and it has no more weight than the false impression it might make. I just take it as a gush of uncontrolled gas from Calgary West.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I forgive him and I thank him for the slam.


Arthur Leroy Smith: On a question of privilege. May I say with respect
Inquiries oj the Ministry

to my old and honoured friend that my remarks were meant to be facetious. If I have offended him in any way, either reasonably or unreasonably, I hope he will accept my apology, which I now tender to him.



MOHAWK AIRPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. STOKES (Hastings South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. Is he now in a position to answer the question asked on Friday last with respect to the Mohawk airport?


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, the airfield in question had been declared surplus some time ago, and steps were being taken for its disposal. However several weeks ago I issued instructions that all similar steps for the disposal of naval, military and air properties which had been declared surplus should be suspended while the matter was being reconsidered. That is the situation today with regard to this property.



SASKATCHEWAN RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: May I ask the Minister of Public Works if the government through his department has given consent to the construction of either a low level or a high level bridge across the South Saskatchewan river at or near Saskatchewan Landing? If consent has been given for the construction of a low level bridge, is provision being made to safeguard future navigation of the river?


Alphonse Fournier: Some time ago the government of the province of Saskatchewan applied for approval of a site for the construction of a bridge on the Saskatchewan river. This approval is required under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. The application was sent to our engineer in Saskatchewan and we have not received a report as yet. He was instructed to look into all the phases of *'his contemplated construction. I understand that if a low level bridge were built and later a dam were erected below the bridge which would raise the level of the river and perhaps cause damage to the bridge, the government

might be responsible for such damages. Our engineer is looking into all phases and implications of this application and when we receive his report we will make a decision.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Consent has not yet
been given?


Alphonse Fournier: Oh, no.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice if he has received a copy of Bill 31 of the Prince Edward Island legislature, an act to amend the trade union act?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have not received it from the Prince Edward Island authorities but I received it from a delegation which informed me that it is a copy of the bill that was passed.


Major James William Coldwell: Is the minister giving consideration to advising the lieutenant governor to reserve the bill or disallow it?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is not the intention of the government to take that very unusual course with respect to this bill.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Golding in the chair.
1.	Effective on and after November 18. 1947, an excise tax of 25 per cent is imposed on the following goods:
(a)	The following electrical appliances: waffle irons; roasters; kettles; chafing dishes; juice extractors; coffee makers; toasters of all kinds; portable humidifiers; curling irons or tongs, hair dryers; permanent waving machines and spacers or clamps; rods and heaters therefor; razors and shavers; garbage disposal units;
(b)	The following electrical appliances when adapted to household use: food or drink mixers; food choppers and grinders; irons and ironers; vacuum cleaners and attachments therefor; floor waxers and polishers;
(e)	Electric or gas refrigerators or freezing equipment, and coils, condensing or compressor units, cabinets, boxes, evaporators and expansion valves therefor; all the foregoing when adapted to household or apartment use or when for use in places of entertainment, amusement or recreation, including rinks, auditoria. halls and clubs;
(d)	Firearms except for military or police purposes;
(e)	Outboard motor*;	[

(f)	Motorcycles, and all other two- or threewheeled motor-driven vehicles including motors for attachment to bicycles but not including vehicles specially designed for carrying goods or for use by invalids;
(g)	Projectors for slides, films or pictures designed for industrial or professional photographers' use;
(h)	Toilet articles of all kinds (including combs, mirrors and brushes other than tooth brushes or shaving brushes the duty paid value or the Canadian manufacturer's selling price of which combs, mirrors and brushes is more than twenty-five cents each) and which items do not already come within any other item in schedule one of the said act.
2.	That on and after November 18, 1947, the rate of excise tax on automobiles adapted or adaptable for passenger use with seating capacity for not more than ten persons each, imported into or manufactured or produced in Canada be increased from ten per cent to the following rates, namely, on automobiles valued at $1,209 or less, 25 per cent over $1,200' but not more than $2,000, 25 per cent on 1,200 plus 50 per cent on the amount in excess of $1,200; over $2,000, 25 per cent on $1,200' plus 50 per cent on $800 plus 75 per cent on the amount in excess of $2,000.
3.	That on and after November 18, 1947, the rate of excise tax on phonographs, record-playing devices, radio broadcast receiving sets and tubes therefor, be increased from ten per cent to twenty-five per cent.
4.	That on and after November 18, 1947, the rate of excise tax on cameras, photographic films and plates, projectors for slides, films or pictures, except those designed exclusively for industrial or professional photographers' use, be increased from ten per cent to twenty-five per cent.
5.	That on and after November 18, 1947, electricity and gas used in dwellings be exempt from consumption or sales tax; and
6.	That on and after November 18, 1947, the excise tax of one cent per pound on sugar, grape sugar, glucose, sugar syrup, corn syrup, etc., be repealed.
Mr. JACKMAN:: I asked the minister
yesterday if he would explain the government's reason for the imposition of excise taxes on motor cars, particularly in view of the fact that the government has set up a quota on United States exchange to be used for importations.


Douglas Charles Abbott: In the course of this protracted debate I have given that answer at least once, and perhaps more than once. In any event it is this: I do not feel that the direct import control under schedule III of the other bill will prove completely effective in controlling the output of motor cars in this country. I should like to see the domestic consumption of these cars further reduced. For that reason the tax is being imposed both on domestically pro-
Excise Tax Act Amendment
duced motor cars and on the limited quantity which are being imported under quota.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Am I to understand that the government is imposing the excise tax on motor cars, not as a means of saving or conserving United States exchange but for some sumptuary purpose that has not yet been explained to the committee? In other words, the minister admits that the excise tax on motor cars is not in any way a measure specifically designed to effect the conservation of United States exchange.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I said that I do not believe the direct controls can be as completely effective as I would like to see them. Every reduction in the consumption of motor cars in Canada, whether domestically produced or not, does effect a saving in United States exchange, because every car contains a substantial United States content. In any event it contains steel which under present conditions is to all intents and purposes one hundred per cent United States content.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I have just a word to say about this kind of legislation. I disagree with it but I will still give the minister the benefit of the doubt. However, this is the last time.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister was going to give us certain information today?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I undertook to give the information my hon. friend asked for in committee after second reading. I have some of it here now, although I have not had time as yet to look at it with the officials. It was obtained just this morning. We had to get in touch with the different producers. We are indebted to the manufacturers of automobiles and radios for this information. The departmental records show only the tax collected, and not the sales. In the case of motor cars the figures have been obtained from the three major automobile manufacturers.
I suppose these figures can be taken as indicative. They are all we have to date:
August	
September	
October	
November (1-17)
November (18-30)
December	
January	
February	
1946	1947 $3,509,165 $9,628,833
3,769,068 14.050,530 6,267.877 14.596,409 4,257,074	7,633,296
(estimated) (actual) 3,255,602	7,332,123
(estimated) (actual) 6,748,604 14,584,093
1947	1948

1947	1948

Excise Tax Act Amendment

On radios, using the same basis, August, September, October, November and December, 1946, and January and Februaiy, 1947, as contrasted with the corresponding months in 1947
and 1948, the figures are	as follows:	
	1946	1947
August 	$ 613,712	$ 828,272September 	499,983	1,168,588October 	737,628	1,404,145November 	909,065	1,705,132December 	1,441,144	1,990,0741947	1948January 	1,086,779	786,742February 	987,049	713,239
Those are 'the only figures I have been able to get so far. They show, as my hon. friend will see when he studies them, a marked downward consumption in January and February, both in automobiles and in radios.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Those are the sales figures?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, as obtained from the manufacturer.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Has the minister attempted to get a figure showing what those sales figures mean in terms of United States exchange?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not attempted to translate them into terms of United States dollars. I do not know that I could. These items contain a substantial United States content. In automobiles it varies between different cars. In the Ford car the Canadian content is about the highest, approximately 75 per cent. Steel is one of the big items. Some of it under normal circumstances might be considered as Canadian content, but under existing conditions we have to import large quantities of steel.


Mr. JAENICKE:: Are the figures just quoted domestic sales, export sales, or both?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Domestic sales only.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: Has the minister any figures on the export sales?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I was not asked for them and have not got them here. The manufacturers were good enough to supply these figures on fairly short notice. I have no doubt the export figures could be obtained'.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It would seem to me, and I imagine the minister will agree, there is nothing in the figures given to indicate any substantial saving in United States dollars.


Douglas Charles Abbott: On the contrary, I would say they are a clear indication that we are making substantial savings of United States exchange.


Mr. FERGUSON:: Can the minister give us an idea of the approximate value of the steel that goes into an automobile?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not enough of an expert to be able to do that.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Approximately only.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I could not hazard a guess.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: The raw steel that goes into the manufacture of an automobile would be worth from two to three hundred dollars, and you are imposing on the already overburdened taxpayer who purchases a necessity like an automobile a tax that is almost as much as the cost of the United States steel that goes into it. It was ill-conceived to bring the Canadian dollar to par with the United States dollar, and now in order to straighten out the mess brought about by the government's action Canadians must do without an automobile or pay in taxation almost the equivalent cost of the United States steel that goes into that car. Some method should be devised of permitting Canadians to buy cars which are a dire necessity in business throughout Canada. It should not be necessary to load more taxes on the already overburdened taxpayer to straighten out the mess into which the government has brought this country.


Mr. BROOKS:: I want to ask a question with reference to projectors for slides. I do not know whether it has come up before.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It has, yes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Is the minister considering excepting the equipment used by schools for educational purposes? I received a letter on this matter this morning.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It has been considered and rejected. I suppose everything can be reconsidered. If anything were done I think it would have to be done in the form of a remission of the tax. I cannot give any undertaking now. I have had representations myself and I know that a number of the members have. These articles contain a very high United States content.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Eighty to ninety per cent of them are used for educational purposes.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I know, but I think for the time being the schools are reasonably well equipped.


Major James William Coldwell: The schools during the last two or three years -have put on an intensive campaign for visual education. I believe such a campaign has been carried on in my hon. friend's province of New Bruns-

Excise Tax Act Amendment
wick. I have not received any letters from New Brunswick on the subject, but I am interested in it because of my former profession. I believe they want between one and five hundred projectors to complete the campaign that they carried out during the past year; and in my own province of Saskatchewan a great deal of emphasis has been placed upon visual education. Many more projectors are needed than ever before. Because of the advantages of visual education this is something to which the minister should give consideration. Many things can be cut out that are regarded as luxuries, but this is a necessity in modern education.


Douglas Charles Abbott: As I indicated yesterday, the bill as introduced will contain a provision directing that any article may be taken out from under its operation. If the trend which is still continuing in our United States dollar position continues, I would hope that I could give early consideration to eliminating an article of this kind. I would not want to give a formal undertaking now, but I shall give it consideration.


Mr. MANROSS:: Has the minister any figures to show the amount of tax that is being removed by items 5 and 6?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, I have them. The total, including the two items on which we are taking the customs duty off, tea and coffee, amount in a full year to about 821,000,000.


Park Manross: This is not the tea and coffee item.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I can give my hon. friend the figures: sugar, approximately S13.000.000; gas and electricity, 86,000.000, a total of 819,000.000 on these two items.


Park Manross: Is there any figure to compare with that in regard to the amount of average tax on the first four items?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; as I have indicated two or three times before in answering questions, you cannot make an accurate estimate as to what the collection would be under these taxes, because we hoped that it would reduce sales.


Mr. STEPHENSON:: I have not yet made any statement on this matter, and I do not want to repeat any argument that has been made already, but on behalf of my constituents I should like to say that they object to this unjustified tax. Some of the articles that were taxed have been taken from the list. I refer particularly to electric stoves. I understand that the people who bought stoves can demand a rebate of the 25 per cent tax which they have paid. Has the government given any directive under which 5849-160
the customer is authorized to take action to demand a rebate, or is it to be left to the person who bought the article to demand a rebate from the retailer? Is the customer left in the position of carrying on a dogfight with the retailer in order to get the rebate, and will the retailer be able to say that there is no government order forcing him to give a rebate? Is the government going to make a statement that these people are justified in claiming a rebate?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have made that statement in the house with respect to other articles. Electric stoves were taken out from under the operation of the resolution at a very early stage, and the officials of the Department of National Revenue tell me that no tax has been paid with respect to electric stoves. If any individual has paid a retailer a price for a stove which includes the tax figure he is entitled to a rebate, since no tax has been paid to the Department of National Revenue on electric stoves.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: Is that a government order? I think these people are entitled to demand a refund of the tax that has been paid.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is a matter of law.


Mr. WEBB:: The term "desired results" has been used here on many occasions. What were the desired results of cutting down the possible purchasing power or the sales of automobiles? In other words, is the desired result to 'cut down the purchase by fifty per cent, or twenty per cent?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not want to put a label on any particular percentage. For instance in October 1946 the sales of motorcars from these three manufacturers that I mentioned were about $6,000,000. In the same month of 1947 they jumped to $14,500,000. That is a pretty big jump. Perhaps I should not expect that it would go back to as low a figure as 1946; I do not know. Frankly I would be pleased from the point of view of conserving United States dollars if that were possible.


George Robert Webb: Suppose we obtain the so-called desired results and roll back more than expected, would that not in the long run create unemployment in a very high degree?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Of course, if it were carried on too long; but I am reasonably hopeful that this program will not be necessary for too long, and that it will be possible progressively to relax it. But it is too early yet to say. It is less than five months since the program was announced. The results to date, as I have said before^ have been most encouraging-let me
Customs Tariff

say frankly, more encouraging than I have dared to hope, but I do not want to attach too much importance to that. In matters of this kind) I am inclined to be essentially conservative. I have to be shown that it is a permanent trend before I will be too optimistic about it.


George Robert Webb: There seems to be a certain fear across the country that if this tax were dropped in the course of the next month or two it would create a great deal of confusion and dissatisfaction' on the part of people who have already purchased automobiles. Therefore the only way to do it would be to reduce the tax gradually.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I know my hon. friend is too experienced a parliamentarian to expect me to make budget forecasts in the house.


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: Shall the resolution carry?


Mr. KNOWLES:: On division.
Resolution agreed' to on division.
Resolution reported.
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance) moved that the resolution be read the second time and concurred! in.


James Horace King: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. BRACKEN:: On division.
Resolution read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Abbott thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 172, to amend the Excise Tax Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.




[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Golding in the chair.
That the customs tariff be amended to provide:
1.	That on and after November 18, 1947, the duty on coffee, green imported direct from the country of growth and production or purchased in bond in the United Kingdom (imposed under tariff item 28) be, in the case of the intermediate tariff, reduced from a rate of three cents per pound to two cents per pound; and
2.	That on and after November 18, 1947, the duty on tea, imported direct from the country of growth and production, or purchased in bond in the United Kingdom or in any British possession- (imposed under tariff item 28a) of four cents per pound in the case of the British preferential tariff be removed and in the case of the intermediate tariff be reduced from a rate of eight cents per pound to two rents per pound.
Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Chairman, the effect of this resolution is to reduce from three cents to two cents a pound the customs tariff on coffee imported under the intermediate tariff. In recent years this has represented the larger part of our coffee imports. The other part of the resolution reduces the tariff on tea from four cents a pound to free entry in the case of tea entering under the British preferential tariff and from eight cents a pound to two cents a pound in the case of intermediate tariff. Most tea comes in under the British preferential tariff.


Park Manross: What section is that?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That amends the customs tariff.	.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have a question on the significance of the words used in paragraph 1: the duty is removed "on coffee, green imported direct from the country of growth and production or purchased in bond in the United Kingdom." Does that cover practically all the coffee that comes into the country?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not my tariff expert here; I telephoned and asked him to come. The fact is, as I have explained, that it reduces from three cents a pound to two cents a pound the customs tariff on coffee imported under the intermediate tariff. I am told that in recent years the larger part of our coffee imports come in under the intermediate tariff.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is there some reason that it is done on some and not on all?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not the commissioner of tariff here; I am sorry. I am told that this really represents the coffee that we are importing.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not suggesting that it is vital.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I might get the information. When we are in committee on the bill I will have that information and give it to my hon. friend.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is fine.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am sorry I have not the information here, but I did not expect that we would make such rapid progress.
Resolution reported.
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance) moved that the resolution be read the second time and concurred in.

Agricultural Products Act


James Horace King: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


John Bracken: On division.
Resolution read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Abbott thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 173, to amend the Customs Tariff.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (for the Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of Bill No. 171, to amend the Agricultural Products Act.
Mr. J. A. CHARLTON (Brant):: This amendment to the Agricultural Products Act is to extend the bill for one year. I want to take this opportunity of voicing my disapproval once more of the principle of the bill. Our position has been stated clearly on previous occasions by my leader and also by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). My exception to the principle of this bill is based on the fact that it is a price control measure, purely under government control and that it is not what it is supposed to be, namely a marketing bill. I say that because of the minister's own statement. He has admitted that to this house, and also on various occasions when speaking outside of the house. I would even go so far as to say that this bill could be used for political purposes to the disadvantage of many farmers across the country.
I want to say a word about the effect on farmers of this type of government control. I want to make it quite clear that the farmers of this country have never asked for all the traffic would bear for their produce, and that they are satisfied to support a measure of stability for the benefit of both producer and consumer. As a result of this bill, the farmers of Canada have been subsidizing not only the consumers of Canada but the consumers of the United Kingdom. They are not satisfied with the present one-way street method or this lopsided method which the government has taken unto itself. To prove that statement I just want to quote a couple of paragraphs from the resolutions passed by the Canadian federation of agriculture at Brock-ville. The first, which deals with ceiling prices, is as follows:
Protesting emphatically against the manifest injustice of the recently announced policy of 5849-160i
the federal government in singling out major agricultural products for the reimposition of ceiling prices without the reintroduction of a general policy of price control.
The next one is from the statement of the dairy farmers of Canada and is as follows:
If price controls are to be imposed on food products of which they are the primary producers, dairy farmers insist that controls be placed on all factors entering into their costs.
I say that the government has maintained on various occasions that the Agricultural Prices Support Act of 1944 was meant for this purpose, but it is not permanent legislation. The past experience of the potato growers, particularly in the eastern provinces of the dominion, has not made for good feeling on' the part of these growers through the operation and administration of this act. In the first place the act was not put into effect until practically the end of the potato marketing season. By that time the potatoes had shrunk to quite a large extent, they had sprouted and needed a good deal of sorting before they were made available to this board that was buying them. The farmers felt that the price was not sufficient to take care of all the work they were forced to do in order to market them. I maintain that it is the uncertainty in the minds of the farmers across the dominion that' is causing considerably lowered production, along with the effect of the income tax. After the farmers during all the war years had made an all-out effort to produce large quantities of food, and were successful in their objective, subsidizing the consumers of this country and of Great Britain, the government now comes along and says, "We are going to extract from you in income tax every nickel that we can." That greater production was largely brought about by overtime work. The farmer could not hope to produce the large quantities which were produced during the war in an eight-hour day and a five-day week. Is he going to continue to work that overtime in order to produce, with his markets as uncertain as they are today? I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that he is not; and production figures have shown definitely that he will not do so. [DOT]
I wish to put on Hansard certain figures from sessional paper 164A, dated March 8, but before doing so I would be glad to give the minister an opportunity to answer the question I asked on Friday night, because I think it would be only fair to do this.


James Horace King: I would remind the hon. member that we are on the second reading of the bill.	,


John Alpheus Charlton: Very well, Mr. Speaker. I will put the figures on Hansard.
Agricultural Products Act


Mr. GARDINER:: The question was as to why there was some difference between the figures which were supplied, and the answers given, and the figures which I was using the other evening. Well, the figures asked for in the return are a statement of figures on shipments, and of course shipments at a given time are not the same as what goes into the vats for delivery. The figures, either with regard to quantity or with regard to price, would not be the same based on one as compared with the other of these.


John Alpheus Charlton: Probably the minister misunderstood the question. In the case of bacon, my figures are preliminary figures for 1947. Surely these should be completed.


James Garfield Gardiner: Are those the figures given in the return brought down in the house?


John Alpheus Charlton: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: They will be the correct answer to the' question that was asked, but the question that was asked may not be the question I was discussing the other night when I was giving certain figures.


John Alpheus Charlton: I will quote the figures tha't are in this return, and I will point, out that they are preliminary figures for 1947. They are not complete. I will give the last three years. In the case of cheese, the contract for 1945-46 was 125.000.000 pounds and the quantity supplied was 126,687,236 pounds. In 1946-47 the contract was for 125,000,000 pounds and the quantity supplied was 92,104,624 pounds. In 1947-48 the contract figure was 125,000,000 pounds and the amount supplied was>
56,104,086. That is, the 1947-48 figure was only 44 per cent of the amount sent to Great Britain in 1945-46.
Next I will take bacon. I will give the four main items. In bacon, in 1944-45, the contract was 900,000,000 pounds and the amount supplied was 1,109.133,764. In 1946 the contract or agreement had dropped to 450,000,000 pounds and the amount supplied was 272,890,924 pounds. In 1947-this is a preliminary figure-the contract was 350,000,000 pounds and the amount supplied was 214,744,554, or 19 per cent of that quantity which was shipped in 1944-45.
I come now to the figures for beef. In 1944-45 the agreement was 100,000,000 pounds and the amount shipped was 315,524,494 pounds. In 1946 the contract was 60.000,000 pounds and the amount shipped was 119,208,538 pounds. In 1947-this is a pre-

liminary figure-the contract was 120,000,000 pounds and the amount shipped was 26,155,173 pounds, or eight pef cent of that amount which was shipped in 1944-45. Production figures for those three are considerably less than the figures of 1944-45.
In regard to eggs, the amount has been steadily increasing ever since the contracts were initiated.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is marked preliminary here, and the figure is 26,000,000, but the last figure I have is 39,000,000 odd.


John Alpheus Charlton: That is on beef?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


John Alpheus Charlton: That, as I said, would change, and I wanted to be fair in stating the figures. That is why I offered the minister an opportunity of answering the question before undertaking to put the figures on. But even with 39,000,000 pounds, it is a great deal less than either the year 1946 or the year 1947.
I have here a copy of the Economic Annalist, February issue. In a short paragraph on page 22 it is stated:
There has been a general decline in the total amount of meat produced from the record level of 1944, and it is estimated that 1948 production will be slightly below that of 1947. The quantity of pork products available for export is expected to decline in 1948. As a result, the quantity of bacon contracted for in 1948 with the United Kingdom has been revised downward to 195,<M>0,990 pounds, and the price increased to $36 from the 1947 price of $29 per hundred pounds for grade A, Wiltshire sides.
That only bears out what I said regarding the lowering of production of three out of four of the agreements we have to supply Great Britain. Now what is the future of the hog producers of Canada? The only stipulation is that the price of 1949 shall not go below the 1946 figure. What is the 1946 figure? What was the price in 1946? It was $22.75 up until April 1 and it was raised to $25 on that day. Which of these two figures will be the 1946 minimum which is expected to be the contract price for 1949? That is the thing the farmers are asking today, and that is the thing that is keeping them from increasing the production of hogs. There is an uncertainty as regards the price, and uncertainty as regards the policy of this government. The lowering of production of all these products across Canada will mean that ultimately the consumer will have to pay higher prices for the food he buys. That will be the result indirectly, because when you lower production you will undoubtedly increase the cost to the consumer. So that by their policies

Agricultural Products Act
this government has greatly decreased production, which will mean ultimately that the consumer will pay more.
Another thing to which I would refer is this. Why are these contracts not available to the public? The minister said the other day it was because the contracts were not signed. After three months these contracts are still not signed by the contracting parties, and yet Mr. Taggart at a meeting of the Ontario hog producers in Toronto stated "firm as to quantity" when he was asked a question about bacon contracts. From that statement that the contract was firm as to quantity, I can only deduce he implies that the contract was not firm as to price. Under ordinary circumstances a businessman would not think that a contract which was not signed by both contracting parties was worth very much.
I hold in my hand a Canadian Press release reporting a statement by Mr. Strachey in England about these contracts. After seeing this statement I question just how much can be taken from the statement made in Toronto.
I will quote from this press clipping taken from the Globe and Mail of March 18, 1948. It is headed "Asks slash in U.K. buying from Canada." The text, dated at London, March 17. is as follows:
Britain's purchases from non-dollar countries must be increased and her present rate of spending on Canadian food cannot be continued, Food Minister John Strachey said today.
No complete cut-off in Canadian purchases was proposed as this would mean "disaster" to both countries, he said at a press conference.
He made these points:
1.	Canada now is the only source of dollar foods bought by Britain and "remarkable progress" has been made in obtaining food supplies from sterling and soft currency areas.
2.	While Britain's dependence on dollar sources of food has been reduced, "we cannot, in the new circumstances, afford even so much."
Harold Wilson, president of the board of trade, told the Overseas Empire Correspondents' Association that even with the increased exports being directed to Canada, Britain would not be able to pay for all her minimum needs of Canadian goods. The question of a "new line of Canadian credit" would have to be considered.
And farther on:
"The most important single thing the food ministry can do in the nation's life and death struggle to balance its payments is to switch the buying of our food back from dollar to nondollar sources" Strachey said . . .
In Europe, Strachey said, "A whole series of negotiations for food have been undertaken in the past nine months and treaties under which we shall buy slowly but steadily increasing quantities of food have been concluded with Denmark, Poland, Holland, Italy, Hungary, Portugal, France, Spain, Iceland and Eire."


James Garfield Gardiner: Read the last sentence.


John Alpheus Charlton: That is the last sentence.


James Garfield Gardiner: Then the hon. member had better get another clipping.


John Alpheus Charlton: If the minister can produce another I should like to hear it, because this one is not very encouraging.


James Garfield Gardiner: Take it out of the Gazette; it is better.


John Alpheus Charlton: The minister may read that when he makes his reply. I want to go back to January 1947. The minister has made statements in the house, perhaps somewhat boastfully, that the marketing of hogs has improved considerably in the first two months of 1948. Let me say to him there is a reason for that. In January 1947, an artificially high price was paid by the packers for hogs in Canada which, rightly or wrongly, gave many farmers the impression that hog prices were going to stay at that abnormally high figure. Many of them did go into hogs at that time, and kept their sows instead of marketing them. They bred those sows, and of course last fall, when price controls went off feeds, many of the sows went back on the market. However there were others of them which did farrow, and the pigs which were farrowed are now coming on the market. I believe that is the reason for the great increase in hog marketings at the present time.
I have here statistics from the livestock survey of December 1, 1947. They show that the fall1 pig crop of 1947 was nine per cent less than that of 1946. The number of sows bred to farrow from December 1 to the month of May, 1948, was 67 per cent of those in the same periodl in the previous year. So that indications are that that increase in marketings at this stage of the year would not hold for more than probably a month at the outside.
Last year the minister said that the decrease was due to the scarcity of grain. Let me at this time quote from the quarterly review on Canadian coarse grains, the issue for February, 1948. I wonder what the minister will use as an excuse this year. This is what I find in this publication:
Visible supplies of both oats and' barley at February 19 are both in excess of the commercial supply position on the same date a year ago. Oats supplies at 30-2 million bushels exceed last year's figure by nearly a million bushels while barley stocks at 32-1 million are more than 11 million bushels greater than last year . . . Stocks of oats and barley located at eastern lake ports were reported on February 19 this year at 7'8 and 5-3 million bushels respectively. Last year only 3-4 million bushels of oats and IT million bushels of barley were at eastern lake ports. Lakehead stocks of barley at 11-5' million
Agricultural Products Act

bushels are also up 6 million bushels while lake-head oats stocks at 9-5 million bushels are nearly a million bushels greater than a year ago.
May I point out further that the hog-barley ratio as shown in this same review is placed at' 17*1, the same as it was in January 1946. However this is many points below the high of 21-4 of February 1947. So that the hog-barley ratio does not show there would) be a considerable increase in the production of . pork. '
Where do we go from here? It is my view, which can be verified, that the farmers of this country want enabling federal legislation so that producer boards operating in the provinces can have control of their own handling and marketing of produce. They would require legislation similar to that passed in 1934 by the Bennett government, legislation which was then known as the Natural Products Marketing Act. May I quote the following resolution on this point from the Canadian federation of agriculture:
Dominion marketing legislation:
Whereas the organized farmers of Canada, through the provincial and Canadian federations of agriculture, have on many occasions since the court decision that the 1934 marketing act was ultra vires, requested the dominion government to enact comprehensive marketing legislation that would enable farmers to market their products in an orderly manner;
And whereas the government nas not seen fit to pass such legislation and has not as yet given any logical reason why this request of the farmers should not be granted,
And whereas eight of the nine provinces of Canada have shown by their actions in passing provincial marketing legislation that, in their opinion, such legislation is necessary and in the public interest;
Therefore be it resolved:
1.	That the Canadian Federation of Agriculture again puts on record its belief that dominion marketing legislation, to supplement the provincial acts, is urgently necessary if the farmers of Canada are to be placed in a position equal to that of other elements in the com-jnunity.
2.	That, once more, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture requests the dominion government to introduce at the next session of parliament comprehensive marketing legislation that will make it possible for groups of farmers to control the marketing of their own products rather than be at the mercy of speculative interests.
3.	That failing assurances that such legislation will be introduced, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture demands to know the reasons why the government of Canada, by its lack of action in this important matter, is apparently of the opinion that the farmers of Canada should be kept permanently in an inferior position as compared with other elements of society, and that such reasons be published for the information of all Canadian farmers.

I think that is sufficient proof that the Canadian farmers do want that type of legislation.
I just want to say a word about the C.C.F. stand on this measure. They have given much lip service to that particular type of legislation, but on the other hand they seem to be satisfied with the legislation that is being passed today. In lieu of the marketing legislation which the farmers of this country do want I suggest that instead of having the price of hogs for the 1949 contract not set until probably the end of December 1948, a minimum and maximum price should be set two years in advance and reviewed each year. The farmers would then know one year in advance what their prices would be. There would be a minimum and maximum price, not just a question mark. No continuity of supply can be expected either by this government or by Great Britain if the farmers of this country do not know more about what their price is going to be in the future than they do today.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I have only a word or two to say before the discussion goes further. First I should like to say that when we get into committee I will answer the questions asked the other evening. I have the information which was asked for by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdon-nell) and other hon. members. I think the place to put that on the record is in committee.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Is the minister closing the debate?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I have not spoken on the motion; the motion was moved by the Acting Minister of Agriculture when I was out of the house.
I should like to call attention to what was left out of the statement read a few moments ago. I was mistaken in saying it was the last sentence in the article; it is not the last sentence, but it'is part of the sentence which was read. It said:
It must not be thought that we can yet do without our remaining food imports from Canada, or that we can go on purchasing them and the very large quantities of non-food products such as cotton, tobacco, petrol, non-ferrous metals and the like which we must have from the dollar countries, without some further dollar help such as we have to receive under the Marshall plan.


John Alpheus Charlton: Hope to receive.


James Garfield Gardiner: It says "have" here.
This is a Conservative paper and it may be a little wrong in the printing. There is one point I want to emphasize, and I am sure

Agricultural Products Act
hon. members on both sides of the house will agree that it is necessary to emphasize it. There is no doubt that all the quantities that have been contracted for are going to be taken by the British this year, and there is no doubt that they are going to pay for them. That is all arranged for; the decisions are all made in connection with it. One does not need to say anything more than that, and I cannot understand, when it has been repeated over and over again, why members of the opposition still try to leave the impression that that is not true. It is absolutely true; there is no doubt about it whatsoever.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to ask the minister one question.
I want to be quite clear about it, that there is no desire on this side to misrepresent him.
I understood, and I want to be set right if I am wrong, that the contracts were made but that the method and means of paying for the products which the minister has referred to had been settled only to the end of March. Was not that what we were given to understand at about the turn of the year?


James Garfield Gardiner: The statement which was put out at the time the contracts were entered into was to the effect that the financial arrangements were finally concluded, not only with regard to food products but with regard to other products, some of which have been named in this article in the press. The financial arrangements were completed down to the end of March. It was felt that by the end of March in all probability the Marshall plan would be operating. However, the British food contracts were not subject to that condition at all. The food contracts are hard and fast contracts for so much money at so much per unit. As I said the other day, the problem of arranging the means by which they are to make payment was a matter for parties other than the Minister of Agriculture to worry about.
The situation is that there is no question whatsoever that the British have enough dollars that they themselves could pay many times over the amounts required for the food they are getting from Canada and still have a considerable carryover of United States dollar? at the end of the year. That carryover may not be as great as they would desire to have, but there has never been any question about their having enough dollars to pay for food. From time to time they do discuss with us the extent to which we would agree to assist them in meeting their obligations and the extent to which they would agree to assisting us in meeting ours.
For example, we delivered far more bacon and far more beef under the contract in January and February than the contract called for, but the British took that beef and bacon. There had to be negotiations with them as to how the financing was to be handled within the terms of the contract, but they handled it. When they run into difficulties they come back to us and discuss the question. What I want to impress upon the house and particularly upon the farmers is that that contract is an absolutely closed contract, both with regard to price and with regard to quantities.


John Alpheus Charlton: It is not signed?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have got past the time when I feel it is necessary to have a British signature in order to know that a contract is going to be carried out. The British have undertaken to do it by letter, and the signing of the contract is only a matter of form. They have agreed to the terms, to the prices and quantities, and if the British government make a contract, they will carry it out. That has been our experience with them. I know that just as soon as they can get past the details of considering it in their own departments the contract will be signed by them. It has been signed by us and sent over and it will be signed by them and sent back. But whether it is ever signed, they have committed1 themselves to the terms by letter and I know they will carry out those terms. What I wanted to do was to impress that upon the house and not let a statement go out on this occasion to indicate that there is any doubt whatsoever about it.
If I were free to do so I could state what happened no later than this morning in connection with this matter. I am not free to say that, but I can say that what did happen this morning makes it absolutely certain, if it were not certain before, that this food will all be paid for throughout the year. I think that is as far as one needs to go in order to assure the farmers that there is no doubt whatsoever that this food will be taken in the quantities spoken of and paid for at the prices in the contract right through to the end of the year. That is all I wish to say at this time.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I ask a question?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I wonder if we might not get into committee so that the rest of us would be permitted to ask questions of the minister? He has spoken three times already.


James Garfield Gardiner: I just answered questions; I have not spoken three times.
Agricultural Products Act


Mr. G. J. TUSTIN (Prince Edward-Lennox):: 
Alfred Johnson Brooks: Would the hon. member state what a quart of milk weighs?


George James Tustin: A quart of milk weighs 2i pouncfe. As I said before, this bill empowers the government to take agricultural products by compulsion. Just before the end of the session last year I asked the Minister of Agriculture if the government had any intention of requisitioning cheese during the past season and he replied that the government did not contemplate doing so, but within the next two weeks a requisition went forward to every cheese factory in Ontario and Quebec advising the cheese manufacturers that all cheese in the factories must be sent to the agricultural products board to help fill our United Kingdom contract. Again I ask the minister because the question is very pertinent. Is it the intention of the government to requisition cheese this year? If so, I urge the minister to make the announcement in the very near future.
During the past year, Mr. Speaker, this bill was not a success in any shape or form, for the simple reason that practically none of our contracts with the United Kingdom was filled or nearly filled. If we take the minister's own figures on beef, for instance, he said that we had shipped only 40 million pounds, whereas the contract called for 120 million pounds. The same situation occurred with bacon. Again I ask the minister, why did he

Agricultural Products Act
single out for discrimination the farmer who produces milk for the manufacture of cheese and make him ship by compulsion to the agricultural products board every pound of cheese that was produced from the time the requisition went into effect? Why was the dairy producer, the farmer who produces milk for the manufacture of cheese, singled out as the only one to come under compulsion? Did the minister use compulsion to get bacon for the British contract? No. Did he use compulsion to get beef for the British contract? No. Did he use compulsion to get eggs for the British contract? No. Did he use compulsion to get powdered milk for the British contract? No. Yet, in the face of that, he did single out the farmer who produces cheese, the most important product of all the products that we are shipping to our neighbours across the sea. I do not want to take up more time, but I want to repeat that if it is the intention of the government to requisition cheese this year they should make it known at a very early day.


James Horace King: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


James Horace King: Those in favour please say "yea."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yea.


James Horace King: Those against it please say "nay".


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nay.


James Horace King: In my opinion the "yeas" have it. Call in the members.
Denis
Dion (Lake St. John-Roberval)
Dionne (Beauce) Douglas Eudes Fleming Fontaine Fournier (Hull) Fournier (Maison-neuve-Rosemont) Gardiner
Gauthier (Nipissing) Gauthier (Portneuf) Gibson (Hamilton West)
Gillis Gingues Gladstone Golding Gour (Russell)
Gourd (Ghapleau)
Grant
Gregg
Harris (Grey-Bruce)
Hartt
Healy
Herridge
Hl.vnka
Howe
Ilsley
Irvine
Isnor
J aenicke
Jean
Jutras
King, Mackenzie
Knowles
LaCroix
Lafontaine
Leger
Little
McCuaig
McCubbin
McCulloch (Pictou) McCullough (Assini-boia)
Macdonald (Brantford City)
Mcllraith
Maclnnis
Mclvor
McKay
MacKinnon
MacLean
MacNauglit
Maloney
Martin
Matthews (Brandon)
Michaud
Mitchell
Moore
Mutch
Nicholson
Nixon
Parent
Pinard
Pouliot
Probe
Quelch
Reid
Richard (Gloucester) Richard (Ottawa East) Rinfret
Robinson (Simcoe East) Ross (Hamilton East) St. Laurent Sinnott
Smith (York North) Stewart (Winnipeg North)
Stuart (Charlotte)
Strum, Mrs.
Townley-Smith
Tremblay
Tucker
Viau
Warren
Weir
Winkler
Winters
Wright
Wylie
Zaplitny-122


Mr. LESAGE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton).


Mr. BLAIR:: I was paired with the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann). Had I voted, I would have voted against the measure.


Mr. GARIEPY:: I wus paired with the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Hatfield). Had I voted, I would have voted for the measure.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I was paired with the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. AYLESWORTH:: I was paired with the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Farquhar). Had' I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. LAPALME:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Heon). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.
(Translation):


Mr. RAYMOND (Wright):: I was paired with the hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie (Mr. Raymond). Had I voted, 1 would have voted for the motion.
(Text):
Bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-Expiration of act.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: I had not intended to say anything at all on this measure other than to ask a question or two, because I have made my position clear in past sessions. But hon. members to my left seemed to be eager to take a long time in recording this this vote today. Therefore I intend to make a few observations with regard to this measure. First of all, I should like to remind the committee that in any democratic country which has turned to socialism the standard of living of the people has always been decreased. When we were discussing this measure a year ago we tried to move a number of amendments. After the principle of the Natural Products Marketing Act was passed, the government refused to accept any of those amendments. The two speakers from this party who today so well set out our position have pretty well proven the fact that this measure has not been, and is not working satisfactorily for the producers of this country. I have before me the Economic Annalist, a publication put out by the statistical bureau of the Department of Agriculture. It says that there has been a general decline in total meat production from the record level of 1944. and that the quantity of pork products available for export is

expected to decline throughout 1948. Then the Weekly Live Stock Market Review of March 12, 1948, states that exports of dairy cattle to the United States from January 1 to date-slightly over two months-has been 10,411 as compared with 5,433 in the corresponding period of last year. That is still going on to a greater degree than ever. It has been well said that we have today a far greater quantity of oats and barley in store in Canada than we had one year ago. We have a surplus of feed today; yet meat production is going down steadily, according to government records themselves. In the same issue of the Economic Annalist to which I referred a moment ago, at page 9, there is set out the situation at the present time with respect to the prairie farmers, as follows:
Although the prairie farmer is financially better off now than he was in 194.1, there is still room for improvement. Only 52 per cent of all farms reported owning one or more tractors; only 20 per cent reported having one or more trucks; and about 14 per cent reported possessing grain combines. The small proportion of farmers-four per cent-reporting ownership or possession of electric motors pointedly emphasizes the lack of such equipment.
Farmers have said that they want more machinery. Their farm buildings need to be repaired, repainted or rebuilt. Farm homes lack the many facilities essential to the wellbeing of the modern farm family. The exigencies of hazardous weather and crop failures have not been solved. Soil conservation is still a big problem. The prairie economy is still subject to the vagaries of the international market. The prosperity of the farmer on the prairies is still dependent upon a high and stable level of employment and income in Canada.
It goes on to say that at the present time there is a great deal of room for improvement. As regards the other side of the picture, I have here a letter I have received from a man who attended a large meeting, some 1,200 farmers, at Bismarck, North Dakota, and I should like to quote the following from it:
One glance at that audience of 1.200 farmers showed, without any further evidence, the difference in the prosperity between those farmers in North Dakota and our own farmers on these prairies. Our farmers are getting by without any question, that is, they are not going into debt but the prices they have received in the last four or five years have not permitted them to equip their farms with modern labour-saving machinery as they should have done, and have not enabled them to pay off fully their indebtedness and mortgages, and to put something by to tide them over for hard times. Over and over again farmers in North Dakota told me that a man seemed to feel and think quite differently if his debts were paid and he had a few dollars in the bank, compared to his state of mind when he was still in debt and had no reserves.

Agricultural Products Act
I know from my own practical experience that this is so, because I have taken occasion many times to visit North Dakota; and I can say that throughout the war years, and at the present time as well, our neighbours across the line in that state, compared with us in Manitoba, have had far better returns. They have had from two or three times more than we have. I have argued on many occasions that the general standard of living is higher across the line than it is in Canada and that the authorities in this country should endeavour to raise the living standards of the Canadian people.
I wish to say something on a matter that I have dealt with at every session since I have been here, following the year 1942, and that is the cattle embargo. I do not know how long we shall have to wait until that is lifted, but I know that the situation as pointed out in the Farm Ranch Review is far from satisfactory. I should like to quote the following from this publication. They are seriously asking for the exemption of pure breds from the live stock embargo. They say:
During the last two years an average of $8,090.0{!i0 worth of dairy stock have been exported annually to the United States. We are not arguing against this. [DOT]
It goes on:
Why not, then, encourage western farmers to devote their attention to purebred beef production by opening the American market to them? Why not make the same concession to the best beef raisers that is made to the best dairy stock raisers? They have rightly been given a chance to develop an American market. But the same opportunity being denied purebred beef producers.
The argument that this would denude the Canadian table of meat cannot be made to this suggestion. It would result, on the basis of the DBS. figures, to a resolution of 14 per cent in the Canadian meat supply.
How about it, Mr. Gardiner?
I emphasize the seriousness of this matter to the minister and to the government, and I would urge that the embargo be lifted as soon as possible in the interests of the producers of this country. As was ably pointed out by the hon. member for Brant, there has never been a time in the history of the country when our farm producers were so full of fear for the future as they are today. I cannot say whether there is a sound basis for that fear, but certainly the farmers and farm organizations have never been so fearful of their economic future as they are at the present time, and that statement is applicable throughout the country. They are certainly disappointed that they have not had greater access to the markets of the world. All this tends to make a peasantry of 5849-161-1
the future agricultural population of Canada as compared with the democracies throughout the world.
I could have taken up a good deal more time discussing this subject because there are some questions that I should like to have answered. I know, however, that the minister is eager to get the measure through this afternoon, and knowing the reasons behind that desire I will not take any more time just now. I simply wish to make our position and my own position as well quite clear to the committee, but I may have one or two other questions to ask before six o'clock.


Mr. SINNOTT:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has placed on the record part of a letter without giving the name of the writer. Will he please put on Hansard the man's name?


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the minister reading letters and he was never asked to disclose the name. Without consulting the writer, I would not do it. I would not mind showing the letter to the hon. member.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Have the letter struck out.


James Arthur Ross: I take full responsibility for the statements made in the letter.


An hon. MEMBER:: The hon. member might have written it himself.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, might I give the answers to questions asked the other day? A question was asked about the total production of specified farm products In Canada.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Chairman, did I understand the hon. member to say I might have written the letter myself?	.


Gordon Graydon: He had better withdraw that.


James Arthur Ross: I have the letter here and I vouch for the contents of it. I would ask the hon. member to withdraw that stated ment.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: The hon. member says he did not write it himself.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


The CHAIRMAN:: The hon. member has accepted the word of the hon. member for Souris that the letter was written by someone and that he takes the responsibility for it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know that I can name the hon. member who asked these different questions, but to save time I will give
Agricultural Products Act

the answers, as answers to questions asked the other day when we were discussing the resolution. I was asked for the total production of specified farm products in Canada, exports to the United Kingdom, and exports as a percentage of total production. Without reading the answer, I should like if I may to put it on Hansard:
Total Production of Specified Farm Products in Canada, Exports to the United Kingdom, and Exports as a percent of Total Production, 1946 and 1947
Exports to the United King-Exports dom as a per-to the cent of Total
		United	Produc-
Productions		Kingdom	tion
	Eggs		
(000 dozen)	(000 dozen)	per cent1946 ....	316,749	95,547	30-21947 ....	357,967	87,800	24-5Cheese	(000 lbs.)	(OOOlbs.)	per cent1946 ....	149,624	104,244	69-671947 ....	123,456	53,861	43-63Evaporated Milk	(000 lbs.)	(OOOlbs.)	per cent1946 ....	191,586	30,483	15-911947 	211,894	28,066	13-2-5
Exports to the United King-Exports dom as a per-to the cent of Total
		United	Produc-
Productions		Kingdom	tion
	Wholemilk	Powder	
(090 lbs.)	(OOOlbs.)	per cent1946 ...	. 1-5,468	93	[DOT]601947 ...	. 15,662	284	1-81Hogs	(OOO lbs.)	(000 lbs.)	per cent1946 . ..	. 823,946	277,992	33-71947 ...	. 8-76,114	229,7-08	26-2Cattle	(OOO lbs.)	(OOOlbs.)	per cent1946 . ..	. 1,053,339	119,209	11-31947 . ..	. 923,624	54,212-	5-9Sheep and Lambs	(OOO lbs.)	(000 lbs.)	per cent1946 . ..	. 71,249	9,700	13-61947 . ..	. 57,275	3,380	5-9
N.B. These estimates do not consider carryover stocks.
The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario asked me for the percentage of total food supplies that were shipped to the United Kingdom for 1945 in relation to the other two years I quoted the other evening, and I should like to put that on the record:



FOOD GREAT BRITAIN RECEIVED FROM CANADA


[Stage Direction]
Per cent of Total United Kingdom Imports
1947	1947	1945	1938Cwt.	°/o	%	%Wheat 	.... 67,785,527	81'- 9	92-0	28-3Wheat flour	.... 13,218,766	75-9	72-0	47-6Barley 	2.1[DOT] 5Oats	... . 1,968.609	92-9	96 0	93-9Beans 	... . 57,605	6-8	27-0	24-3Beef 	
292,543	2-9	43-0	0-6Mutton and lamb	
22.996	0-2	Bacon 	.. .. 1,962,454	74-4	8*3 -0	18-6Ham 	. .. . 1,205	78-5	39-0	34-9Pork 	0-7Pork offal 	. . . . 14.023	9-6	10-6Butter 	0-3Cheese 	.... 458,024	11-9	31-0	23-2Poultry .	. ... 107,479	18-2	2-8Shell eggs (converted) 	
640,285	47-8	56-0	0-5Dried eggs 	... . 110,453	16-3	26-0	Frozen e-ggS	.... 14.145	5-2	Condensed milk (unsweetened) 	
245,557	20-7	*	56-6Casings 	.... 6.183	6-2	14-0	7-8Apples (fresh) 	
663,145	43-8	42-0	42-5Potatoes 	.... 1,500,000	43-7	Canned tomatoes 	
28.157	9-0	5-6	i6-6Canned foods (not specified) 	. ... 12,225	10-5	85-5SOs fruits, pulp 	'	.... 70.733	13-7	5-9Canned salmon 	.... 204,938	30-7	82-6	13-5Total 	
89,385,112	53-4	24-9
* Less than -01 per cent.
Source: "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom", 1945-46. 

Agricultural Products Act *
I believe it was the hon. member for Kamloops who asked for the names of the members of different boards and committees. The commodity boards that have been appointed under the Agricultural Products Act are commodity boards set up originally under the War Measures Act. These boards are being retained to facilitate the filing of food contracts and the filling of food contracts. The personnel is as follows:
L. W. Pearsall, chairman; S. E. Todd, F. H. Auld, W. E. Tummon, J. A. Proulx, F. F. Baird, secretary manager.
As members from Ontario will know, Mr. Tummon was president of the hog producers' association. The' dairy products board is as follows:
J. F. Singleton, chairman; John Freeman, J. F. Desmarais, H. A. Derby, secretary.
Then the special products board:
A. M. Shaw, chairman; R. S. Hamer, W. F. Bull, R. W. Neely, secretary.
Then, advisory to those boards are the following:
H. H. Hannam, president, Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Ottawa, chairman; J. B. Munro, deputy minister of agriculture for British Columbia, Victoria; E. J. Chambers, president, associated growers of British Columbia, Vernon, British Columbia; 0. S. Longman, deputy minister of agriculture for Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta; L. E. Pharris, director of the A.F.U. and A.F.A., Magrath, Alberta; M. E. Hartnett, deputy minister of agriculture for Saskatchewan, Regina, Saskatchewan; Geo. Wright, president of U.F.C., and president of Saskatchewan federation of agriculture, Borden, Saskatchewan; W. J. Parker, president, Manitoba Pool Elevators Limited, Winnipeg, Manitoba; F. W. Downing, manager, Canadian Live Stock Co-Operative (Western) Ltd., St. Boniface, Manitoba; C. D. Graham, deputy minster of agriculture for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario; B. B. Warnica, vice-president, Ontario beef cattle producers association, Barrie, Ontario; J. A. Marion, president, Quebec chamber of agriculture, Montreal, Quebec; Henri Dubord, Department of Agriculture, Quebec, P.Q.; J. K. King, deputy minister of agriculture for New Brunswick, Fredericton, Newr Brunswick; Harry Crandlemire, director of New Brunswick potato growers council, Gordonsville, New Brunswick; F. W. Walsh, deputy minister of agriculture for Nova Scotia, Halifax, Nova Scotia; W. R. Shaw, deputy minister of agriculture for Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island.
Perhaps I should indicate the manner in which these appointments were made. Nine were named by the provinces, and the others were named by the federation of agriculture. They are appointed on the recommendation of the federation of agriculture and of the different provinces.
Then, the following is the cattle producers advisory committee of the wartime prices and trade board:
Newton G. Bennett, R.R. 3, Bury, Quebec;; Stewart A. Brown, Sheddon, Ontario; Leslie Cameron, Ashcroft, British Columbia; Allan McAllister, Portage la Prairie, Manitoba; W.J McGregor, R.R. 4, Brandon, Manitoba; Alex M.< MacMillan, Juniata, Saskatchewan; Walter. Oulton, R.R. 1, Windsor, Nova Scotia; George G. Ross, Aden, Alberta; H. L. Taggart, Olds, Alberta; Burton B. Warnica, R.R. 4, Barrie, Ontario; David M. Wiley, Maple Creek, Saskatchewan.
Those are the members of the advisory committees and of the boards. I believe I have answered the questions asked the other day.
Ronald Stewart Moore: May I register my support of the measure, because I believe it involves a principle of agricultural marketing which in' future will work to the great advantage of agriculture.
May I at the outset disagree with one statement made by the hon. member for Souris, when he insisted that any democratic country which had turned to socialism had reduced its standard of living. I do not think that can be regarded as actual truth.


James Arthur Ross: What countries would you mention?	'	'


Ronald Stewart Moore: I would give as an example the great commonwealth of Australia. If we go back to the early days of Australia, at the time of its first settlement, we find that private enterprise absolutely refused to help out, with the result that the government had to take over so as to establish those things which would give the people of Australia a reasonable standard of living. That is really how state enterprise began in Australia-because private enterprise would have nothing to do with the building of Australian industry or agriculture.


James Arthur Ross: I do not think statistics prove that.


Ronald Stewart Moore: It is not a matter of statistics; it is a statement of fact that can be substantiated in the parliamentary library, if one cares to read a number of books written with respect to the development of Australia. Those, books have been prepared by noted Australian economists.	.	.
There is one other point so far as marketing is concerned which I believe will be to the great advantage of western agriculture. I know my Progressive Conservative friends will be interested in this, because the situation with which I wish to deal began during a time when that party was in office in Canada, ft will be recalled that in the 1930's prices of Canadian agricultural products fell to an all-time low.
Agricultural Products Act


James Arthur Ross: Throughout the world.


Ronald Stewart Moore: True, all over the world. But do not forget this, that it hit western agriculture particularly hard, because the government of that day followed a monetary policy which tied our money to the United States, despite the fact that the market for western agricultural commodities was in Great Britain. Canadian agriculture had to bear the loss on exchange.
For instance, in 1932 the price of Canadian wheat fell to nineteen cents a bushel, but the price of Australian wheat, because they had followed a different monetary policy, sold for around sixty cents a bushel. Those facts are to be found in the Commonwealth Year Book of Australia and our own Canada Year Book for the years I have mentioned.


James Arthur Ross: Does the hon. member know how many bushels of wheat were required at that time to buy farm implements in Canada?


Ronald Stewart Moore: I have not the figures before me.


James Arthur Ross: Has he figures to show the purchasing value?


Ronald Stewart Moore: I am just showing prices of farm commodities and the relation of those prices to the cost of living in Canada. In Australia at that time the same situation existed, but the farmers of that country received a higher income for their commodities than did the farmers of Canada, due to the different monetary policy followed over there.
That is where advantage will be gained by the farmers of Canada if we stick to the present legislation for the marketing of agricultural products. If in future we must suffer a loss on exchange through selling our goods in a market with a different monetary value, we shall be able to call upon the government to. take the loss on exchange, such moneys to be taken out of the consolidated revenue fund, instead of agriculture being made to bear the whole loss.
The Conservative government of the 1930's made the farmers bear the whole loss on that exchange difference. Had it followed the policy of Australia, the farmers of western and of eastern Canada would not have suffered to the same extent. Surely this is a most important point.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Is the hon. member aware of the fact that in the 1930's, at the tinae of the conditions under the Conservative government to which the hon. member has referred, in the United States they were

burning wheat? I know that from my own observation in Kansas and Missouri. They could not sell their cattle, hogs and wheat.


Ronald Stewart Moore: That has nothing to do with exchange.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Nothing to do with what you want to put over; no doubt about that.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: I should like to ask a question. I recognize the urgency of getting this measure through, but I believe one or two questions should be asked. I understand that in the act there is a provision whereby a floor price is to be determined. Is the minister prepared to tell us the formula by which the floor price in respect of a given commodity- cheese, for example-is determined when the government begins to support the price?
Then, when the minister gives this formula will he tell us how it is being applied in respect of the price of cheese, which was discussed this afternoon, and in respect of beef prices for which the beef producers and feeders of western Canada are at the present time being called upon to sell their beef? I think those questions ought to be answered now.


James Garfield Gardiner: The question with regard to cheese was how the floor price was determined. The floor price is set by the price at which we are prepared to buy cheese to send to Great Britain. That is, the dairy board purchases cheese at twenty-five cents under the old contract and at thirty cents under the new contract, basis Montreal and basis the plant. The cheese is purchased at that price and we undertake to buy all cheese that is delivered. So far as cheese is concerned, there is no great difficulty in determining what the floor should be. The cheese is purchased at the price set in the contract and sent to Britain.
With the ceiling off cheese, it can be sold on the Canadian market at a higher price. With regard to what was said a few moments ago, I should like to say that it was not the intention of the government at this time last year to requisition cheese. However we began to requisition cheese around July 1. I am not in position to state at the moment that there will be no requisitioning of cheese this year. We would rather not have to requisition cheese, but last year, when a quantity of cheese had been purchased by dealers sufficient to supply the Canadian market, we requisitioned what was left. Obviously the difference between beef and cheese is that cheese is a cured product which continues to get better for two or three years after it is made, while beef is an entirely different kind

Agricultural Products Act
of product. If we permitted anyone to buy all the cheese off the market this year he could store it and perhaps get a better price for it next year or the year after. He might lose on his speculation, but last year, when all the cheese was being bought and there was very little being turned in for export, after enough had been taken to supply this market we felt that the remainder ought to be taken at the guaranteed price and sent overseas.
We have no grading system in connection with beef cattle under which the beef is as carefully graded as cheese. Then, again, it is not the same kind of product. The floor price is set by the price in the British contract for beef. Taking into consideration the experiences over a long period of time, we can judge fairly closely as to what price cattle ought to be on the different markets across Canada; that is, what best steers ought to be and what lower grades of steers ought to be. The markets are checked daily in order to make certain that the price is at least as high as the floor price. We are not concerned with how much higher than the floor it goes, but we do keep a check all the time to see that it does not go below the floor. The floor is established in that way.
The same practice is followed in connection with hogs and bacon. We know the relationship between A hogs and bacon and B hogs and bacon. We check all markets to see that the floor price under hogs is maintained. We do not raise any complaint if the price is higher than the floor, but if it gets down close to the floor price we draw the attention of those who are operating on the market to the fact that they are drawing close to the floor and we insist on their not going below the floor. As I have said on one or two occasions before, the only record we have of prices going below what would be justified by the floor prices was during some of the strikes that occurred in the plants during the years these contracts have been in existence.


John Horne Blackmore: In arriving at its decision, does the government not make any allowance for the cost of production in determining the floor price? Does it depend only on what can be got from Britain in setting the price for beef or pork or cheese?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not the price for beef or pork. The cheese price is definitely set. That is the price we offer for it. There is nothing to prevent anyone in Canada from selling at what he can get because there is no ceiling. We have a standing offer in all plants that we will buy at the floor price everything that is delivered. That establishes the floor.


James Arthur Ross: I should like to ask a question with regard to the embargo on beef cattle going to the United States. This may not be a proper question to ask the minister, but could the minister tell us what has to occur before this embargo will be amended? Must prices in the United States and Canada become parallel? If that is not likely to happen for some time, I think serious consideration should be given to the request of the beef producers that they should receive the same concession in the United States market that is given to producers of dairy cattle. Dairy cattle are actually being exported to the United States. I know there are many dairy producers in the country who get their dairy cattle in pretty good shape. We are not complaining at all and that market should not be cut off, but they are getting a lot more than the cattle are worth in this country. I think the same concession should be granted to producers of purebred beef cattle. That would have a tendency to develop better bred cattle.


James Garfield Gardiner: I was not aware that purebred breeding stock could not be shipped to the United States. I think it can. If it cannot, the matter certainly ought to be inquired into.


James Arthur Ross: As breeding animals?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, on the same terms as those on which the dairy stock is shipped in. There is something in what the hon. member for Souris says. I will check into it and see what the exact position is. As the hon. member for Souris said, the question of opening up the United States market is not a matter which comes under my department.


James Arthur Ross: But you have something to say about it.


James Garfield Gardiner: That has been under the prices board since 1942 and any recommendations to the government in connection with it come from the prices board. Of course I have some say as a member of the government and', being from the Department of Agriculture, perhaps I say more than anyone else. However the responsibility is with the prices board and, through the prices board', the Department of Finance.
Suggestions have been made as to when it could be properly opened under the policy that we are following, which is a policy of more or less control over food products. We have been following that policy on food products since about 1941. Since we have tended to hold down prices to our farmers below what they could have obtained in the United States, previously on all of them and
Agricultural Products Act

recently on some, we realize that the time will come when it will be necessary for us to hold up prices here rather than tend) to allow them to go d)own as fast as they may go down in the United' States. A few days ago the price of hogs was a little lower on many United States markets than it was in Canada. You could not gain anything by shipping to the United States. If hogs go lower in the United States our contract should have the effect of holding prices up here and our surplus should go where the price is higher rather than to the United! States. But if anything should happen to our contract in the next year or two which would make it impossible to sell in Britain at prices as good as in the United States, we should still have some protection for farmers' prices here under the Agricultural Prices Support Act for whatever period of time was determined by the government of the day in order to assure that prices would not go to the bottom.
Beef is still higher in the United States than in Canada. Up^ to the time the strike started in the United States beef had gone down there about ten cents a pound from the high level while our price had remained approximately the same. Our price went down one cent, while their price went down ten cents, and if theirs had gone down six or seven' cents more it would have been the same as our own.


James Arthur Ross: Still higher on some brand's.


James Garfield Gardiner: It would have been higher on the top grade beef but we have not much of that type of beef. Theirs is corn-fed beef and commands a higher price.
Should that time come that I have spoken of, there should be a tendency to open the United States market. I cannot give the exact date because many considerations enter into the matter. We could not do it now, no matter what conditions are, because there is a strike on in the plants on the other side, and if we attempted to deliver cattle they could not get into the plants over there. If we slaughtered them here and shipped the beef over there we would probably have strikes in our own plants. So that under present conditions it is not possible to consider sending beef or cattle over there.


James Arthur Ross: That is a temporary situation.


James Garfield Gardiner: We hope so, but temporary situations sometimes stretch out longer than we think.


John Alpheus Charlton: I challenge the minister's statement that our beef is not of as high

a grade as United States beef. I think our red brand is as good as any produced in the United States.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is all right until you try to sell it.


John Horne Blackmore: The situation in my constituency with respect to feeding beef has been very bad, and the people who are producing beef will suffer a serious loss this year. It will deter people from feeding beef next year to anything like the degree they should otherwise do. If we want beef in Canada, and I take it that we do, there is only one way to get it, and that is by retaining the confidence of the people who produce the beef. It is just as simple as that. The people in my constituency, so far as I know, have so completely lost confidence in government policy today that they hardly have courage to enter into stock-feeding at all, and the experience of the feed lots adds a sort of climax to it all. If anything can be done by the minister or by those over whom he can exercise influence, I certainly urge upon him that in the interests of the beef situation in Canada lie take measures to alleviate the situation out there.


James Garfield Gardiner: I should like to say a word or two on the question raised because it has been brought up two or three times, and I think hon. members should understand the position. Everyone who knows the situation in the Lethbridge area sympathizes with those who are running feed lots. The feed lot idea was introduced some years ago to deal with a situation which then existed. In the fall of the year, in September and October, cattle were taken off the grass in great numbers and found their way into the Calgary and Winnipeg markets in such large numbers that they could not be taken care of by the packing houses, so a number of men in Alberta were encouraged to go into the feed lot business, and they bought these cattle either from the farmers or at the Calgary yards and took them to the feed lots and fed them until the spring. That spread the delivery of the cattle over two periods, the fall and the spring, and so helped the farmers in general. That was in a period when there was not a market for all the cattle that were coming on the Winnipeg and Calgary -markets in the fall, and when duties were high on shipments to the United States, so there was nothing to be gained thereby. These men running the feed lots bought the cattle at a price one and a half to two cents lower than the price would be in the spring. That was no great help to the farmer generally, because 90 per cent of

Agricultural Products Act
the farmers are producing not more than twenty head of cattle, and many not more than five or six head. The cattle brought in during the fall were sold at a low price, because there was no ready market for them and these feed lots took them and fed them through until the spring.
Then the war came. Since we have been in the war there has been a market for these cattle every day of the year, and there is no necessity for the farmers taking one and a half to two cents less in the fall in order that somebody may feed them through the winter and make a profit in the spring. From 1942 down to the present the feed1 lots have been having a really difficult problem. It may be argued that probably somebody ought to be dloing something to help, as the opportunity comes, but it should not be the farmer who can now sell his cattle at the market price. He should not take less for them in the fall than he can get for them. I do not know just how we can deal with that problem. It concerns a very small proportion of our beef. Nevertheless these men got into the business through the policy established in Alberta and agreed upon by everybody at that time, but I dio not think it should be done by trying to assure them a price one and a half to two cents Lower than the market price in the fall so that they can feed them through until the spring. We will give more study to the question and see if there is any way of dealing with the problem.


John Horne Blackmore: Even now could the minister not dio something to help these people by allowing them to send their beef across the line? If it is only a localized problem, perhaps they could be given a special opportunity to ship their beef across the line. I do not see any reason why the excellent facilities for producing beef in that area should be destroyed. About 40,000 beef are being fed there, and that is no small consideration in any nation. We have every facility there for feeding, an abundance of hay and a territory abounding in feed. Every opportunity is there for producing beef. Why should we destroy those facilities?
There is just one thing the minister did not mention in his statement which was otherwise quite clear. These beef producers take feeder cattle that are not priced as high as the cattle which are more or less finished and which the packers are ready to buy. There is need in this country for somebody to take feeder cattle and support the price by feeding them in the feed lots. It is just because of the need of having support for feeder cattle that this matter becomes of such
importance to the range man who is producing beef out on the hills. If he does not have feeders to buy his semi-finished feeder cattle in the fall he will have to accept a reduced price for his cattle, and it is of importance to the farmer who, as the minister said, produces only five or six cattle that the feeder be there to support prices. The minister agrees with that, I am sure, and so I plead with him that something be done to prevent this excellent facility from being destroyed.
We are in an irrigated area; we are in an area which produces a great deal of sugar. In the production of that sugar there is a great deal of by-products of the sugar factories. Among these are beet pulp and beet molasses, which are exceedingly valuable for feeding. Because the producers are in an irrigated area, they must have crop rotation. Because of that, there is a great deal of hay produced. Hay production is an important industry for a great many people in that area. In addition to that they require the fertilization which comes naturally from feeding stock. All these elements are found in that area. Provision should be made for their use for the benefit of Canada.
If the beef feeder goes out of the picture; if the stock feeder generally in the wintertime goes out of the picture, a serious disadvantage will be created there for a number of people besides the range producer of beef. Once more may I urge that the minister do something about this matter because it is now quite serious. It is costing these men in the neighbourhood of seventy cents a day to feed a steer. That means it is costing them about thirty-five cents a pound to put on the weight now. If they have to go on for a number of days producing beef at thirty-five cents a pound, as they are at present, and they have to sell that beef at 16i cents or 16J cents, then the loss they will sustain will be serious.


John Alpheus Charlton: Can the minister tell us which of these 1946 prices will be the floor price for 1949, the guaranteed price, $22.75 or $25? The floor price for the bacon contracts in 1949 is supposed to be not less than the 1946 price. In 1946 there were two prices. Which one of these are you going to take?


James Garfield Gardiner: The one at the end of the year covered the contract.


John Alpheus Charlton: The $25 price?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not sure; I would have to check back. There was a period when we changed over from the end of October to the end of December. The hog year ran from November 1 to the end of October for a certain period, and then it
Agricxdtural Products Act

changed over from the end of October to the end of December. The prices that would be guaranteed for that would, I presume, be the one for the ten months' period, if it was the year in which the change was made.


John Alpheus Charlton: But the change was made in 1946.


James Garfield Gardiner: That would be the contract price for 1946.


John Alpheus Charlton: That is $25.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


John Alpheus Charlton: When does the minister expect to be able to tell the committee what the price is likely to be for 1949? Could these prices not be arranged earlier in the season and not wait until December before the price is changed?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is almost impossible. There are so many problems these days, and they change so rapidly, that I am afraid you would not be able to get the British to sit down and consider them until toward the end of the season, but they put this guarantee under it in so far as we are concerned in order to encourage production here to assure that the bottom will not fall out of it, as people say.


John Alpheus Charlton: The floor price as set is 825 now. I am afraid it will not work too well.


Mr. CARDIFF:: May I go back to the feed-lot cattle? I do not think the minister intended to leave the impression with the committee that the cattle which had been fed on these feed lots are any different. I know nothing about the west, but I do not think there can be so much difference in the way we do things in Canada. These cattle are worth two cents more in the spring than in the fall. They go out finished in the spring and they come in as feeder cattle in the fall. While there may be a market for them in the fall at these times more than there was some time ago, yet these cattle are worth two cents more in the spring than in the fall, whether in the west or in the east.


James Garfield Gardiner: The cattle that are thin in the fall are fattened in the spring. As I know feeders, most of them like to get the animal pretty fleshy in the fall.
Bill reported.


John Bracken: This afternoon we have done what we could to help the minister expedite the passage of this measure. We understood that he had to leave tonight and for that reason some of the discussion on the bill has

been shortened. I spoke on the resolution, said nothing on second reading of this bill. I want now to take two or three minutes to outline our position. I do not want to ask the minister to wait to listen to it now, and I have no expectation that it will take long at eight o'clock.


James Garfield Gardiner: If it will take only a short time, why not do it now?


John Bracken: I did not want to ask the minister to wait to listen to me.
In view of the short discussion we have had here, I think I should take two or three minutes to state our position. It was made very clear in the resolution stage of this measure. These are the words I used. Our general position on this measure is known. We are opposed to it in principle; we are opposed to it because it is a complete negation of the form of farm marketing act which we favour, and which our producers are seeking from one end of this country to the other. We favour an act based on the principle of provincially sponsored marketing boards operated by the organized farmers themselves. We favour legislation which gives the producers themselves more say in the fixing of the prices of their products than is allowed in this measure.
The government's program with respect to agricultural prices is expressed effectively in two measures, the Canadian Wheat Board Act under which the wheat contract with Britain is administered, and this Agricultural Products Act under which these contracts with Britain for beef, bacon and cheese and eggs and so on are made and administered. I stated briefly our position with respect to the former act a few days ago. I can state as briefly our position with respect to this one now in words somewhat similar.
The purpose of the original Natural Products Marketing Act, 1934, was to market the farmers' crops to the best advantage as regards total price, stability of payments and orderly marketing. But the government is now following a policy to serve another end. It is using this measure as a price control mechanism more than as an agricultural marketing board; and for that purpose it has sold in the past, and no doubt will sell in the future, farmers' products at less than those farmers could get for their products if sold by themselves. Instead of a price supporting agency, as the original Natural Products Marketing Act was intended to be, and was, the government is using the present measure as a price depressing agency in its plans to regulate price controls or price levels in this country. That is a complete perversion of the original conception of the Natural Pro-

National Film. Board,
ducts Marketing Act. On that ground we opposed this measure in the resolution stage and for the same reasons we oppose it at this time.
Mr. GARDINER moved the third reading of the bill.


William Ross Macdonald: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


James Arthur Ross: On division.
Bill read the third time and concurred in.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. SUPPLY



NATIONAL FILM BOARD

[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Major James William Coldwell: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, there is a matter I should like to raise because it is one of some importance to both our own country and others. With your permission I shall introduce what I intend to say by reading a Canadian Press dispatch from Sydney, Australia, under date of March 8, 1948:
The recent decision to close the Canadian national film board offices in Sydney and Melbourne is regarded by film societies throughout Australia as a serious setback to the cultural development of the country.
Almost daily, educational authorities are writing letters to leading newspapers expressing appreciation of the work done by the board since the offices were opened and deploring the severance of a valuable link between Canada and Australia.
Typical of the letters is one from C. N. M. Richmond, president of the Canberra film centre, in today's Sydney Morning Herald. Richmond stressed his disappointment that the board was closing its offices and continued: "In the past two years nearly one third of all films on the programs of the Canberra film centre have been Canadian film board productions and this high proportion is no accident, for the admirable quality of most films from this source now is generally acknowledged.
But there is a further point that the Canadian film board has developed a tradition which had already helped our own national film board- through the work of men like Ralph Foster and Stanley Hawes-so that apart from the film supply we can ill afford to lose Miss Helen Watson and her office as a direct link with the outstanding film work of cur sister dominion."
Richmond concludes with the query: "Is it too late for the Canadian film board to think again and leave at least its Sydney office intact?"
The dispatch says:
Miss Watson closes the Australian offices March 31.
Then it goes on to say this:
It is estimated that almost one million five hundred thousand Australians saw Canadian documentary and non-theatrical films last year. The board's library of more than 300 film subjects was screened 16,400 times in Australia during the year.
In Ottawa Ross McLean, federal government film commissioner, said the national film board had been obliged to indicate the closing of its office in Australia "on the grounds of economy".
"But other ways to make Canadian films available in Australia are being studied," he concluded.
This is not the whole story. We look at the estimates and find that they have been cut by $202,000


Douglas Charles Abbott: By approximately ten per cent.


Major James William Coldwell: -which is approximately ten per cent. But may I remind the minister that a cut of ten per cent for an organization of this description, with the increase in the price of supplies, means a loss of considerably more than ten per cent to the work of the national film board. As I understand it, the other offices of the film board in the United States and in the United Kingdom, if they are not closed down, will be cut down and their activities greatly restricted. As I say, the estimates which have been tabled in the house recently indicate a sharp cut-for that is what it amounts to-in the film board estimates. I believe that this will not only lead to a curtailment of the excellent overseas work that is being done but also a curtailment of the work in the domestic field. Those of us who come from rural districts in Canada know well how splendidly the national film board has been serving the rural communities; and, after all, those communities are entitled to consideration from this house. I do not like the description that is sometimes applied to some of these films, when they are called movies. These days movies have a connotation that is sometimes not flattering. The national film board products are something more than movies. They are educational films building up good will among all our people all across this country and across the world. From my observation I say that this organization has done a great deal in building up a varied, efficient and interesting rural life and in assisting our educational institutions in those areas. Last year's cut, for there was a cut last year-


Douglas Charles Abbott: A negligible cut.
National Film Board


Major James William Coldwell: -reduced the circuits; or something reduced the circuits. I see that the minister shakes his head.


Douglas Charles Abbott: A negligible cut.


Major James William Coldwell: But the costs went up; and as I say, with the higher costs, even a negligible cut in the estimates means more than a negligible cut in the work. In any event, last year's cut reduced the circuits from eighty-five to sixty-seven, and we are told that these are economy measures. There are places where we can economize, but there are others where it is false economy to cut and I believe that this is one of them. The curtailment of the national film board's activities at home and abroad is, I believe, a penny-wise, pound-foolish policy. Relentless cutting is never wholly an economy measure, because we sometimes cut and find that, instead of economizing, we are less efficient; and that is not economy. The Department of National Revenue is, of course, responsible for the film board's activities. It seems to me that the estimates indicate that the cut is an arbitrary one without very much consideration as to what the consequences will be. The argument that is used, namely, that the development of the film board was an abnormal outgrowth of wartime activity, I do not think can be properly substantiated. Indeed, had there been no war, it seems to me that these services would have been developed. Now, when we need to unify our people in peacetime I am of the opinion that the film board's activities should continue to be developed and should enjoy a natural growth from the point at which we are now, not from the point at which we were before the war. I should not like to think it is the intention of the government or of the minister in charge consciously to cripple the potentialities for good of the national film board. But if the government intends to cut down or to eliminate the activities of the national film board, I think it is a matter that should be discussed in the house and the government should frankly tell us exactly what its attitude is.
This is one of several matters upon which this house has been negligent. We have never made a proper appraisal of the work of the national film board. We have never had an objective assessment of its activities as we have, for example, of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and when it has been raised in the house from time to time it has been kicked around something like a political football.
For years, for example, my hon. friend the member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser)

has criticized the film board. I wonder if the hon. member has done what some of the rest of us have done-visited the film board, seen what it is doing, and looked over the work that is being done under terrific difficulties in the seven scattered buildings in this city.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Twelve.


Major James William Coldwell: Has the hon. member visited those twelve buildings?


Gordon Graydon: You have six more to see, then.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Seven from twelve is five.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, five. The hon. member said that the Minister of Public AVorks (Mr. Fournier) should take note of the condition of some of these buildings in which the film board employees are doing the best they can. The conditions are really a disgrace to the government of Canada; for example, the conditions under which some of the people are working on what is called the island. Those conditions are unbelievable; and if a private organization were using such buildings and keeping employees engaged in them under similar conditions, the government of Ontario, under the factory act or a measure of that kind, would step in and compel the employer to put the place in proper condition to be occupied.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Not even a good factoiy.


Major James William Coldwell: I suggest that before hon. members make a criticism of the work of an institution, whether it be one of our own institutions or any other, at least some careful inquiry should be made into what is being [DOT]there carried on. I understand that the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) has visited the film board buildings in this city. Apparently he is unavoidably absent tonight. I am sorry he is not here, because I should like to have heard what the hon. gentleman has to say. I should like to hear the hon. member who sits to my immediate right, the member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol), who has taken a considerable interest in what the film board employees are doing. I believe he could speak with some authority on the achievements of the board.
As I said a few moments ago, recently I took a look around to see under what conditions the film board employees were operating in this city, and apart from the utterly appalling conditions in which those employees are compelled to work, I think the board is something in which all Canadians can take considerable pride. I believe they are doing a

National Film Board
splendid job. I have before me an editorial from the Moving Picture Digest dated March 13, 1948. This magazine normally speaks for private enterprise and, therefore, would not be considered to be particularly interested in a government institution of this kind; but what does this moving picture digest say? Under the title. ''Why publicly spank the baby?" it reminds us that the film board is a creature of this parliament and it asks why the baby must always be subjected to public spankings. It refers to "Canada Carries On," which many of us have seen in the theatres week by week, as being a first class production, ns indeed it is recognized to be by film authorities in the United States and elsewhere. It praises the film board's record and concludes with this statement:
An investigation, by competent men, to save operation costs is a reasonable business consideration. blit why not investigate, get the facts, get the figures before we blast and publicly spank our baby?


Mr. REID:: And the costs too.


Major James William Coldwell: And t/he costs as well.


Thomas Reid: I have been there.


Major James William Coldwell: That is what I mean. Let us investigate before we come to a decision condemning something which I think is doing a good job for Canada.
In my investigation of what the national film board was doing I found that there is very careful treasury control of all the expenditures undertaken by the film board and its staff-an internal audit, treasury board audit -and if there is a treasury audit, our experience in this house must indicate that the treasury is pretty tight when it comes to the expenditure of public money.
The film board was first established early in 1939 as an agency to correlate all government film activities. There were a number of activities before that time; but this was the first time they were correlated under one board, and its purpose was and is to provide films interpreting Canada on much broader films than travelling industrial productions could possibly do such as heretofore have made up the bulk of the government's film programs.
May I emphasize, contrary to what is sometimes said, that the national film board was not a wartime creation? Today the national film board remains on a broader scale and I think the reasons are obvious why it should function on a broader scale. Over the last nine years, Canada's own demands created all kinds of services which the film board had to undertake; hence the expansion of the capacities and functions of the organization as
the times demanded. Under wartime conditions, as we all know, and as I 'have said before, Canada developed a documentary film organization that is first class. I was going to say unsurpassed, but it 'is first class and has often been compared with the excellent documentary films that are produced in the United Kingdom. Let me suggest that, before we agree to the drastic cutting of estimates for this organization, we should measure the film board's achievements, and we should measure them by the yardstick of merit.
Some people say, of course, that it has expanded its activities. So it has. But in my opinion the expansion of those activities is something to be commended and not deplored, and if merit is to be the standard of judgment, then I say that we shall find that the organization ranks high.
I should say, in addition, that the documentary films of the board are regarded in other countries as models to be followed; and, as we learn and know, inquiries regarding these documentary films flow in constantly from all over the world-Mexico, South Africa, Australia, Sweden, the British isles and elsewhere. And as I have indicated, by press dispatch, the threatened closing of the office in Australia is causing considerable consternation.


Thomas Reid: Among whom?


Major James William Coldwell: Among people who are interested in educational films in Australia. We know the pattern of the national film board has been followed very closely by the Australian government itself. A Canadian, a member of the national film board staff, was the first commissioner of the Australian film organization.
On March 10 there were tabled and distributed to hon. members facts concerning this organization's activities. I hope they will be studied by all hon. members. Anyone looking them over will find that every year thousands of prints go out from the film board for domestic and foreign use. Some are, of course, sold to commercial concerns, and they bring in some small revenue. However I was there the other day and saw their library and, of photographs alone, I am told they have approximately 80,000 negatives of various types, other than the actual war types. These are all indexed and contain a full history of our country' during the time the national film board has operated.
In addition to those supplied to commercial organizations, thousands of others are rented for use by various non-commercial bodies. The figures which are given in the
National Film Board

report-and they are quite impressive-did not include prints of newsreel stories, of which sixteen were released by major newsreel companies in the United States for world distribution, reaching audiences estimated at more than 70,000,000. That is one kind of release which reaches an audience of 70,000,000 people, advertising our country and interpreting various phases of Canadian life abroad. Today Canada has the largest non-theatrical showings of any country in the world; and this, it seems to me, suggests that the use of films should be encouraged as an effective means of increasing the free flow of information, not only in our country but throughout the world.
And may I ask, Mr. Speaker, if there ever was a time in the world's history when that free flow of information was needed more badly then it is at the present time? If one picks up this evening's paper he will read of the discussions going on now at Geneva regarding the free flow of information.
Here we have an organization which is giving information all across the world about our country, interpreting us to them and them to us. The appalling ignorance of one country about another leads to all kinds of misunderstandings. If we knew more about each other I am convinced that the preservation of peace would not be nearly as difficult as it is now. The iron curtain which keeps us from knowing what is going on behind it, and keeps the people behind it from knowing what we are doing is one of the greatest dangers in the world today. Anything that tends to bring information to people across the world is a most valuable asset to any country. If the people of Russia and those of the western world were able to learn more about each other's problems I am convinced we would find it easier to reach satisfactory understandings.
But while this lack of understanding is greatly to be deplored, in my view even more deplorable is the ignorance of free peoples about one another. Any of us who have travelled' know perfectly well how appallingly ignorant people in other countries are about Canada. I am sure that every Canadian serviceman-I have heard them say so and, having visited the old land several times, I can confirm it-was shocked at the lack of knowledge about Canada to be found in the British isles.


Thomas Reid: They are still ignorant of this country.


Major James William Coldwell: And exactly the same thing would apply here, perhaps in various parts of the country. Certainly in the United

States there is appalling ignorance of Canada, and perhaps among some of our own people just as great a degree of ignorance of the United States.
That ignorance extends to all peoples everywhere. Anything that can break down that barrier and bring about better information and better understanding should be supported. As has been said so often in the house, today we face the threat of a new tyranny. In the final analysis, the only way to overcome that tyranny is more information, more education and more understanding among the common people of the world; for the common people do not want misunderstanding; they do not want war. The common people are the ones who suffer most when war comes.
I think it is wrong, then, to reduce these estimates. It is wrong to cut out services we have rendered1 to our sister communities of the British commonwealth and to Great Britain. Today in many countries-in Australia, for example-there is a paper shortage. The same applies in Great Britain, with the result that if you wish to interpret your life and conditions to that other country you cannot do so on paper. Then, if you wish to use some other medium, certainly one of the best available is films, because perhaps we learn more through the eye than we do in any other way.
I would like to see Canada set up a UNESCO commission in our own country, and make available all the facilities for proper representation at its conferences. But at the present time we are cutting out one of the chief instruments of education and information at our disposal.
True, perhaps we must economize. But let us economize in places where we can do so and' not exercise a false economy. Let me illustrate in this way. Last year's exhibition allotment of the Department of Trade and Commerce for the commonwealth exhibition in Sydney, Australia, cost- the country $10,000. That was for only a short time. Many people would walk by it casually, as we do at exhibitions, but only a fraction of them would really look at what was demonstrated' there. Now we propose to cut out the office of the film board at Sydney, Australia, which performs all the functions I outlined at the beginning of my observations. The salaries in the Australian film board offices were $7,500. The total outlay for the office was a little over $10,000. The job done by the film board in Australia was done for 365 days of the year, and was carried out into the most remote places of our sister dominion. Just as they go into the remote places of our sister dominion, so

National Film Board
do film board: films go into the remote places in our own country, and bring education and entertainment to our own people.


Thomas Reid: Do any films come from
Australia? Do they reciprocate?


Mr. COLD  WELL@: We happen to be ahead of them in this matter. However, I have no doubt that under the leadership of a Canadian, who was on the film board, they will be producing documentary films we shall have an opportunity to enjoy.


Thomas John Bentley: During the war they had some.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, during the war they had. I was going to say that one of the most interesting full-length films made recently, one which I believe received an award, is an Australian film the title of which now escapes me, but which, I believe, shows the driving of the herds across the great continent of Australia. I say that the expansion, which has been quite fast, should not be retarded; that we should give every encouragement to this group of people who are doing such an excellent job.


Thomas Reid: Of course there is bound to be a limit.


Major James William Coldwell: If the hon. member for New Westminster who keeps interrupting me will just be patient he can say whatever he wants to say later on. I know there must be a limit.


Thomas Reid: You remember that when I am speaking and do not interrupt me.


Major James William Coldwell: I do not interrupt the hon. gentleman. The hon. gentleman has been interrupting me almost continuously. I am quite willing to answer a question, and if an hon. gentleman who does not agree with me will rise in his place and ask a question I will sit down and then get up and answer it, but I object to having a running fire of interruptions with hon. members sitting in their seats.


Thomas Reid: I will watch you when you are speaking and you will not get away with it next time.


Major James William Coldwell: Instead of cutting down, I say that we should be expanding the service by intelligent degrees. It is senseless to cut down arbitrarily the work of this organization as the estimate implies will be done. I want to make two pleas to the government. First, the cut should be reconsidered and I think there is enough evidence to show that it should be reconsidered. Second, an opportunity should be provided for fuller consideration of the work of this organization than has been provided heretofore. I think hon. members have
a right to ask the film board authorities to appear before a parliamentary committee so that they can get all the facts. The hon. member for New Westminster or the hon. member for Peterborough West-


Thomas Reid: Leave me out.


Major James William Coldwell: -who has indicated that money has been wastefully used and that this organization is not worthwhile-


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I should like to correct the hon. gentleman. I have not at any time said that the film board was not worthwhile.


Major James William Coldwell: I am glad to hear that. I misunderstood the purport of the hon. gentleman's questions. That would give him an opportunity to inquire into all the features which he thinks should be inquired into and it would give the rest of us an understanding of what this organization is doing. Just as we set up a committee to inquire into the work of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, so we should set up a committee to inquire into the work of the national film board. If that is done we should all be in a better position to form a considered judgment. I suggest that two things be done: that the present cut in the estimates should be reconsidered and that, after we come back following the Easter recess, there should be set up a committee before which the officers of the film board could appear and which would give us an opportunity of inquiring into all the phases of the work of this organization.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I know that you are not anxious to sit in the chair much longer, that you want to get down to this other work, but I do not believe it would be fair if I did not have an opportunity to say a few words. I am pleased that the hon. gentleman has brought up this matter this evening, although if I had had an opportunity to go up to my office I might have been better prepared to reply. The hon. member started off by mentioning the fact that the Sydney, Australia, office had been closed.
As I understand the purpose of the setting up of the film board in 1939, it was that it would buy or make films for the different departments of the government and for educational purposes. I have a brief here outlining the whole set-up but I have not had a chance to go through it since the hon. member began to speak. I believe I am right in saying that the Department of Trade and Commerce was to distribute these films in the different countries, not the national film board. The film board was only to produce the films for the
National Film, Board

different departments. The Department of Trade and Commerce, having a full understanding of the different countries, could pick out the proper pictures to be distributed in those countries through its trade offices.
Mention was made in the article read by the hon. member that the Australian film board was sorry that the national film board was closing its office in Australia. No doubt that is true. I do not blame the Australian film board for feeling that way because, by the national film board being in Australia, the Australian film board was saved thousands and thousands of dollars in distribution costs. There is no doubt of that. Not only did we supply them with films made by the film board, I have no doubt that we supplied them with other films made by commercial firms. I hope that most of the films distributed in Australia were made by commercial firms and I will tell you why in a few moments.
I feel as the hon. member does, and as I think every hon. member does, that every agency of government should be used to build up good will in other countries. I have preached that in the house on many occasions. I even suggested that the former minister of trade and commerce should take a trip to South and Central America. He did.


Mr. ROSS (Hamilton East):: Oh, oh.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The hon. member for
Hamilton East laughs. He evidently feels that the minister's trip was of no use, but I feel that it was of some use. The hon. member is a Liberal member and, of course, you could not expect anything else.


Thomas John Bentley: He is not even an independent.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: No, he is not even an independent. The hon. member who has just taken his seat said that he had visited the film board. I have visited it on different occasions right from 1940. I did not wait until the last couple of years to visit it. On Saturday morning I was over at 71 Bank street on an invitation from the film board to see some films they were showing. They sent out invitations to a program starting at eleven o'clock and running until twelve thirty. I got a special invitation from the secretary of the film board, and I suppose I was the only one who did. However I was going anyhow. I have spoken to some of our own members and none of them got it. Two other members and another party went with me. There were four Progressive Conservatives and two Liberals in a theatre seating fifty people. The film board showed, first of all, what they call "Eyewitness-First Shots of

Chalk River". That was a fairly good picture, but of course they could not show very much of the Chalk River plant.
Then they showed "Trade Mission to South Africa". That included a picture of the former minister of trade and commerce-


Thomas Hambly Ross: Good.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I believe even the hon. member for Hamilton East could take a better picture than was made by the member of the national film board who took that picture. It looked to me as if it had been taken by the rankest amateur. It was really a poor picture. The person who took it had evidently very little knowledge of taking pictures in southern countries. A person going into a southern country where the light is extremely strong must find out from people who are taking pictures there just how the lighting should be, what filters to use and how they should be used. That picture was an absolute flop. What it cost the taxpayers I do not know.
They had another picture "Great Lakes". It was supposed to be in colour. It wras on colour film.


Mr. BROWN:: A good picture too.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That shows that the hon. gentleman does not know a good picture from a bad one. It showed a picture of Windsor, and I will acknowledge that some of the shots were good but the picture as a whole was extremely poor. The colour picture was taken when the light was very strong. I think it was taken at noon because the shadows showed straight up and down. Those who are taking colour pictures, unless they know exactly what filters to use, should take them in the morning before the sun is too strong, or in the evening just when the sun is setting, to get the best results.


Gordon Graydon: No excuse for not getting a good picture of a beautiful city like Windsor.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They also showed a film "Farm Homes Beautiful". That is a picture, Mr. Speaker, that is really worthwhile. The photography in it was not up to what it should be, not as good as it would have been if taken by a commercial firm, but it was such an improvement on the other pictures that it really looked good to me. It is a picture that I feel should be shown in the rural sections of Canada, instead of some of those other pictures they are sending out. They sent out a picture in my district on "Soil", to a section of the country which can grow only rock, where there is no farming at all. Even a member

National Film Board
of the federation of agriculture said about that picture, "I was absolutely disgusted when they threw it on the screen."
On Saturday they showed another picture
West Wind", in the Canadian Artists series
Tom Thomson-filmed in Algonquin park. I am not prejudiced; that is an Ontario picture. It was really an excellent picture; but it was taken, not by the national film board, but by Crawley Films. The colour in it just stood out. You could see it was in perfect colour. Every detail in it was perfect, not like the other pictures, blurred and hard on your eyes, but a real picture that you could look at a second time, a picture you would be proud of.
The hon. member mentioned the buildings the film board occupies. He said seven buildings. There are twelve, ten of them rented buildings and two owned by the government. I have a return which shows that is a fact. I do not want to say anything against the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann), *who looks after the national film board, and who signed this return, so it must be true. I will acknowledge that practically every government building needs cleaning and repairing. I think the minister who is in charge of public works will acknowledge that too, and I hope that as soon as times are better and building materials a little cheaper, and men available to do the work, the necessary cleaning and repairs will be done to these government buildings. But personally I feel that veterans homes must come first. I hope we shall do as much for them as possible and leave this other work until later. It is not only here in Ottawa where government buildings need repair but in practically every city in Canada. If you travel in the United States you will find the same conditions there. The hon. member who mentioned seven buildings may have got that figure from an editorial in one of the papers which mentioned seven buildings and incidentally tried to pan me. At the present time the film board is spending over one and a half million dollars on salaries out of a budget of about $2,200,000, and on top of that there are travelling expenses; I have not those expenses here, but they are in Hansard and show over $300,000.
Last year I was invited to visit the film board and I would have gone but at the time committees of the house were sitting and the house was also sitting in the morning, I believe.
I tried five telephones to get hold of this party to tell him I would prefer having the appointment moved forward, but I could not raise anybody until a quarter to ten o'clock. I did
not try all the 132 telephones which the film board has; I tried only five.
I do not want anybody to believe or think I am not in favour of films for educational purposes, and films to advertise Canada in eveiy part of the world. The proper films can do a wonderful job, but those films must be distributed in other countries, not by 'the film board, which does not know a thing about distributing films to the right people in foreign countries, but by the trade and commerce department, which knows every angle of the business and knows what the people want.
There is no better medium of education than films of the right kind. The children love them and so do the children who have grown up to the age of you and me; but we love good pictures, not some of these fuzzy pictures that the film board puts out. I know that in rural districts films have done an excellent job. They have done an excellent job in agriculture; but, Mr. Speaker, do you think they can do a decent job with agriculture if they do not have a little direction from the Minister of Agriculture and his department? The federation of agriculture have also asked for motion pictures. With the proper films, agriculture in Canada will improve and find out the different ways and means of doing its job. It is an excellent way to show the farmers of the country the proper way to look after their soil, their crops, and insect control, and the more pictures we have of that kind the better, but we must have people taking these pictures who understand how to take them and what kind of pictures to take.
I understand that in the United' States the government of that country have all their films made and processed by commercial companies. I might be wrong in that, but I do not think I am, as I have had a great number of letters from people who are in the film business, despite the paper read by the hon. member, saying, "Go to it; you are on the right track." The first week after I spoke in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne-that was February 25-I had 216 letters from photographers throughout Canada saying that they were having unfair competition from the national film board in their photographic business. As taxpayers, they felt that they should not be taxed to pay for unfair competition in their own line of business.
Last year the national film board got out a catalogue, "Canada 1947-48". It is a wonderful catalogue; it has beautiful pictures in it; they are Canadian subjects. These pictures are sold right across Canada in competition with
National Film Board

their own photographers. That is one department of the national film board which should be closed down.
The film board asked the architectural association-I think that is the proper name for it -to send in all their photographs of public buildings and to be sure to have them copyrighted so that the national film board would have all right to them; and even the photographers who took them would not have any say as to w'here they went or get any benefit from them.
During the last week I have had a number of telephone calls; I have also had people come in to see me, and I heard something that almost makes me wonder what this country of ours is coming to. I believe there is a place around Ottawa called Fairy lake park; I am not sure that that is the proper name for it. A gentleman was there taking some pictures, and he was plump and plainly told by the national film board man who was there with a camera that he had no business taking pictures on that property because it belonged to the federal government. I have also had commercial photographers tell me that they have been told to keep off the grounds in front of this building because it was government property and that they were not to take pictures there; that it was the right and the sole right of the national film board to take pictures on federal property. I can hardly believe that, but these men are, I know, responsible men and I feel quite sure that they would not say anything that was not true.
I hold in my hand a return which shows the most outlandish picture I have seen in a long time. It is a Christmas card; it has "N.F.B." on one corner and "O.N.F." on the other. Inside the cover it says, "The film commissioner and staff of the national film board wish you a merry Christmas and a happy New Year." That is paid for by the taxpayers of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The initials to which the hon. member refers probably means the national film board in French.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That may be so; my French is not as good this year as it was last year.
_ I have enough material here, Mr. Speaker, to talk on the national film board until two o'clock in the morning-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Don't bother.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: -and I think I could give you something new every minute. I do not know who gave permission to the national film board to come here on March 16 and take a still picture, to set their camera over on the other side and take a picture across this way.

They took a picture of the Hansard reporters; but over on this side, standing away to the left of me-


An hon. MEMBER:: Where all the smart people are.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: An hon. member says,
"Where all the smart people are". He is perfectly right. It was the messengers of the House of Commons and other members of the staff of the house who sat there while that picture was being taken. I agree with him that they are very smart and pleasant fellows with whom to deal. I like all the messengers here, but I do not think a picture of that kind should be taken in the House of Commons with a set-up of that kind. I do not think it is right, because what they will have to do is either to blur out the faces of the messengers and the staff or put the heads of some members of parliament on their bodies-


An hon. MEMBER:: That will weaken the messengers.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I want to say again, as I said to the hon. member who spoke before me,
I have never said at any time that the national film board should be done away with. I have said that the national film board should have a clean-up. The national film board should do what it was set up to do in 1939 when it had a budget of only $80,000. I have always said that the national film board could do good work if it had the proper guidance.
An hon. member says that the treasury board checks all the vouchers and things. That may be so, Mr. Speaker, but what do the treasury board know about films? They know figures, yes; they know what a dollar is, yes; but they do not know the workings of the national film board; and when a voucher comes through, if it is signed by an officer of the film board it will be approved and passed. Despite what any editorial says, or what anyone else might say, the sooner the national film board has a mopping-up, a clean-up and proper direction, the better for this Canada of ours, and the better trade relations we shall have with the other countries because they will appreciate good pictures after the bad national film board pictures they have been having.
farmers' income tax


Mr. H. R. ARGUE (Wood Mountain):: I rise at this time, Mr. Speaker, to bring before the house a matter which I think is now of the utmost importance to the farmers of Canada, namely, the farmers' income tax. Protests are coming in from western Canada by the hundreds. Never before have I received as many

Farmers' Income Tax
letters from my constituency on any single subject as I am now receiving with respect to farmers' income tax. The farmers feel so strongly on this particular matter that many protest meetings are being held. These meetings are spontaneous; they are not organized by any person touring the country. The farmers in a given locality feel that they have a just complaint and they meet together in considerable numbers to send their protests to members of parliament and to the government. Just recently a large meeting was held in the city of Swift Current, during bad weather, at which 148 farmers attended and as a result of which protests were sent to the members of parliament and to the government. The hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bentley) and other members of this party go along with me in protesting the type of income tax form and the method used in making the farmers comply with it. In one town of my constituency the farmers have formed a farmers' income tax association; two hundred farmers around one small prairie town have formed themselves into an income tax association. Another town has farmers who are organizing a widespread campaign to send in petitions against the present income tax form.


Mr. HARRIS (Grey-Bruce):: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes.


Walter Edward Harris: Is the hon. member seriously contending now that the announcement made by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) last Friday is not satisfactory?


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes, I contend that. I shall come to that particular point a little later on.
The records show, Mr. Speaker, that in the past the farmers of western Canada have more than paid their share of the income taxes which have been paid by farmers from one end of Canada to the other. Just a few days ago Chester A. Bloom, writing in the Free Press, gave the figures with regard to income tax paid in 1945-46 by farmers in the various provinces. In that year the farmers in Quebec paid total income taxes of $59,900; the farmers in Ontario paid a little over $1,000,000 in taxes; the farmers in Saskatchewan paid more than $2,500,000; the farmers in Manitoba paid more than $1,800,000, and the farmers in Alberta paid more than $1,100,000.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: Did the hon. member consider the fact that the income of the western
farmer is much higher than the average income of the farmer in the province of Quebec?


Mrs. STRUM:: So are their expenses.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is perhaps a point, but I think the hon. member should also know the number of farmers in the provinces. For example, in 1945 Ontario had 175,749 farmers; Quebec, 151,850; Saskatchewan, 138,370. There are a great many more farmers in Ontario and Quebec than there are in Saskatchewan.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: Does the hon. member contend that it is a question of the number of farmers or is it not a question of the amount of income of the individual farmer?


Hazen Robert Argue: I think it is a question of both.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: I do not think so.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think it is a question of both. I do not think the hon. member will contend that in Quebec, for example, every farmer who should have paid income tax has, in fact, done so.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, yes, they have.


Hazen Robert Argue: No, he does contend that; and I do not contend that for Saskatchewan.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: I imagine so.


Hazen Robert Argue: All I am trying to point out is that the farmers of Saskatchewan have paid what I consider to be a reasonable share of the income tax paid by farmers in Canada as a whole. More than that, there is a concerted drive on in western Canada at the present time to get farmers to file returns whether they have filed them before or not. Most farmers find it impossible to keep an adequate set of accounts. Certainly they cannot remember all the expenses they had, for example, in 1944. Therefore, when they are making returns now they must pretty much guess at the figures. More than that, I think the government is requiring a good deal of unnecessary work and worry over the filing of these returns on the part of many farmers who certainly will not be paying any income tax at all; for in my opinion a farmer on a small farm cannot, over a period of three years, earn sufficient income to warrant his paying any tax.
One of the major complaints of farmers in respect of income tax is that, during the whole of the nineteen-thirties, their debts accumulated drastically, but it was not until 1943 that prices of farm products improved to any extent. Moreover, in 1942 there was a rigid quota against wheat, also in 1943. Then
Farmers' Income Tax

in 1944 farmers had an opportunity to market much of their 1942 and 1943 crops along with their 1944 crop. No consideration has been given to the fact that within one year a farmer marketed parts at least of three crops. Moreover, if a farmer paid; $1 to reduce his indebtedness, that $1 was subject to income tax. It was considered! income for taxation purposes. So the farmers feel that they are not being given fair and just treatment. Today in many instances they find! that they have replaced a debt owed to a mortgage company by a debt owed to the federal Department of National Revenue. I shall quote part of a letter which was sent to me. I picked out this ome at random from those I received, and I think it fairly well states the position of the farmers of western Canada in this regard. It reads in part as follows:
For years the loan companies bled us white and just when we are getting on our feet after ten years of drought, the government steps in to put us back where we were before. What I would like to know is, what right has the government to hold this money indefinitely-
Meaning the wheat board participation certificates.
-without paying us interest; yet if the farmer owes them back income tax, they hook him for a 5 per cent penalty?
That is a good question that has not been answered. The farmers are being forced to pay a good deal of income tax at the present time; still the government says it wants livestock production. Farmers are not producing livestock because they find it is of little benefit, since a good part of the income they make from extra work producing livestock goes not to themselves but to the federal income tax department.
The government got out what it called a simplified form, and along with that form went a book of instructions. I think it is good that farmers were given this book of instructions. It will be of some benefit to them, and certainly items whereby farmers can write down their various receipts and expenditures are a good thing. But it seems to me that a good part of the introductory portion of the farmers' income tax guide is devoted to propaganda.
There is one question: "What are the things Canadians get through their government? What are we paying for?" The answer is this: "We are paying for the after-cost of our part in the winning of two world wars, which, had we lost, would have plunged us into the terrors, the deprivations, the serfdom and the hopelessness which afflict the majority of the people in the world today."
The farmers' income tax guide goes on to say: "We are paying for social services." This

is what the money is going for: old age pensions, and family allowances ini particular, but also health services and many other benefits.
I do not know who gets health services from the federal government when he is ill. I do not know if this was written in the hope that health services would be provided by the federal government, but certainly I do not think it is a statement of fact to say that the federal government is spending money for health services. The simplified form makes it necessary, I believe, for the farmer to hire an accountant to keep his books throughout the year and then hire a lawyer to fill in the income tax form at the end of the year. And the government, in forcing all farmers, whether they are liable or not, to file forms is creating some employment. It is creating jobs for the lawyers and the real estate agents and what have you. But in my opinion it involves a lot of wasted time and a lot of money spent by the farmers, many of whom should not, in my opinion, come within the income tax regulations at all.
The minister announced that some changes were made in regard to the net worth section of the farmers' simplified form. I do not think the announcement meets the situation. On March 19, as reported at page 2400 of Hansard, the minister said:
The department therefore has decided that (a) those farmers who report their income for 1947 on a cash basis need not complete the farmer's net worth statement section of the return. There may be individual cases where, after the filing of the return, the department will require from a farmer, as from any other taxpayer, in order to make a proper assessment of his income, a statement of assets and liabilities of his business, or other additional information which, in such eases, will be requested in the usual manner.
I wonder if the information will include the part of the net worth section which calls for the farmer to disclose the amount of cash he has on his person or on the farm. I do not know and the minister did not say. Then, to conclude the quotation:
(b) Those farmers who report 1947 incomes on an accrual basis must attach to the return a statement of assets and liabilities, as heretofore, or complete the appropriate parts of the net worth statement attached to the return.
Any bona fide farmer in western Canada will file his income tax return on an accrual basis. He is given an opportunity to spread his income over a period of three years, so that he will report his income for taxation purposes on an accrual basis and, if he does that, then he must submit a net worth statement attached to the return. The minister did not state whether that net worth statement which must be at-

Farmers' Income Tax
tached to the return is the same type and has the same parts in it as the net worth section of the 1947 income tax form. If it is, then there is no real change, because of the minister's announcement, for the reason that every man who is in the business of farming will want his income spread over a period of three years.
One of the reasons the farmer will want that done is that he suffers crop failures every now and- then. If I do not miss my guess he will still have to sell his oats, barley and flax on the grain exchange, and these prices will vary a great deal. The farmer's income will fluctuate greatly because of the operation of the grain exchange and because of recurring crop failures; therefore every farmer almost will want to file his income tax return on an accrual basis, and when he does that he must submit the net worth statement.
I contend, therefore, that the minister's announcement has not cleared up the situation in that respect at all. The farmers are asking that their income tax be spread, not over a period of three years only but over a period of five years. Farming is very hazardous. It is particularly hazardous in the prairie provinces. The farmer may get a forty-bushel crop one year and no crop at all for another two years, and because of that the farmers believe that the only fair thing is to have their income tax spread over a period of five years, a moving average for five years, which would be in effect a ten-year average.
They also feel that the present-day exemptions are far too low. They feel that the exemption of a single man to the extent of $750 and a married couple to the extent of $1,500 is ridiculously low. No young man can hope to pay for a farm when, if he earns more than S750, he must pay income tax. The farmers believe that their income tax exemptions should be increased to at least $1,200 for the single man and $2,400 for the married couple.
The farmers are also asking that the principle of the basic herd be extended. Page 17 of the farmers' guide for income tax poses this question: "What is a basic herd and how is it established?" The answer given is this: "Briefly, a basic herd is a capital asset consisting of cattle which have been purchased out of capital or are a replacement of them." The farmers would like the principle of the basic herd applied to all types of livestock found on the farm and not applied only to cattle as at this moment.
I have some figures as to the size of farms in Saskatchewan. I think any hon. member who is familiar with farming in that province will agree that a man who has a half-section of land, or 320 acres, over a period of three
years just cannot earn enough to get into the income tax bracket. I do not think any useful purpose is served) by asking half-section farmers, or smaller, to file income tax returns. Certainly the government will not get any substantial amount of income tax from these farmers. It will create a lot of trouble for them, and they will have to go to a good deal of expense to have the income tax forms filed.
In Saskatchewan in 1946 there were 75,000 farms of 479 acres or less. That is just under three-quarters of a section. The average farmer has one-quarter of a section of land, or two-quarters or three-quarters or more. So that of the 75,000 farmers, I am sure that more than 70,000 have a half-section of land or less. In that province in 1946 there were only 125,000 farmers, so that 60 per cent of the farmers are, I am sure, farming a halfsection of land or less.
Therefore I contend that the government should not ask farmers who are farming that size of farm unit to file income tax returns, because certainly they will not be liable to pay income tax; and by being asked to file income tax returns, they are being asked to go to unnecessary expense.
There are many ways in which present income tax laws should be changed as they affect farmers. The Alberta Farmers' Union and the United Farmers of Canada, Saskatchewan section, have submitted briefs to the government in this respect. They go into a great deal of detail as to the many ways in which farmers' income tax regulations and forms should be changed.
In closing, I should like to outline the nine steps which I consider are most important to correct the present inequities in the income tax regulations as applied to farmers. They are:
1.	Exemptions should be raised to $1,200 for single and $2,400 for married persons.
2.	Payment of arrears of interest and principal due before 1940 should be allowed as deductions for income tax purposes.
3.	The present three-year average should be replaced by a five-year moving average.
4.	There should be simplification of income tax forms and complete abolition of the present net worth section.
5.	Farmers proving investment in land and machinery to a value of less than $10,000 should be exempt from having to file income tax returns, because a farmer with only a $10,000 investment cannot over a period of three years make sufficient money to have to pay income tax.
6.	In case of dispersal sales of livestock a number of animals equivalent to those owned
Farmers' Income Tax

on January 1, 1941, should be considered a capital asset, and not subject to income tax; this to apply to horses, sheep, hogs and poultry, as well as cattle. This is the basic herds clause.
7.	Allowance for labour of farm families in connection with production on the farm should be made.
8.	There should be establishment of a board of arbitration in each province to hear income tax appeals. There is no board in the various provinces now to which the farmers can take their assessments and obtain rulings.
9.	Uniformity of interpretation and administration of the Income Tax Act. It should not be left to the discretion of district inspectors to vary the provisions of the act.
I believe if these changes were made the farmers of Canada, particularly those of western Canada who are willing and anxious to pay their share of income tax, would be in a position to file their returns in a simplified manner, and the government would be able to assess those returns in a more just fashion. It would correct the grave injustices which prevail at the present time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Thomas John Bentley: Mr. Speaker, it is not carried yet. I regret having to detain the house for a short time; but I would be remiss in my duty if I failed to take part in this discussion, instituted by the hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Argue).


Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Albemi):: You will be brief, though.


Thomas John Bentley: I shall be as brief as I can. I have received so many submissions from people at home complaining about this matter that I feel I must place the weight of their complaints before the house.
When the hon. member for Wood Mountain was speaking, some questions were asked from the other side as to whether he was being fair in pointing out that more pressure was being put upon western farmers for the purpose of collecting income tax from them than is being placed on people in other parts of Canada.
I have here a return given to me by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) in reply to a question I had asked which, I believe, gives some information along that line. According to the 1946 census, there were, in round figures, 270,000 farmers in the three prairie provinces, while in the other provinces there were 436,000, making a total in Canada

of about 705,000. To investigate the farmers of the west, there were 126 inspectors for the 270,000.


An hon. MEMBER:: What year?


Thomas John Bentley: Up to February 19, 1948.
To investigate and inspect the 436,000 farmers in other parts of Canada there were only eighty-eight inspectors. It might be argued that there is more income made in the west, but I am doubtful as to the truth ot that suggestion. The figures I have do not indicate a great deal of difference.
For instance, the Canada Year Book for 1947 gives the 1945 figure, the latest available, of $857,000,000 total farm cash income in the three prairie provinces, whereas in the rest of Canada it was $828,000,000. There is not a great deal of difference in the amount of cash income of the farmers. Nevertheless, in the west there are more inspectors trying to get money from the farmers than there are endeavouring to extract money from farmers in other parts of Canada.
Only a week ago last Friday a meeting was held in my city of Swift Current. Immediately after that meeting I received a wire dated at Swift Current, March 13, stating that a mass meeting had been held in Swift Current that afternoon respecting income tax forms, and stating, "In spite of roads, snow blocked, had 152 in attendance; resolution passed without one dissenting vote." They say they will mail me a copy, which they have done.
I have the minutes of that meeting here. I do not wish to delay the house so that, unless someone forces it, I shall not read these minutes. I have documentary evidence to prove every statement I make and, if requested, I shall take the time of the house to put it on the record, where it cannot be refuted. If the house is willing to take my word for it I shall read only one or two extracts from the proceedings of this meeting. I want to point out that the meeting was comprised of farmers who happened to be in town during a bad stretch of weather when the roads were blocked and when no motor traffic could move outside the city limits. It was called on two days' notice; and only those who could come in by train or had horse transportation, something not plentiful in such a highly mechanized country, were able to get in. They had to hold the meeting in a small hall because we have no civic centre. The skating rink is in use in the wintertime, and that is the place generally used for large meetings. This small hall was crowded with 152 people and there were many more outside who could not take part

Farmers' Income Tax
in the meeting. I might add that everything was quite informal. The letter is addressed to me as "Dear Tom," and they refer to the chairman as "Jim". I quote from the letter:
The meeting was very ably handled by Jim Wightman in the chair and in his opening remarks he prevailed upon those present to forget their party affiliations during this meeting as it was a matter affecting all farmers regardless of their polities, and this in effect was quite evident during the entire meeting as during the lengthy discussion on the resolution members of all political groups were heard from without any mention of party feelings, as all were unanimously in accord with the matter as presented in resolution and preamble.
The resolution was signed by the farmers who were at the meeting. Here again the material is open to inspection by anybody, unless hon. members want me to take forty minutes to read it into the record. There are pages and pages of signatures of reeves, councillors, chairmen of school boards and so on from various municipalities.


John Lambert Gibson: No dead men?
Mr. BE'NTLEY: No dead men. I know them all personally and they are very much alive. I imagine that they were extremely alive at that meeting, because I know the temper of some of them.


An hon. MEMBER:: No Liberals there?


Thomas John Bentley: Yes, there were Liberals there. The resolution was distributed throughout the country. I have received numerous letters from farmers in all parts of the constituency, and a lot of signed cards such as the one I have here. These were sent to me as a more simplified way of expressing their opinions.


John Lambert Gibson: Who
printed those cards?


Thomas John Bentley: They were done on typewriters by people who had to do it with one finger, the same as I have to when I have not a stenographer.


John Lambert Gibson: I was wondering whether it was something like the arms to China.


Thomas John Bentley: Not at all. These are honest farmers. They work hard to earn their living. They do not mind paying their way. The resolution on this card reads:
Whereas the prairie farmers' income tax forms are objectionable for the following reasons:
The form is impracticable, as it is impossible from the books kept by the majority of farmers for them to be completed with any degree of accuracy as the form contains too many details which are unknown by the taxpayer.
It is impossible for a farmer to give even a very rough estimate of feed fed io bvestock on the farm; therefore the inventory is impracticable.
Page five-net worth statement of the 1947 income tax form be deleted for the following reasons:
(1)	Too much of the farmers' personal business is involved which has no connection with income.
(2)	The prairie farmer is being singled out and obliged to answer personal questions not required from any other type of business.
Therefore be it resolved:
That the 1947 income tax form for prairie farmers be immediately recalled and that a more simplified form be submitted, and that the newr form shall not contain the net worth statement.
Some were inclined to be a little humorous when tackling this thing, and in a letter to one of the Saskatchewan papers one fellow suggested the following:
If Doctor McCann gets away with this form the next one may be worse, for instance the following may be added:
Beer used and consumed on farm during year	
Empty bottles returned (state value)	
Bottles picked up along the road (give separately)	
Empty bottles under the granary at end of year	
Where space insufficient add supplementary sheet.
Total	
These men are earnest about their dislike of this form and in this regard I should like to quote from a letter from one farmer who says:
Assets such as livestock can die at any time. Sometimes we hold grain for sale, but have to feed it if the weather goes against us or if we have other feeds spoil, etc. Cattle can drop in price so if we figure a steer at $100 now in our assets, he may only be worth $50 by the end of the year.
That is the sort of complaint I am receiving. I want to recommend to the government that, instead of sending out assessors, the government should recognize that there is a difficulty. People in Ottawa cannot make up a form for farmers to fill out when they know so little about the matter. If the government want to give the farmer an opportunity to be as honest as he wants to be they should set up some kind of continuing commission or body, call it a royal commission, an investigating body, a study body or whatever name you want to give it. This body could examine all phases of farm operations, all the things that take place on a farm to make income and all expenses of operation of a farm in all its infinite varieties across Canada. Then that body would be able to recommend the type of form
Farmers' Income Tax

which the farmer could fill in, with some feeling that he was doing justice to himself and paying his fair share.
I offer that suggestion in all earnestness and honesty to the government. I believe the government should accept that suggestion. There is no single member of the government, and I include the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) with his vast knowledge and tremendous ability, who is able at the present time to assess the difficulty of farmers in all parts of Canada in making up income tax forms.
I want to point out again that the people whom I have quoted, the people who attended this meeting, are responsible men. Many of them are reeves, councillors and members of public school boards and other local governing bodies. They are not dumbbells; they are able men. Many of them are entrusted with the expenditure of money raised in the form of local taxes. They know something about spending money for public needs. But they are not trained book-keepers or accountants and they cannot follow the various book-keeping intricacies required by some of these forms. But .give them an opportunity to do this in a simplified way and you will find that they are quite capable of accounting for their income and expenses and paying their honest share of the nation's revenue.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I am sure that visitors must have nothing but the greatest sympathy for members of parliament who have certainly earned their Easter recess after listening to the leader of the C.C.F. (Mr. Coldwell) tonight advocating that half-baked Hollywood mechanics should turn out crack pictures. In my opinion we should put the members of the film board to making a living where they might show some signs of doing something useful. Other speakers of the C.C.F. party have advocated lower taxation and tax exemption for the farmers.


Thomas John Bentley: That was never mentioned.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: You have spoken for forty minutes and said less than I will say in five. I say, bring these men down from Saskatchewan who need a special book to make up their accounts and let them see what the government is spending on what the C.C.F. advocates, a glorified Hollywood here in Ottawa, and they will soon put a stop to spending this money on pictures and then will have less taxes to pay.
Motion (Mr. Abbott) agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.



FURTHER SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1947-4S

John Bracken: Before we proceed with the consideration of the supplementary estimates, would the minister take a moment to tell us the total amount of the main estimates voted last year, together with the total of the supplementaries now before us? If he will answer that, I want then to make two or three brief observations.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The summary contained in the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1949, which were tabled a week or two ago, shows that the total previously voted was $2,116,967,853.74, to which must be added the total of the further supplementaries now before the committee, which total $79,809,337.98, or a grand total of $2,196,777,191.72.


John Bracken: Mr. Chairman, about a week from today we shall come to the end of this fiscal year. As the minister has stated, the main estimates for this year amounted, in round figures, to $2,116,000,000, and the further supplementaries for the year amount to roughly $80,000,000, or a grand total of approximately $2,200,000,000. I am sure that every member wants the house to adjourn for Easter by tomorrow night if possible. But we have before us these supplementaries to pass. They include I do not know how many items. I can assure the minister that from this corner of the house there will be no unnecessary delay in considering these supplementaries. There are some very large items being put before us within a week of the end of the fiscal year. We shall want a simple statement explaining why at this stage of the fiscal year $80,000,000 more is required, and why in certain items there is a very large increase asked. I might mention some of them.
Item 564 shows $200,000 required for health of animals. I have no doubt there will be an easy' explanation of that item. Item 570 requires $250,000 for Prairie Farm Assistance Act administration. What we want to know in connection with these larger items is the total of the main estimate voted, and why this additional amount is necessary, just one week before the close of the fiscal year. Item 572 is for $6,500,000, "To authorize and provide for payment of subsidies on oats and1 barley used as feed for livestock-" listen to this-"under such regulations as may be approved by the governor in council". I suggest that that item ought not to be passed unless the government can tell us what regulations it is going to bring into effect with respect to that huge amount of money near the end of the fiscal year. I suggest, with all respect, that we should not be asked to pass

Supplementary Estimates
a lump sum like that without knowing what these regulations are which the government may bring into effect after we have gone home.
Let me mention two or three other items. Item 582, under the heading "special", is for $31,500,000 "To providle such amount as is necessary for payment to Canadian wheat board to reimburse that board1" for certain items. We shall want to be satisfied about the reason for these larger items.
Here is another one, item 588, $5,000,000 for "government's contribution to unemployment insurance fund". Why could a closer estimate not have been made of the requirements when the main estimates were brought down. How does it come about that within a week of the end of the fiscal year we are asked to provide these additional huge amounts?
One can pick out other items for $100,000, $198,000, $225,000, $250,000. I need not go over them all. Here are two others, items 638 and 639 under the heading "special", $548,000 for the Canadian Commercial Corporation and three-quarters of a million dollars for the Canadian wheat board, to reimburse the board for certain expenses incurred.
Item 649 under the heading "railway service" asks for $1,099,529.39, "additional amount in excess of the sum of $3,042,000 already appropriated, to authorize and provide for the payment from time to time during the fiscal year, 1947-48, to the Canadian National Railway Company", and so forth. I shall not go further on these points now.
I simply say to the minister that in the few hours remaining before we adjourn for Easter we want, the responsible ministers to give us a brief but clear explanation of these larger items and a justification for the additional amounts now being asked1 for. If a satisfactory explanation is given I think we shall all want to help the government get these supplementaries through as expeditiously as possible.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I hope that my hon. friend and other members will ask for any explanations they want as we reach the larger items. My hon. friend mentioned item 572 for $6,500,000. That is the item to provide for the payments of the subsidy on oats and barley to eastern feeders, which was paid after the end of the current crop year, namely, July 31, until the subsidy was discontinued on October 23, I think it was. The payment was made in the first instance, in order that they should not have to wait for their money, out of the vote of the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation, a subsidy vote, and this vote is to reimburse the payment. We were 5849-162
under substantial pressure from all sides of the house, may I say, to continue that subsidy, but I just give this explanation. This $6,500,000 item represents moneys which have already been paid out of the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation vote, as we were entitled to do, and this is a vote to reimburse it.


John Bracken: Is the minister saying that this is only a book-keeping item?


Douglas Charles Abbott: In effect that is the case. It is in order to reimburse the C.P.S.C. for the amount which we paid out, so that the farmers would not have to wait for their money.


John Bracken: Then the amount the minister refers to was appropriated in the main estimates last year.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct, and the language of the item is as follows, "In accordance with regulations that may be approved by the governor in council." That is standard language which has been used in this item since the estimate has been included. The main items and these supplementaries all total some $79,000,000, of which items $31,500,000 is to provide for deficits on certain accounts of the Canadian wheat board, and I shall be glad to give partieidars of these when we come to them. It is also to provide an additional amount required for the government's contribution of $5,000,000 to the unemployment insurance fund; Canadian National Railways deficit for the calendar year 1947, $15,885,000; additional amounts for subsidies on feed grains, including freight assistance, $10,550,000-


John Bracken: What is the number of that item?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is a composite of two or three amounts. It includes the $6,500,000 to which I have been referring, and an additional $4,050,000 which is vote 664, and additional payments to or for veterans and their dependents, $5,827,000. This aggregates, as I have said, $68,762,000 out of a total of $79,000,000, leaving approximately $10,000,000 for the other items.
Civil service commission-
573. Salaries and contingencies of the commission-further amount required, $51,000.


Mr. COCKERAM:: I notice there is an increase of $51,000, which is a small amount, but in view of the fact that the total number of employees of the civil service is down by thirty thousand this year, why should there be this increase to the commission?
Supply-External Affairs


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: The
amount of $51,000 is made up of four items: printing and stationery; cost of holding examinations; advertising; telephone, telegrams and postage. I may say that when the estimate was made early in the year every effort was made to keep it down to the amount that was asked for, and during the year these additional amounts have been incurred and are required before the end of the current fiscal year.


Alan Cockeram: How is that made up?


Colin William George Gibson: At the present time the civil service commission is holding accounts amounting to $23,913. These are accounts that are held outstanding. In addition we have outstanding commitments amounting to $18,086 that will be coming in before the end of the year. It is considered that, with the additional appropriation of $42,000, the commission may be able to take care of the accounts now being held, together with our commitments and our March requirements and the cost of holding examinations an additional amount of $1,300; advertising, $5,200, and telephones, telegrams and postage, $2,500.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is all in the book.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
External Affairs-Canadian contributions to international or commonwealth organizations-[DOT]
574. Canada's contribution to the inter-allied reparations agency, $37,750.
John Bracken: Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell us what the total appropriation for each of these items was in the main estimates? I notice that the proposed increase is a quarter of a million dollars, or to be exact, $246,446. Can the minister tell us the total in the main estimates for each of these items?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	The first item is
$37,750. There is nothing in the main estimates for this. This amount is required to cover the Canadian government contribution to the inter-allied reparations agency budget for the calendar year 1948. This payment is required to be made at the beginning of the year and is for the calendar year, 1948. Canada's share of the budget is 3-5 per cent, amounting in Canadian currency to $37,496.27. This is a new item.
The next one is $4,500. This is to enable the Canadian government to pay its contribution of 1948 to the inter-American committee on social security. That is also for the calendar year 1948.


John Bracken: Is this the first item of this kind?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There were payments made in previous years for the calendar year, but this is the first contribution for the 1948 calendar year.


John Bracken: Perhaps the minister will say now if there was a similar item in the main estimates.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I have not the main estimates here. No; in 1946 there was a contribution for the budget. There was no assessment made for the 1947 calendar year. It is one of the agencies of the I.L.O., and Canada's contribution was assessed for 1948 at $4,411.77.


John Bracken: That will be our total?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That wdll be our total for the 1948 calendar year.
The next one is $9,021. That is the balance of the Canadian government contribution to the international civil aviation organization for the fiscal year 1947-48. At the time the original estimates were submitted the budget for this organization had not been approved. It was estimated that our contribution would be $125,000. When the budget was submitted and approved by the international labour organization the amount assessed against Canada was $134,021, and this is the difference between what we had thought it might be and what it actually turned out to be. The larger amount, $176,500 is explained in this way. At the time the original estimates were submitted, no information was available as to the amount of Canada's contribution to the international labour organization. We are now informed that the total international labour organization's budget for the calendar year 1948 amounts to $4,425,930, United States dollars. Of 784 units making up the total contributions, thirty-five are assessed against Canada.


John Bracken: Making a total cost of-
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Making a total of $176,434.50, Canadian funds.


John Bracken: That is our total
contribution?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That is our total contribution for the calendar year 1948.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I understood the minister to say a moment ago that when the estimates were made up early in the year there was nothing available to indicate what the budget was or what our share of the budget of the I.L.O. was. I am

Supply-External Affairs
not quite sure which the minister said. It surprised me because had we not been subscribing to the I.L.O. for many years?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: We have; but each year there is a budget made up and approved by the organization. There was no budget for t'he 1948 calendar year available when the main estimates were brought down, and this contribution is payable at the beginning of the year. 'When the budget is approved the number of units is not changed; the amount is determined as 35/784 of the total budget.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What was our contribution last year?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I have not the figure of what the assessment was.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Do we scrutinize in any way the full budget?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: We do. This year we gave special instructions to our representatives at the I.L.O. to scrutinize these, especially the type of budget which was to provide for the travelling expenses of the officers of the I.L.O. We submitted that some of the travelling expenses of these officers looked to us to be lather high. There were visits of inspection paid by these officers to branches in various parts of (he world. We had our representatives scrutinize these accounts and the budget was finally established at this amount of $1,425,000.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Can the minister let us have, perhaps tomorrow, the amount of last year's subscription?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes, I will get that.
May I just finish the answer to the question asked by the leader of the opposition. There is another item of $875. That is Canada's assessment for membership in the international commission on air navigation. Subscription is from July 1, 1947, to December 31, 1947. Funds had previously been voted to cover the cost of Canada's subscription to the above commission for the years 1941 to June 30, 1947. The international commission on air navigation was established by the convention relating to the regulation of aerial navigation drawn up in Paris in 1919 and was placed under the direction of the league of nations. The functions of this organization were taken over by the international civil aviation organization, and this is the final payment of the assessment to the international commission on air navigation w'hich is now replaced by the other permanent civil aviation international body.
The last item of $17,800 is required to cover the balance of Canada's contribution to the united nations budget for 1947. The 1947 budget for the united nations was established
5849-162$
at $27,740,000. United States currency, equivalent to $27,878,700, Canadian. Canada's contribution was based on 3'2 per cent of the budget. Under vote 51 the amount of $895,000 was voted to cover this payment. A further supplementary budget was brought down by the united nations fifth committee in November, 1947, for the amount of $550,947, United States currency. Canada's proportion of that supplementary budget which was brought down last November at the united nations assembly is $17,718.46.


John Bracken: I thank the minister for the information he has given us with respect to these six items under his department. I have two other questions now, one of which he can perhaps answer immediately and the other he may not be able to answer at once. The total of these six items in the supplementary estimates comes to $246,000. Can the minister say what Canada's total contribution to all these international organizations amounts to for a year, let us say for the fiscal year in which we now find ourselves? If the minister cannot do that at the moment, I would request that at a suitable time tomorrow he let us know what that total amounts to. Then I think the conrw mittce would welcome a brief statement by the minister indicating to what degree and in what manner, if any, we have any say with respect to the total cost of these various international organizations, some three per cent of which, speaking generally, we are expected to pay. When the minister can give answers to those two questions, I should like him to do so.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I will have a statement made up of the total contributions to these international organizations, perhaps in two chapters: one, the united nations and the agencies of the united nations, and the other, such agencies as have a budget separate from that of the united nations.


John Bracken: I think that division would be all right but what I am concerned with is the total contribution of the Canadian parliament to all the international organizations to which we contribute.


Mr. TIMMINS:: Will the minister give us some idea as to what this large item of $176,500 consists of?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It is thirty-five units out of 784-


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: I did not mean in figures. What part does it play in the economv of Canada?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Canada has been a member of the I.L.O. since 1919. I think a number of people feel that this organization
Supply-Exlernal Affairs

has served a useful purpose in the world economy. It has provided a large number of conventions for the better protection of the working man in industry. I think it is usually regarded as having served a useful function in the world economy since 1919; and it has continued, notwithstanding the organization of the united nations. It may be-and I am not personally satisfied on that point.-that there is now some duplication between the functions of the economic and social council of the united nations, and the I.L.O. That question is being examined, because I think there is room for serious study as to whether there is not overlapping. That study is being made because it is felt that, if these international organizations are to continue to get the support of their respective members, we must be able to satisfy ourselves that they are not duplicating each other's work. When the main estimates are being considered I think I shall be able to give some report of the results of the investigation that we have asked to be made in order to satisfy ourselves that there is no duplication of effort or expenses.


Mr. HAZEN:: Can the minister tell us how many paid employees there are in the international labour organizations.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That information can be obtained. I will make a note of the question and, if there is no other opportunity, I will have the information when we are considering the estimates of the department.


Alan Cockeram: Does this item of
$176,500 include the cost of delegates from Canada to the convention, or where shall we find that item in the estimates? What was the cost in 1947 of Canadian delegates going to the international labour organization meetings; I have reference to last year's meetings" '
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Last year's meetings of the I.L.O.?


Alan Cockeram: Yes.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Only a portion is absorbed by the organization itself. There are portions that are provided out of another vote of the Department of External Affairs,
I will have a statement prepared to show what the total expense is, what portion comes out of the budget of the I.L.O., and what portion is an additional contribution by the Canadian government to the travelling expenses of the delegates.


Mr. SKEY:: Can the minister say how the executive members of the I.L.O. are appointed?

Can he say whether from time to time we have on that executive representatives who are appoinlees of the Canadian government?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes, we have. There are certain full-time paid officials. When they become paid officials they become international civil servants and are not supposed to represent any country, but the council or the thing that takes the place of a board of directors is a representative body on which we from time to time have representatives and to which we exercise by our vote the right of selection.


John Alpheus Charlton: Is there any contribution to the international federation of agricultural producers?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I would have to inquire. There is a contribution to the food and agricultural association, the F.A.O., and this may be an agency of it. I would have to inquire whether there is a relationship there.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall items 574 to 579 inclusive carry?


[Stage Direction]
Items agreed to.
Department of finance-
5S0. General-to provide for the expenses of the comptroller of the treasury's office-further amount required, $50,000.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I notice that this is an additional amount for printing and stationery. Can the minister give us an explanation?


Douglas Charles Abbott: This is for an increase in the cost of stationery and supplies, in particular such items as cheques and envelopes. In the distribution of the family allowance cheques in 1946-47 the cheques cost $1.85 a thousand and now it is $2.45 a thousand. The increase is related to the increased cost of paper.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Another casualty in the path of decontrol.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What is the total of the original estimate?


Mr ABBOTT:: The main estimate for
1947-48 was $8,652,153 and the expenditures in the previous year, $7,519,098, while in the current year, 1947-48, to February 29, or a month short of the end of the fiscal year, it will be $7,901,970.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
581. To provide, subject to the approval of the treasury board, for salaries, reclassifications and increases-further amount required, $1,000,000.

Sup-ply-Finance
Stanley Howard Knowles: I wish to direct two questions to the minister under this item. First of all, may I call attention to the fact that for the past number of months there have been several announcements concerning increases in the salaries of civil servants. My first question, therefore, is this: Have all such announcements been made, or are there others yet to be given?


Douglas Charles Abbott: There are others yet to be given; a few more.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And they will come along soon?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I hope so.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Will the others that are yet to be given include the stenographic staff? I refer to those who have been in the service for more than ten years?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The Speaker will be making a statement before the recess.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have another question under this item. It relates to superannuated civil servants. As the minister knows, strong representations were made about this matter during the whole of last year, following representations in previous years, and last summer the minister promised that definite consideration would be given to the matter. Unfortunately, that consideration resulted in an announcement which the minister made on January 23 of this year, in which he said that the government had decided not to do anything in the way of a cost of living bonus or other supplement for superannuated civil servants. The minister suggested, in answer to a question on the orders of the day on January 27, 1948, that that statement was final. Since that time, as the minister knows, there have been still further representations to the government by various branches of the association of superannuated civil servants and by others interested in the plight that faces these people. May I ask the minister whether, despite his answer on January 27, that the previous statement was final, further consideration has been given the question?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Representations have been received, as the hon. gentleman has indicated, but there is no change in the decision taken by the government.


John George Diefenbaker: Under this head I should like to ask the minister a question in connection with a meeting of the treasury board that took place on November 27. 1947. This item has to do with the provision "subject to approval of the treasury board" for salaries, reclassification and increases. On November 27, Mr. W. D. Lowe was appointed to the position of director of purchases in the Department of Trade and Commerce and, as a result of a meeting of the treasury board, an order in council provided for the appointment as follows:
The board recommend that-
1.	The following new class be approved:
Director of Purchasing, Trade and Commerce
Compensation:
Annual: $10,000.
2.	Under the provisions of section 59 of the Civil Service Act, the above class be exempt from section 12(2) of the act in so far as the establishment of a salary range is concerned.
3.	That organization of the Department of Trade and Commerce be changed by the creation of a permanent position of director of purchasing, trade and commerce.
4.	Under the provisions of section 59 of the Civil Service Act, the above position be exempt from section 20 of the act in order to provide for the permanent appointment of W. D. Lowe without competition, such exemption to apply to the appointment of Mr. Lowe only.
I should like to know from the minister what justification there is for making provision for appointments such as this outside the civil service commission. Men devote their lives to the civil service and at the end of years of service they find themselves in the position of not obtaining a salary of 810,000 a year. Furthermore, in this particular case, I should like to know whether or not the veterans preference was observed and, if not, why; because I feel that the committee has a right to protest against appointments being made in this way, excepting appointments from the provisions of the Civil Service Act. The result of following this course is simply that it denies the building up of a civil service desirous, by its own efforts, of promoting the public good to the end that promotion shall come to those who, after years of service, have contributed of their best. What representations were made to the treasury board in order to secure an order in council excepting this appointment from the civil service commission, and also how generally is this course being followed?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps I might answer this question since I am more familiar with the appointment than the Minister of Finance. Mr. Lowe, prior to the war, was on the purchasing staff of the Canadian National Railways, being one of their senior men. He was borrowed by the Department of Munitions and Supply. He was first borrowed by the defence purchasing board from the railway to fill a key post in the purchasing department.
Supply-Finance


John George Diefenbaker: What was his salary with the Canadian National Railways?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not remember, but it was substantial, perhaps seven or eight thousand a year. This was in 1939. During the war years he was one of the key men in the purchasing department of the Department of Munitions and Supply, in charge of the purchase of general supplies. I suppose in that capacity he purchased goods to a value of something over two billions of dollars on his own direct responsibility. When it was decided that the purchasing for the armed services would be transferred from the Department of Munitions and Supply-or the Department of Reconstruction and Supply, as it was then- to a continuing department, the functions were transferred to the Department of Trade and Commerce.
That department needed a man with experience and capacity to purchase on a scale required for the continuing services. Mr. Lowe seemed to be the obvious man. I might say that purchasing agents who are given the responsibility for purchasing on that scale are not to be picked off on street comers, and are not to be confused with those who ordinarilj7 buy a few hundred thousand dollars worth a year.
Purchasing for the armed services, even in peacetime, runs at a rate of a great many millions of dollars a year. It includes a variety of materials, the purchasing of which requires special knowledge. A purchasing agent must know sources of materials; he must know where they can be obtained. They are not obtained off the shelf; usually they must be manufactured to order. Mr. Lowe had that experience. He happened to be unique in that position. He was known as a man of great skill and much integrity, and he was appointed on the merit system because he was the best man available for the job, by any standards.
'Mr. DIEFENBAKER:	He was not appointed on the merit system, if I may be allowed to say so.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What is the merit system? Tell me how to appoint them, then.


John George Diefenbaker: I realize that very few can tell the minister anything today. But I will tell you this-


Clarence Decatur Howe: It so happens I did not
appoint Mr. Lowe to his present job.


John George Diefenbaker: No; I do not know why the minister becomes so much annoyed.


Douglas Charles Abbott: He was appointed on the recommendation of the civil service commission.


John George Diefenbaker: He was appointed on the recommendation, according to order in council-certified to be a true copy of a minute of treasury board-


Douglas Charles Abbott: He was appointed by order in council on the recommendation of the civil service commission.


John George Diefenbaker: There is nothing to show7 any order in council.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Whether there is anything to show it or not, that is the case.


John George Diefenbaker: There was no
advertising of the position. And it is against that kind of thing, that arbitrary conduct to get around the provisions of the Civil Service Act, and the rights of veterans who are entitled to preference, that I am protesting.
I am going to ask the minister, now that he is so clear on it, in how many cases within the last six months has there been departure by order in council in this regard from the provisions of the preference to be granted to veterans.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have no idea, but of course it is recognized practice, and has been for years, that in the case of a senior appointment it is made by order in council, but in almost any case, and I know of several of them, on the recommendation of the civil service commission. And the Civil Service Act makes special provision for it.


John George Diefenbaker: I will say no more than this, that under this government it is true that within the last few years provision under which veterans are entitled has been regularly circumvented, and it is against that kind of thing I protest.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce has pointed out that Mr. Lowe rendered distinguished service to this country during the war years and in a war department, in a vital post, and if any case is one in which the question of veterans preference should not be brought out, let me say that the case of Mr. Lowe is one of those cases.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to say one further word to the minister about the matter of superannuated civil servants we were speaking about a minute ago. I appreciate the fact that the Minister of Finance and the government generally have a great many problems

Sup-ply-Finance
with which they have to deal. Some of them concern matters of high policy and a large number of people. That being the case they feel they have to reach some finality in connection with some of the matters which come before them. I take it that that is the basis upon which they have tried to settle this question of superannuated civil servants. But I implore the minister once again tonight not to close the door on the appeals that these people are making to him.
I note from information given in Hansard on February 11 that, not including widows and dependents, there are 786 retired civil servants, people who have served the government of this country, who are receiving pensions of less than S30 a month. Of that number, 274 are receiving pensions of less than $20 a month.
Those numbers, in terms of political weight in the country, are not great. But to each one of those persons the problem of keeping alive on those amounts is as great as any of the tremendous problems facing the government.
I am not asking the minister for a further statement tonight, because anything else he would say tonight would be of the same finality he expressed when he spoke earlier. I do, however, express the hope that he will not close the door on the appeals still being made to him by and on behalf of these faithful federal civil servants.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have one further question.


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No; just a minute. I want to understand something further about this million dollars. How many classes of employees does it affect? Is it a general sum going over all the civil service?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is a general vote. The committee will realize that preparation of the estimates is begun sixteen or seventeen months before. They are tabled in the house fourteen months before the end of the fiscal year. It is necessary to put in certain blanket items to cover such things as increased salaries which may arise from reclassifications, and so on, during the year.
In the main estimates for the current year there was a blanket item of $500,000. In the further supplementary estimates tabled in June or July there was put in an additional amount of 85,000.000, which makes a total of $5,500,000. This sum of $1,000,000 is an additional amount to take care of further amounts which have been authorized.
I am glad this point has been brought up, because it illustrates the large amounts which are involved in these constant increases in salaries, pensions and one thing and another. At the start of the year you make your estimates on a certain basis and there are changes. That involves increased votes. This is an example of that sort of thing.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not criticizing that.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I understand.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I know there is a feeling that w'e want to get away, and we may not have the proper time to get figures in order to understand this satisfactorily. What we should have here- and I cannot ask for it now-is a good deal of detail showing not only the increases but the adjustments and probably a considerable amount of further information.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is no item in the supplementary estimates which cannot be fully discussed on the main estimates. I referred to an item of 85,000,000 which was discussed when the further supplementary estimates were brought down. I gave a good deal of information at that time. When that item is being discussed in the main estimates again, I can give the fullest breakdown as to detail. However, I understand we are proceeding tonight in accordance with standard practice, that the final estimates the Minister of Finance brings in represent amounts for which it had been necessary to make commitments up to the end of the fiscal year, over and above the estimates originally tabled. For obvious reasons they have to be brought in at the very end and it is not possible, as a rule, to give them the detailed scrutiny one gives to the main estimates themselves.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think it is standard practice, but not all standard practice is good practice.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That may be so. But I would have been glad to reach this earlier, may I say.


Mr. CASE:: Could the minister say what increase there has been in personnel of staff in the department?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not that information here. The present over-all picture in the civil service is relatively static, although there have been some reductions in the last month or two.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: There have been some reductions in the number?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.
Supply-Finance


Wilfrid Garfield Case: This was to represent an increase in salaries?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right. We have been increasing salaries right and left.


John Bracken: Would the minister give us an answer tomorrow to two questions, the number of civil servants at the present time and the total salaries paid?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think I could give the total number, but the total salaries would be scattered through the different departments. I may be able to get that by tomorrow, but if I cannot I hope my hon. friend will not hold me to that.


John Bracken: I thought it would be readily available. If it is not, perhaps we can have it at some other time.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: How many employees are in the employ of the government in 1948 and what are the salaries paid?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know whether that can be got by tomorrow, but it can be obtained because it is public record. My hon. friend could get it by putting a question on the order paper.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Have the amounts of these supplementary estimates that pertain to last year's program been spent?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think it is a fair statement to say that they have been committed. That is the function of supplementary estimates.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister said that the number of employees could be obtained by putting a question on the order paper. I put a question on February 25 with regard to the number of men and women in each department. This is March 23 and I have not yet had an answer.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It will be forthcoming. There is quite a lot of work involved.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
582. To provide such amount as is necessary for payment to the Canadian wheat board to reimburse that board in respect of deficits incurred by it in respect of its accounts specified below:
Crown wheat account-P.C. 7942 of October 12, 1943 and P.C. 1116 of February 20, 1945.
1943	barley equalization fund-P.C. 4450 of June 1. 1943 and P.C. 8808 of November 18, 1943.
1944	oats equalization fund-P.C. 5098 of July 31,1944.
1945	oats and barley equalization funds- P.C. 2550 of April 12, 1945 and P.C. 6238 of September 25, 1945.
1946	barley equalization fund-P.C. 3222 of July 30, 1046 and P.C. 1292 of April 3, 1947.

1944	crop aeount, flax division-P.C. 1350 of March 6, 1944.
1945	crop account, flax division-P.C. 2550 of April 12, 1945.
1945, 1944 and 1943 crop rapeseed and sunflower seeds accounts-P.C. 859 of February 9, 1945, P.C. 4131 of June 1, 1944 and P.C. 2894 of April 9, 1943.
1946	crop rapeseed and sunflower seed account -P.C. 3222. of July 30, 1946.
1946 Ontario wheat payments account

P.C. 3212 of July 30, 1946.
the amount payable in respect of the said deficits to be the amount thereof on July 31, 1947, together with interest on such amount at three per cent from that day to the day of payment and not to exceed $31,500,000.
Mr. WRIGHT:: This item totalling 531,500,000 refers to certain orders in council. Could the minister give us a breakdown of those figures?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall be very glad to do
that. The figures are:
Crown wheat account	 $5,627,481.45
1943	barley equalization fund ...	539.481944	oats equalization fund ....	4,417.881945	oats and barley equalizationfunds	
14,884,537.661946	barley equalization fund ...	6,736,526.971944	crop account, flax division ..	1,048,883.311945	crop account, flax division ..	2,588,504.98
1945, 1944 and 1943 crop rapeseed
and sunflower seeds accounts ..	88,047.06
1946	crop rapeseed and sunflower
seed account	 79,166.92
1946 Ontario wheat payments account	 315,245.40


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Why would it not be possible to have all those figures in the column showing the total amount? We have just heard them read and they must have been ready.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The figures are only approximate. The figure which is being voted is just a round figure. I am informed that the statements have not yet been audited and there may be some slight variations when the auditors have completed their check.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Are the figures which the minister has just read virtually subsidies? They do not represent a deficit in trading account. How are they arrived at?


Douglas Charles Abbott: These items are to reimburse the Canadian wheat board for losses suffered by the board during various crop years, where it can be shown either that the particular account has been closed out and the loss finally established, or that the eventual loss will be larger than the loss shown at the end of the crop year. Probably a good illustration is *the crown wheat account. This was the account established in September, 1943 when

Supply-Finance
the government closed the Winnipeg wheat market and took over, in the name of His Majesty, all the wheat then in commercial storage at a price of approximately $123 a bushel, basis No. 1 northern in store Fort William/Port Arthur. The account was replenished at a later date by purchases from the board's own wheat account. In general, the losses represent handling and storage charges.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: That was a small one.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That was several million dollars. I am advised that that has been reimbursed to the extent of over $25,000,000, and this represents the balance.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister says that the amounts are mostly handling and storage charges, but I am not clear as to just how they came to be public charges.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am informed that this wheat was sold virtually at cost and, as I said, this represents handling and storage charges. In a sense, as my hon. friend says, it may be a subsidy to someone. It represents a loss which the Canadian wheat board took in handling this wheat.


Percy Ellis Wright: I would point out to the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario that it was a subsidy to the people who bought the grain, not to the producers of the grain.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am just anxious to find out what it is.


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: I should like to make an observation in two or three sentences. In my opinion it is confusing to mix up in this special item or in any estimate two distinct lines of activity in Canada's economic production. Here we have wheat, barley, oats, and then you switch into another line of activity altogether, namely, flax, which is a product that produces oil. The production of oil from sunflower seed and rapeseed, and even from flax seed will be of some magnitude. It will be something that will engage the attention of this house in the future. As oil production from the Pacific islands and Africa increases by leaps and bounds, it will come into direct competition with oil from sunflower seed and rapeseed and flax. I would suggest that in presenting these estimates in the days to come the wheat board be asked to separate these two lines of activity. There is a tremendous industry that is almost being subsidized in Canada, which at least gets a heavy depreciation allowance. I refer to the pressing out of oils. In the days to come, let us have those two items separate.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I doubt if there will be items of this kind recurring. They all arise out of wartime activities authorized by order in council. They do not cover the ordinary operations of the wheat board. In this case the board is acting as the agent of the government in implementing various phases of government policy; but the main function of the wheat board, as the committee knows, is to act as marketing agent for the producers of wheat. Here they acted in a special capacity as agents for the government of Canada in carrying out special policies relating to the crown wheat account, the oats and barley equalization funds and other items. But the losses, if any, or the moneys which have been expended had to be taken care of out of public moneys, and not out of the proceeds of the sale of current crops of wheat.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: These items go back to 1943. Why have deficits been allowed to accumulate so long? You are paying four per cent interest, which is more than was paid on victory bonds and many other government loans.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The interest rate is three per cent.


John Alpheus Charlton: What is the need for so much haste in paying these accounts now? Why were they not paid previously? There is a $5,000,000 item at three per cent for 1943, crown wheat account. The oats equalization fund goes back to 1944. Why have these accounts been allowed to run on?


Douglas Charles Abbott: We have paid something each year; and this is a final clean up, a series of adjusting items in these various accounts. Take, for instance, the crown wheat account. The deficit on the operations as of July 31, 1947, was over $31,000,000, on account of which there had been paid through different years, $25,861,000. There have been adjustments over the years, and this is a clean-up item. These were very large operations.


John Alpheus Charlton: All the more reason why we should not be asked to pass them in a very few minutes when they have been allowed to run on now for five years.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We have been making payments on these accounts each year, and I am now trying to have them cleaned up.


Joseph Henry Harris: Is the treasury board quite satisfied?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, and the final payment is subject to audit. That is why we are putting in a round figure slightly in excess of the statements furnished to us by the board.
Supply-Finance


James MacKerras Macdonnell: As the minister has stated, this represents a clean-up. We cannot deal with these items intelligently in ten minutes. If we have any duty at all it is a far greater duty than just to pass these accounts sight unseen. They are in a very different category from many of these other items.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have a great deal of information I am quite ready to give and to answer any questions hon. members may ask. Let us spend the next fifteen minutes in discussing this item.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: In my ignorance I must ask this question. To whom is the money owed?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is owed to the Canadian wheat board, which has been acting in this case as agent for the government of Canada.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: To whom in turn does the Canadian wheat board owe the money, and how did the Canadian wheat board come to have $31,000,000 on hand?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Either out of surplus moneys which the board had on hand or from bank loans which it made.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: They must be bank loans if you are paying interest on them. To whom are you paying interest?


Douglas Charles Abbott: We are paying interest to the farmer on the money which he has outstanding.


John Alpheus Charlton: The farmer has not been getting any interest on the money owed to him. What is the amount which the wheat board owes to the farmers of this country? The government is paying this money to the wheat board at three per cent, which is more than the farmers have got on their money.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am informed that this money benefits the farmer because it goes into the general fund of the wheat board. The amounts which are paid in cover the amounts which the board has disbursed, plus interest at three per cent from the time of disbursement. If this money is not paid the farmer could not get it.


Mr. ZAPLITNY:: If on the same type of transaction the wheat board had made a profit of several million dollars, would it come back to the government or go into the wheat board fund?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It would depend. In the oats and barley equalization fund it would have gone to the benefit of the farmer. But in this case the payments which were made

to the farmers at the time of delivery exceeded the amounts which were collected out of the export permits, and the government or the taxpayers made up the difference. If the transaction had resulted in a profit there would have been a distribution to the farmers. It was a case of "heads I win, tails you lose", so far as the farmer is concerned.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Is this why the farmers were not paid a more substantial initial pav-ment? Was it because the government wanted to use the farmers' money for something else?


Douglas Charles Abbott: This has no relation to the initial payment. The farmer gets everything coming to him, plus three per cent. His only quarrel could be whether the three per cent was high enough, and I would think it was.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: Why do these items come in the supplementaries? Why were they not dealt with in the main estimates?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The reason was to get as close as possible to the year to which it relates.


Mr. LOCKHART:: What are the main details of these items, so that we may get the over-all picture?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I gave the details a few moments ago.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: The minister referred to the oats and barley equalization figures.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have already dealt with the crown wheat account. So far as the oats and barley equalization funds are concerned, there are four accounts here: barley for 1943; oats for 1944; oats and barley for 1945, and barley for 1946. All these losses arose because the advance equalization payments made to farmers at time of delivery in those years exceeded the amounts collected by the board out of equalization fees on exports. Equalization fees represented the difference between domestic ceiling prices and prices prevailing in export markets. In some years, of course, the funds showed a surplus which was or will be distributed to growers.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: That means that we sold the oats and barley for less than we paid the farmers.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No. The farmer sold at the price ceiling, and received an advance equalization fee. That equalization fee was an estimate of what would be realized out of the oats and barley exported to the United States or elsewhere. When the oats and barley were exported the wheat board or the government made a charge for the export permit represent-

Supply-Justice
ing, broadly speaking, the difference between the domestic ceiling and the price received in the export market. The proceeds of these export permits were put into this equalization fund, and if the total exceeded the advance equalization fees paid to the farmers, there was a distribution made. It it was less, the farmer got his advance payment anyway, and we did not try to recover from him.


Mr. BURTON:: Had the wheat board, acting as agent for the government, sold more of the grain on the export market or charged the domestic consumers accordingly, you would not have had that loss. Because of these actions, the people who bought from the wheat board got the grain at that much lower price.


Alan Cockeram: The minister is to give us some information on the flax?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, 1944-45; the price realized by the board from the sales of flaxseed fell short of the price paid to the farmers at the time of delivery.


Alan Cockeram: By how much?


Douglas Charles Abbott: By the figure I gave; it is in Hansard.


Alan Cockeram: That is for the two periods, 1944 and 1945?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is a clean-up item, but I shall give the breakdown of it. The deficit on operations-this is the 1944 crop and the flax division-as at the 31st July, 1947, was 84.197.805.44. The amount which had already been paid to the board by the dominion and voted was 83.169,616.91. leaving a balance of $1,028,188.53, the vote that we are asking for in this supplementary vote.


Alan Cockeram: In 1945-


Joseph William Burton: Will the minister inform
some of the hon. members who seem to be concerned that it was the policy of the government to sell flaxseed at this price?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I should be glad to do that. It is not my department. Perhaps that question might be addressed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I have to find the money for it.


Joseph William Burton: Inform the hon. members that it was the policy of the government to provide linseed oil and so forth from the flax to the consumers of Canada at prices below what it could have commanded elsewhere.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is perfectly right. The same principles applied to rapeseed and sunflower seed. The prices realized by the board on the sales of these seeds fell short of the 5849-163J
price paid to the farmers at the time of delivery. As the hon. member for Humboldt has pointed out, it was all pursuant to the maintenance of ceiling prices in Canada.


Alan Cockeram: Will the minister give me the 1945 flaxseed figures?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes. Deficit on operations to the 31st July, 1947, $2,537,433.04; due to the Canadian wheat board that amount, plus the interest.


Mr. ROWE:: In view of the fact that there was a loss of $6,500,000 on barley, was the fullest advantage taken that could be taken of the prices of malting barley in the United States?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


William Earl Rowe: What price?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not that information here; the going price, at the time the malting barley was sent down there.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Justice-Office of the commissioner of penitentiaries-pensions and other benefits
[Stage Direction]
58b To provide for a compassionate allowance to Mrs. Olevia Sullivan, widow of George Sullivan, deputy warden, Kingston penitentiary, equal to one-half of the gratuity to which deputy warden Sullivan would have been entitled had he chosen to resign, $6,234.38.
Alan Cockeram: Will the minister
explain this item?


Douglas Charles Abbott: This is an item of the Minister of Justice. He is not here. Perhaps I can get the information. The language of the item is fairly self-explanatory. I have some data on it here. This is an item which was approved in November, 1947, by the treasury board for inclusion in the 1947-1948 supplementary estimates. The circumstances are these. Deputy Warden Sullivan died suddenly on the 9th of March, 1941. He had reached the age of sixty-five on April 23, 1910. He was exempted from the provisions of P.C. 1/1561 for a period of one year. The reason for extension was the acute shortage of experienced officers at Kingston. He had completed over forty-six years service. Had he retired at age sixty-five, he would have received a gratuity of $12,112.50 and had he retired immediately prior to his death, the amount would have been 812,568.75. There are similar previous cases of officers who died in service and in which cases one-half of the allowable gratuity was paid. I do not know whether my
Supply-Labour

hon. friend wants the precedents; but there are a number of them.


Alan Cockeram: Those people are not on the pension fund.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; this is a case where there was a gratuity available. It was one of those unfortunate cases where, by reason of the shortage which existed at the time, and he having continued in service, he got less than he would have received had he left the service and taken his cash gratuity.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Is it a lump sum or an annual payment?


Douglas Charles Abbott: A lump sum.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Labour-Annuities Act
[Stage Direction]
585. Administration-further	amount required, $59,000.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: One of the items in this amount of $59,000 is commission to agents. That is under the Annuities Act, apparently. Is that substantial increase due to additional business done?


Humphrey Mitchell: It is due to extension of the business.


Alan Cockeram: What was the increase in the business?


Humphrey Mitchell: I have not the figures in front of me. I can give approximately the total amount of business at the moment; it is about $3,250,000.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What is the commission?


Humphrey Mitchell: It is a graduated scale I could not give that figure. When the main estimates come down I will give it.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The hardier you work, the less you get.


Humphrey Mitchell: That may be true.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Is the annuities branch now considered to be on a sound actuarial basis?


Humphrey Mitchell: I would say so, yes.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: The item asks for a further amount for administration. You are asking parliament to vote that. Will the branch need assistance, then?


Humphrey Mitchell: I think it is generally understood that the government carries the administration of the branch, and this is to pay for the administration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Park Manross: Item 586 asks for $1. If you will explain that we shall call it eleven o'clock.
Progress reported.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Bracken: Will the minister tell us what the business will be tomorrow.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We shall take, first, second reading of the two excise tax bills and the amendment to the Customs Tariff Act. I hope to proceed with these through committee and perhaps give them third reading. Then we shall take up interim supply and I hope complete consideration of these supplementary estimates which will be followed then by the supply bill.


John Bracken: Have the bills been distributed?


Douglas Charles Abbott: They will be tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
Civil service commission-
573.	Salaries and contingencies of the commission-further amount required, $51,(KM).
External affairs-Canadian contributions to international or commonwealth organizations-
574.	Canada's contribution to the inter-allied reparations agency, $37,750.
575.	Canada's contribution to the interAmerican committee on social security, $4,500.
570. Canada's contribution to the international civil aviation organization-further amount required, $9,021.
577.	Canada's contribution to the international labour organization, $176,500.
578.	Canada's contribution to the international commission on air navigation, $875.
579.	Grant to the united nations organization for 1947-further amount required, $17,800.
Finance-General-
580.	To provide for the expenses of the Comptroller of the Treasury's office-further amount required, $50,000.
581.	To provide, subject to the approval of the treasury board, for salaries, reclassifications and increases-further amount required, $1,000,-OOO.

Supplementary Estimates
Special-
582.	To provide such amount as is necessary for payment to the Canadian wheat board to reimburse that board in respect of deficits incurred by it in respect of its accounts specified below:
Crown wheat account-P.C. 7942 of October 12, 1943 and P.C. 1116 of February 26, 1945.
1943	barley equalization fund-P.C. 4459 of June 1, 1943 and P.C. 8898 of November 18, 1943.
1944	oats equalization fund-P.C. 5998 of July 31, 1944.
1945	oats and barley equalization funds- P.C. 2550 of April 12, 1945 and P.C. 6238 of September 25, 1945.
1946	barley equalization fund-P.C. 3222 of July 30, 1946 and P.C. 1292 of April 3, 1947.
1944	crop account, flax division-P.C. 1350 of March 6, 1944.
1945	crop account, flax division-P.C. 2550 ol April 12, 1945.
1945, 1944 and 1943 crop rapeseed and sunflower seeds accounts-P.C. 859 of February 9, 1945, P.C. 4131 of June 1, 1944 and P.C. 2894 of April 9, 1943.
1946	crop rapeseed and sunflower seed account-P.C. 3222 of July 30, 1946.
1946 Ontario wheat payments account-P.C. 3212 of July 30, 1946.
the amount payable in respect of the said deficits to be the amount thereof on July 31,. 1947, together with interest on such amount at three per cent from that day to the day of payment and not to exceed $31,500,000.
Justice-office of the commissioner of penitentiaries-pensions and other benefits-
584.	To provide for a compassionate allowance to Mrs. Olevia Sullivan, widow of George Sullivan, deputy warden. Kingston penitentiary, equal to one-half of the gratuity to which deputy warden Sullivan would have been entitled had he chosen to resign, $6,234.38.
Labour-Annuities Act-
585. Administration-further	amount required, $59,000.
586.	To provide authorization for refund, out of the government annuities fund, of the amounts of overpayment of premiums received under annuity contracts 68181 and 88825 plus interest at the rate of 1J per cent to the date of such refund, $1.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, March 24, 1948